Two States Deal Setbacks to Gay Marriage (California & Massachusetts)

Yahoo News ^ | DAVID KRAVETS

[Libloather]

Two States Deal Setbacks to Gay Marriage
5 minutes ago
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco, delivering a victory to conservatives who have fought for a month to block the ceremonies.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts lawmakers gave preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.

The amendment, which would strip gay couples of their court-granted marriage rights, must still weather several additional votes and anticipated legislative maneuvering by opponents.

The California court did not rule on the legality of such marriages, and justices said they would hear such a case in May or June.

The dispute began Feb. 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay couples from around the country have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from the Supreme Court. More than 3,700 couples having tied the knot in San Francisco so far.

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.

The justices ruled unanimously that Newsom must "refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not authorized" by California marriage laws.

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.

Newsom's defiance of California law prompted a host of other municipalities across the nation to follow suit, and President Bush (news - web sites) last month said he would back a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November that it was unconstitutional to prevent gays from marrying — a ruling that sparked a legislative scramble to amend the state constitution.

In statehouses nationwide, lawmakers are scrutinizing their constitutions to see if they could be construed to permit same-sex marriages, even in states where laws now bar them.

Lockyer and the conservative Alliance Defense Fund said the court's action was urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples — such as the right to receive the other spouse's property in the absence of a will.

[Libloather]

Both coasts - at one time...

[sam_paine]

BUSH KNEW! Aw crud. Wrong thread.

[SF Republican]

Mayor Newsome, better put some ice on that.

[bogdanPolska12]

Double bang -- great. They should do this long ago. Let us stop this filth before becomes out of control.

[Integrityrocks]

I want to see these law breakers prosecuted.

[So Cal Rocket]

Cal Supremes say No to Gay Marriage
Mass Legislators say No to Gay Marriage
Kerry puts his foot in his mouth
Dem Staffer caught spying for Iraq

On most days this would be considered a "good news day"... unfortunately, we have the Islamonazis doing their thing again.

[Reeses]

Not mentioned by Newsom or anyone else is that tourism in SF is way down this year, very few families with children around town. I wonder why. Now the gays won't be visiting either.

[byteback]

Don't want to take this thread off track but can you link me to where you see Kerry staffer spying for Iraq?

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Massachusetts ping list.

[byteback]

Never mind..Dem staffer thread just below. Just got home.

[GSWarrior]

Not Kerry, staffer was a former aide for Carol Measley Brain

[Lancey Howard]

bttt

[Dan Middleton]

Bravo to the California Surpremes, but especially to the legislators over New England-way! They have more guts than I gave any politician in the People's Republic of Massachusetts credit for.

[Little Bill]

Mass Reps say yes to civil unions with similar rights to those that marry.

[eternity]

I think the underlieing issue with these folks is the social security issue. Like will they be able to collect and become a widower when the other goes ten toes up. And LB been taking to izzy via e-mail. Her lastest hangout is of all places Montana. Talk about a pioneer.

[mabelkitty]

Me thinks they will start behaving after Rehnquist's retirements threat. At least until the election.

[SuziQ]

Mass Reps say yes to civil unions with similar rights to those that marry.

The civil unions provision is NOT what the original petition asked for. That was put in the because the legislators were scared of the media and the homosexual lobby. It leaves us with nothing to vote for if we don't support civil unions, unless we just want to hold our noses and take the 'lesser of two evils' route.

[livianne]

Here's my question: The Mass. amendment said this: "It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union, if they meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage.

Doesn't this make one of the requirements for marriage to be a man and a woman? If so, how can same sex couples ever meet those requirements? Am I reading this wrong? Seems like a pretty gaping legal loophole.

not that i'm complaining, mind you...just wondering.