Gay marriage gets go-ahead in US

In reply to goodness grace comment

STOP AT 1 OR 2

The Bible Tells Us So

Judicial tryanny

] A Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll released Friday said 42 percent of respondents strongly disapprove the California Supreme Court’s decision. Add another 10 percent who somewhat disapprove and that would total to more than half. In contrast, those who said they strongly approve comprise 29 percent, while those who expressed they somewhat approve were only 12 percent. The age gap between older and younger residents showed in the survey, which indicated those below 45 tend to have more tolerant views toward same sex marriages than older residents. Susan Pinkus, poll director of the Los Angeles Times, said, quoted by the California daily, “Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure." Meanwhile, two groups expressed their dislike for the measure by filing a petition with the California Supreme Court to delay its implementation of the decision until after the November national election. The petition was filed by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Alliance Defense Fund. In the their filing, the two group explained, quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle, “Permitting this decision to take effect immediately - in the light of the realistic possibility that the people of California might amend their constitution to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman - risks legal havoc and uncertainty of immeasurable magnitude." A spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera told the San Francisco Chronicle they would battle any attempts to block or delay the issuance of marriage certificates to gay couples. The city’s lawyers would file next week a legal response to the petition of the two groups. According to a number of county clerks, the same sex marriages could start as early as June 16. [url:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011045440[/url]

See also: California Court Asked to Delay 'Gay Marriages' Until November Friday, May 23, 2008 — Groups that fought San Francisco’s lawsuit seeking marriage for same-sex couples have asked the California Supreme Court to delay its decision to allow the marriages.

] The organizations, including the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Alliance Defense Fund, filed a request with the court Thursday afternoon seeking the delay until after the November election. That’s when the state’s voters will likely decide a proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. “Permitting this decision to take effect immediately - in the light of the realistic possibility that the people of California might amend their constitution to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman - risks legal havoc and uncertainty of immeasurable magnitude," the filing states. A spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said they would fight any delay in issuing the marriage certificates to gay couples. Lawyers for the city are expected to file a legal response next week. Many county clerks believe the gay unions could begin as early as June 16. And although the proposed gay-marriage ban has not officials been put on the November ballot yet, supporters have obtained the necessary signatures. It is unclear what would happen to gay couples who marry between June and November if the initiative passes. “It is to no one’s benefit to redefine marriage for four or five months," said Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. Also Thursday, state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, announced she had received an oral opinion from the California Legislative Council, the attorney for the state Legislature, stating that same-sex couples do not need to dissolve their domestic partnerships in order to marry. [url:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/22/BAIQ10REV2.DTL[/url]

] The Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms said the Democrat “slapped the people in the face by circumventing their representatives," while New York’s Catholic bishops said “just as the state cannot declare a man to be a 'mother' or a woman to be a 'father,' it can not declare a same-sex union to be a 'marriage." Paterson issued a memo earlier this month saying that gay New Yorkers who marry where it is legal will have the right to share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property. Paterson cited a February ruling in a New York Appellate Division court in which the judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. While gay rights advocates hailed the move, the feeling was not unanimous. State Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, who opposes gay marriage, questioned the constitutionality of Paterson’s action, but said in a Thursday morning news conference that he hadn’t yet seen the memo. Bruno said he was surprised when he read news reports about the memo and plans to speak to Paterson. Bruno also noted the state’s highest court has found gay marriage isn’t legal within the state. The high court hasn’t yet taken up the issue of whether gay marriages performed legally out of state are valid in New York. “You have to understand that the court, the highest court here in New York state, made it very very clear that the only union that is legal in New York state, to perform a marriage ceremony, is between a man and a woman," Bruno said, citing a 2006 Court or Appeals ruling. More [url:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage[/url]

] The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California. They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay. The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200805/NAT20080530c.html:
Source[/url]

] Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified the amendment — which says that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — on Monday after receiving 1,120,801 signatures calling for the initiative to be included on the ballot in the Nov. 4 general election. Representatives of pro-family groups quickly hailed the certification as proof that California’s voters favor keeping the “historic definition” of marriage, while proponents of same-sex marriage declared that “the fight of our lives is here." To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 election. The marriage definition amendment — which has been approved in 26 other states so far — qualified through a random sample signature check. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election," said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment, in a news release on Tuesday.. “Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four Supreme Court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society," Prentice added. [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200806/CUL20080604a.html:
MORE[/url]

What next.