05/23/2008
Gay Marriage Foes File Request to Suspend Unions Till Election
Hoping that a measure on this November's ballot constitutionally banning same-sex marriage might be approved by voters, groups who fought the recent lawsuit resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage have filed papers asking the court to suspend any unions until after the election:
"The organizations, including the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Alliance Defense Fund, filed a request with the court Thursday afternoon seeking the delay until after the November election. That's when the state's voters will likely decide a proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. 'Permitting this decision to take effect immediately - in the light of the realistic possibility that the people of California might amend their constitution to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman - risks legal havoc and uncertainty of immeasurable magnitude,' the filing states. A spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said they would fight any delay in issuing the marriage certificates to gay couples. Lawyers for the city are expected to file a legal response next week."
In related news, SF mayor Gavin Newsom reacted angrily to reports out of San Diego that the county might allow clerks there to refuse to perform same-sex marriages:
"On Wednesday, San Diego County Clerk Gregory Smith said he would consider allowing clerks to bow out of processing such marriages if they had moral or religions objections. 'I was pretty shocked about all that, candidly, and pretty outraged,' Newsom told Reuters in an interview. 'This is a civil marriage that civil servants have a responsibility to provide, so for civil servants on religious grounds to start passing judgments, they, I think, are breaking the core tenet of what civil service is all about. I've got very strong religious beliefs. So now, all of a sudden, I don't have to do certain things, even though that's my responsibility as mayor?'"
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 8:09 AM EST by Andy in California, Gavin Newsom, Gay Marriage, News, San Diego, San Francisco | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
If the State Supreme Court decided that the current marriage laws apply to same-gender couples and this group of whackos want to suspend marriage for gays & lesbians until after hte election: wouldn't they have to suspend ALL marriages until the vote is decided?? And does that mean if a candidate is up for re-election, that there tenure in the position can be suspended until after the election because they might be voted out?
They want it suspended cause they are smart enough to realize that it's easier for someone to block a civil right being granted than it is for someone to vote to strip someone of a civil right. Why? Cause when faced with that decision, people realize that their own rights could be stripped away with a single vote as well. CIVIL RIGHTS AREN'T DECIDED BY A MAJORITY - that's why they are Rights.
Posted by: bostonbear | May 23, 2008 8:19:03 AM
Would these same clerks..decide under supposed Religious reasons NOt to Marry "Inter-racial" couples - cause thier Buy-Bull tells them that Races should not mix? They'd NEVER get away with it. If they can't operform thier job, because some Immaginary Sky Gods Book...then they need to be fired.
Posted by: Disgusted American | May 23, 2008 8:27:35 AM
So if I morally object to self-righteous, hateful bigots who masquerade as decent Christians and pervert my religion for their own twisted agenda can I, as a nurse, refuse to treat them? Gee, I wish I could.
Posted by: JerzeeMike | May 23, 2008 8:44:00 AM
Well, this certainly does show how afraid these people are about gay marriage being solidified by the voters. If they are so certain that the voters in the state of California are against gay marriage, then if people start getting married, what difference does it make? I will tell you what difference if makes...5,000 - 10,000 gay couples getting married before November ballot...and the sky doesn't fall in. and the economy booming because gays spare no expense. How many gay wedding might they have attended by then and start to see that gays just want to be like everyone else.
That is just a scare tactic. And once again, what business does some Arizona group have budding their noses in the State of California?
And lastly, if those clerks refuse to grant marriage licenses...FIRE EM!!
Posted by: Paul | May 23, 2008 8:49:25 AM
We will not have any peace until religion in all its insidious forms is utterly destroyed.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 23, 2008 8:51:40 AM
From what I understand the latest tactic to wait until November will unfortunately delay the start of marriages until September. There's a snowballs chance in hell that the supremes would agree, and they know it... they want to do everything they can to delay, delay, delay with the hope that if marriage isn't in place when the election happens, it will help them pass their discriminatory initiative. Whatever... I brought up the topic at work and found some folks started with the "now we can marry animals" argument (guess they were a Rick Santorum fan). So I just asked that since women can vote now, does that mean we should give animals the right to vote, to which they said yes... at that point I ended the discussion... this is what we have to fight against... a bunch of uninformed idiots... how do you reason with people like this, you can't, they're stupid...
Posted by: Mike | May 23, 2008 8:53:23 AM
Since the ruling came down I have been planning my wedding day at SF City Hall on August 1st and reception to follow on August 2nd. I am bringing my queer dollars to CA to spend on it and no legal delay is going to stop me from celebrating. I might have to wait to do it in the eyes of the law, but I will be out there in a big, public, celebration with family and friends for all to see. I encourage all who are thinking of getting married to keep planning and be vocal about it...then work to get out the vote in November as folks see that the sky has not caved in! This train is rolling!
Posted by: Dotty | May 23, 2008 9:23:29 AM
I am sick and tired of having to bow to people's religious beliefs in civil service.
Their is no right to civil service, if you object to the laws of the land, work elsewhere.
Imagine these arguments:
I can't deliver your mail because I object to delivering the Advocate or to a homosexual household.
I can't respond to a domestic violence complaint by a same sex couple because I object to same sex relationships.
I can't process your legal name change because I object to same sex marriage.
I can't teach your child because I object to your same sex parenting.
I can't file your deed because I object to two same sex names on the document.
I can't be your public defender because I object to your lifestyle.
I can't.... it can go on and on if this nonsense sets a precedent.
Posted by: qjersey | May 23, 2008 10:08:51 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_new_politics_on_gay_mar.html
Judges are imposing their morality upon the people again.
Government for the people, by the people (A. Lincoln) seems as distant a reality as the time the words were first spoken.
Posted by: Being Counted | May 23, 2008 11:40:52 AM
GAVIN NEWSOM, Is such a mayor of the people for the people....I'm just way too happy to know I have someone who understands his position and what he can do with that power.
Those Religious-Masochistics-freaks, need to stop working and go get a job at a church or elsewhere or just finally join their hittler ways...beacuse we are going no where...bitches!
Posted by: Bosie | May 23, 2008 12:00:22 PM
BEING COUNTED is like a big, nasty fly you can't shoo out the window.
Their stalling tactics are pathetically transparent, not that that will stop them. They know that if people see actual gay human beings getting married, just like anyone else, voters might actually view gay people as human beings and think twice before supporting the amendment. Humanizing gay people is what scares the bigots the most.
Posted by: Ernie | May 23, 2008 12:03:08 PM
It seems an odd choice to post an article maligning Obama for supporting gay rights on a gay discussion thread but thanks for the read!
I was actually apalled to learn that California's constitution could be amended by a voter ballot initiative, which required on 8% of voter signatures to get on the ballot. Talking about taking constitutinal rights lightly!
However, I think Kevin Norte makes a really convincing case that the November initiative to redefine marriage is no longer legal given the court's recent ruling. He argues that since the CA Supreme Court has interpreted basic rights for gays and lesbians as arising from the CA constitution (and established the highest level of judicial scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), under California case law and regulations the November intiative should now be understood as a constitutional revision and not simply a contitutional amendment. Such a revision to constitutionally founded rights would (more appropriately!) require a constitutional convention, and not a voter initiative.
Norte's a Log Cabinner, but I think his argument is very compelling and spot-on. This is a unique case because amendments generally have extended rights (and thus could be considered additive), not taken them away (which would make them revisions). I hope it is given serious consideration in CA.
You can read the article here:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm
Posted by: GBM | May 23, 2008 12:28:56 PM
That's interesting, GBM, the initiative itself should be uncontitutional under California's Constitution.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 23, 2008 12:40:06 PM
And of course, there's always the "nuclear option."
If the amendment passes, the CSC could rule since because marriage is now reserved for heterosexuals (in spite of their judgment that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" under the equal protection clause), ***all*** marriages are inherently unconstitutional. This means the Legislature would have to repeal the Marriage Act of 1977. In effect, this would make California the first U.S. to abolish civil marriage.
The only way to avoid complying with a "nuclear option" would be to hold a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the whole document from scratch. And that requires the approval of 2/3 of the Legislature.
Posted by: John | May 23, 2008 12:50:29 PM
Dear BEING COUNTED,
You appear to believe that everything in the United States should be decided based on popular vote. It that were the case, it is likely that women would still be unable to vote, southern states would allow white people to own African American slaves and people of two different racial groups would not be able to marry anywhere in America. Now, I know that scenario probably sounds like heaven to you, BEING COUNTED, but the fact of the matter is that the United States is not, and never has been, a pure democracy in which everything is decided by popular vote. No, the founders of the United States set it up as a constitutional republic, endowing each of the three branches of the government with certain powers. One of the goals of this division of power was to keep the majority from trampling the rights of a minority. That is why the judicial branch was given the power to interpret the laws to decide whether or not they are constitutional. The judges aren't imposing their morality on anyone...they are simply making sure wingnuts like you can't oppress a minority.
Now, BEING COUNTED...why don't you FUCK OFF AND DIE!
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | May 23, 2008 1:11:27 PM
The sad truth is that we often label these opponents as 'stupid' or 'uninformed', but the reality is that they have severe behavioral problems, and - quite frankly - are just stubborn.
"So I just asked that since women can vote now, does that mean we should give animals the right to vote, to which they said yes... at that point I ended the discussion..." -Mike
... STUBBORN, snobby, 'know they're the majority', fat-heads that think they can twist anything around the way they want - no matter how absurd it is (and they know it is); but none of that matters because - they 'know their in the majority' and can (& WILL) just walk off and giggle at the stupid shit they get away with.
I would go so far as to say this fear of '[gay?]-marriage' is the same kind of irrational behavior people get when they see certain insects...you know, the one where some people go bat-shit-crazy out of their away to stomp-out-of-life a creature which couldn't possibly have any affect on their own lives.
Posted by: Jake | May 23, 2008 1:39:25 PM
To the people who are against gay marrage, I am not sleeping in your home so stay out of mine. My commitment to my partner means as much to me as your commitment does to you. We are human we have feelings and love just the same as anyone. We deserve the same EQUALITY.
Posted by: duane Harris | May 23, 2008 1:47:53 PM
What's funny about BEING COUNTED's,
"... seems as distant a reality as the time the words were first spoken"
is that it's actually more-so these days that the 'people' (mindless masses) are having more and more input in things that !ought not to be their buisness anyway!. The US has taken a strange turn (for the worst apparently) where its citizens are essentially taking a dump on the constitution and the traditions of those who came before them...(everybody justs wants to impose their 'own way' - and 'thats FINAL!')
Posted by: FU 'Being Counted' | May 23, 2008 1:55:19 PM
PETERPARKER, BEING COUNTED is STEPHEN!!!!!
You certainly remember him!
For those of you who weren't around about a year ago, BEING COUNTED is a troll who used to go by the name STEPHEN.
PETERPARKER and I exposed him for lying about who he was and ANDY (after discovering he was using MANY different screen names to support his opinion, and after he showed his true colors and told me and PETERPARKER that we were perverted queer scum who were going to burn in hell) banned STEPHEN and all of his incarnations.
STEPHEN/BEING COUNTED is a fundamentalist troll who is more than willing to lie and cheat to try to make a point.
He usually plays compassion troll but PETERPARKER and I can assure you that just beneath his compassion facade is a very bitter, ugly, homophobic man.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE IGNORE HIM AND DO NOT RESPOND TO HIM NO MATTER HOW INFURIATING HE MAY BE.
Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 2:29:38 PM
Buh-bye BEING COUNTED!
Caught and flushed again!
Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 3:00:38 PM
GBM: nice try, but no, the amendment process allows statutory revision, which is applicable under this ruling. Remember that the SSC ruled that the legislature was in violation of equal protection because it granted domestic partnerships to gays and lesbians, which is a statutory provision. The legislature could eliminate domestic partnerships, thereby voiding the recent ruling. Sorry.
The danger the petitioners face is that if they get their injunction and the amendment fails, it would ipso facto be a popular acceptance of gay marriage, just as conservatives have demanded.
Posted by: anon | May 23, 2008 4:42:19 PM
"Being Counted" is a fool. Thank you Peter Parker for saying what you did because you and most everyone here is completely right.
Personally, I come from a conservative family and I personally claim to be a moderate who leans more towards the left. A lot of my friends tend to be split between GOP and Dems. My GOP friends are actually happy that the CSC reversed P-22. The believe that P-22 was a move by the wingnuts to instill fear and scare people to vote to ban gay marriage. They knew that a movement to legalize gay marriage was inevitable so they preyed upon the non-gay public who were not very knowledgeable on the subject in the first place. The wingnuts cited that the destruction of marriage was part of the so-called "gay agenda," which in turn drove people to fear it and vote for P-22. My GOP friends agree that this was a deplorable act and that such a proposition should not have existed in the first place.
Now I do have one GOP friend who, quite bluntly, is a fool. He is gay himself. He says that the CSC overturning this wiped out his vote for P-22; thereby, disenfranchising him as a voter. He mocks the Dems saying that they're the ones who are gung-ho for ALL votes counting yet he fails to realize that our constitution is designed to work that way. He doesn't understand, as Peterparker said, that the US has never been a true democracy. The majority cannot be allowed to vote for the rights of the minority, which is why we have such a system in place. I even cited previous cases to him that were parallel to this; such as the vote to ban interracial marriage, which overwhelmingly passed and was overturned. Amendments, from my knowledge, never actually taken away rights from anyone and if this new proposition is put on the ballot, it would be undermining everything that this country is supposed to be and will set precedence for even more harsh things to come.
Sorry for talking a little much here, it's just that I am so fired up about this. At 22 years of age and just graduating today, I find it exciting and nerve wracking to be right in the middle of this. I am witnessing history and the future and I'll be damned if anyone is going to make this future bad for us and inevitably, themselves.
If there is anyone who is pro-ban on here, know this: Granting rights, granting EQUALITY is NOT going to hurt you or any other straight people. It won't cause you unhappiness, emotional or physical pain. There will be a time of adjustment but you must realize that change is inevitable and you will adapt. By voting yes on the possible ban, you will be the first to take away the rights of those equal to you. You will cause a pain so deep that it will forever affect the integrity of this country.
I have a Golden State Warriors playoff shirt from last year's playoffs that says, "WE BELIEVE" and I think I am soo going to wear it!
Posted by: Nate | May 23, 2008 4:52:54 PM
Sorry for all the grammar errors, weird sentences, run-on ideas, and unorganized thoughts... I didn't proof read and I am exhausted from today's events.
Posted by: Nate | May 23, 2008 4:55:30 PM
ZEKE...thank you for pointing out what I had not yet put together, that BEING COUNTED is the troll formerly known as STEPHEN...now it makes all the sense in the world...I urge everyone to follow ZEKE's advice and simply ignore BEING COUNTED/STEPHEN
Posted by: peterparker | May 23, 2008 4:59:04 PM
Just delete all his comments as well. He wants to be read but we don't want to read him. Flush him out completely.
Posted by: VestibuleSublevel | May 23, 2008 5:26:34 PM
Andy banned STEPHEN/BEING COUNTED again.
He wasn't banned because of his opinions on marriage equality. He had every right to express them no matter how offensive they may be to some. Andy has never banned or censured ANYONE for having a differing opinion from the majority.
He was banned because he was caught lying and misrepresenting himself AGAIN.
That was part of why he got banned the first time so he had a lot of nerve sneaking back on and within 24 hours doing one of the things that got him thrown off Towleroad once already. It was just a matter of time before he started posting under multiple names in order to make it look like a lot of people shared his opinion.
Thanks Andy for not allowing dishonest trolls to use your site as their playground.
Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 8:34:35 PM
Does anyone have any definitive answer as to how these latest court proceedings will affect gay marriage in California? Will we really have to wait another 30 to 60 days in addition to the normal one-month waiting period after the Supreme Court hands down a decision? I've heard and read a bunch of different scenarios (some people say it won't affect anything, some say we'll have to wait until the judges make a decision on this lastest request, etc.). Any info or links?
Posted by: Golden.Girls | May 23, 2008 9:59:46 PM
"In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation [...] We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples"
Anon, how in the world would the statutory elimination of domestic partnerships "void" this ruling?
Posted by: GBM | May 24, 2008 12:23:10 AM
http://blogcabinca.org/2008/05/21/can-an-initiative-abolish-constitutional-rights/
I looked at Log Cabin Republican Kevin Norte's strict constructionist approach to the California Constitution and blew it off at first. But then there was the ruling in Oregon that found that there was no right to marry found in the right to privacy and therefore it was not a revision and it was permitted to be voted upon. I said wait a minute, the CA case found that the right to marry was in the right to privacy and a fundamental right plus it was in the right to personal autonomy, due process, and equal protection. I asked myself, how could the voter initiative address parts of the constitution that are not addressed in the initiative. Now I think that Log Cabin Republicans may actualy serve a purpose. No one else is suggesting that it is illegal on its face. I hope the rpejudices against those guys are ignored and that someone listens to them.
Posted by: Justin S | May 29, 2008 6:59:30 AM
More comments by that author of amendment versus revision:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=134494511&blogID=404835490
Posted by: Justin S | Jun 12, 2008 1:40:59 PM