California Supreme Court Orders a Halt to Same Sex Marriages

FNC

[William McKinley]

Fox news alert.

[george wythe]

AP

The California Supreme Court ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco and said Thursday it would hear a case in May or June on the legality of such marriages.

The action by California's highest court came two weeks after state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group asked the seven justices to immediately block the gay marriages, with more than 3,700 couples having wed at City Hall so far.

The dispute began Feb. 12, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay and lesbians from two dozen states have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from where the Supreme Court sits.

California's top court did not immediately address whether Newsom had the legal power to authorize the marriages, which contravenes a state law and voter referendum that say marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The justices also did not address whether the California Constitution would permit a gay marriage, as Newsom claims.

Instead, the justices moved to block any more marriages, at least for now, until they decide whether Newsom had the power to authorize such unions. Had the court declined to intervene, the legal battle over gay marriage in California would have taken years as gay marriage lawsuits traveled through the state's lower courts.

[uncitizen]

Well you gotta understand the tourism money from this has been drying up for days now. It's best to stop it before Gavin Newsome really does get arrested. If this new decision is reversed, it won't happen until the next holiday weekend.

[steveegg]

It's a "states rights" issue until the first state sanctions gay marriage; then it becomes a "constitutional issue" to force the other 49 to accept and sanction it.

[Not A Snowbird]

Didn't want to rush into anything, did they?

[SF Republican]

out there in SF, you being a Republican and all. Do they make you wear a badge or something? when I first moved here in '91 I registered at the voter registration drives on the street. The first three times I indicated I was a Republican and never received my registration. The 4th time I indicated Democrat and shazaam my card was in the mail. I'm a DINO.

[Enterprise]

Yes. Isn't it strange that when a State permits gay marriage it's a States Rights issue, but when a State forbids it, it becomes a National Issue? I LOVE IT!!

[Grampa Dave]

"The action by California's highest court came two weeks after state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group asked the seven justices to immediately block the gay marriages, with more than 3,700 couples having wed at City Hall so far."

Tomorrow, Lockliar will undergo major surgery, the removal of Arnold's boot from a certain part of his anatomy. Quite a reversal from Lockliar after his PC outburst a few weekends ago when "Arnold" asked him to stop the illegal marriages.

[ambrose]

(unanimous)

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=312005

03/11/2004 Order to show cause issued

Respondents are ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is called at the late May 2004 or June 2004 calendar, why a writ of mandate should not
issue, directing respondents to apply and abide by the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that these statutory

provisions are unconstitutional. Pending this court's determination of this matter or further order of this court, respondents are directed to enforce and apply the provisions of

Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 without regard to respondents' personal view of the constitutionality of such provisions, and to refrain from issuing marriage

licenses or certificates not authorized by such provisions. In addition, pending this court's determination of this matter or further order of this court, all proceedings in

Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco et al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CPF-04-503943) and Thomasson et al. v. Newsom et

al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-428794) are stayed.

The return in this matter, limited to the issue whether respondents are authorized to refuse to enforce the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in

the absence of a judicial determination that such provisions are unconstitutional, is to be filed by respondents in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before

Thursday, March 18, 2004. In addressing the foregoing issue, the return should discuss not only the applicability and effect of article III, section 3.5 of the California

Constitution, but any other constitutional or statutory provision or doctrine that may be relevant to the resolution of the foregoing issue.

A reply may be filed by petitioners in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, March 25, 2004.

Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday,

March 25, 2004.

Any reply to an amicus curiae brief may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, March 29, 2004.

Votes: George, CJ., Kennard, Baxter, werdegar, Chin, Brown and Moreno, JJ.

[Carry_Okie]

Round 3 goes to the home team.

[george wythe]

Torie calls the California Supreme Court Justices "troglodytes" :-)

The Justices are probably conservative by California standards, closer to commonsense moderates in flyover country.

[Carry_Okie]

Round 3 goes to the home team.

[cameronsmom]

I wonder if Rosie was ever pissed that she and her girl had to fly all the way out to California, when the City of New Paltz in upstate NY was hooking up lesbos there...

[Cboldt]

Great news. I wonder if this will affect the calculus relating to the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Massachusetts (legislature) may weigh in today too.

[onyx]

"'Bout time ping"

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Damn! Good news!

[CasearianDaoist]

Sure that's not a WINO (Whiner in Name Only) I went to Stanford and Berkeley if the 70s so I know how loony it can get out there. NYC is just as bad though, if the truth be known.

[Blue Screen of Death]

As a SF Republican I bet you don't have to stand in line at the polls, huh?

[ambrose]

The CA Supreme Court is moderate-to-conservative. Freepers nevertheless insist of maintaining the belief that the CA Supreme Court is filled with left-wing kooks. I continue to be amazed by this baseless assertion.

CA *used* to have left-wing kooks on its Supreme Court... but the voters ran those judges out of office back in 1986..

[Prime Choice]

Care to retract that hideous "Village People" CA Supreme Court graphic now?

Nope. Next question?

[confused1]

I agree. Money and "enacting promises made" are strong points on Newsome's side. Think about it...he gets elected by promising to make gays "equal in the law" of the city. He waits for the right moment...bang! Let 'em in! Now think about each license fee (swagg here)...$60 each(?) times 3700 issued equals $222,000 for the city. When the courts finally nullify all the marriages, do you think the city is going to refund the money? Not bloody likely!