[CasearianDaoist]

Well what do you know? Seem like a majority of them can actually read.

[Enterprise]

About damned time!

[ElectricStrawberry]

Holy Shiite...whoda thunkit?

[Indy Pendance]

Well, it's about time. Now, let's see the opinions as soon as they are released.

[fish hawk]

Next step: all same sex marriages NOT VALID AND MAYOR UNDER ARREST.

[k2blader]

Really??

[SierraWasp]

Bang!!! (sound of door slamming!)

[ambrose]

Care to retract that hideous "Village People" CA Supreme Court graphic now?

[nickcarraway]

oh really now, they care about the law.

[Indy Pendance]

Court Orders Halt to SF Same-Sex Marriages

http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2004/03/11/Court_Orders_Halt_to_SF_Same-Sex_Marriages.html

Associated Press

(AP) - The California Supreme Court ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco and said Thursday it would hear a case in May or June on the legality of such marriages.

The action by California's highest court came two weeks after state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group asked the seven justices to immediately block the gay marriages, with more than 3,700 couples having wed at City Hall so far.

The dispute began Feb. 12, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay and lesbians from two dozen states have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from where the Supreme Court sits.

California's top court did not immediately address whether Newsom had the legal power to authorize the marriages, which contravenes a state law and voter referendum that say marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The justices also did not address whether the California Constitution would permit a gay marriage, as Newsom claims.

Instead, the justices moved to block any more marriages, at least for now, until they decide whether Newsom had the power to authorize such unions. Had the court declined to intervene, the legal battle over gay marriage in California would have taken years as gay marriage lawsuits traveled through the state's lower courts.

[Not A Snowbird]

Didn't want to rush into anything, did they?

[ambrose]

(unanimous)

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=312005

03/11/2004 Order to show cause issued

Respondents are ordered to show cause before this court, when the matter is called at the late May 2004 or June 2004 calendar, why a writ of mandate should not
issue, directing respondents to apply and abide by the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that these statutory

provisions are unconstitutional. Pending this court's determination of this matter or further order of this court, respondents are directed to enforce and apply the provisions of

Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 without regard to respondents' personal view of the constitutionality of such provisions, and to refrain from issuing marriage

licenses or certificates not authorized by such provisions. In addition, pending this court's determination of this matter or further order of this court, all proceedings in

Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco et al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CPF-04-503943) and Thomasson et al. v. Newsom et

al. (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-428794) are stayed.

The return in this matter, limited to the issue whether respondents are authorized to refuse to enforce the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in

the absence of a judicial determination that such provisions are unconstitutional, is to be filed by respondents in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before

Thursday, March 18, 2004. In addressing the foregoing issue, the return should discuss not only the applicability and effect of article III, section 3.5 of the California

Constitution, but any other constitutional or statutory provision or doctrine that may be relevant to the resolution of the foregoing issue.

A reply may be filed by petitioners in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, March 25, 2004.

Any application to file an amicus curiae brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday,

March 25, 2004.

Any reply to an amicus curiae brief may be filed in the San Francisco Office of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, March 29, 2004.

Votes: George, CJ., Kennard, Baxter, werdegar, Chin, Brown and Moreno, JJ.

[Carry_Okie]

Round 3 goes to the home team.

[Carry_Okie]

Round 3 goes to the home team.

[cameronsmom]

I wonder if Rosie was ever pissed that she and her girl had to fly all the way out to California, when the City of New Paltz in upstate NY was hooking up lesbos there...

[Cboldt]

Great news. I wonder if this will affect the calculus relating to the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Massachusetts (legislature) may weigh in today too.

[onyx]

"'Bout time ping"

[drypowder]

The results of the stay, the streets of SF will be filled with gay protesters this weekend.

[NorseWood]

Today they are not quite to gay in San Francisco

[Neets]

ATRW ping