It's About Freakin' Time!

Court Orders San Francisco Officials to Halt Gay Marriages

Why did this take so friggin' long? They should've arrested Newsom the moment he broke the friggin' law! Let's look at the story:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered city officials here to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, bringing at least a temporary end to a monthlong experiment that had thrust San Francisco to the forefront of a national debate on gay marriage.

"Experiment?" It was a violation of state law, you idiots!

"Effective immediately, we are stopping the issuance and recordation of same-sex marriage licenses," the city's assessor-recorder, Mabel S. Teng, announced at a news conference after receiving word of the court's unanimous decision.

The court did not rule on the legality of the marriages, nor did it address the constitutional issues raised by city officials in defense of them. It also left open the possibility that the city could issue the licenses again after further review of two lawsuits on the matter.

The marriages are illegal, dang it! Why is this so hard to understand? If you want to make them legal, go through the right process instead of complaining that existing laws are mean.

"The people who were seeking to stop the marriages prevailed for the time being," said Jesse H. Choper, professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley. "The only question was who would win for the time being, and they won for the time being."

The ruling came as Massachusetts legislators moved a step closer to amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. [Page A12.]

If the frickin' social activists masquerading as politicians won't follow the law, I say go for it.

Opponents of the marriages, stymied in several efforts to block them in the lower courts, declared a long-awaited victory.

"It is an overdue day, but a good day," said State Senator William J. Knight, a Palmdale Republican who was the author of a successful ballot measure in 2000 opposing same-sex marriages. "Finally the courts have taken action to put an end to the anarchy in San Francisco."

I'm surprised they didn't call him a "religious extremist" or something.

The ruling came as a shock to city officials and groups who support same-sex marriages despite a state ban in state law.

"I'm shocked! What right do those bigots have to enforce the law?!"

The advocacy group Marriage Equality California organized a march from the Castro District to the Supreme Court building for a rally.

Don't you people have f**king jobs?

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city would continue to challenge the constitutionality of the state's ban in court. The city filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court raising some of its concerns.

Why is this @sshat not in prison yet? He. Broke. The. Law.

"I believe confidently that when we get to the constitutional question, I will prevail," Mr. Newsom said at a news conference. "But I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other setbacks in this process. This is the beginning of a struggle, hardly the end."

You just keep pretending that you're the victim here, moron. Your Quixotic little quest against an invented enemy is going down the crapper at this point anyway.

The Supreme Court said it would consider in May or June whether city officials, under Mr. Newsom's direction, acted beyond their authority "in refusing to enforce the provisions" of the state's family code that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Did they act beyond their authority? Let's see here...YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the meantime, the justices directed San Francisco officials "to enforce and apply the provisions" of the family code without regard to their "personal view of the constitutionality" of the laws. In allowing the licenses to be issued, Mayor Newsom had argued that the State Constitution's guarantee of equal protection took precedence.

If you could point out what part of the Constitution specifies that equal protection allows the creation of new privileges, that might help your cause just a bit.

The court issued the ruling in two separate cases. One was brought by the California attorney general, Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, at the urging of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. The other was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious group based in Arizona.

"I am pleased to learn the justices of the California Supreme Court determined this matter to be an issue of fundamental statewide importance," Mr. Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

Well, when state laws are violated by the people who were hired to uphold them, you usually want to put a stop to it as quickly as possible.

Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of public interest law at the University of Southern California, said the court's ruling amounted to "a freezing of the status quo," as it existed before the first license was issued to a same-sex couple on Feb. 12.

Um, no, it amounts to a proper application of the frickin' law.

Professor Chemerinsky, who had predicted that the court would not get involved in the matter, described the ruling as "extraordinary" and said it offered hints about the justices' thinking about the legality of the marriages.

"I think what we know at this stage is it means they are troubled with what San Francisco is doing," he said.

Truly brilliant deduction. Them professors sure is smart.

Several couples who were waiting at City Hall for appointments to receive licenses were turned away, some of them in tears.

Sucks to be them.

"They were heartbroken," said the county clerk, Nancy Alfaro, whose office issues marriage licenses. "It was very sudden."

Boo. Frickity. Hoo.

At last count, Mr. Newsom said that more than 4,100 licenses had been issued to same-sex couples. An additional 2,600 couples had made appointments for a license.

And a whopping 0 of them are valid.

Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and among the witnesses at the first same-sex marriage ceremony, said proponents were disappointed but not deterred. Ms. Kendell warned against reading too much into the court's order.

"They don't really want to put a stop to gay marriage! They were just coerced by the hatemongers!"

"I think the California Supreme Court has signaled one thing and one thing only," she said, "and that is a desire to approach this historic moment cautiously, deliberately and slowly. We consider this to be simply a pause."

You just keep telling yourself that.

The reaction among some couples at City Hall was more emotional. Patricia Egan, 46, a real estate agent, and Meghan Wharton, 29, a lawyer, were among the first would-be newlyweds who were turned away from the county clerk's office.

The two women had flown to San Francisco in the morning from Phoenix for a 2:30 p.m. appointment. They had filled out the proper paperwork for the license, but when they approached the counter for their appointment they learned that they were two minutes too late.

Actually, they were about a generation too early.

"I thought they were kidding," Ms. Wharton said. " I didn't think it was possible, and certainly it wasn't possible to happen to me. I started crying. I'm devastated."

One final question, then: Why is it so horrible that they were denied something they never even needed until now? What difference does it make?

Good old "tolerance."

Posted by CD on March 12, 2004 05:44 PM
Category: