Text 1269, 143 rader
Skriven 2004-08-12 18:46:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Gay marriages
=====================
It is unfortunate that the liberal left played these people for pawns...  
Typical.  It may cost Kerry the election.

================================================

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128818,00.html

Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses 
Thursday, August 12, 2004
 
 
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court (search) ruled unanimously 
Thursday that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing 
same-sex marriage licenses this spring. The court also voided all the 
marriages of gay and lesbian couples sanctioned by the city. 


The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates 
and peustice 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 also decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages 
peformed before the court halted the weddings on March 11. 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 now pending in the courts of California."

About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and 
tuxedos, waited for the decision on the steps of the Supreme Court 
building. Some began to cry when Molly McKay of Marriage Equality 
California (search) read that their marriages would be voided.


"We're going to continue to honor our relationship and honor our 
marriage in a way that a lot of heterosexuals don't and in a way that a 
lot of heterosexuals do," vowed McKay. "We're going to make this one of 
the most romantic civil rights struggles on earth."

The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful 
symbolic value. 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 justices agreed to resolve the legality of the weddings sanctioned 
by Mayor Gavin Newsom (search) after emergency petitions were filed by 
conservative interest groups and the state's top law enforcement 
official, Attorney General Bill Lockyer (search).

"The justices have restored the rule of law in California," said 
Alliance Defense Fund (search) Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence.

Another anti-gay group said the mayor had acted "too fast, too soon."

"Instead of helping his cause, Mayor Newsom has set back the same-sex 
marriage agenda and laid the foundation for the pro-marriage movement to 
once and for all win this battle to preserve traditional marriage," said 
Mathew Staver, who represents Campaign for California Families (search), 
which filed one of several lawsuits challenging the gay marriages.

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 federal 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.

"Ultimately, we believe when we deal with the issue of the 
constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, Mayor Newsom's 
position will be vindicated at the end of the day," said Dennis Herrera, 
San Francisco's city attorney.

The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme 
Court for at least a year or more, leaving California's most significant 
gay rights challenge on the back burner as that litigation percolates in 
pretrial proceedings. California lawmakers have refused to take a 
position on the matter, and have left the politically volatile issue to 
its Supreme Court.

Voters have also sat idle, awaiting a definitive ruling on the merits of 
whether the state constitution allows gay marriage, and have not used 
the voter initiative process to force the issue.

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 (search), 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 cases decided Thursday are Lockyer v. San Francisco, S122923; Lewis 
v. Alfaro, S122865.


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)