Posted on 08/13/2004 10:21:02 AM PDT by John Lenin
WASHINGTON - California's Supreme Court has given supporters of traditional marriage a huge victory. The court struck down San Francisco's same-sex marriage licenses.
It was an unanimous ruling. California's highest court agreed San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom overstepped his authority when he directed state employees to issue same-sex marriage licenses earlier this year.
In its 5-2 vote, the court struck down the 4,000 marriage licenses from the month-long marital frenzy that started back in February.
"I think what we did was right and appropriate and history will judge that," Mr. Newsom said.
Though the decision is the biggest recent setback for gay marriage, the court has yet to settle whether gay marriage is legal in California under the state constitution.
And that has wider implications for the rest of the country. And that could revive the debate over amending the state and federal laws to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
Voters overwhelmingly support traditional marriage. That was most recently evidenced last week in Missouri, where 71 percent voted in favor of traditional marriage, the first state referendum cast since gay marriages became legal in Massachusetts.
Eight other states have already put marriage amendments on the November ballot. Three more are working to put the initiative on the ballot. And, four states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada -- already have laws on the books, from constitutional amendments in years past.
Same-sex marriage could be a factor in the presidential race as well. President Bush backed the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, but it failed in the Senate last month.
Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry says he opposes same-sex marriage, but he disagrees with a constitutional ban. Instead, he proposes enforcing the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that says a state does not have to recognize another same-sex marriages from any other state.
But that statement could expose a vulnerability with Kerry's position. In a 1996 commentary to the gay newsmagazine The Advocate, the Massachusetts senator compared the defense of marriage act to a marital caste system, going on to say: DOMA does violence to the spirit and letter of the Constitution by allowing states to divide.
Supporters of same-sex marriage vow to keep on fighting, looking for sympathetic court rulings that may give them a victory in the same-sex marriage debate.
"Blow" might not have been the best choice of words here.
note to self: read the source! it's CBN not cNn.
This is not a major setback at all, unfortunately. It only states the obvious.
It was a 5-2 vote to negate the homo marriage licenses.
What part of 70% do these cretins not understand ?
No, because I'm really hoping you are right. But still in California's lower court is the question of constitutionality. If they lose that, then it will be a major setback. In the meantime, Calif. had better start the amendment process.
It has already backfired on them, isn't the Senate working on a bill to override activist judges ? It's a slap in the face to politicians when judges ignore the political process and puts the politicians in a kind of double jeopardy when they have to revisit an issue they have already passed a law for.
It's also a slap in the face to voters when politicians ignore the will of the voters and pass a law nullifying a voter initiative passed by a large majority.
California's politicians have passed a law that takes effect on Jan 1, 2005 providing homosexual "domestic parterships" with all the benefits of heterosexual marriage. This is in spite of the voter initiative that passed in California declaring marriage only valid between a man and a woman.
Fortunately the same group (the Alliance Defense Fund) that was a party to this case and instrumental in stopping Mayor Newsome's anarchy has filed suit to block the new law from taking effect. We'll see how that one goes, but I have high hopes based on their recent victories, which are many.
I'm proud to say that I'm friends with one of the lawyers that is working on these cases - it's great to see the wonderful things that a hard-working, smart, upright lawyer who is dedicated to serving his God can do!
I've got a few alternate headlines, but they would be removed post-haste by admin mod.
I believe California was more like 60/40 a few years back when they voted.
May common sense and decency win.
I live in CA, it was 71% against.
So was I.. I guess my memory is a little rusty.
Correction.. you are wrong.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/03/07/ca/state/prop/
The results are there. 61.2 to 38.8.
A majority.. but not a supermajority.
71% I believe is Missouri.
So, what happens to Newson now? I take it for granted that a mayor who so blatantly oversteps his authority has committed a crime of some sort and should be held liable for his actions. Unless, of course, he's a Liberal/ Socialist/Democrat.
{Instead, he proposes enforcing the Federal Defense of Marriage Act}
Another flip-flop by Kerry. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.