(CNN) -- The California Supreme Court ordered a halt Thursday to same-sex marriages in San Francisco.
The court issued an interim stay directing officials to stop allowing same sex marriages, but it stopped short of invalidating the nearly 4,000 licenses that have already been issued.
The stay will remain in effect while several cases on the issue are pending before the court.
The seven-justice court also ordered San Francisco officials to prove why they believe they "have not exceeded their authority," even though no court has determined whether existing marriage laws are unconstitutional.
Soon after the ruling was announced, Mabel Teng, San Francisco's city assessor, said the city would stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
Couples turned away by officials at City Hall expressed anger and disappointment, Reuters reported.
The news service said those who signed their marriage licenses just before the decision described complex feelings of joy and sadness. (Full story)
"We're happy -- but we're very sorry and very upset for the people in line behind us," said Michael Duffey, an attorney who married his partner of 10 years, Larry Schodts.
The temporary stay will presumably stay in force until May or June, when oral arguments in the case will be presented.
The court ruled that the constitutionality issues may be litigated separately in another case filed in Superior Court.
More than 3,400 couples have been married since Mayor Gavin Newsom permitted gay marriages February 12.
Newsom said he welcomed the opportunity to take the city's case into court.
"I'm pleased that the process is working as well as it's working," he said. "We had hoped to get to the Supreme Court. We're now going to be making oral arguments, making our case, in front of the Supreme Court."
Protesters march past San Francisco City Hall after the state's high court called a halt Thursday to same-sex marriages.
Newsom has said he believes state constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination trump the state law banning same-sex marriage.
The mayor's critics have charged that the constitutionality of the ban is a matter for the courts to decide -- not something for Newsom to determine unilaterally.
Newsom's actions started a nationwide spree of same-sex marriage licenses.
Marriage licenses have been granted to same-sex couples in Portland, Oregon; New Paltz, New York; Asbury Park, New Jersey; and Sandoval County, New Mexico.
There have been legal challenges to the marriages in each of the municipalities.
Earlier in the day, President Bush reaffirmed his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would effectively ban same-sex marriage.
He told a group of evangelical Christians that he "will defend the sanctity of marriage against activist courts and local officials who want to redefine marriage."
"The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in cultures and by every religious faith," Bush told the National Association of Evangelicals Convention in Colorado via satellite from the White House.
"Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. It is for that reason I support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman."
Bush first pledged his support after Newsom allowed the first same-sex marriages.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he is "very much against" same-sex marriages unless Californians vote to approve them.
Schwarzenegger ordered the state's attorney general to ask the state's Supreme Court for the ruling on whether San Francisco's actions violate state law.
Two lawsuits against the city seeking to halt the marriages and the city's suit against the state have been combined.
Massachusetts is poised to become the first state to legally sanction gay marriages after the state's Supreme Judicial Court ordered state officials to grant same-sex marriage licenses by May 17.
On Thursday, Massachusetts legislators took tentative steps in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but would legalize same-sex civil unions.
The lawmakers approved three resolutions advancing the package during more than nine hours of often raucous debate. The proposed amendment still faces a number of hurdles before it could become law.
And I think I know what the replys are going to be.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
This is a "WTF?". A large "WTF?". In fact, if you've got a moment, it's a twelve-storey "WTF?" with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying 'This Is a Large WTF?'.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:This is a "WTF?". A large "WTF?". In fact, if you've got a moment, it's a twelve-storey "WTF?" with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying 'This Is a Large WTF?'.
So WTF is going on over the pond?!
ACK funny.
But I agree, when I got the email, damn if I didn't let loose a wtf where the parental units heard me .
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
Newsom has said he believes state constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination trump the state law banning same-sex marriage.
Unfortunatly, that doesn't really work. Heterosexuals cannot marry people of the same sex either, whether they want to or not. Its not discrimination if it applies to anyone.
This, actually, is probably the best that the California Supreme Court could've done. Whether or not the mayor of San Francisco agrees with it or not, the state does have a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The law was approved by a majority of the idiots who voted in whichever election the law appeared on. So really, all they're doing is ordering San Francisco to stop breaking the law until the court gets around to hearing whether or not the law is constitutional.
Newsom has said he believes state constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination trump the state law banning same-sex marriage.
Unfortunatly, that doesn't really work. Heterosexuals cannot marry people of the same sex either, whether they want to or not. Its not discrimination if it applies to anyone.
You're a fucking idiot; a discriminatory definition of marriage is somehow not discriminatory if it applies to everyone? There is a great old quote about how the law, in its magnificent equality, prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.
But to take your logic a bit further, suppose that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race? Would that be non-discriminatory since it applies equally to whites and blacks? What fucktard sold you this bag of bullshit, and why are you so goddamned stupid as to agree with it?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:
You're a fucking idiot; a discriminatory definition of marriage is somehow not discriminatory if it applies to everyone?
Marriage is defined as between a "man and woman" in California as far as I'm aware. They are not saying "you can't marry as you're homosexual" (which would be discrimination), they're saying "you can't marry as the law does not allow you to marry someone of the same sex", and that applies to everyone. Homosexuals are perfectly free to marry someone of the opposite sex, same as everyone else.
I do not see the fact that they want to enter a relationship that is not defined as for them as a good reason to change the definition.
If some people do not meet a legally defined definition, is that reason enough to change said definition?
Darth Wong wrote:But to take your logic a bit further, suppose that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race? Would that be non-discriminatory since it applies equally to whites and blacks?
Race is given more protection under law than sexuality I'm told.
Darth Wong wrote:What fucktard sold you this bag of bullshit, and why are you so goddamned stupid as to agree with it?
A lawyer. I agree with it as I have not seen any person actually manage to refute his arguments, even though I disagree with him on the larger issue.
Darth Wong wrote:You're a fucking idiot; a discriminatory definition of marriage is somehow not discriminatory if it applies to everyone?
Marriage is defined as between a "man and woman" in California as far as I'm aware. They are not saying "you can't marry as you're homosexual" (which would be discrimination), they're saying "you can't marry as the law does not allow you to marry someone of the same sex", and that applies to everyone. Homosexuals are perfectly free to marry someone of the opposite sex, same as everyone else.
Just repeating your earlier fallacy that a discriminatory definition is not discriminatory if it is applied to everyone. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?
I do not see the fact that they want to enter a relationship that is not defined as for them as a good reason to change the definition.
If some people do not meet a legally defined definition, is that reason enough to change said definition?
If the discriminatory nature of said definition has no ethical justification, then yes.
Darth Wong wrote:But to take your logic a bit further, suppose that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race? Would that be non-discriminatory since it applies equally to whites and blacks?
Race is given more protection under law than sexuality I'm told.
You're evading the point, which is that your logic of "discriminatory definition is not discriminatory if it is applied to everyone" is obviously bullshit.
Darth Wong wrote:What fucktard sold you this bag of bullshit, and why are you so goddamned stupid as to agree with it?
A lawyer. I agree with it as I have not seen any person actually manage to refute his arguments, even though I disagree with him on the larger issue.
I just refuted his argument, fucktard. Take the same "logic" and apply it to racially segregated marriage definitions, and you will see that it is obviously racist. Your weak dodge (that race is given more protection than sexuality) does not in any way affect the point that the underlying logic of his argument is bullshit. It's a shell game: "we equally apply a discriminatory definition".
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Discrimination on the basis of gender is prohibited by the Constitution. If you tell someone that he can't marry someone solely on the basis of that person's gender, then that is gender discrimination.
After all, if I told a black person that he could only marry black women, that would be racial discrimination, and you can bet that people would be in an uproar about it.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Discrimination on the basis of gender is prohibited by the Constitution.
No it isn't.
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.
Much as I dislike the results of the decision, I believe the Cali Supreme Court is right in this case. Until the case can be heard, the law should not be broken.
I just hope the quickly get around to throwing the law out.
Hmm, good point. There's still however, not anything in the Constitution explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, which is why there was such a push for the Equal Rights Amendment.
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.
"I'm pleased that the process is working as well as it's working," he said. "We had hoped to get to the Supreme Court. We're now going to be making oral arguments, making our case, in front of the Supreme Court."
It would appear that the goal of the breaking of the law was not to defy the law, but to bring the issue in front of a court so that the law might be changed. I cannot say i disagree with the courts decision, but it is obvious to me that the mayor did what he felt was conducive to ensuring that the issue was brought before the courts. This case, and others like it across America where people challenge a law (id est, the ACLU) in order to open a dialog, is how the law grows and changes in its representation of society.
"I don't come here for the music, or even the drugs. I come here for the Family!!"-Some guy on hash at a concert
.
