Traditional values groups will ask the California Supreme Court to stay its landmark decision legalizing gay marriage until the voters can weigh in in November, warning of a “chaotic” situation if it is implemented sooner.
The high court’s ruling yesterday doesn’t take effect for at least 30 days, said Andrew Pugno, campaign director for Protectmarriage.com, a coalition of groups sponsoring a ballot measure on marriage.
“We are going to go to the court within the next two weeks and bring to the court’s attention that the marriage amendment that would in essence overrule the court … is going be on the November ballot,” he said. The coalition will ask the high court to stay its decision until after the November vote.
Otherwise, “it would be very chaotic and to no one’s benefit to redefine marriage for only four months, or over the summertime,” said Mr. Pugno, who is a lawyer. “They would be better off to just let it go to a vote of the people.”
Mr. Pugno said his group will prepare its request carefully because “stays are not common.”
The marriage amendment will be on the ballot regardless, he said. If it passes, the words of the voter-approved Proposition 22 — “Only the marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — will be added to the state constitution, even though the high court yesterday declared those same words unconstitutional.
Adding the Proposition 22 marriage definition to the state constitution would overrule the court, because its decision was based on the current constitution, Mr. Pugno added.
“The only thing that can derail an amendment to the state constitution is a federal claim … and there’s none of that in this case,” he said.
Gay rights groups, which were elated with the 4-3 court ruling, have pledged to defeat the amendment.
“The California secretary of state has not yet determined if this discriminatory amendment has qualified for the November ballot,” a coalition that includes Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union said in a joint press release.
Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in the statement that the groups “are confident that Californians will respect the court’s ruling for fairness and opportunity and affirm that lesbian and gay Californians deserve full equality under the law.”
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports their position.
“I respect the court’s decision, and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” said Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
State officials are moving to accommodate the court’s ruling.
The Judicial Council of California yesterday advised state officials to prepare to handle marriage licenses for same-sex couples.
“The decision directs state officials who supervise the enforcement of the state’s marriage laws to ensure that local officials comply with the court’s ruling and permit same-sex couples to marry,” the council said in a statement.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who in 2004 ordered his office to perform gay marriages, said yesterday that he would start issuing marriage licenses again as soon as possible.
Gay couples, meanwhile, are making wedding plans.
“We have waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry,” said Phyllis Lyon, 83, who is a plaintiff in the case with her partner, Del Martin, 87.
“We are thrilled that this day has finally come,” she said through her attorneys at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Other organizations supporting the ruling are the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the National Organization for Women and Our Family Coalition.
Traditional values organizations that criticized the ruling included Concerned Women for America, the Alliance Defense Fund, the National Organization for Marriage, and the California Family Council.
“This shocking decision is a wake-up call for the majority of California’s citizens, whose votes have been rendered worthless by the Supreme Court’s disregard for the democratic system,” said Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council. “In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the court’s decision by passing a constitutional amendment — and California’s voters must respond in strength and number.”
“It’s going to be a long summer,” Mr. Pugno said.
WHERE DO THEY STAND?
Here”s a look at where the presidential candidates stand on gay marriage:
Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican:
Says marriage should be between a man and a woman and should be regulated by the states. Opposes a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat:
Opposes same-sex marriage but favors civil unions in which gay couples receive full recognition and benefits. Says that “marriage has always been province of the states” and advocates repeal of a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat:
Says he personally thinks that “marriage is between a man and a woman” but also says that “equality is a moral imperative” for gay and lesbian Americans. Advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and previously opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
The Washington Times
Please read our comment policy before commenting.