California Supremes Clamp Down on Illegal Homosexual Nuptials
by Jody Brown, Fred Jackson, and Bill Fancher
March 12, 2004
(AgapePress) - Pro-family groups are praising the California Supreme Court's decision on Thursday ordering an end to the illegal homosexual "marriages" taking place in San Francisco.
It has been a tough few weeks for pro-family forces as courts in various places across the country seemed reluctant to put a stop to the illegal same-sex marriages. But yesterday, in a 7-0 decision, California's high court ordered the City of San Francisco and its mayor, Gavin Newsom, to uphold the state law against homosexual marriage. Associated Press reports that after the ruling came down, "teary-eyed couples" were turned away at San Francisco's city hall, where more than 4,000 homosexual couples had "tied the knot" since Newsom's proclamation on the eve of Valentine's Day.
Within hours of the high court's announcement, the attorney for the City of San Francisco sued the state, asking the courts to make an "unequivocal declaration" that it is unconstitutional to van same-sex marriages. And California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer -- who neglected to enforce the state's Defense of Marriage Act when the County of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couple -- now says he believes the law should be interpreted or changed by the courts or the legislature, not by a single county (San Francisco County).
Randy Thomasson | |
But the executive director of Campaign for California Families (CCF), a pro-family group that has been involved in the fray since day one, expresses the sentiments of marriage traditionalists across the country. "This is a great day for the law, for our republic, and for marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of our civilization and family," Randy Thomasson tells Associated Press. "The state high court has done what Bill Lockyer refused to do: it has used its authority and power to enforce the plain reading of the law that marriage is only for a man and a woman."Thomasson's group, represented by Liberty Counsel, had brought suit against Newsom last month and then filed legal documents in a Supreme Court case brought by Attorney General Lockyer. The CCF director says that with Thursday's decision mandating that San Francisco "refrain from issuing [same-sex] marriage licenses or certificates," the trend is obvious.
"Here we have seven judges unanimously saying 'We can read the law. We can read the Family Code of California,'" Thomasson says. "I expect the Supreme Court to rule with a permanent injunction and permanently stop Gavin Newsom from ever entertaining this ridiculous notion again. The law has been upheld; the law has served to block Mayor Newsom and his unlawful activity."
Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, is also pleased. "[Mayor Newsom] took an oath to uphold the laws of the State of California. He violated his oath and made a mockery of the democratic system," the attorney says. "Order has now returned to San Francisco."
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson says the high court in California has "taken a stand against anarchy." Admitting he is disappointed it took a full month for the "chaos" in San Francisco to be stopped, he is nevertheless happy with the move.
"This decision will hopefully show elected officials like [Mayor Newsom] that they cannot cavalierly disregard state law in pursuit of their politically correct agenda," Dobson says in a printed statement. "And this crisis, which has been a least temporarily halted, has hopefully shown the American people the need for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the definition of marriage."
Another Christian law firm defending traditional marriage just up the coast in Oregon and Washington is also applauding the California decision. "This is a great day for those who understand the fundamental notion that marriage is between one man and one woman," says Steve Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (CLP).
Crampton says he now hopes courts in Oregon and Washington will do the same thing and stop the same-sex marriage-related moves going on in those two states. The CLP has filed legal documents in Multnomah County, Oregon, to block officials there from continuing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Center is also seeking to block Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' order to recognize same-sex marriages.
"In light of the recent developments in California, King County [where Seattle is located] cannot permit the mayor of Seattle to continually ignore the law of Washington State and replace it with his own personal moral code," Crampton says. "Mayor Nickels likens himself to King Gregory I who, believing himself to be unaccountable to the law, crowned himself king. This gives a whole new meaning to King County, Washington."
The Massachusetts Amendment
Meanwhile, across the country in Massachusetts, legislators took tentative steps toward a constitutional amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriages but, like Vermont, would legalize civil unions. The combined Massachusetts House and Senate will convene again on March 29 for a final vote on the measure.
If the proposed amendment passes then, it would be presented to a newly elected legislature in 2005. Only after passing that contingent of lawmakers would it be allowed to appear on the November 2006 ballot.
Ray McNulty of the Massachusetts Coalition for Marriage sees benefits to the long, drawn-out process. "[W]hat we've found is that as people and registered voters learn more about the issue, support seems to be building for what some call a ban on gay marriages [or] what others would call support for traditional marriage," he explains.
"And we also find [as time goes on] that there's more question in the public's mind as to the appropriateness of civil unions," he says. "These facts are borne out not just in polls and surveys taken by the Coalition for Marriage but by the Boston Globe, which interestingly enough has taken a very pro-same-sex marriage position."
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, whose group has lobbied long and hard in Massachusetts in defense of traditional marriage, says the main argument posited by homosexual marriage advocates is a shallow one.
"The irony in the whole debate over same-sex marriage is that they're not proposing to eliminate all restrictions on your choice of marriage partner," Sprigg states. "Even the same-sex marriage advocates would leave other restrictions on your choice of marriage partner in place -- they would not let anyone marry a person who is already married, because that would be polygamy; [they would] not let them marry a close blood relative, because that would be incest; and they would not let them marry a child, because that would be pedophilia."
Most advocates of same-sex unions want marriage to stay between two people -- and they tend to be intolerant of any other marriage relationship based on sexual orientations.
Associated Press contributed to this story.
