Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 6/16/2008 4:00:00 AMvar addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow';
Pro-family attorneys are trying another legal route to block implementation of so-called "gay marriage" in California this evening.
The California Supreme Court has rejected appeals of its ruling that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning at 5:01 p.m. (local time) today. But the Supreme Court's decision merely hands the case back down to the California Court of Appeal, which is charged with deciding how and when to implement the high court's ruling. It is that power that Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, is appealing to now.
"It should clearly be stayed because the people are going to vote in November with regards to the California marriage protection amendment. That's a matter that, in fact, we addressed before the California Supreme Court, which they denied. However, the California Court of Appeals has a separate, independent obligation to consider this matter as well," contends the attorney.
Liberty Counsel filed a petition last week with the appeals court on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, asking the court to delay issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for that and other reasons. "The California Supreme Court only addressed two of the many statutes regarding marriage. You can't simply address two statutes when there's [sic] literally hundreds of others, all of which reference 'men' and 'women,' 'male' and 'female,' 'husband' and 'wife,' all of which have to be addressed," Staver explains.
The Liberty Counsel chairman says failure to take matters such as that under consideration is one of the primary reasons the U.S. and state constitutions do not let judges write laws. "All of the confusion illustrates one point: judges should not be in the business of being politically active lawmakers," Staver points out.
The appeals court, according to the attorney, should stay the decision to give the legislature time to examine the hundreds of other state statutes that could come into conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling. "It's that court which is tasked with implementing the particular ruling. It's at that level we're asking, now, this court to do its job, to follow the rule of law and to stay this decision," Staver says.
Liberty Counsel's press release says this case "is far from over. We will not give up. The people will have the final say on marriage."
Maybe the "Big One" will come tonight, and send a message to California!
The inmates are running that asylum!
Dozens of gay couples wed in Calif. after ruling
By LISA LEFF (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
June 16, 2008 8:29 PM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO - Dozens of gay couples were married Monday after a landmark ruling making California the second state to allow same-sex nuptials went into effect.
At least five county clerks around the state extended their hours to issue marriage licenses, and many same-sex couples got married on the spot.
"These are not folks who just met each other last week and said, `Let's get married.' These are folks who have been together in some cases for decades," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
The May 15 California Supreme Court ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage took effect at 5:01 p.m.
The really big rush to the altar was not expected to take place until Tuesday, which is when most counties planned to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of couples from around the country are expected to seize the opportunity to make their unions official in the eyes of the law.
In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84.
Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony in City Hall Monday in recognition of their long relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement. More than 600 same-sex couples have made appointments to get marriage licenses in San Francisco over the next 10 days.
Martin sat in her wheelchair during the ceremony in Newsom's office, which was open to a few elected officials, reporters and friends.
After the mayor pronounced them "spouses for life," the couple kissed, drawing huge applause.
Newsom called officiating the wedding "this extraordinary and humbling gift."
Meanwhile outside City Hall, a crowd of well-wishers gathered to wish the happy couple congratulations.
A handful of people opposed to gay marriage were also there. Some held signs with statements including "Jesus said go and sin no more."
Just hours before the ruling went into effect, a conservative legal group asked a Sacramento court to order the California agency that oversees marriages to stop issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses.
Gary Kreep of the San Diego County-based United States Justice Foundation said his group filed a petition on behalf of five county supervisors from Yuba, Stanislaus, Nevada and Sutter counties. The petition argues the state Department of Public Health failed to hold legally required public hearings on the licenses and claims legislators must amend state marriage laws before the licenses are valid.
A hearing on the matter was scheduled for Tuesday.
Also Monday, a conservative Christian law firm and a church joined in faxing letters to county clerk offices, telling them that they do not have to do work related to same-sex marriages if it violates their religious beliefs.
Despite the last minute legal efforts, dozens of same-sex couples were married in ceremonies at city offices in San Francisco, Alameda, Sonoma, Los Angeles and Yolo counties.
Derek Norman, 23 and Robert Blaudow, 39, from Memphis, Tenn., were in the Bay Area for a conference and decided to get married at the Alameda County clerk's office.
"We might wait a long time in Tennessee, so this is our chance," Blaudow said.
First in line to pick up a marriage license in Sonoma were Melanie Phoenix, 47, and Terry Robinson, 48, of Santa Rosa. They have been together for almost 26 years and plan to wed in August.
"It's an historic occasion," Phoenix said. "I never believed it was really possible until Gavin Newsom took the first step in 2004."
In February 2004, Newsom decided to challenge California's marriage laws by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In the month that followed, more than 4,000 same-sex couples were married before a judge acting on petitions brought by gay marriage opponents halted the city's spree. The state Supreme Court ultimately voided those unions, but two dozen couples sued and those lawsuits led the same court last month to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.
Among the plaintiffs in those lawsuits was a couple married Monday in a Jewish ceremony in front of the Beverly Hills courthouse.
The ceremony between Robin Tyler and Diane Olson was broadcast live on three newscasts in Los Angeles.
The couple wept and pressed their foreheads together, and onlookers whooped as the marriage became valid.
Rabbi Denise Eger saluted the couple for "these many years of coming to this very place and standing on these courthouse steps year after year of being denied this right, this civil right."
My Vice Presidential candidate can whip your Presidential candidate!
kmcheng said: for some reason I started to be tired of this gay marriage mess in CA, also the liberal judges who think they are the law.
I don't see that they've gained much by this. These so-called "marriages" won't be recognized in other states; nor will they get the marriage deductions under the IRS. The same applies to spousal benefits via Social Security, Medicare or any other federal programs.
See Clinton's "Defense of Marriage Act."
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. (Alexis de Tocqueville)
It's messed up that judges are making these laws...where in the constitution does it say that judges can make laws? If we're not going to follow the constitution, why do we have it, or do we get to pick & choose which parts to follow?
The constitution didn't say anything about it, it is the liberal judges that cross the line and think they are the law. They are drink with power and think they are above the law and don't have to listen to people.
That's why if we don't watch it, our freedom will be gone before we know it.
party A and party B (or applicant A and applicant B)
I wonder if they even know what they are applying for...
It's hard to know (without asking) who's A and who's B; which plays the female role and which the male; who's the mister and who's the missus; who's the husband and who's the wife. How the hell are you supposed to greet these people, let alone have a conversation with them.
BTW, what's the plural for spouse? Spice?
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. (Alexis de Tocqueville)