Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco on Thursday, finding the city acted improperly in granting marriage licenses earlier this year in defiance of state law.

The mayor of the liberal city ignited a passionate nationwide debate in February by allowing 4,037 same-sex couples to wed over a four-week period before the California high court halted them as it reviewed the city's actions.

A California law backed by a voter referendum defines marriage as a union of man and women, and polls show most Californians continue to oppose gay marriage.

"We agree with petitioners that local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions," the court wrote.

The court ordered officials "to take all necessary remedial steps to undo the continuing effects of the officials' past unauthorized actions, including making appropriate corrections to all relevant official records and notifying all affected same-sex couples that the same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect."

In its decision, the court focused on whether the mayor had the authority to marry gays rather than the broader arguments of whether equal protection under the Constitution must include gay marriage. Briefs in a lawsuit raising the broader issue are expected before a lower court next month.
Link

I realize that the question was the legality of it all, but I truly beleave that 10 years from now rulings like this will be looked at the same way as prosegregation rulings in the 50's & 60's.

It's still lame that this law is on the books in the first place. Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. That's like running a newspaper story called "Victory for Law: Man busted for brewing own beer" during Prohibition. Just because it's on the law books doesn't mean it's the right way to go.

And I'm sure PAD would be the first to tell you that if Strom Thurmond were president years ago, things would be a lot better today...

Regardless of the 'correctness' of the law, it's still the law. Like I said elsewhere, if you have people in power ignoring the laws, what good are they? That's despotism. We have many channels for changing the laws. I believe current polls in CA show most people still support the 'current' definition of marriage, and it's not for a judge to go changing the laws. Personally, I think we need a lot fewer laws just across the board.
I don't think laws like this are quite the same as Jim Crow laws.
Is there a 'right' to marriage? What benefits does marriage convey that aren't granted by many/most companies, organizations, or cities for same sex couples?
I'm not equating these situations necessarily, but for people who supported Newsom's decision, how did you feel about Roy Moore's situation? Should Newsom marry two people who are 16 without parental permission [or just below whatever the age of consent is in CA]? Should he marry brother and sister? All of those are currently illegal, but in concept, very similar to this situation.
Regardless how you feel about gay marriage, I think Newsom's actions were bad for the cause.
AFAIK, marriage isn't mentioned in the Federal Consitution at all [as is correct]; if its in state constitutions or lawbooks, those can be changed/amended as the people desire.
Heck, marriage at the beginning was a religious rite, so technically the government--GWB or Gavin Newsome--shouldn't be involved in it at all

The truth is most gay people I've talked to don't even support gay marriage. It's just the self-righteous lefties that think they've got to support the cause to save every non-standard minority group out there.

You know, in North Carolina it's illegal for an unmarried (hetero) couple to live "in sin".

It would truly be a great victory for the rule of law if all those couples were arrested, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by jer7583 The truth is most gay people I've talked to don't even support gay marriage. It's just the self-righteous lefties that think they've got to support the cause to save every non-standard minority group out there.

I've got a gay boss who ran right out to get married when it became legal in Oregon. It's not just self-righteous lefties. It's also gay folks who want to have the same rights as everyone else.

When did it become legal in Oregon?

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark When did it become legal in Oregon?

LOL....you got me there, PAD. What I get for writing quickly while making dinner. When they started issuing marriage licenses for gay people in Portland, my boss went up and got married to his partner. The legality of their union is something the courts and/or voters will have to sort out. They seem pretty happy, though -- I really hope it doesn't get taken from them.

Originally Posted by jer7583 The truth is most gay people I've talked to don't even support gay marriage. It's just the self-righteous lefties that think they've got to support the cause to save every non-standard minority group out there.

I love how the right wing just throws lies around. Which gay would not want all the rights as the rest of the country. What you said was bullshit, simple as that.

The CA marriages shouldn't be legal, they didn't follow any way of the law they just started giving out pices of paper. In Mass they did it the right way and went through the courts like what happened in the 50s and 60s.

Marriage isn't an issue for the courts to decide. If you're going to start messing with the fabric of civilization I'd rather have voters decide on the worth of the cause than a 3, 5, 7 or 9 panel of judges.

BTW, this to me isn't a religous thing but a legal matter. You can't arbitrarily decide to break the law and go against the wishes of the public that have passed marriage initiatives as ballot issues.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark Marriage isn't an issue for the courts to decide. If you're going to start messing with the fabric of civilization I'd rather have voters decide on the worth of the cause than a 3, 5, 7 or 9 panel of judges. BTW, this to me isn't a religous thing but a legal matter. You can't arbitrarily decide to break the law and go against the wishes of the public that have passed marriage initiatives as ballot issues.

You just contradicted yourself, PAD. How can something be a legal matter but not be argued before a court?

I think there's a good argument that gay marriage is legal under the U.S. Constitution, given that document's call for equal rights for everyone. That's why the right-wingers want to amend the constitution rather than fight it out in the courts, because they know their position is untenable legally.

And let's face it, it's pretty shameful to be trying to amend one of the world's most perfect civil rights documents in a way that would take away a right from a specific class. The last time we amended the constitution to take away a right, it was called "Prohibition," and I think we all know how well that went......

It pretty shameful when the law is passes saying that gays cannot go to court to fight for their rights because the Legistative branch just made the Judical part useless.

Gay Marriage Opponents Pin Hopes on House

July 15th 2004 7:30am
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Unable to ban gay marriage, congressional Republicans are working to contain it, advancing legislation in the House to make sure federal courts don't order states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned outside their borders.
"When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) on a near party-line vote of 21-13.
Democrats objected, some strenuously. Rep. Maxine Waters of California called the legislation a political exercise, and Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the first openly gay woman elected to Congress, criticized it as "unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise."
Even so, GOP officials said the measure likely would be on the House floor next week, and they expressed confidence it would pass.
If so, it would mark a clear victory for gay marriage opponents, who suffered a decisive setback Wednesday in the Senate when the constitutional amendment fell a dozen votes shy of the 60 needed to advance.
Within hours of the vote in which 48 senators voted to advance the measure and 50 to block it, President Bush (news - web sites) issued a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome but calling it a temporary setback.
"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," he added.
"It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment," the president said.
Bush wasn't the only one who seemed eager to extend an election-year debate over the issue.
"We know now which senators are for traditional marriage and which ones are not, and by November so will voters in every state," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "This fight has just begun."
Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed the amendment, expressed little concern about political repercussions. "I think the discussion will continue to play out but I think they played their best hand today and couldn't even get a simple majority," she said of the Senate vote.
Bush's public prodding alone assures the issue will persist into the fall, and Republican strategists have said they hope the issue can be put to use against Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting.
Kerry, D-Mass., skipped the Senate vote. He issued a statement renewing his opposition to the amendment and accusing Republicans of seeking to alter the constitution for political gain.
"The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people — funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage — is not getting done," he said.
Bush urged Congress last winter to pass an amendment banning gay marriage, but prospects have never been good that supporters could amass the two-thirds majority in the House and Senate needed to send the measure to the states for ratification.
Most Democratic lawmakers oppose the proposal, and some conservative Republicans in both houses objected to stepping on terrain traditionally reserved for the states.
The legislation advancing in the House is designed to address the concerns raised by GOP dissidents, and solidify Republican support.

"This simply defers to the states," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Under the measure, federal courts would be stripped of jurisdiction over federal legislation that gives states the right to decide whether to recognize same sex marriages.
Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections.
The possibilities include a measure to prevent the Washington, D.C., city government from recognizing gay marriages.
In addition, several officials said a constitutional amendment may be brought to the floor in the fall, closer to the election.

The California rulings means that the Mayor overstepped his boundries when he granted marriage licenses.

The court ruling does not deal with the fact whether or not the law is constitutional. That will be addressed in another court case.

So, it means that its not over yet.

Excuse me but excepting cases of minors and those unable to make legal decisions for themselves, why is it any governments business who I decide to marry? If a government can tell me I'm only allowed to marry a woman, why stop there? Next may come illegal interfaith marriage, interracial marriage, inter-political marriage, inter-continental marriage.

Perhaps to lower the incidence of divorce, they should pass a constitutional ammendment making divorce illegal. That ought to make the Pope happy before he dies.

I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof.

Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan.

Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.

1984 was required reading at my school

Originally Posted by Mustang O-Line 75 1984 was required reading at my school

Book banning by ideas instead of content is a relatively new practice, and is unacceptable in liberal states.

It also depends on type of funding.


Where I live it is banned in all public schools, and when it started the local Barnes & Noble put all of the banned books in their own section. On sale, btw, got quite a few books on the cheap.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof. Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan. Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.

http://www.online-literature.com/orw...m/orwell/1984/
(entire book online, but you may need to close a couple of popups)

Or download it as a .txt file from project gutenberg:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

Kids, you think Resident Evil was scary? Try 1984.