March 12, 2004
SHOCKING?:
Court Orders San Francisco Officials to Halt Gay Marriages (DEAN E. MURPHY, March 11, 2003, NY Times)
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."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 ruling came as Massachusetts legislators moved a step closer to amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.
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."
The ruling came as a shock to city officials and groups who support same-sex marriages despite a state ban in state law. The advocacy group Marriage Equality California organized a march from the Castro District to the Supreme Court building for a rally. [...]
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.
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.
Maybe there's still hope that we're a nation of laws, not men. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 12, 2004 11:18 AM
What's curious about the Times article, and the AP article that Drudge linked to yesterday, is that neither mention California's Proposition 22, which states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", and passed by an overwhelming majority in 2000.
As I understand it, it's the law of the land in California, and Gov. Schwarzenegger has said he'd defend it.
Not sure why the omission, when it clarifies exactly why what San Francisco's mayor was doing is illegal.
Ed
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at March 12, 2004 11:39 AMWhoops, just saw the reference in the Times to "The ruling came as a shock to city officials and groups who support same-sex marriages despite a state ban in state law", so Prop. 22 is mentioned briefly and tangentially.
So, as Orrin's title suggests, how big a shock could it have been??
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at March 12, 2004 11:44 AMProp 22 (which affirmied that marriage is between a man and a woman) passed by a two-to-one margin. Fifteen years ago, three justices of our Supreme Court were sent packing by voters (justices must stand for retention every ten years) when they persistently reversed death sentence cases (capital punishment was and is supported by two-thirds of California voters).
Perhaps Mr. Dooley was right, and justices do follow election returns. I'll believe it when I see it with our state Supreme Court.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at March 12, 2004 11:45 AMEd: Prop 22 was the voter initiative. When it was approved by voters, it was codified in the California Family Code (section 300). The Supreme Court's stay order refers to the Family Code sections that derive from Prop 22.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at March 12, 2004 11:49 AMEd Driscoll is correct of course, and for that reason I remain a pessimist. It's seems to be arduous to the extreme to get Public Officials to enforce clear law and (as the article states) it's not over yet.
Contrast with the smooth efficiency of chastizing the Alabama Judge who might have had at least an arguable defense. (no I am not defending the Alabama Judge)
Fred,
Thanks--I wasn't sure of the terminology once the proposition became law.
I notice how "shocked" gay-rights advocates and their supporters always are when anyone says or does anything they don't like. Sensitive bunch.
Posted by: Peter B at March 12, 2004 1:04 PMChemerinsky has a weekly spot on the Hugh Hewitt show as the leftie component of the "Smart Guys", along with John Eastman, as they discuss current federal court cases and decisions. He is an incorrigible lefty, I have yet to hear him give even a moderate opinion on any issue. He argued for the bill to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in California on the basis that it would improve public safety.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 12, 2004 1:33 PMIt's a good thing San Francisco elected the moderate candidate, wasn't it?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 13, 2004 6:16 PM