San Francisco Sues State Over Same-Sex Weddings

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2004-02-20 01:40am

February 20, 2004
San Francisco Sues State Over Same-Sex Weddings
By DEAN E. MURPHY

AN FRANCISCO, Feb. 19 — Officials here moved on Thursday to force a constitutional showdown with opponents of same-sex marriage by suing the State of California over state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The lawsuit backs the core assertion by Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, that marriage definitions in the state's family code violate the State Constitution. It was also certain to inflame tensions further over Mr. Newsom's directive last week to issue same-sex marriage licenses, which has already led to two legal challenges by conservative and religious groups.

"The City and County of San Francisco is going on offense today in protecting the mayor's action," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified and that the California Constitution provides that there should be equal opportunity under the law, and not just for straight people but for gay and lesbian people as well."

The state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, who had been silent about the same-sex marriages, said in a statement that "it is the duty of my office to defend" the state against the lawsuit. The city contends in the suit that the state family code violates both the Constitution's equal protection clause and its due process clause by not giving equal opportunity to same-sex couples.

"The issue of whether state statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages violate constitutional protections is emerging as one of the great legal and civil rights issues of our day, and the question must be answered by our courts," Mr. Lockyer said.

Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat, also offered a hint of the political minefield that Mr. Newsom seems to have laid by making a personal observation that sounded a lot like an endorsement of the mayor.

"As a lifelong defender of civil rights, due process and equal protection for all," Mr. Lockyer said, "I do not personally support policies that give lesser legal rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples than those provided to heterosexual couples."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said Mr. Lockyer "has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law." The governor also said that the altered marriage licenses in San Francisco, which must be filed with the State Department of Health Services, "fail to meet legal standards."

"I will abide by the oath I took when I was sworn in to uphold California laws," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

The lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, also named two conservative groups that last week sued to block the same-sex marriage policy. By including the groups in the lawsuit, the city wanted to make sure that any court decisions in those cases took into consideration the city's constitutional arguments.

"What we are doing is trying to ensure that the constitutional issue is addressed," Mr. Herrera said. "It's doing what any good lawyer would do and ensure that you are protecting your client's position on all available fronts."

Lawyers for the groups that filed the lawsuits against the city said the city's new legal offensive was an acknowledgment that Mr. Newsom's case was weak.

"They are in a defensive posture, and frankly I think it's an admission that they didn't do things in the right way in the first place," said Richard D. Ackerman, a lawyer for one of the groups, Campaign for California Families.

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents backers of Proposition 22, a ballot measure opposed to same-sex marriages that passed in 2000, said in a statement that the new lawsuit was "an implicit concession that the city lacks legal authority" to issue the same-sex marriage licenses.

"It is trying to retroactively validate its lawless activity," the statement said.

Mr. Newsom's directive on Feb. 12 set off a blitz of gay weddings, numbering more than 3,000 by the close of business on Thursday. People waiting in line for a license applauded the city's new legal move, but in a sign of the growing rancor surrounding the marriages, opponents began picketing outside City Hall.

Several people carried posters, including one that said "Homosexuality is sin," while others used megaphones to issue dire warnings to the couples waiting in line on the sidewalk. "You don't have to go to hell," one protester shouted.

Mr. Newsom, who had called a news conference to announce several changes in the top echelons of the Police Department, was bombarded with questions from reporters about the new lawsuit and the growing turmoil over his marriage policy.

"I think what we have done, is we have affirmed marriage in San Francisco," Mr. Newsom said. "We have affirmed it because we're celebrating people coming together in their unions. I feel affirmed as a married man by what's happened here in San Francisco."

Dress your fucking links!

Very interesting... Best of luck to Newsom.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-02-20 11:54am

Go go fruit loop fanaticism!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-02-20 12:55pm

Well, I can actually agree with this approach. This is the correct way to go about it, not creating your own power and then using it.

I hope the gays win and I still hope Newsome gets.....something, I don't know what but something for his actions.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-02-20 03:57pm

If nothing else, at least this controversy has inspired the king of Cambodia to support gay marriage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3505915.stm

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-02-20 04:02pm

Very brave.

Let's hope that they will win that fight.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-02-20 04:04pm

New Mexico county begins issuing marriage licenses to gay couples

02-20) 11:01 PST BERNALILLO, N.M. (AP) --

A lesbian couple was issued a marriage license and exchanged vows outside the courthouse Friday as other same-sex couples lined up for their chance to tie the knot.

At least a half-dozen gay and lesbian couples waited outside the Sandoval County courthouse after county clerk Victoria Dunlap began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... ST0610.DTL

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-02-20 04:34pm

I feel as if a major legal conflict is finally coming to a head, this is just the beginning, I expect.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-02-20 05:14pm

Pity gays don't have a MLK Jr. to help them out...

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-02-20 05:59pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:Pity gays don't have a MLK Jr. to help them out...

That's a thought that has occured to me more than once.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-20 06:04pm

This seems to be starting something. Something major. A year ago sodomy was illegal, now theres practically open civil rebellion by the local levels of government against state laws and social "customs". I imagine there will be a great huge conflict. This will create a rift in this country and there may will be violence as a result.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-20 06:15pm

I don't trust the fundies to handle this in a mature fashion. They're still fighting this even up in Canada, where the government took itself out of the country's bedrooms 30 years ago. Down in the US where sodomy is still illegal in a dozen states and sex toys criminalized in several others, I expect the fight to be a real knock-down, drag-out affair.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-20 06:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:where sodomy is still illegal in a dozen states

Not anymore.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-20 06:21pm

kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:where sodomy is still illegal in a dozen states
Not anymore.

When did this happen?

EDIT: OK, I just found last year's SCOTUS ruling on the anti-sodomy laws, which were in force in 14 states as well as Puerto Rico and the military. More of those "activist judges", I guess.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-20 06:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:where sodomy is still illegal in a dozen states
Not anymore.
When did this happen?

This summer's ruling on sodomy, remember?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-20 06:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:where sodomy is still illegal in a dozen states
Not anymore.
When did this happen?

Several months ago. SCOTUS struck down a law banning sodomy in Texas for violating privacy rights. By extention, every such law on the books in any of the 50 states is also in violation of the Constitution. They're probably still on the books, but they're legally unenforceable.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-20 06:25pm

Er...last summer. The Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law and by extension other state sodomy laws as well in June.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-20 06:25pm

The interesting thing about the ruling is that it was only a 6-3 decision, when it should have been a slam-dunk. And the majority opinion was based on privacy rights, not equal protection under the law.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-20 06:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:The interesting thing about the ruling is that it was only a 6-3 decision, when it should have been a slam-dunk. And the majority opinion was based on privacy rights, not equal protection under the law.

As the law applied to heterosexual couples as well, there wasn't an equal protection case to be made. Had it only applied to homosexuals, then there would be an equal protection agrument as well.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-20 06:35pm

They couldn't have legally ruled based on equal protection under the law, since sexual orientation isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither is privacy, for that matter, but we don't need to go down that road.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-20 06:35pm

RedImperator wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The interesting thing about the ruling is that it was only a 6-3 decision, when it should have been a slam-dunk. And the majority opinion was based on privacy rights, not equal protection under the law.
As the law applied to heterosexual couples as well, there wasn't an equal protection case to be made. Had it only applied to homosexuals, then there would be an equal protection agrument as well.

Actually many of the state anti-sodomy laws did apply exclusively to homosexuals, although I don't know about the one in Texas. And for those that applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, stiffer (no pun intended) penalties were often prescribed for homosexuals.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-20 07:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The interesting thing about the ruling is that it was only a 6-3 decision, when it should have been a slam-dunk. And the majority opinion was based on privacy rights, not equal protection under the law.
As the law applied to heterosexual couples as well, there wasn't an equal protection case to be made. Had it only applied to homosexuals, then there would be an equal protection agrument as well.
Actually many of the state anti-sodomy laws did apply exclusively to homosexuals, although I don't know about the one in Texas. And for those that applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, stiffer (no pun intended) penalties were often prescribed for homosexuals.

I'm pretty sure the Texas law applied to everyone. At any rate, it's better that the law got struck down on privacy rights grounds, because if it was an equal protection matter, states could simply amend their laws to prohibit heterosexuals from practicing sodomy as well.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-20 07:25pm

RedImperator wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
kojikun wrote: Not anymore.
When did this happen?
Several months ago. SCOTUS struck down a law banning sodomy in Texas for violating privacy rights. By extention, every such law on the books in any of the 50 states is also in violation of the Constitution. They're probably still on the books, but they're legally unenforceable.

The Minnesota State Supreme Court handed down a similar ruling in the summer of 2002, on MN's sodomy law (which covered both homosexual and heterosexual acts), on similar grounds. So SCOTUS's decision was fairly well-founded.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-20 07:28pm

I'm pretty certain that gay marriage will eventually prevail. Education and the passage of time will unmake fundementalists, but there will always be homosexuals.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-02-20 07:51pm

Joe wrote:They couldn't have legally ruled based on equal protection under the law, since sexual orientation isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither is privacy, for that matter, but we don't need to go down that road.

9th Amendment wrote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

They put this one in just in case someone made that argument

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-20 07:53pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
Joe wrote:They couldn't have legally ruled based on equal protection under the law, since sexual orientation isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither is privacy, for that matter, but we don't need to go down that road.

9th Amendment wrote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
They put this one in just in case someone made that argument

That is a constitutional can of worms that has never been opened, I'm afraid.