By Julia Cheever
May 31, 2008
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera plans to file opposition next week to a request by 10 state attorneys general for a delay in the California Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.
Herrera announced his plan Friday to file opposition papers with the court next week, saying it would be “both unprecedented and inhumane” to postpone the effectiveness of the ruling.
The 10 states, led by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, told the court in a letter on Thursday that they are concerned about the effects of “marriage tourism,” or people from their states coming to California to get married.
The attorneys general said such marriages would raise complex legal issues in their states about how those unions would affect areas such as tax filing status, standing to file lawsuits, and spouses’ privilege not to testify against one another.
The officials said delaying the ruling until after Californians vote in November on a proposed gay marriage ban could avoid “premature, unnecessary and burdensome” litigation in their states’ courts.
In addition to Utah, the states are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and South Dakota.
Two California groups opposed to same-sex marriage have also asked the court to stay its ruling until November, arguing that “legal havoc” could result if gay and lesbian marriages are allowed for five months and then banned if the constitutional amendment is passed.
The court has until June 16 to decide whether to stay its May 15 ruling that the state constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry in California.
Unless the panel grants a stay, or allots itself more time to decide, the ruling will take effect at the end of the day on June 16. The state’s Office of Vital Records has told county clerks they can begin issuing gay and lesbian marriage licenses on June 17.
Meanwhile, California’s own attorney general, Jerry Brown, told the court on Thursday that his office opposes a stay, saying that “this historic litigation has now concluded.”
Brown’s action is significant because his office previously during the four-year legal battle defended state laws requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. The high court overturned those laws in its 4-3 ruling.
Herrera on Friday cited Brown’s filing and said he agreed with Brown’s argument that a stay would politicize judicial processes.
Brown wrote that a stay “would have the effect of mingling judicial processes with political processes” and would be an improper “anticipatory implementation of the proposed initiative measure even before it is submitted to the voters.”
The initiative would overturn the court’s decision by amending the state constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, a Sacramento-based coalition of initiative supporters, praised the filing by the 10 attorneys general.
Prentice said, “Issuing licenses to same-sex couples will cause nationwide legal chaos and the attorneys general of these states recognize that fact.
“It is our hope that the justices will grant the request for a stay, so that the voters can have the opportunity to express their will with regard to affirming marriage,” Prentice said.
County and state officials are still evaluating signatures on the proposed initiative, but supporters say they are confident it will qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot because they submitted more than 1.1 million signatures, far more than the required 694,000.
Shannon Minter, who represented same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, said of the 10 states’ request, “The job of the California Supreme Court is to enforce the California Constitution.”
“The fact that some other states may discriminate against same-sex couples is not a valid reason for California to do so,” said Minter, who is legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights.
The Hunger Site
June 1, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I find it unconscionable that these intolerant hellholes, places that many Californians fled to escape homophobic oppression, would dare try to interfere with our state’s constitution by going to our courts and demanding a delay. It isn’t a huge leap of imagination to believe that if these outsiders are attempting to abridge equal marriage rights in the courts, they’re also lending support to the discrimination/hate constitutional initiative on the November ballot.