PDA

View Full Version : CA Supreme Court Got One Right!



Essex502
08-12-2004, 02:00 PM
Calif. Court Voids S.F. Gay Marriages
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The court said the city's decision to issue the licenses and perform the ceremonies violated a 1977 state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages performed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings.
About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and tuxedos, waited on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and some cried when the decision was read.
While the same-sex marriages had little more than symbolic value, their nullification 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 court focused its ruling on the limits of local government authority, and did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage. That question will have to wait as lawsuits over the gay weddings and the 1977 state law rise through the court system.
Chief Justice Ronald George, writing for the majority, noted that Thursday's ruling doesn't address "the substantive legal rights of same sex couples." Instead, it insists that local officials can't legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.
"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,"
George wrote.
Anti-gay-marriage groups hailed the ruling, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom acted prematurely.
"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 in its lawsuit.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who challenged the city's gay marriages directly to the Supreme Court, said Thursday that he regards it "as a ruling that simply says rule of law, rule of law, rule of law. That's how we govern our society."
But Newsom was defiant at a news conference at City Hall, where he appeared with city officials, many of them gay and lesbian, and spoke to a number of couples who he had allowed to get married. He said his "heart was heavy" that the marriages were voided, but vowed to carry on the city's constitutional challenge.
"There is nothing that any court decision or politician can do that will take that (wedding) moment away," Newsom said. "I'm proud of those 4,000 couples."
San Francisco's gay weddings and a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage there prompted President Bush to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year.
The justices said when they agreed to hear the case that they would entertain a challenge arguing that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution, if ever such a lawsuit reached the high court.
Gay and lesbian couples immediately took up their invitation, were countersued, and the cases were consolidated. Legal briefs are due in September in San Francisco Superior Court, and the Supreme Court won't likely hear the case for another year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter.
Newsom argued that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. He cited 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, 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."
Jordan Lorence, the fund's attorney, said the court "has sent a message to say this is not the way you change the legal system, by defying the rule of law."
A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court last year to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. San Francisco's wedding march helped fed the culture war in statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide.
Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and 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.
Reprinted without permission of Yahoo News or Associated Press

HighRoller
08-12-2004, 02:26 PM
Amazing that a mayor can violate the law like that, create all this drama and still have his job. Must be nice to have a job as a politician.

Dr. Eagle
08-12-2004, 02:28 PM
If W did something this far out of line... he'd be impeached... :eat:

HighRoller
08-12-2004, 02:38 PM
Exactly. He proposes to try and get something done by following the procedures and the rule of law, and you would think he committed high treason. Some liberal nutjob just bypasses the law and starts handing out marriage licenses to whomever walks in and nobody says a damn thing. I wish somebody would have gone and gotten a marriage license with their pet or a houseplant. That would be some conversation piece!

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 02:52 PM
I'm curious why you think that gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage has two parts.
1. The religous ceremony & commitment before god to join two lives.
2. The legal contract being signed when getting a state marriage license.
The state can not change religous belief & doctrine and I serously doubt that the catholic church (or any other for that matter) will ever say that despite whatever it says in the bible, we will go ahead and perform gay marriages if the state allows it. Religon should not be a consideration. The scantity of religous marriage will be safe as long as the heads of the churches protect it.
As far as the legal contract portion of marriage goes, who cares if two people want to combine their finances and give someone else certain legal rights to make decisions on their behalf. This does not stop homosexuality or change the way people will live their lives.
So what is the big deal?

Dr. Eagle
08-12-2004, 02:59 PM
I'm curious why you think that gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage has two parts.
1. The religous ceremony & commitment before god to join two lives.
2. The legal contract being signed when getting a state marriage license.
The state can not change religous belief & doctrine and I serously doubt that the catholic church (or any other for that matter) will ever say that despite whatever it says in the bible, we will go ahead and perform gay marriages if the state allows it. Religon should not be a consideration. The scantity of religous marriage will be safe as long as the heads of the churches protect it.
As far as the legal contract portion of marriage goes, who cares if two people want to combine their finances and give someone else certain legal rights to make decisions on their behalf. This does not stop homosexuality or change the way people will live their lives.
So what is the big deal?
Well I never said it was wrong.... per se. I think it is abnormal behavior, however, I tend to say live and let live. I don't understand why society should sanction this abnormal behavior and even encourage it with the benefits of a legal marriage.
What I do say is it was illegal when the mayor decided to offer the marriage licenses, and the Mayor of SF broke the law, very clearly. IMHO if he broke the law, he should face consequences. But there is no talk of that... is that right?

HighRoller
08-12-2004, 03:18 PM
I'm curious why you think that gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage has two parts.
1. The religous ceremony & commitment before god to join two lives.
2. The legal contract being signed when getting a state marriage license.
The state can not change religous belief & doctrine and I serously doubt that the catholic church (or any other for that matter) will ever say that despite whatever it says in the bible, we will go ahead and perform gay marriages if the state allows it. Religon should not be a consideration. The scantity of religous marriage will be safe as long as the heads of the churches protect it.
As far as the legal contract portion of marriage goes, who cares if two people want to combine their finances and give someone else certain legal rights to make decisions on their behalf. This does not stop homosexuality or change the way people will live their lives.
So what is the big deal?
I'm curious about why, using your rationale, gay marriage should be allowed? Obviously religion does not condone gay marrriage, but that's between the church and its members.
So now you say people should get married for the financial benefits? Since when is this something to base a marriage on? Gays have had civil unions for decades in many states, which give them legal and financial rights.
Marriage has been defined(since the beginning of unions) as the union between one man and one woman etc..etc...where is there any ambiguity in this? Marriage has also been the bedrock upon which civilization has been built and renewed for thousands of years. It was designed to facilitate procreation and provide a stable environment for the next generation to be nurtured within. Basically, marriage has always had a vital purpose in our society. Gay marriage, IMO, has no purpose other than to provide legitimacy to an abnormal lifestyle. It offers no benefit to society other than temporarily bonding people whose lifestyle is well known for its promiscuity.
I defy anyone to tell me, based on the argument in favor of this, how we deny those who come next with children and multiple partners wanting to get married? What if I want to marry my brother to get his benefits and so we can save money on our taxes? The financial argument is a weak one, at best.

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 03:19 PM
I don't understand why society should sanction this abnormal behavior and even encourage it with the benefits of a legal marriage.
What good has come from discouraging gay marriage? Are there fewer gay people? It seems that a lot of people don't want homosexuaity to exist & I can understand why, but no amount of acceptance or disapproval will ever change the way a person feels. There is not one less gay person in the world because of this ruling, so what changed? Don't we have better things to concern ourselves with?
What I do say is it was illegal when the mayor decided to offer the marriage licenses, and the Mayor of SF broke the law, very clearly. IMHO if he broke the law, he should face consequences. But there is no talk of that... is that right?
I agree mayors should not be above the law, but I'm curious what law was broken & what the punishment should be for unathorized marriages.

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 03:37 PM
So now you say people should get married for the financial benefits? Since when is this something to base a marriage on? Gays have had civil unions for decades in many states, which give them legal and financial rights.
I wouldn't say that should be a reason to get married, gay or not. Civil unions aren't the same as a marriage contract & In theory isn't a civil union the same thing as a marriage contract?
Marriage has been defined(since the beginning of unions) as the union between one man and one woman etc..etc...where is there any ambiguity in this? There isn't. Its very clear that is the biblical defination of it & is what our laws were based on.
Marriage has also been the bedrock upon which civilization has been built and renewed for thousands of years. It was designed to facilitate procreation and provide a stable environment for the next generation to be nurtured within. Basically, marriage has always had a vital purpose in our society. True, but rarely does that reflect the current state of marriage today with half ending in divorse and part of the other half being an unhappy marriage.
Gay marriage, IMO, has no purpose other than to provide legitimacy to an abnormal lifestyle. It offers no benefit to society other than temporarily bonding people whose lifestyle is well known for its promiscuity. Guys are guys, gay or not almost all of us are known for our promiscuity.
I defy anyone to tell me, based on the argument in favor of this, how we deny those who come next with children and multiple partners wanting to get married? What if I want to marry my brother to get his benefits and so we can save money on our taxes? The financial argument is a weak one, at best.
I'm on the fence here, while I think the right environment for a child is to have a male & female role model for them to grow up with, there are a lot of children who could benefit from a loving home. I'm not convinced that any two people who love each other & want a child to love wouldn't be better than having a child feel unloved.
You did make me consider one new aspect though. I can see companies not wanting to cover the cost for covering another person under their plans, but either the company picks up the tab or eventually our taxes will so it looks like we might get screwed either way on that one.

HM
08-12-2004, 03:42 PM
I'm curious why you think that gay marriage is wrong.
Marriage has two parts.
1. The religous ceremony & commitment before god to join two lives.
2. The legal contract being signed when getting a state marriage license.
The state can not change religous belief & doctrine and I serously doubt that the catholic church (or any other for that matter) will ever say that despite whatever it says in the bible, we will go ahead and perform gay marriages if the state allows it. Religon should not be a consideration. The scantity of religous marriage will be safe as long as the heads of the churches protect it.
As far as the legal contract portion of marriage goes, who cares if two people want to combine their finances and give someone else certain legal rights to make decisions on their behalf. This does not stop homosexuality or change the way people will live their lives.
So what is the big deal?
Are you trying to tell us something?? Do I hear a closet door creaking open? :rollside: :sqeyes:
note to eric:get back to work on your v-drive.

HighRoller
08-12-2004, 03:48 PM
There isn't. Its very clear that is the biblical defination of it & is what our laws were based on.
Actually, pick up your nearest dictionary and look up marriage. It's not just defined a certain way in the bible.
As far as half of marriages ending up in divorce, that number is inaccurate. Every time a marriage is dissolved, they count that as two people getting divorced. For every one divorce you have two "divorced" people, so the actual number of marriages that end is closer to 20-25%. Viewing these statistics, I think it's even more crucial to strengthen and clearly define marriage to protect its benefits. The benefits of marriage are much larger than financial issues and were not handed to us by the government.
While I understand parts of your argument about marriage in the religious context, that is a two edged sword. If you disallow any part of that religious aspect, I could say that marriage is a religious ceremony and anyone who is not religious cannot be married because marriage began in the church. Just something for you to think about.

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 03:48 PM
Are you trying to tell us something?? Do I hear a closet door creaking open? :rollside: :sqeyes:
note to eric:get back to work on your v-drive.
Why? Are you interested frank?
As far as the v-drive, I'm kind of at a stand still until I can get the motor back in. but its getting closer see (http://classicboatbeachbash.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=304&st=45)

HM
08-12-2004, 04:11 PM
Why? Are you interested frank?
As far as the v-drive, I'm kind of at a stand still until I can get the motor back in. but its getting closer see (http://classicboatbeachbash.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=304&st=45)
LOL. Not as far as you know.
Back on topic. Once you cross the line of what defines marraige, what is to stop other marraiges like HR said? Brother to brother, multiple people getting married, and etc. They have civil unions to gain rights as couples. Marraige is so Hetero anyway....why do they want to be married? This group is still having issues with who they are.

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 04:15 PM
Actually, pick up your nearest dictionary and look up marriage. It's not just defined a certain way in the bible. Your right its not just the bible, but I'm not aware of any older deffinitions of marriage. There might be, but none that I'm aware of.
As far as half of marriages ending up in divorce, that number is inaccurate. Every time a marriage is dissolved, they count that as two people getting divorced. For every one divorce you have two "divorced" people, so the actual number of marriages that end is closer to 20-25%. Viewing these statistics, I think it's even more crucial to strengthen and clearly define marriage to protect its benefits. The benefits of marriage are much larger than financial issues and were not handed to us by the government.
I'll take your word for it on the statistics, It make sence. I was just trying to point out that marriage as the bedrock of society idea is as shakey as our success at marriage as a society.
While I understand parts of your argument about marriage in the religious context, that is a two edged sword. If you disallow any part of that religious aspect, I could say that marriage is a religious ceremony and anyone who is not religious cannot be married because marriage began in the church. Just something for you to think about.
The religous aspect is just a seperate part, and it should be. Not everyone belives the same thing. It makes me laugh when people who don't belive in god go to a church & get married before a minister. Whats the point, why not have ships captain or a judge do it? If you don't belive in god why get married in a church? or have a minster perform the ceremony, its hipocritical.
Marriage is a religous ceremony. But it has been changed into a legal contract by our government, with benefits and drawbacks. For me my marriage began at my ceremony where I made vows to my wife before god & my family, not when I signed my license. In my eyes if you don't belive in god, then you are "legaly married" & thats it. I don't think that marriages between athiests should be disallowed. It should be the same as anyone else. Everyone equal athiest or christian, gay or strait same laws and benefits for all regarless of belifs or preference. But I would understand if a church wouldn't perform a ceremoney for them. Its meaningless if you don't belive in what you are saying. Some religons require conversion before allowing a marrige to take place in their churches. Thats why I could care less about gay marriages. Its a legal title that doesn't mean anything to me or effect me.

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 04:23 PM
LOL. Not as far as you know.
Back on topic. Once you cross the line of what defines marraige, what is to stop other marraiges like HR said? Brother to brother, multiple people getting married, and etc. They have civil unions to gain rights as couples. Marraige is so Hetero anyway....why do they want to be married? This group is still having issues with who they are.
I agree they have issues. But our approval or disapproval isn't going to change that. I'm fine with civil unions, it seems like the same thing in theory, a joining of two individuals just like marriage, only without some of the benefits so its not really equal, its kind of legal marriage light.
As far as the brother to brother thing, since that is family I think you would have some rights similar to marriage based on being family alone.

uclahater
08-12-2004, 04:30 PM
I agree they have issues. But our approval or disapproval isn't going to change that. I'm fine with civil unions, it seems like the same thing in theory, a joining of two individuals just like marriage, only without some of the benefits so its not really equal, it kind of legal marriage light.
As far as the brother to brother thing, since that is family I think you would have some rights similar to marriage based on being family alone.
Once gay marriage is approved :( The gay communitys next step is to get it taught in school at the kindergarten age, that homosexuality is normal) :2purples: With each new right they get they pursue more at our expense :eek:
Isnt that the parents job to teach there kids about these things.

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 04:32 PM
LOL. Not as far as you know.
Once you cross the line of what defines marraige, what is to stop other marraiges like HR said?
Your married frank, how do you define your marriage?
If the supreme court ruled that you weren't married anymore would you still consider yourself married & if so on whos/what authority?

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 04:37 PM
Once gay marriage is approved :( The gay communitys next step is to get it taught in school at the kindergarten age, that homosexuality is normal) :2purples: With each new right they get they pursue more at our expense :eek:
Isnt that the parents job to teach there kids about these things.
I wasn't aware that you could teach someone to be gay, could someone teach you to be gay?
I don't know about you but when I had sex ed in school they did talk about homosexuality too. Good thing I ditched school that day & went surfing or I might have learned how to be gay. :jawdrop:

uclahater
08-12-2004, 04:39 PM
I don't know about you but when I had sex ed in school they did talk about homosexuality too. . :jawdrop:
Did you go to school in hollywood:confused:

Tom Foolery
08-12-2004, 04:47 PM
Did you go to school in hollywood:confused:
Nope, Torrance.

uclahater
08-12-2004, 04:54 PM
Nope, Torrance.
Do you really think that at 5 years old any kid needs to learn about sex :hammerhea

Dr. Eagle
08-12-2004, 06:15 PM
:idea: What good has come from discouraging gay marriage? Are there fewer gay people? It seems that a lot of people don't want homosexuaity to exist & I can understand why, but no amount of acceptance or disapproval will ever change the way a person feels. There is not one less gay person in the world because of this ruling, so what changed? Don't we have better things to concern ourselves with?
I agree mayors should not be above the law, but I'm curious what law was broken & what the punishment should be for unathorized marriages.
Whether there are fewer gay people because gay marriage is sanctioned or not is irrelevent. Homosexuality does exist and I say if someone is comfortable with that lifestyle, fine. But I don't need to legally sanction it and encourage it. And as far as myself, I am not concerned with it the subject at all. I am not the one making it an issue... gays are. As far as I can see... there is nothing to be considered at all.
You clearly missed the point. There is a state law, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The people that got marriage licenses didn't do anything wrong at all. The MAYOR did break the state law by authorizing his city clerk to authorize and distribute marriage licenses to same sex couples.
It's about the mayor deciding he was right and the legislature wrong by just ignoring that law.

SoCalOffshore
08-12-2004, 06:36 PM
Marraige is between a man and a woman. If you don't understand that, then there is no use trying to explain it. Although, I am sure one day same sex marraige will be as common as male/female marrainge. Dont get your hopes up regarding the CA Supreme Court, they just shot down the mayor taking it upon himself to handout marraige licenses. I am sure they will rule later that the CA Constitution allows same sex marraiges. Then someday adult and child marraiges and animal/human and then..... :confused:

Dr. Eagle
08-12-2004, 06:40 PM
Marraige is between a man and a woman. If you don't understand that, then there is no use trying to explain it. Although, I am sure one day same sex marraige will be as common as male/female marrainge. Dont get your hopes up regarding the CA Supreme Court, they just shot down the mayor taking it upon himself to handout marraige licenses. I am sure they will rule later that the CA Constitution allows same sex marraiges. Then someday adult and child marraiges and animal/human and then..... :confused:
Dogs and cats.... Living together......... MASS HYSTERIA....... Ghostbusters...
Oh, wrong thread!
I think you are right... they just plumbed up the mayor for breaking the law. I am sure that law will be stricken down sooner or later... after all this is the peoples republic of kleeforneeah...

HM
08-12-2004, 11:18 PM
Your married frank, how do you define your marriage?
If the supreme court ruled that you weren't married anymore would you still consider yourself married & if so on whos/what authority?
My wife defines it as was mine is hers and what hers is hers. :)
A union between man and woman, husband and wife. That is it. No if's and's or but's about it. Pretty straight forward.
The gay community has made progress with civil unions. IF They want more rights, continue getting more rights with civil unions. The fact that they do not shows that there is an alterior motive to destroy any symbol that differentiates them from normal.
The SF mayor is a moron. His actions show this groups complete disregard for law yet claims his actions in the name of the constitution - can you say "Captain, that is illogical." If they don't like the law, work on getting it changed. If they can't get it changed, suffer the consequences or move to France.

Tom Foolery
08-13-2004, 06:41 AM
:idea:
You clearly missed the point. There is a state law, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The people that got marriage licenses didn't do anything wrong at all. The MAYOR did break the state law by authorizing his city clerk to authorize and distribute marriage licenses to same sex couples.
It's about the mayor deciding he was right and the legislature wrong by just ignoring that law.
I don't think I missed the point, I wasn't asking about the mayor or what the law is. I was just instered in why you & others who think like you feel the way you do against gay marriage, because to me I could care less.
So far what I've heard is that Marriage should be between a man & a woman & that homosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged or condoned by the government. (Certainly a popular oppinion)
And the reasons we've heard why it should not be allowed is that people will use it to marry their brothers for tax reasons, gays will use it as a stepping stone to teach homosexuality to kindergardners and gays are trying to legitiemizie their lifestyle to make it more normal to society.
(So far only the last one seems like the only rational reason)
Here is my thought. Most people do not like homosexuality. They don't want it to exist they don't want to see it or hear it or have their kids exposed to it. But fewer will come outright and say that they hate it and all gays. So instead they say they understand it will exist, but take actions to make life difficult for gays wherever possible.
When it comes down to it, whether the state performes gay marriages or not I can't see how it will change our day to day lives.
Before the modern government existed and started getting involved in marriage it was a religous ceremony only. That is where the core of marriage is. Without religon all marriage is just a civil union, a legal contract signed between two people.
So why is a civil union ok but a legal marriage isn't? Seems like the same thing to me. True marriage (religous marriage) will never be allowed becuase it goes againt the religous doctrine. Therefor the scantity of marriage will always be protected.
Help me understand what we are trying to stop. What will happen if gay marriage is allowed?

Tom Foolery
08-13-2004, 06:42 AM
Do you really think that at 5 years old any kid needs to learn about sex :hammerhea
I don't think any 5 year old needs to learn about sex. When I went through school sex ed started in junior high.

CARGUY
08-13-2004, 02:17 PM
It is against the law--period, for right or wrong--who cares!! This was brought to the people of California, was voted on, and lost. What gives the Mayor the right to act unilaterally and say "I don't agree with that particular law, so I will issue these licenses anyway"? What's to keep him from saying "we need to raise money so let's sell pot out of city hall"? I know the severity of the comparison is not the same, but they are both still laws that have to be followed.
On the other side of the coin if this law was passed and gay marriages were legal, a mayor can't say "I will not issue a gay marriage license because I don't agree with the law"--that would be equally wrong.
Just my 02...