California Supreme Court voiding all gay marriages: Breaking

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-12 01:07pm

Breaking on Drudge:

California's Supreme Court is voiding all gay marriages that were sanctioned in San Francisco...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-12 01:10pm

What is their legal basis for this declaration, and why are you using the Sludge Report as a source?

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-12 01:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:What is their legal basis for this declaration, and why are you using the Sludge Report as a source?

Don't know what the justification would be, cause there isn't enough information available yet.

Drudge pulls alot of his stories from wire services, although there is no indication what the source is for this, enough people care about the issue here so i thought I'd pass it along.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-12 01:15pm

Well, I'll hazard a guess that if they do something like that, they're basing it on the narrow interpretation that a local official cannot issue marriage licenses in defiance of state law, without actually ruling on whether the gay marriage ban violates any anti-discrimination clauses. Courts are cowardly that way (despite the asinine "activist judge" bullshit propaganda we keep hearing about); they will only rule on precisely that which they were asked to rule on, and using the minimum justification.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-12 01:18pm

Reuters wrote: SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco today, finding that the city acted improperly in granting the 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.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-12 01:20pm

It was on NPR this morning that they are deciding on it, but no decision had been handed down as of when I got out of the car for work. IIRC, they have already ruled that the San Francisco mayor exceeded his authority when he issued the licenses, and now they're deciding whether to nullify the licenses already issued or not. (I could be wrong; the excess of authority and the nullification may be part of the same decision. I wasn't paying all that much attention.)

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-12 01:22pm

Thanks Phil.

Gay marriage takes yet another shuffling step towards becoming a major election issue.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-12 01:23pm

Looks like I called it correctly. Quite predictable, really.

Those gay couples should have come here to get married

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-12 01:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:Courts are cowardly that way (despite the asinine "activist judge" bullshit propaganda we keep hearing about); they will only rule on precisely that which they were asked to rule on, and using the minimum justification.

If they rule on more, you wind up with things like the Dredd Scott decision more often than not. That's quite the double-edged sword.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-12 01:39pm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040812/D84DQHH00.html

Aug 12, 1:28 PM (ET)

By DAVID KRAVETS

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.

The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolism. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.

"Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."

The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass state judicial and legislative branches.

Chief Justice Ronald George noted that Thursday's ruling doesn't address "the substantive legal rights of same sex couples. In actuality, the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authorities granted to them as officeholders."

The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the weddings sanctioned by Mayor Gavin Newsom after emergency petitions were filed by a conservative group and the state's top law enforcement official, Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage - prompted President Bush to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year.

The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would foment legal anarchy and sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.

When the justices agreed in March to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge - that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution - if such a lawsuit worked its way to the justices through the lower courts.

Gay and lesbian couples immediately acted on that invitation, suing in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging laws barring them from marrying were discriminatory. Mayor Newsom filed a similar lawsuit.

The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter, and have left the politically volatile issue to its Supreme Court.

Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.

The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom's "act of disobedience" could lead other local officials to sanction "polygamists."

Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide.

Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage - a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California.

A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court.

Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states - Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada - already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

The 14th vs. 10th Amendment issue isn't going to be settled until there is either a Constitutional Ammendment or a court case in front of The SOCTUS.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-12 01:40pm

A little more info

Carolina Channel wrote: The justices decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the nearly 4,000 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until "the constitutionality of California laws restricting marriages to opposite-sex couples has been authoritatively resolved through judicial proceedings."

The city, as well as several legal groups, sued the state the same day [as the Cali Supreme Court issued the injunction], alleging that California's marriage laws as written are an unconstitutional abridgment of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Those cases, which echo arguments leading to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, are scheduled to be heard later this year in San Francisco County Superior Court.

So, yes, the California Supreme Court made its decision only on the specifics of the case at hand without dealing with the broader, more important issue. However, they will have to decide on the constitutionality of the marriage law, but probably not until after the November election. Convienant, isn't it?

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-12 01:44pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:A little more info
Carolina Channel wrote: The justices decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the nearly 4,000 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until "the constitutionality of California laws restricting marriages to opposite-sex couples has been authoritatively resolved through judicial proceedings."

The city, as well as several legal groups, sued the state the same day [as the Cali Supreme Court issued the injunction], alleging that California's marriage laws as written are an unconstitutional abridgment of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Those cases, which echo arguments leading to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, are scheduled to be heard later this year in San Francisco County Superior Court.
So, yes, the California Supreme Court made its decision only on the specifics of the case at hand without dealing with the broader, more important issue. However, they will have to decide on the constitutionality of the marriage law, but probably not until after the November election. Convienant, isn't it?

From an objective POV the timing benifits the Republicans and will hurt the Democrats seeing how that most polls run 60%+- in opposition to gay marriage.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-08-12 01:57pm

Hey, Mike, what say you about the Gay couple getting Divorced in the Great white North? Have the courts ruled on that yet? I haven't heard much about it since the news broke

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-12 03:09pm

Darth Wong wrote:What is their legal basis for this declaration, and why are you using the Sludge Report as a source?

The legal basis is that Newsom overstepped his authority in approving of those certificates in the first place, since the voters already defined marriage in such a way as to void such certificates, in the first place.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-08-12 03:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:Looks like I called it correctly. Quite predictable, really.

Those gay couples should have come here to get married

The US has actualy refused entry to gay couples from Canada on the basis they can not list themselves as married when they enter.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-08-12 03:15pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What is their legal basis for this declaration, and why are you using the Sludge Report as a source?
The legal basis is that Newsom overstepped his authority in approving of those certificates in the first place, since the voters already defined marriage in such a way as to void such certificates, in the first place.

What the voters did was in violation of the Constitution and as such what Newsom did is perfectly legal.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-12 03:19pm

Alyeska wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What is their legal basis for this declaration, and why are you using the Sludge Report as a source?
The legal basis is that Newsom overstepped his authority in approving of those certificates in the first place, since the voters already defined marriage in such a way as to void such certificates, in the first place.
What the voters did was in violation of the Constitution

I agree.

and as such what Newsom did is perfectly legal.

I disagree. Newson clearly overstepped his bounds by issuing the certificates against the will of voters. There is an accepted procedure designed to address issues where laws are held to be unconstitutional, and Newsom side-stepped it. Regardless of the moral correctness of his actions, what Newsom did clearly violated the law.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-12 03:29pm

Alyeska wrote: What the voters did was in violation of the Constitution and as such what Newsom did is perfectly legal.

Would that be the "Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy"?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-12 03:32pm

Augustus wrote:
Alyeska wrote:What the voters did was in violation of the Constitution and as such what Newsom did is perfectly legal.
Would that be the "Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy"?

No, although MoO's point about proper procedure for constitutional challenges is well taken. But from an ethical standpoint (which is the only place where the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy is employed), it would only be an example of that fallacy if it was in fact ethically wrong for Newsom to do what he did. "Illegal" and "unethical" are not synonymous.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-08-12 03:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Augustus wrote:
Alyeska wrote:What the voters did was in violation of the Constitution and as such what Newsom did is perfectly legal.
Would that be the "Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy"?
No, although MoO's point about proper procedure for constitutional challenges is well taken. But from an ethical standpoint (which is the only place where the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy is employed), it would only be an example of that fallacy if it was in fact ethically wrong for Newsom to do what he did. "Illegal" and "unethical" are not synonymous.

I was being cheeky, but thank you for the explanation all the same.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-08-12 03:50pm

The court made a correct and safe decision. I suspect as the more decisions get hadnded down and especially if they start differing wildly the SOTC is going to have to step in, a one of their primary responsibilities is to settle any disputes among the Federal circuits on how to interpret Federal law and the Consitiution.

They are biding their time to pick the right case I assume.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-12 09:54pm

Stravo wrote:They are biding their time to pick the right case I assume.

That's what I suspect, too. My guess is that the court wants a better than 5-4 decision on the matter, and that's exactly what everyone thinks they'd get if they brought it up today (one way or the other). I think they're waiting for a more clear mandate before making their move, but realistically I think they should have done something to step in about this already.

Maybe they're just waiting for this massive wave of bills and amendments to pass regarding gay marriage?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-12 09:55pm

You Americans are funny. Gay marriage is already starting to become old news in Canada; we rarely see it mentioned in the papers any more except in reference to the American controversy.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-12 09:58pm

Alyeska wrote:The US has actualy refused entry to gay couples from Canada on the basis they can not list themselves as married when they enter.

Well, maybe they could just go to Massachucetts (is it legal there yet, or still pending?)...

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-12 10:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:You Americans are funny. Gay marriage is already starting to become old news in Canada; we rarely see it mentioned in the papers any more except in reference to the American controversy.

It'll become an issue again during the next Federal election, of that I am sure...