Judge Says Gay Weddings Might Violate Law

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Exonerate
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4454
Joined: 2002-10-29 07:19pm
Location: DC Metro Area

Judge Says Gay Weddings Might Violate Law

Post by Exonerate »

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040218_25.html
SAN FRANCISCO Feb. 18 — A judge said San Francisco might be violating the law by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, but he declined Tuesday to order an immediate halt and the mayor said the weddings would continue.
A conservative group had asked Judge James Warren to immediately stop the weddings and void the 2,636 same-sex marriages performed at City Hall since Thursday. Instead, Warren told the city to "cease and desist" or return to court March 29 to explain why they haven't.

The nonbinding order frustrated conservatives who also failed earlier in the day to persuade another judge to halt the weddings as part of a separate challenge, which was filed by the Campaign for California Families. Judge Ronald Quidachay said he was not prepared to rule and told that group to return on Friday for another hearing.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city had no plans to stop the marriages.

"We will continue to do what we've done," he said. "There was nothing particularly compelling after today that makes me think that we should back off. In fact quite the contrary. After three hearings, I now feel more resolved."

The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund had asked Warren, a San Francisco Superior Court judge, to issue an order commanding the city to stop issuing the licenses.

Warren's decision was "not 100 percent of what we were looking for," acknowledged Robert Tyler, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued the case on behalf of the Proposition 22 group. Still, Tyler said he was pleased.

"The judge would not issue a cease and desist order unless the judge made a determination that the mayor is in violation," Tyler said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a University of Southern California legal scholar, called the ruling a short-term victory for the city but said the ultimate decision would be made by a higher court.

"This is an issue that is going to be decided by the California Supreme Court," Chemerinsky said. "These are just the early stages of what's going to be a long legal battle."

Gay couples from as far as Europe have been lining up outside City Hall since Thursday, when city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples in a collective act of official civil disobedience.

Newsom has said the city will pursue a constitutional challenge through the courts. Newsom says the equal protection clause of the California Constitution makes denying marriage licenses to gay couples illegal.

"What trumps any proposition is the California Constitution," City Attorney Dennis Herrerra said Tuesday.

The conservatives want the courts to nullify the marriages and block the city from granting any more "gender-neutral" licenses.

The newly elected mayor's decision to permit gay marriages, while still legally unsettled, has intensified the national debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy the many benefits only married couples receive.

The Campaign for California Families said state law explicitly defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." The group also argues that San Francisco is violating a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2000 that said only marriages between a man and woman are valid.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged city officials to stop the same-sex weddings.

"I support all of California's existing laws that provide domestic partnership benefits and protections," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "However, Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November ruled that its state constitution permits gay marriages. Lawmakers there are debating a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

In Virginia, gay rights proponents scored victories in the conservative-leaning House of Delegates on measures involving access to health insurance and home loans.

The House, which last week passed a bill reaffirming the state's ban on gay marriage, narrowly passed legislation Monday that would allow employers to offer group insurance benefits to gay partners who live together. It rejected a measure seeking to make state mortgage loans available only to married heterosexuals or blood relatives.
Rosa Park broke the law when she refused to give up her seat to a white person on the bus... I'm glad that SF is challenging this. And fuck Schwarzenegger, I'm sure as hell not going to be voting for him next election...

With luck, this will be taken to the California Supreme Court.

BoTM, MM, HAB, JL
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

While I couldn't really give a shit if two guys or two chicks want to get married, it is not in the power of the mayor of SF to issue marrage certificates.

To this end, it needs to stop and the mayor needs to be punished.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

While I don't mind the Mayor's sentiment, legally he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the courts actually do decide to uphold the marriages, they will be so obviously disregarding the law that they will severely undermine their own authority. Newsome should have gone through the legislature instead of simply his own office, as that method not only has a chance of success but more importantly would be legally defensible.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Gunshy
Padawan Learner
Posts: 176
Joined: 2003-12-06 12:41pm
Location: <sigh> Bakersfield, California

Post by Gunshy »

Master of Ossus wrote:While I don't mind the Mayor's sentiment, legally he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the courts actually do decide to uphold the marriages, they will be so obviously disregarding the law that they will severely undermine their own authority. Newsome should have gone through the legislature instead of simply his own office, as that method not only has a chance of success but more importantly would be legally defensible.
When this issue eventually get's to the 9th circuit, don't you think there's a very good chance of them ruling Prop 22 unconstitutional?
"In the new trilogy, Anakin Skywalker portrays a damning indictment of technology's modern dehumanization of mankind through Hayden Christensen's lifeless, almost inhuman performance. There is a river of tragedy in every robotic line he utters, a horrific monotonal indication of his cyborgal fate."-Dr. Albert Oxford, PhD
User avatar
theski
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4327
Joined: 2003-01-28 03:20pm
Location: Hurricane Watching

Post by theski »

This will be overturned and the Mayor disiplined,,, the Weddings fon null and void...

He did the right thing the wrong way..... It might even cause a bit ofa backlash....
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
User avatar
Sarevok
The Fearless One
Posts: 10681
Joined: 2002-12-24 07:29am
Location: The Covenants last and final line of defense

Post by Sarevok »

If the Mayor did something wrong he must be punished.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
User avatar
The Kernel
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
Location: Kweh?!

Post by The Kernel »

Why does everyone think this was such a bad move on Newsom's part? I think it was a brilliant move politically and in the long term it sets up a case that will eventually make it all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Most of the people that seem to be against Newsom's actions disagree with the method in which he gave the city the power to conduct gay marriages (IOW he simply declared it so) but he knows that there is a high degree of likelyhood that the courts will strike down Proposition 22 as unconstitutional because of this case, and if so then what is the problem? He saw a situation that was discriminatory, he took steps to stop it and if the court rules in his favor (which I can't imagine a single reason why they wouldn't) then his actions were completely legal.

I think many of the anti-gay marriage people seem to think that the US court system will be their salvation, but what they fail to realize is that unlike the abortion issue, gay marriage is not a question of philosophy (whether or not a fetus is a living thing) but one of clear cut discrimination. It doesn't matter what a judge's personal feelings on the subject are, and people don't give them enough credit to see that aside from a few extremist judges, the vast majority of those that sit on the bench will see this for precicely what it is. When it eventually gets to the US Supereme Court, it won't matter how many right-wing justices that the Republicans manage to cram in there, the outcome will be the same.
User avatar
Natorgator
Jedi Knight
Posts: 856
Joined: 2003-04-26 08:23pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Natorgator »

The Kernel wrote:When it eventually gets to the US Supereme Court, it won't matter how many right-wing justices that the Republicans manage to cram in there, the outcome will be the same.
Not if they amend the Constitution. :x
User avatar
The Kernel
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
Location: Kweh?!

Post by The Kernel »

Natorgator wrote:
The Kernel wrote:When it eventually gets to the US Supereme Court, it won't matter how many right-wing justices that the Republicans manage to cram in there, the outcome will be the same.
Not if they amend the Constitution. :x
Not going to happen, not in a million years. Are you aware of the kind of numbers you need for an amendment to the constitution?
User avatar
Natorgator
Jedi Knight
Posts: 856
Joined: 2003-04-26 08:23pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Natorgator »

The Kernel wrote:
Natorgator wrote:
The Kernel wrote:When it eventually gets to the US Supereme Court, it won't matter how many right-wing justices that the Republicans manage to cram in there, the outcome will be the same.
Not if they amend the Constitution. :x
Not going to happen, not in a million years. Are you aware of the kind of numbers you need for an amendment to the constitution?
Perhaps not, but there's still state constitutions. In fact, I'm ashamed to say it but a measure to amend the Georgia constitution passed the Senate just yesterday (40-14). It's going to to the house where it will likely win, and then end up on a referendum.

What would be the outcome if a handful of states edited their constitutions to make it illegal even though the Supreme Court said they couldn't? Would federal law still override?
User avatar
The Kernel
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
Location: Kweh?!

Post by The Kernel »

Natorgator wrote: What would be the outcome if a handful of states edited their constitutions to make it illegal even though the Supreme Court said they couldn't? Would federal law still override?
On issues of civil rights, the US Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction over states. The only thing that can overrule this is an amendment to the US Constitution.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

The Kernel wrote:Why does everyone think this was such a bad move on Newsom's part? I think it was a brilliant move politically and in the long term it sets up a case that will eventually make it all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Politicaly, you're right. I don't know what his standing was before this, but he's pretty much assured a second term from this.
Most of the people that seem to be against Newsom's actions disagree with the method in which he gave the city the power to conduct gay marriages (IOW he simply declared it so) but he knows that there is a high degree of likelyhood that the courts will strike down Proposition 22 as unconstitutional because of this case, and if so then what is the problem? He saw a situation that was discriminatory, he took steps to stop it and if the court rules in his favor (which I can't imagine a single reason why they wouldn't) then his actions were completely legal.
His actions are not strictly legal. If he wanted to do it legally, he should have brought a case to the courts. He did not, he did just wave his hands and brought forth the power to issue marrage certificates out of thin air.
I think many of the anti-gay marriage people seem to think that the US court system will be their salvation, but what they fail to realize is that unlike the abortion issue, gay marriage is not a question of philosophy (whether or not a fetus is a living thing) but one of clear cut discrimination. It doesn't matter what a judge's personal feelings on the subject are, and people don't give them enough credit to see that aside from a few extremist judges, the vast majority of those that sit on the bench will see this for precicely what it is. When it eventually gets to the US Supereme Court, it won't matter how many right-wing justices that the Republicans manage to cram in there, the outcome will be the same.
Well, I think the anti-gay people are just hoping for a delay in what seems like the inevitable, but strictly speaking they are right to bring the issue up in that the Mayor of any city can't just make up powers that override the state.

It is this that I think he'll be smacked down. The real issue of gay-marrage will probably be brought up in other suits and will probably be found discrimitory but in the case of Newsom, I don't see how a court can rule in his favor, he plainly over reached his authority.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
The Kernel
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
Location: Kweh?!

Post by The Kernel »

Knife wrote: Politicaly, you're right. I don't know what his standing was before this, but he's pretty much assured a second term from this.
Indeed.
His actions are not strictly legal. If he wanted to do it legally, he should have brought a case to the courts. He did not, he did just wave his hands and brought forth the power to issue marrage certificates out of thin air.
It doesn't really matter because if the denial of marriage permits is found to be an act of discrimination, his actions will become legal.
Well, I think the anti-gay people are just hoping for a delay in what seems like the inevitable, but strictly speaking they are right to bring the issue up in that the Mayor of any city can't just make up powers that override the state.

It is this that I think he'll be smacked down. The real issue of gay-marrage will probably be brought up in other suits and will probably be found discrimitory but in the case of Newsom, I don't see how a court can rule in his favor, he plainly over reached his authority.
You have to understand that aside from the possibility of a temporary restraining order (which was denied) this case won't be about Newsom's authority. The judge won't care how Newsom might have overstepped his authority, his only job will be to rule on the legality of the denial of marriage permits to gay couples.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Post by Knife »

Again, coming from the position of- I don't care if gays get married;
It doesn't really matter because if the denial of marriage permits is found to be an act of discrimination, his actions will become legal.
You have to understand that aside from the possibility of a temporary restraining order (which was denied) this case won't be about Newsom's authority. The judge won't care how Newsom might have overstepped his authority, his only job will be to rule on the legality of the denial of marriage permits to gay couples.
Even if they rule in favor and the courts overturn Prop (22?), wouldn't those certificates issued right now still be null and void since at this moment, they are against the law in California.

I'm not really arguing for the anti-gay folks, just really interested in the legal points. If the law suit (one being decide Friday, right?) is about the abuse of power of the mayor, how the hell can the courts side with him? There have to be other cases out there where the courts can support the gay-marrage without looking like political hacks by backing up something right like gay-marrage but ruling in favor of a mayor WAY overstepping his authority?
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
The Kernel
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7438
Joined: 2003-09-17 02:31am
Location: Kweh?!

Post by The Kernel »

Knife wrote: Even if they rule in favor and the courts overturn Prop (22?), wouldn't those certificates issued right now still be null and void since at this moment, they are against the law in California.
If the law is found to be unconstitutional, then they would not void these marriages.
I'm not really arguing for the anti-gay folks, just really interested in the legal points. If the law suit (one being decide Friday, right?) is about the abuse of power of the mayor, how the hell can the courts side with him? There have to be other cases out there where the courts can support the gay-marrage without looking like political hacks by backing up something right like gay-marrage but ruling in favor of a mayor WAY overstepping his authority?
It isn't really overstepping his authority. Sure he's violating California law, but if his actions are ruled to be constitutional then none of that will matter.

The judge presiding over this case has asked the city to cease and desist OR present an argument about why it has not done so. If the city can argue that they acted within the bounds of the Constitution (which is a higher law then California state legislation) then that will automatically legitimize their actions. It won't make a damn bit of difference that Newsom overstepped his bounds since he still serves a higher law as all California officials do. Now he just has to prove that his actions jive with the Constitution.
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

Honorable as his sentiment may be his methods leave something to be desired. He's no worse than Roy Moore.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
User avatar
DPDarkPrimus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18399
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by DPDarkPrimus »

Joe wrote: He's no worse than Roy Moore.
I think you mean "no better than".
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Joe wrote: He's no worse than Roy Moore.
I think you mean "no better than".
"No better or worse" is what I should've typed.
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Johonebesus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1487
Joined: 2002-07-06 11:26pm

Post by Johonebesus »

The problem is there is not a general constitutional protection against discrimination. That is why we have to make lists of "illegal" types of discrimination, against gender, race, color, religion, ethnicity, handicap, age, national origin, et cetera. The Constitution does not guarantee that everyone will be protected from all sorts of discrimination. It is perfectly possible that the Supreme Court will rule that prohibiting gay marriage is constitutional. Newsom doesn't have to prove that his actions "jive" with the law, he has to prove that the California provision forbidding gay marriage is in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution, that the Constitution prohibits denying gays the right to marry.

Newsom's actions seem to me to be courting disaster. The fact is most Americans still oppose gay marriage. Combined with the Right's fantastic ability to organize, there is much more weight set against gay marriage than for it. It is too soon to force the issue, and if the gay rights activists don't slow down, we will all get run over. Another ten or twenty years, and society might have progressed to the point where the Right would really have to struggle, but right now, they have the People on their side, and if it comes to a head, we will loose. It is not certain that the Supreme Court will find current discrimination unconstitutional, and if, somehow, they do, I think it quite possible that the Constitution will be amended. At best, I expect the backlash, which isn't coming but has already started and is gaining momentum, to set us back at least ten years.
"Can you eat quarks? Can you spread them on your bed when the cold weather comes?" -Bernard Levin

"Sir: Mr. Bernard Levin asks 'Can you eat quarks?' I estimate that he eats 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 quarks a day...Yours faithfully..." -Sir Alan Cottrell


Elohim's loving mercy: "Hey, you, don't turn around. WTF! I said DON'T tur- you know what, you're a pillar of salt now. Bitch." - an anonymous commenter
User avatar
Gunshy
Padawan Learner
Posts: 176
Joined: 2003-12-06 12:41pm
Location: <sigh> Bakersfield, California

Post by Gunshy »

Except Moore defied a federal court order, Newsome hasn't done that. I think he's even said that if the courts rule against him, he will stop granting marriage certificates.
"In the new trilogy, Anakin Skywalker portrays a damning indictment of technology's modern dehumanization of mankind through Hayden Christensen's lifeless, almost inhuman performance. There is a river of tragedy in every robotic line he utters, a horrific monotonal indication of his cyborgal fate."-Dr. Albert Oxford, PhD
User avatar
kojikun
BANNED
Posts: 9663
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:23am
Contact:

Post by kojikun »

The problem is that what he did ISN'T illegal. It's upholding the constitutional clause that requires equal treatment. In order to fulfil his obligation to the state he must either allow gay people to marry or refuse to let straight people to marry. Whether or not a state law bans gay marriage is irrelevant because the CONSTITUTION of California makes all laws contradicting it null and void. Therefore the law is not valid and cannot be broken. Newsom has not broken any valid laws, merely invalid laws that have yet been forced to be recognized as such.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
User avatar
neoolong
Dead Sexy 'Shroom
Posts: 13180
Joined: 2002-08-29 10:01pm
Location: California

Post by neoolong »

Johonebesus wrote:The problem is there is not a general constitutional protection against discrimination. That is why we have to make lists of "illegal" types of discrimination, against gender, race, color, religion, ethnicity, handicap, age, national origin, et cetera. The Constitution does not guarantee that everyone will be protected from all sorts of discrimination. It is perfectly possible that the Supreme Court will rule that prohibiting gay marriage is constitutional. Newsom doesn't have to prove that his actions "jive" with the law, he has to prove that the California provision forbidding gay marriage is in contradiction with the U.S. Constitution, that the Constitution prohibits denying gays the right to marry.
Technically, you could argue that its gender discrimination. After all, if one of the partners was of the opposite gender, they would be allowed to get married.
Member of the BotM. @( !.! )@
Post Reply