31 May 2008
State AG’s File Brief over California Ruling
Posted by Terrie Soberg under: Constitution in Peril; Judaeo-Christian Values Under Attack; What's News .
From the Family Leader Newsletter today:
Ten Attorneys General filed a brief late Thursday asking the California Supreme Court to stay the May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The AGs of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah asked that the ruling be stayed until after the November election when California’s voters will vote on an amendment which could overturn the court’s decision. That ten state attorneys general have filed this brief demonstrates the huge ramifications of implementing the ruling prior to November’s vote. Unlike Massachusetts, California does not have a residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, so same-sex couples from everywhere in the country could come to the state, get married, and go back and cause legal havoc in their own states.
“We reasonably believe an inevitable result of such ‘marriage tourism’ will be a steep increase in litigation of the recognition issue in our courts,” Utah Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff wrote in the brief submitted on behalf of the 10 states.
The brief makes these points:
- The ten attorneys general affirmed that nationwide legal chaos will erupt if California exports the state’s unresolved marriage issue beyond its borders.
- If the marriage amendment passes, California same-sex “marriages” will still be litigated in many other states despite the fact that Californians will have chosen not to redefine marriage.
- The State of California should not inflict this widespread confusion and litigation on other states before its own law is settled.
- The opposition’s demand that the decision be implemented before the people have a chance to vote demonstrates a disrespect for the people and the democratic process.
The Supreme Court has until the close of business on June 16 to decide on the stay request, but it also could give itself a 60-day extension to consider the matter. If the court does not grant the stay, local officials can begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.
Marriage Status
With 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million, the legalization of same-sex marriage in California is a major cultural earthquake for the whole nation. According to 2006 census figures, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.
Same-sex civil unions are recognized in four states-Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. Washington, Oregon, Maine, Hawaii, and District of Columbia offer domestic partnerships or some marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
Voters in 26 states have approved state constitutional amendments that protect marriage.
3 Comments so far...
Roy Bischoff Says:
31 May 2008 at 10:50 am.
First off I think the other 39 attorneys general should be embarrassed that they did not take a stand on this issue. Since the Constitution says that states have to recognize the laws of other states this would cause the taxpayers many millions of dollars to litigate this issue. Many states will fight hard not to have to recognize these “marriages” (I just have to say that in the known history of the world marriage has always been between opposite sexes no matter what the CA justices think). I don’t think it is discriminatory to provide other ways for homosexual couples to have the benefits provided to married couples. I think it is also okay to deny them these benefits especially if heterosexual couples that are living together but are not married do not receive them. Both types of couples make choices with known results: they don’t have the benefits provided based on being married.
I think that this case is a very important one. These ten AG’s I think are hoping the CA voters will vote not to have same sex marriages and it solves a lot of problems.
Peter Says:
31 May 2008 at 11:12 am.
I fully agree with you on this one Roy. The other state’s AGs should take a stand on this. What a mess we are going to have as this goes through the courts. It will be costly and divisive and could make the aggressive gay activists even angrier and that is a scary thought.
Jesse Says:
31 May 2008 at 11:48 am.
Roy, Good point about the heterosexual couples living together and not getting benefits. Totally right that they are making choices with known results.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.