Calif. Supreme Court Voids 4,000 Same Sex Marriages
 

Our legal system has overstepped its bounds again and imposed morality on the people's individual rights to love whoever they damn want.

Unbelievable how much power government has over everyone's personal life in today's world.


Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages

AN 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 illegally issued the certificates and performed the ceremonies, since state law defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.

The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court 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."

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.

The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials.

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 a lawsuit challenging the San Francisco marriages.

The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the San Francisco weddings after emergency petitions were filed by conservative interest groups and Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage ? 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 California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.

When the justices agreed to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge ? that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution ? if such a lawsuit reached the court.

Gay and lesbian couples immediately filed lawsuits making that argument, as did Newsom. The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter.

Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing 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.

thats just great, so u mean im not married to Jhonny anymore? :1orglaugh

Pretty gay.

Why don't they let people live what they want ... That's not what I call freedom . It has nothing to do with any1 else then the couples that got married

its because of the religious influence in people. who really cares who marries who? its complete bullshit.

pretty gayish...

Care to explain how upholding current law is overstepping "its bounds" and care to explain how this ruling has curtailed "the people's individual rights to love whoever they damn want".?

:(

I agree. Whether or not I think they should be allowed to marry is irrelevant. The current law clearly states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It's their job to uphold it until the law is changed.

Well, the Mayor DID overstep his authority.

It never ceases to amaze me at the sheer number of folks who overstep their authority - then bitch when they get smacked back into place.

I remember watching and throughly enjoying the Ellen show.

She went from making sure you were entertained and you could give a shit she was gay to her making damned sure you knew she was gay and couldn't care less if you were entertained. The shove-it-down-your-throat approach ain't gonna work.

Personally, I think gay folks have every right to be JUST as miserable as the rest of the married folks out there :Graucho

True sexual equality would recognize the lifetime union of any two persons.

It's a sad day in the USA.

All the court did was uphold the law and put an end to a renegade act. Its up to the legislation to make laws not a mayor.

Fuck laws that are clearly designed to appease the morality issues of the fucking right wing puritans in this country.

Its all backed by the same freaks that want to get rid of porn.

This bullshit is DISCRIMINATION pure and simple.

Exactly.

It's probably a 200 year old law that was part of the foundation of this nation. Go lobby the lawmakers to change it not me. :winkwink:

Exactly from the same puritans that felt there was nothing wrong with abducting black men, women and children from Africa, bringing them here chained in the bottom of boats without food and water, throwing sick ones overboard, bringing them to the US to work on plantations and be whipped if they didn't do their work, deprive them of even basic human rightsl, treat them like they are lower than animals, etc.

:321GFY

So if you believe that, you would find room to argue in favor of a 38 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl - if she were willing? Isn't that too- just a morality issue?

And if not, (and hopefully not) then how do you distinguish between one law for morality over another?

"How soon the labor of men would make a paradise of the whole earth, were it not for misgovernment, and a diversion of all his energies from their proper object -- the happiness of man -- to the selfish interest of kings, nobles, and priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Ellen W. Coolidge, 1825. ME 18:341

Gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

Cut the bullshit comparing that to what the issue is. That is a crap comparison that inevitably pops up in every thread on this issue.

Totally not the same argument.

Are upi asking me a valid question or just playing copy past right now to reiterate my point?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

No, it IS a morality issue

You just happen to agree that 1 of these issues are indeed truely necessary and it contradicts your blanket statement.

While I agree that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, in the strictly legal sense the court did the right thing.

We can't break laws just because they're "wrong".
Someone needs to challenge the state law in federal court and have it overturned on constitutional grounds......until then the state law unfortunately stands

:2 cents:

I am asking you to explain how the California Supreme Court overstepped its "bounds" by enforcing current law...and how did their ruling curtail "the people's individual rights to love whoever they damn want".? You made the statements...care to explain the statements? Your statements have validity or they do not...which is it?

See, I'm all for a great discussion - without name calling and putting down ones beliefs - but when you toss out a blanket statement like you did, well, it cheapens the discussion.

Don't most laws concerning personal preference have to deal with morality?

The same moral objection to gay marriages also makes pedophilia illegal - yet they are covered under the same umbrella - whether you like it or not.

My only point in making my (admittedly opposite end of the spectrum analogy) is that a blanket statement like the one you dished out - so often short sheets the bed.

LINK ??

oh no.. it's happening EVERYWHERE !

France's first gay marriage, which was conducted last month by a local mayor, has been annulled by a court.

The tribunal in Bordeaux declared the marriage of Stephane Chapin and Bertrand Charpentier "null and void".

The mayor, Noel Mamere of the Green Party, was suspended for a month after defying government warnings that he would be breaking the law when he wed the two men in the town of Begles.

Justice Minister Dominique Perben had already declared the wedding invalid.

The prosecutor in the case said that the marriage was not in compliance with French law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3929207.stm

fuck the laws :1orglaugh

got 2 remember this was California.


Can't get very much more Liberal, unless It's Mass.

I guess that is the explanation...he gave...for his mistatements. How are you doing jimmyf?

I know and I liked her show until she started that stuff.

I watch her still on DirectTV ever once in awhile

pretty good and you ?

been working on a software problem,

been 2 or 3 years, forgot just about evrything i Knew, ( dos program was written in Clipper) and on top of that my grey matter is not what it use to be. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

They should let people live their own life.

they can live their own lives, they just can not break the law.

change the law if you or they don't like it, but you can't break it.

It seems to me that actual "marriage" is rooted heavily in religion. Regardless of how silly organized religion might be.

Let marriage belong to men and women ... Most people aren't doing a very good job of it anyway.

Allow gay men and women to have civil unions, with ALL the rights and privledges attached to marriage.

What is in a name anyway?