Posted on 05/25/2004 10:46:38 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Two state supreme courts dealt same-sex marriage a pair of setbacks today, as the Arizona panel refused to hear a case brought by two homosexual men, and California justices, in hearing arguments in a San Francisco case, appeared to disapprove of the city's mayor issuing licenses to couples of the same gender.
In the Grand Canyon state, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Standhardt v. Arizona, a case brought by two single men who were denied a marriage license. The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed the suit on Oct. 8, and the homosexuals sought review by the state Supreme Court.
"This is a fantastic victory in the defense of marriage," said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, in a statement. "We are extremely pleased at the Arizona Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case. Arizona's marriage laws are clear. The Arizona Court of Appeals understood that, and now the Supreme Court has agreed. The plaintiffs simply had no case."
ADF represented Arizona state Sen. Mark Anderson as a friend of the court. The group's amicus brief argued Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner, the men denied a marriage license, misrepresented the law, that the Massachusetts Goodridge opinion does not control Arizona law and that there is no national "trend" toward same-sex marriage.
"Although the majority of Americans consistently oppose same-sex 'marriage,' homosexual activists have filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an attempt to find radical judges who will tear down democratically enacted laws and impose a radical, nation-changing agenda on an unwilling public," McCaleb said.
In California, the seven-member Supreme Court heard arguments in a case dealing with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuing of thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the law.
Questions from the justices during the two-hour session lead observers to believe the panel would not rule to approve Newsom's action, saying such a decision would give local officials the option of choosing which laws they want to follow.
"Wouldn't that be setting a problematic precedent?" asked Justice Joyce Kennard. "Presumably, other local officials would be free to say ... I don't like that particular law, be it a ban on guns" or another issue.
There was not clear consensus, however, on how the court might deal with the status of the marriages Newsom sanctioned when he issued licenses in February to 4,000 couples.
One lesbian activist put a positive spin on the court session.
"I am very hopeful, based on the nature of the court's questions and their sensitivity to this issue, that they could craft a solution where they would find the mayor exceeded his authority without finding that the marriages are invalid," Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press.
The court is expected to rule within 90 days.
In other words Kate, you want the court to ignore the law. If the mayor exceeded his authority, then the law was broken. Sorry, but the court will not go along with this, because the precedent that will be set is too dangerous to imagine. Suppose a local official decided they didn't like a law, and ignored it. If the court ruled Ms. Kendell's way then any official could do a lot of damage before being shut down.
Here's a link to an earlier post of the same article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142210/posts
(I only know since do the Homosexual Agenda Ping Thing.)
Yeah a small town Mayor who was republican in California could decide on the Basis of the second Amendment that all California gun laws are null and void and issue permits to anyone who wanted one.
Can't have local mayors flouting the law now!
That idea is what scared the powers at the top and why the "marriages" stopped so suddenly. The idea started on the 'Net and began to be taken seriously. They knew they couldn't allow this flaunting of the law to continue.
Ahh...so you get up at this hour too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.