California | Gay Marriage | News | Virginia

Christian Legal Group Makes Last Minute Plea to Halt Gay Marriage

The Virginia-based Liberty Counsel petitioned the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco yesterday, asking them to halt same-sex marriages, claiming "that the wording of the California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages allows the lower court to set the terms and schedule for implementing the decision."

Lc_2The group argued that the high court's ruling "put dozens of state laws addressing marriage into conflict and that the Legislature needs time to address those issues," according to the AP.

Said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera: "I am not aware of a process in American law that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Oh no! Now there's only THREE DAYS left to stop the legions of Satan worshippers, a.k.a. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, from tying the knot and effectively destroying the souls of America's children. Pass the popcorn!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Martin_and_Phyllis_Lyon

    Posted by: John in Manhattan | Jun 13, 2008 7:16:40 AM


  2. There is so much about this country that makes me sad...probably the most sad for me is the state of religion. This country was founded so that people could practice their beliefs and not be persecuted or forced into a belief structure that they can't subscribe to. Yet, today's religious fundamentalists want to force their beliefs on everyone else. Furthermore, they want to corrupt American law and politics to achieve that goal.
    Another thing that makes me sad is how they can make blanket statements like "allowing gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and erode the family". Really? - How? They offer no proof. You know why? there is no proof because there is no evidence. There is no evidence, because there is no historical precedence since gays haven't ever been able to marry before. Yet, no one questions their assertions. No one challenges them on these two questions: "How does gay marriage PREVENT you from practicing your faith?" and "How does gay marriage PREVENT you from having and raising a family"...Religious freedom and "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are what the constitution promises them. They have a right to disagree with gayness. They have a right to speak out and protest. What they don't have a right to do is deprive other people from the same rights and freedoms they enjoy.

    Posted by: autrsc | Jun 13, 2008 8:07:08 AM


  3. While I know there is still a fight to be had with the November election, it is with sheer joy that I watch these religious wackos scramble to prevent it.

    The reason they throw these last ditch efforts to stop it, is because the know once it goes through many people look around and see that the state hasn't been sucked into hell, and for the most part not much as changed.

    These losers know the longer gays have the right to marry the less likely they will get it overturned. The ardented will always vot against the gays, but many others just buy into the scare tactics. But once this group sees that nothing much happens to "them". Then it is no big deal.

    Besides who could really say No to a couple like Del and Phyllis. Who have been together longer than most hetrosexual marriages.

    Posted by: kujhawker | Jun 13, 2008 8:18:07 AM


  4. What really pisses me off about this whole situation is how California has made this decision to go ahead with gay marriage and it's OTHER states that are trying to impose their will and stop them. How would Virginia like it if California sued them to make gay marriage legal because what Virginia does goes against California's beliefs? If anything California courts should bar organizations from other states from suing to influence California policy.

    Everyone has punted this ball up until now. The federal government says it's a state issue. The states say it's a court issue. The courts say it's a legislative issue. Maybe this should be a federal issue since everyone seems completely unable to handle it on their own.

    Posted by: MT | Jun 13, 2008 8:32:17 AM


  5. How come No-one ever brings up the fact that Heterosexual Convicted Murderers in Prison (even for Life) are allowed to marry? Yet a law abiding,tax paying LGBT American Can't? As a 47yr old..I now realize the words..Liberty & Justice for All...are just that...words...EMPTY WORDS.

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Jun 13, 2008 8:37:16 AM


  6. OOOOOOOOkay. So now the religious homophobes are asking an APPEALS COURT to OVERIDE a ruling by the SUPREME COURT.

    Good luck with that!

    It should be completely clear at this point, to ANYONE paying attention, that these people are not operating from a position of REASON or LAW but from a position of delussion and religion.

    AUTRSC, awsome comment! I couldn't agree with you more however it's the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution that declares that all mankind is endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    DISGUSTED AMERICAN, I've made that argument numerous times and the answer I always get back, after some stammering and stuttering, is that the institution and sanctity of marriage isn't changed by convicts marrying. I remind them that, according to most "sanctity of marriage" advocates the "sanctity" is 100% wrapped up in the "sanctity" of procreation that marriage provides and considering a person marrying a person on death row, or in prison for life, in MOST states can't procreate then their marriages DO change the tradition and sanctity of the institution. Then they inevitably come back with, "Well I don't think convicts should be allowed to marry anyway!" To which I respond, "Do you feel strongly enough about it to demand an amendment to the Constitution to prevent it?"

    At that point it's usually CHECK MATE; GAME SET AND MATCH!

    Posted by: Zeke | Jun 13, 2008 11:50:38 AM


  7. Well, it's not so much the forum--it's entirely plausible that the marriages could be put on hold for procedural reasons, as issued from a lower court ruling--it's that this group has no standing. The only ones who can sue are the county clerks or other state agents who find it unfeasible to go ahead by the given date. However, state officers are required to go through all normal administrative channels before appealing to the courts, so I just don't see anything to get excited about.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 13, 2008 12:15:21 PM


  8. It's encouraging to see so many reasoned opinions here about the latest attempt by the wing-nuts to keep gays and lesbians as third-class citizens. I especially like those posted by AUTRSC and Zeke. I think it's time to take the gloves off when dealing with evangelicals. It is time that their religion is exposed for the decadent myth that it is. Challenge and expose--that should be the strategy. Make those assholes PROVE their "religion" is based on any provable, verifiable, quantitative historical FACTS. I guarantee you will be met with silence, a sullen and hostile silence.

    Posted by: mike | Jun 13, 2008 1:45:40 PM


  9. No Mike, you missed the essential point. AUTRSC and ZEKE make winning arguments because they are based in logic and reason not by arguing "facts" with a religious hypocrite. The religious bigots will always win if the argument is pegged as facts v. religion. That would be trying to argue two wholly separate matters. Their trump card is "faith". The way to win is by the means enunciated by the Calif Supremes in their thoughtful and fulsome decision. It is a matter of discrimination and equal protection, not what one "believes" or does not believe.

    Thanks for taking up the legal cudgel, mi hermanito Zeke, but I will not tar you by accusing you of being a lawyer, merely admiring your juridical analysis (oh yeah, I went there).

    Posted by: rudy | Jun 13, 2008 4:03:55 PM


  10. Sorry RUDY but the legal analysis wasn't mine. I think you're referring to ANON's comment below mine. He makes an excellent point about the legal process and why this latest grasp at straws is going nowhere.

    Shucks, I don't know nuthin' 'bout no legal cudgels.

    ; )

    Posted by: Zeke | Jun 13, 2008 11:17:18 PM


  11. My big thing on the subject of the "sanctity of marriage" is how is it the governments responsibility to enforce or decide what institutions are "sanctified"? lets see them decide that motherhood is a "sanctified" state (which at least sounds plausible)and so only give MOTHERS custody. I'd like to see them OK a druggie moms custody over a sober father because its a "sanctified" relationship.

    Posted by: Flipper | Jun 14, 2008 3:31:58 PM


  12. When I saw the link for this story, my first thought was "please don't let them be from Virginia, please don't let them be...damn"
    I've neevr been especially proud to be from here, but now I'm a little bit ashamed.

    Posted by: Kerappy | Jun 15, 2008 11:48:33 AM


  13. Ive never understood why the church gets any say in what is essentially a legal aggreeement. In europe don't you go to the civil registry and take care of the legal stuff then go get your union blessed by whatever organization you choose? Can anyone tell me what the legal justification for a church to have it's nose in the private legal business of a non beleiver?

    Posted by: dw314 | Jun 16, 2008 3:18:38 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #307« «