Opponents lose last-ditch legal bid to stop same-sex weddings

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

While today's gay and lesbian weddings proceeded, a state appeals court rejected a conservative religious group's last-ditch attempt to put same-sex marriages on hold until California voters consider the issue in November.

The Campaign for California Families argued that the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex weddings should not take effect until the Legislature had a chance to rewrite or repeal a host of laws governing marriages and domestic partnerships.

The organization also said the courts should avoid confusion about the status of marriages performed in the next few months by suspending the ruling until a Nov. 4 vote on an initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco denied a stay without comment this morning after receiving the case from the state's high court, whose ruling became final at 5 p.m. Monday. The appeals court returned the case to a Superior Court judge in San Francisco for final orders to state officials to make sure each county clerk's office was complying with the marriage ruling.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/17/BAG311ALAK.DTL&tsp=1

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. We already HAVE a ban on same-sex marriage in CA

Thanks to the Mormons and Catholics, Proposition 22 was passed a decade ago. That was what was basically nullified recently.

[Tempest]

7. Proposition 22 was struck down by the CA Supreme Court

The court said it was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.

That's why gay marriages are now taking place in California.

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. Exactly, which is why holding off for another ban to be put on the ballot is nonsensical

n/t

[customerserviceguy]

12. That was statutory

the one the fundies want this time would change the California Constitution. It's way more serious than DOMA.

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. Oh, I see, and it would still be unconstitutional

n/t

[customerserviceguy]

15. Not trying to be argumentative here

but how would a properly enacted Constitutional amendment be un-Constitutional? It is imperative that the good people of California come out to show that they have gotten some wisdom, and shed some prejudice since the Prop 22 days.

I think they have, but time will tell. And effort will make the difference.

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. United States Constitution.... usurps the CA one

And they tried for a CA Constitutional amendment before and it did not have enough support. Anyway, I think we're on the same side here :P

[Guaranteed]

19. You should also explain that the state courts are allowed to interpret

the US Constitution as well as their own, as long as it doesn't contradict the USSC's interpretation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Uh... no, it would not be unconstitutional

Changes to a constitution are, by definition, constitutional. This is why we must not be complacent, and why we must fight the initiative to the best of our abilities. If it passes, there is no way the state Supreme Court can invalidate it.

[midnight]

2. Congratulations California. I hope you don't have to pay for

your freedoms by having your energy cut off again.

[Maat]

9. HeeHee ..

bring it, Boooosh Administration!

[superconnected]

3. It must be awful to not be able to deny others who have nothing to do with you, their happiness.

Poor bigots... poor poor bigots.

The mere thought of letting two people love each other that they don't approve of, must be causing them severe distress.

[LiberalFighter]

4. And to those that declare that they will go to hell...

they should be happy that there are same sex marriages knowing in their heart that those going to hell won't crowd their heaven.

[Mountainman]

5. The problem the fundies have is that by Nov the state won't be hit by a bolt from the blue or fall

into the sea and hetero marriages will remain in tack and no one will be asking to marry their pet guinea pig. Voters may ask what all the fuss was about.

[superconnected]

6. You gotta wonder about their brains when they come up with marriage outside of man/woman will lead

to getting it on with animals. I've heard a few of them spout that now. I mean, maybe they're afraid THEY will be tempted to be with animals if marriage is no longer strictly defined as man/woman.

I don't think people who don't want animals, have that fear. The rest of us only see it as man/man and women/women added to the mix...

[rpannier]

10. Just remind those morons that marriage is a legal contract and

animals do NOT have the right to enter into contracts of any kind.

[customerserviceguy]

13. One of the arguments they do make

is polygamy. It's a perfectly legal practice in many countries of the world, and there are certainly those who would favor its legalization here. My argument against it is, you only have one of yourself to give to one other person, but the polygamists would argue that I'm just seeing things too narrowly.

[CatholicEdHead]

16. And there is no organized movement outside of parts of Utah

for polygamy. Only small, radical Christian and Mormon cults even attempt that and it is usually for control of a group. It is not applicable to this discussion of monogamous same-sex couples.

[gratuitous]

18. And that's the scariest thing of all

That nothing scary will happen.

[bemildred]

11. Now these vicious, bigoted weasels will have to get real jobs. nt