SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Theben]

S.F. Sues State Over Bans on Gay Marriage


By Lee Romney
Times Staff Writer
Published February 20, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO — The city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against the state Thursday, challenging laws that bar gay marriage on grounds that they violate language in the California Constitution that forbids discrimination.

In filing Thursday's suit, city officials hope to focus the legal dispute on the constitutional issue of discrimination.

Opponents of the city's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples have tried to limit the case to a narrower issue: whether a mayor has the right to break state law.

"It goes to the heart of the question: Do we or do we not have the right to do this?" Newsom said at a midafternoon news conference. "It will force the debate and discussion. It was a good move."

Asked why the city hadn't pursued a lawsuit against the state to clarify the legal question before issuing the licenses, Newsom was frank: "We put a human face and a real story behind the theory of discrimination," he said.

The legal filing instantly upped the ante in the city's high-profile act of civil disobedience, requiring California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer to take a stand.

Although Newsom's staff said Lockyer had been advised in advance of the city's plan to begin marrying gays and lesbians, the state's top law enforcement officer had remained silent on the issue, saying he had not been asked to weigh in.

On Thursday he issued a statement saying that he did "not personally support policies that give lesser legal rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples than those provided to heterosexual couples."

"But the people of California have spoken," Lockyer said. "State law prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages. It is the duty of my office to defend that law against this challenge … and allow the courts to determine whether the city has acted illegally."

The state Family Code defines marriage as between "a man and a woman."

Furthermore, four years ago voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure that amended the Family Code to state that no same-sex marriages granted out of state would be honored in California and that only marriages "between a man and a woman" were valid.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reiterated his objection to same-sex marriages and promised that Lockyer would defend state law.

"The people of California spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when Prop. 22 was overwhelmingly passed in 2000," the governor said in a statement.

Officials in the state Department of Health Services have said they would not accept the altered marriage license forms, but San Francisco officials Thursday said it remained unclear whether that would have a bearing on the forms' validity.

Representatives of the Campaign for California Families are scheduled to appear before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay this afternoon to seek an immediate halt to the marriages.

The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, represented by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, appeared Tuesday before San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren with a similar request, which was denied.

The group and the city were ordered back to court March 29 to argue the merits of the case, giving San Francisco a free hand to continue with the marriages. Already, nearly 3,000 couples have wed in the city.

In a separate hearing scheduled for this morning, the city will seek to have the cases consolidated before Judge Warren. The Alliance Defense Fund, meanwhile, has asked that the hearing be consolidated before Judge Quidachay.

Richard Ackerman, an attorney for the Campaign for California Families, said he doubted that Lockyer could fairly represent the state, since he had been aware of the city's actions and had done "nothing to stop it."

Mathew Staver, president of Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which is serving as lead legal counsel on the case, called the city's suit "a blatant delay tactic" to derail the scheduled afternoon hearing and "put off the merits until later."

"This case is fairly simple," he said. "Can a mayor alter statewide marriage law? The clear answer is no."

But University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the California Constitution, said the lawsuit would help the city in its effort to have a court rule on the equal protection issue.

"It gets them closer," he said. "Now the issue of the underlying constitutionality of the state law is directly presented. It certainly puts them in a better posture than defending a claim that they have impinged on state authority."

Earlier than I expected. So what do you think the fallout's gonna be? Discuss.

[MichaeltheGreat]

A quick dismissal of San Fran's suit for lack of standing.

[Capt Dizle]

I am no lawyer, but wouldn't a case have to be brought by someone denied the right to gay marriage?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
A quick dismissal of San Fran's suit for lack of standing.

That's what I was thinking.

[Boris Godunov]

Side note:

A 62-year old consultant who is occasionally in our offices stopped me this morning to ask me about the SF thing. We talk politics a lot, and he's more on the conservative end (though not right-wing). He mentioned that a month ago or so he and his wife had a dinner party with several couples their own age where they all discussed the gay marriage issue, and they all agreed that civil unions were ok, but marriage shouldn't be touched.

Well, after seeing the SF marriages taking place, this past weekend he polled everyone in that group, and they all, to a person, had changed their minds and thought it was fine now. He couldn't explain why, but he himself had the same sentiment.

So I wonder if now that it is a fait accomplit in SF, it will have a dramatic impact on public opinion of this kind around the country. I think seeing the images of so many happy couples finally being able to get something for which they had ached for a long time warmed people's hearts.

[SpencerH]

An interesting comment.

I was watching some pundit or other whose comment kinda succinctly summed up what I think is the american viewpoint "americans are willing to be tolerant of gays and therefore accept the concept of civil unions but dont want to condone homosexuality and therefore dont accept gay marriage".

Maybe that attitude will be changed when toads etc dont rain from the heavens over SF.

[Solly]

"I think seeing the images of so many happy couples finally being able to get something for which they had ached for a long time warmed people's hearts."

Yeah..with acid from puking..

[Boris Godunov]

I said people, not knuckle-dragging neanderthals like yourself.

[Ben Kenobi]

A quick dismissal of San Fran's suit for lack of standing.

Yup.

Heard this, seen this already.

Now, if they had just let California work things out, but now? First you challenge the law, and now you sue the California government to change the law? Their only rationale is that they feel they are 'being ignored.'

[uh Clem]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Side note:

A 62-year old consultant who is occasionally in our offices stopped me this morning to ask me about the SF thing. We talk politics a lot, and he's more on the conservative end (though not right-wing). He mentioned that a month ago or so he and his wife had a dinner party with several couples their own age where they all discussed the gay marriage issue, and they all agreed that civil unions were ok, but marriage shouldn't be touched.

Well, after seeing the SF marriages taking place, this past weekend he polled everyone in that group, and they all, to a person, had changed their minds and thought it was fine now. He couldn't explain why, but he himself had the same sentiment.

So I wonder if now that it is a fait accomplit in SF, it will have a dramatic impact on public opinion of this kind around the country. I think seeing the images of so many happy couples finally being able to get something for which they had ached for a long time warmed people's hearts.

I've been wondering about this for the past week. What struck me about photos and video from SF is how unmistakeably ordinary everyone looks. But then why wouldn't they?

What's happened in San Francisco has changed the terms of debate dramatically IMO. It's going to become much more difficult for bigots and hate-mongers to portray gay marriage as some form of perversion, when TV viewers have seen only people who obviously love each other deeply.

Bravo, SF.

[FS*]

Um, IMHO, this is all just full of warm fuzzies, but it would be grimly interesting to see if there are a raft of divorces coming up in oh, say anywhere from a week to 6 months... in the SF area.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

hahahah.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

caught my first one.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by FS*
Um, IMHO, this is all just full of warm fuzzies, but it would be grimly interesting to see if there are a raft of divorces coming up in oh, say anywhere from a week to 6 months... in the SF area.

Why would all these couples, who have been committed to each other for a long time already, up and decide to get divorced within the next few weeks?

[Boris Godunov]

And it has spread to New Mexico:

http://www.denverpost.com/cda/articl...968558,00.html

[Boris Godunov]

Accursed DP

[FS*]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




Why would all these couples, who have been committed to each other for a long time already, up and decide to get divorced within the next few weeks?

All these couples? A rather broad assumption there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And it has spread to New Mexico:

http://www.denverpost.com/cda/articl...968558,00.html

They seem to have more a leg to stand on give the current vagueness of the law in New Mexico.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed, DD. While I'm for gay marriages, it is amusing to see people back San Fran against California's law, while a few months ago they wanted the Alabama Supreme Court judge to get slapped down because he was going against federal law. At least be consistent.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's happened in San Francisco has changed the terms of debate dramatically IMO. It's going to become much more difficult for bigots and hate-mongers to portray gay marriage as some form of perversion, when TV viewers have seen only people who obviously love each other deeply.

Yeah. You are really soothing those who see marriage as more than just a promise to love someone.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed, DD. While I'm for gay marriages, it is amusing to see people back San Fran against California's law, while a few months ago they wanted the Alabama Supreme Court judge to get slapped down because he was going against federal law. At least be consistent.

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

How can they be separate when the majority's religous beliefs become law. Everyone is not a heterosexual christian.

Some are homosexual, Buddhists, Muslims, and etc. Practicing your lifestyle in ways that really don't effect the next man should not be made illegal. It's also hypocritical of the land of the free to constantly restrict freedoms. Ben Kenobi is still going to be able to get into heaven if gays marry eachother. That judge will still be able to get into heaven if he separates church from state. But if you restrict people who love eachother from being happy, is that not oppresion. If you force a person to yield to your religous beliefs is that not oppression.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

I think they are the same for another reason. A more local legal entity is violating the laws set up by a higher legal entity. In Alabama, the state SC was violating federal Constitutional law. In California, San Fran was violating California state law.

If you condemn one for violation of the law, then I think you have to condemn the other.

It's also hypocritical of the land of the free to constantly restrict freedoms.

It is impossible for a society to exist if no freedoms are restricted, so you can't use the 'land of free' should be free arguments. Your other ones are better.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus


I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

How can they be separate when the majority's religous beliefs become law. Everyone is not a heterosexual christian.

Some are homosexual, Buddhists, Muslims, and etc. Practicing your lifestyle in ways that really don't effect the next man should not be made illegal. It's also hypocritical of the land of the free to constantly restrict freedoms. Ben Kenobi is still going to be able to get into heaven if gays marry eachother. That judge will still be able to get into heaven if he separates church from state. But if you restrict people who love eachother from being happy, is that not oppresion. If you force a person to yield to your religous beliefs is that not oppression.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on. Separation of church and state.

I think they are the same for another reason. A more local legal entity is violating the laws set up by a higher legal entity. In Alabama, the state SC was violating federal Constitutional law. In California, San Fran was violating California state law.

If you condemn one for violation of the law, then I think you have to condemn the other.

An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed. Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

[Imran Siddiqui]

An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed. Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

So was it ok for Judge Moore to place those 10 Commandments in the SC building? He obviously believed it was an unjust law which prevented him from doing so.

I'd like to the see people first try to change the law through the law (ie, court), rather than decide just to violate it without going to the courts.

[Ben Kenobi]

PA:

Ben Kenobi is still going to be able to get into heaven if gays marry each other.

Do you think that it is for my sake that I oppose this redefinition of marriage?

But if you restrict people who love eachother from being happy, is that not oppresion.

How does the government have a duty to people to make them happy?

If you force a person to yield to your religous beliefs is that not oppression.

So marriage is entirely defined by religious authorities and not the state? There are civil reasons and civil benefits that are derived from keeping marriage as one man and one woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed.

But is the current law unjust? How are homosexuals restricted from loving their partners under the current regime?

Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

Then the people must have a say, and not the courts. The issue must come to a vote.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Do you think that it is for my sake that I oppose this redefinition of marriage?

For whose sake do you oppose it then?

[Ben Kenobi]

For whose sake do you oppose it then?

Society in general. I think we do very well with marriage as it is, and I think we do poorly when we get away from that.

[Pax]

BK,
Just because the majority of people vote for or against something does not make it the right thing to do. Can you tell us how it effects you if John and John got married.

Even if you feel it's an abomination against God, it still has no real effect on you. Even if your children see it they won't catch it and become gay. Your wife won't wake up one morning with homo fever. Why can't you let these peopel marry.

Also many gay people have fought and died for this country. They deserve every right of an american citizen. There are gays in Iraq right now serving a President that will let them die for his beliefs but not marry for theirs. Is that justice? is that fair?