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?'"
Posted 8:09 AM EST by Andy Towle 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:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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