CA Supreme Court annuls SF Gay Marriages

[lawrocket 3]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/nm/20040812/ts_nm/rights_gays_marriage_dc

Well, the Court did exactly what I thought it would do. SF had no business granting gay marriages in violation of California law. Of course, I think gay marriages should be allowed, but that is a different topic.

My bet? Odds on SF gubment refunding the amounts for marriage licenses are 1 million to one, which is a shame.

Gays have really been put through the ringer in this one, and I'm pissed all around, especially at the SF mayor for his new way of collecting revenues. The only thing I agree with is that the Cal Supreme Court followed the law, despite my viewpoints on the law.

***Calif. Top Court Annuls San Francisco Gay Marriages

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco on Thursday after finding the city acted improperly in granting marriage licenses earlier this year in defiance of state law.

The mayor of the liberal city, Gavin Newsom, ignited a passionate nationwide debate in February by allowing 4,037 same-sex couples to wed over a four-week period before the California high court halted them.


"We agree with petitioners that local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the court. "The same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect."


A California law backed by a voter referendum defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and polls show most Californians continue to oppose gay marriage.


In its decision, the justices focused on whether the mayor had the authority to marry gays rather than the broader arguments whether the state constitution must allow gay marriage. Briefs in a lawsuit raising the broader issue are expected before a lower court next month.


"The constitutional validity of California's statutory provisions limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is not before our court in this proceeding, and our decision in this case is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to reflect any view on that issue," the court wrote.


CONFIDENCE OVER NEXT LEGAL BATTLE


City officials expressed confidence about winning that next legal battle. "Obviously, I'm disappointed for the 4,000 couples," city attorney Dennis Herrera told Reuters. "I look forward to getting to the broad constitutional case."


"We still remain extremely confident with respect to our arguments and their potential for success on our equal protection claim under the state constitution."


The San Francisco weddings ignited celebrations among many gays who felt they deserved the same right to wed as other couples. It also made Newsom, the city's Democratic mayor, a national figure just weeks after taking office.


"No court can take away the love we share," said John Lewis, who married his partner Stuart Gaffney six months ago. The two wore tuxedos with purple bow ties and reacted as they stood in front of the state court building.


Yet the gay wedding brought criticism from Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites), and prompted President Bush (news - web sites) to call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman.


"The justices have restored the rule of law in California," said Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund which opposed the gay weddings. "The decision shows that same-sex 'marriage' is not inevitable."


The gay marriage debate has continued to rage ahead of the November presidential elections. In May, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to allow gay marriage. Last month the Republican-led House of Representatives approved a bill to curb same-sex marriage. (Additional reporting by Leonard Anderson)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/nm/20040812/ts_nm/rights_gays_marriage_dc

Well, the Court did exactly what I thought it would do. SF had no business granting gay marriages in violation of California law. Of course, I think gay marriages should be allowed, but that is a different topic.

My bet? Odds on SF gubment refunding the amounts for marriage licenses are 1 million to one, which is a shame.

Gays have really been put through the ringer in this one, and I'm pissed all around, especially at the SF mayor for his new way of collecting revenues. The only thing I agree with is that the Cal Supreme Court followed the law, despite my viewpoints on the law.

But in the other thread about CA child support, the court made a finding that you said was outside the law, and you appeared glad for it and supported it. You commended the court for doing what was "right."

Isn't that a double-standard?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Isn't that a double-standard?

Yes it is, and I indicated as much on the the other thread. When I have a double standard, I wear it, and wear it loudly. You know that by now, jeffrey!

This one is somewhat different - you've got a municipality attempting to bind all of California with something it does in contravention of state law. Municipalities cannot do something against state law, which is what SF did. In that sense, it was a good decision, and unfortunately the court could not fall back on equity.

In the other case, the court looke to equity - which has a storied history of trumping the law. Equity is fundamental fairness, and I argue it all the time. California law has it codified, in fact. California Civil Code section 3520 states, "No one should suffer for the act of another." Section 3523 states, "For every wrong there is a remedy."

In this sense, the court found a remedy for a wrong - the wrong that was done to Navarro. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever arguing that fairness trumps a law - especialy since it is considered one of the great tenets of jurisprudence that "the law abhors a forfeiture."

Navarro was wronged, and it should be remedied. Same with my wife's and my client. He was, quite simply, wronged, and I have no problem helping to right a wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

This one is somewhat different - you've got a municipality attempting to bind all of California with something it does in contravention of state law. Municipalities cannot do something against state law, which is what SF did.

Ahhh, but there's the problem. They thought the law contradicted another one about equal rights. They didn't just break the law. They did so in the process of following a different one, or so they believed.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

They did so in the process of following a different one, or so they believed.

Actually, they did so in the process of following a different one, or so they claim. It's kind of like the real reason we're in Iraq. "or so they believed."

Come on, kev. The real reason SF did it was revenue. They got money for doing it. Not just in the license fees, but for sales taxes, hotel taxes, and money pumped into SF by travelers. A brilliant business move by the mayor.

Actually, I think there was language on the licenses stating that they could not guarantee the validity of the licenses..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

We've been down this road. There is no law he could claim to have followed. There is very shaky judicial precedent for this, at best.

Like our favorite shuyster said, it was for the money.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Come on, kev. The real reason SF did it was revenue. They got money for doing it. Not just in the license fees, but for sales taxes, hotel taxes, and money pumped into SF by travelers. A brilliant business move by the mayor.

While there was a small boost in money, it was chump change in the scale of the budget and economy that San Francisco has. You're trivializing what he did by calling it a money game.

His reasons were political. In the scheme of things here, he is a conservative Democrat and his position was more than tenuous, esp with people angry over the recall process. Now he has an 85% approval rating. And he's young enough to run on this platform of civil rights and a business owner background when the rest of the country accepts the idea of gay marriage as a given.

[lawrocket 3]

You are correct there, too. We all love elected officials who do bad stuff, so long as their approval ratings go up! That asshole judge Roy Moore from Alabama who posted the Ten Commandments despite a court order had HUGE approval numbers. He's a nationally known guy, with a big future in elected politics.

Why shouldn't we revel and grant kudos to executive officals (like presidents, governors, mayors, etc?) who ignore laws they don't like?

FDR violates rights of Japanese Americans. His approval ratings skyrocketed. He had the guts to do what most thought needed to be done.

James Watt eviscerates the EPA. Businesses rejoice...

Nixon says law doesn't apply to him because he's president. Let's cheer some more!

Roy Moore says he'll do what he pleases with his 10 Commandments deal, despite a court order. Our hero!

Gavin Newsome, tasked with enforcing the law, disregards it to do what's right. You'd think a politician would know better how to respect a system....

"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?" -- M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC.

"What right does the State of California have to go around making a law just because they deem it necessary?" - Gavin Newsome????

SHouldn't he do things the right way? What would he do if businesses stopped collecting sales taxes because it's "the right thing to do?"

By the way, I think allowing gay marriages is the right thing to do. There's just a right way and a wrong way to "do the right thing."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

You drifted away from the Why question to the Should question. BTW, most of your examples are a restriction of rights for all, not an expansion, or to avoid criminal prosecution. Why is that?

And since you lead up to it, what would have been the right way for him to do it? Driving legislation isn't an option - CA voters already made their beliefs known with Prop 21. But rights aren't negotiable that way. Filing suit is problematic - I don't see how the City would have standing. Sitting around doing nothing, waiting for something to come of MA isn't a solution either.

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

It's kind of like the real reason we're in Iraq. "or so they believed."

SH using wmd against the kurds was truth, not belief.

SH never proving nor allowing the verification of the destruction of wmd he did have was truth, not belief.

Not a tangent into another thread here, just showing that (while i personally agree with you on the gay marriage issue) this is not a parallel analogy.

[tbrown 26]

Nobody has mentioned that in a very similar case, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that while the City Of Portland and Multnomah County had no such authority to sanction same sex marriages, the marriages performed were still valid. I believe Narcimund, one of our dot.com posters wrote a piece about his marriage in Portland and that it was still legally intact after the Oregon decision.

The point being that the Oregon decision is case law, which the California court apparently chose to disregard, disregarding the effect their decision would have on the 4000 couples (that's 8000 citizens) involved.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Kennedy 0]

Oregon state courts have no bearing on California state law, or the California Supreme Court.

I must have missed the post you're talking about. How can a marriage be valid if the person performing it has no authority to marry people?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[narcimund 0]

tbrown has it partly right. An Oregon trial judge ruled on the initial matter of the 3000 Multnomah County marriages. His ruling was long and complicated and covered several points.

The summary is that the 3000 Oregon marriages (including my own) are valid and that the state is obligated to continue performing them. He ordered the state to immediately finish registering the marriages and stop treating them as unequal. However, he issued a stay on the second ruling (that the marriages should continue) to give the state legislature time to meet in special session and reorganize laws to fit the constitutional requirements he found.

Meanwhile the state appellate court has passed on the matter and the state Supreme Court has accepted a fast-track appeal.

Meanwhile the citizen initiative to amend the state constitution against gay marriage has qualified for the ballot (with over twice the minimum required petition signatures) and polls are mixed.

And nothing is clear. The state registered our marriage but some official in the records division is being widely quoted as saying "It still doesn't make them marriages." And if the Supreme Court or the election goes against the marriages, it's not clear if (A) that affects the 3000 fait accompli or not and (B) if it will stand up to federal constitutional review.

Meanwhile I look at the whole thing and wince and keep going on with my day. My relationship is not dependent on government or social recognition (and neither should anyone's be) but I still think the whole thing is silly.

Edited to correct a detail.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

some official in the records division is being widely quoted as saying "It still doesn't make them marriages."

Popular opinion will take generations. I remember when I was leaving a summer waitress job in Houston in 1973; the head said after a black candidate walked out "the law says I have to take their application but it don't say I gotta hire them."

It wasn't right then.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)