The California Supreme Court has ruled that Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco had overstepped his Constitutional bounds in issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and, 5-2, voided the 4,000-odd gay marriages that had occured.
“The justices have restored the rule of law in California,” said the Alliance Defense Fund’s senior counsel, Jordan Lorence, who argued the case before the court in May. “The decision shows that same-sex `marriage’ is not inevitable. Same-sex `marriage’ loses whenever a state puts it before voters.”
Actually, the ruling shows nothing of the sort. It shows that the court isn’t going to let executive branch members decide on the constitutionality of laws — which, I have to say, is probably a good thing. After all, if one mayor declared that a law prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional and could thus be ignored, nothing would stop a mayor in some future year from declaring a law allowing gay marrage to be unconstitutional and thus ignoring it.
Gay rights groups had expected the ruling against Mr. Newsom, but had hoped that the court would not throw out the 4,000 marriages until the broader constitutional issue had been decided.
“It is a sad day for all the wonderful couples in San Francisco, but we know this is not the end,” said Alice Leeds of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a gay rights group in Washington. “The future lies in fairness for gay and lesbian families.”
I believe so, too. That said, the court could not well have let the marriages sit in limbo while a parallel case progresses through Superior Court. While I hope (and perhaps even expect) that California courts will ultimately agree with Massachusetts on the matter, it’s necessary that they do so in a proper fashion that won’t come back to bite people of any political stripe back on the butt. (Whether the courts making such a determination is, in fact, “proper,” is a political discussion for another day; I think it is, though I also recognize certain risks pertaining to that view.)
i think gay marriages should be legal because of the fact that it expresses who some people are. the constitution states that everyone is entitled to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. well if some males want to be with another male then so be it. it is giving them hapiness.
I believe gay marriage should be legalized. I served two years in the U.S. Air Force and now my country is telling me I can’t get married. I served during Desert Shield Desert storm and eventhough I never went overseas that shouldn’t make my contribution to my country any less. Sorry way for a country to show appreciation to a former soldier. Telling me I have no rights which I thought I was serving my country to show support for all the “freedom” we supposedly have.
I agree that gay marriage should be legalized, or put on the same governmental foot as straight marriage, as my other comments have indicated.
Just a note of correction to the preceding comment:
the constitution states that everyone is entitled to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Actually, that’s the Declaration of Independence.