breaking news: gay and lesbian marriages from san francisco voided

[bluemonq]

just heard this on the radio: the california supreme court UNANIMOUSLY said that sf mayor gavin newsom overstepped his powers in allowing the marriage certificates for same-sex couples, and stated that no more licenses are to be issued. that was expected. the big question was whether or not they'd also void the marriages that already occurred. answer: yes. all of the marriages that occurred in february are now considered null and void. onwards to the us supreme court!

EDIT: direct links to the court opinions
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122923.PDF <---- PDF format
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122923.DOC <--- MS Word format
----------
Calif. Top Court Annuls San Francisco Gay Marriages
Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:56 PM ET

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

The mayor of the liberal city 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 as it reviewed the city's actions.

A California law backed by a voter referendum defines marriage as a union of man and women, and polls show most Californians continue to oppose gay marriage.
----------
EDIT2: interesting; a commentator noted that the supreme court DID NOT rule whether or not same-sex marriages would be allowed by the california constitution, just that local officials can't unilaterally decide.

[hooligan]

I saw this on CNN. Damn. : (

[ism]

It's the correct legal assessment. They weren't deciding on the issue of gay marriage. They were deciding if the city violated a state law. The marriages are null and void until the constitutionality of the law the city violated is disproven. If the court decided the other way, it would make the court look 100% activist rather than judicial, and would have subverted the process. A dismaying decision, certainly, but I hope equality will be given the proper way so that is will be as immune to attack as possible.

[hooligan]

It's the correct legal assessment. They weren't deciding on the issue of gay marriage. They were deciding if the city violated a state law. The marriages are null and void until the constitutionality of the law the city violated is disproven. If the court decided the other way, it would make the court look 100% activist rather than judicial, and would have subverted the process. A dismaying decision, certainly, but I hope equality will be given the proper way so that is will be as immune to attack as possible.
Hmmm. Can that only come at the hands of Congress?

[Chester]

Hmmm. Can that only come at the hands of Congress? It would need to be done at either by legislative or judicial means -- at the state level, in this case.

[Chris]

It's the correct legal assessment. They weren't deciding on the issue of gay marriage. They were deciding if the city violated a state law. The marriages are null and void until the constitutionality of the law the city violated is disproven. If the court decided the other way, it would make the court look 100% activist rather than judicial, and would have subverted the process. A dismaying decision, certainly, but I hope equality will be given the proper way so that is will be as immune to attack as possible.


I have to agreed with Ism here. The ruling is correct. I can't dispute the ruling here. What our mayor did was wrong. Noble but still out of compliance of state and federal laws.

[Chester]

What our mayor did was wrong. Just semantics here, but I would say that what he did was right...merely technically illegal.

[Faithless]

The mayor maybe wrong, but he's got his own lawsuit going to challenge the law on the CA books.

So, he feels that the law is wrong.

[Chris]

Just semantics here, but I would say that what he did was right...merely technically illegal.

yeah. i should have repharse that. :)

[cmar]

Rosa Parks also violated the law when she refused to give up her seat to a white man on the bus. Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. Mayor Newsom did a heroic thing and the right thing.

[Faithless]

Rosa Parks also violated the law when she refused to give up her seat to a white man on the bus. Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. Mayor Newsom did a heroic thing and the right thing.
Very well put!

Rosa Parks and a lot more.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Rosa Parks was a representative of a non-governmental organization, and a private citizen. Newsom is a public official. Big difference. The use of administrative decisions rather than legislative action to determine which laws to enforce and which not to enforce is one of the most dangerous abuses of governmental power, and I don't want to see any more precedents set in that regard, no matter what worthy cause they might be in.

Legislatively speaking, gay marriage would arrive in California a lot sooner if the federal government stopped trying to turn it into a federal issue and push it through everywhere at once.

[Kuchana]

Rosa Parks was a representative of a non-governmental organization, and a private citizen. Newsom is a public official. Big difference. The use of administrative decisions rather than legislative action to determine which laws to enforce and which not to enforce is one of the most dangerous abuses of governmental power, and I don't want to see any more precedents set in that regard, no matter what worthy cause they might be in.

Legislatively speaking, gay marriage would arrive in California a lot sooner if the federal government stopped trying to turn it into a federal issue and push it through everywhere at once.

Very aptly put.

[Mr.Lum]

Sucks for gay folks.

[Chu Chi]

Rosa Parks also violated the law when she refused to give up her seat to a white man on the bus. Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. Mayor Newsom did a heroic thing and the right thing.


What is the legal definition of "marriage".

Until I understand that, Im I'll equipped to judge if a law was violated.

CC