Posted on 10/10/2006 5:14:45 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
The Supreme Court refused to intervene Tuesday in a legal fight over same-sex marriage, declining an appeal from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed.
The justices declined without comment to take the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Mission Viejo, Calif. The men had sought a marriage license in Southern California's Orange County in 2004 and, after they were turned down, filed a federal lawsuit that challenged federal and state laws against same-sex marriage.
A U.S. District judge said the federal Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional but declined to rule on the state ban because a separate legal challenge is making its way through California state courts.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in May that the couple should await the outcome of the state court challenge.
Last week, a California appeals court upheld the state ban on same-sex weddings. That case appears headed for the California Supreme Court.
A trial judge in San Francisco last year declared the state marriage ban invalid because it violated the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
Major civil rights groups opposed the federal lawsuit, preferring to fight for recognition of gay marriage in several states before the Supreme Court is asked to weigh in.
The case is Smelt v. Orange County, 06-5742.
What is he, gay?
Smelt and Hammer?
I'd better not. I'll get suspended.
One more bit of good news!
OK, I'll... er.... bite...
What is a SoGal gay man?
;->
Southern California.
Arthur and Christopher Smelt-Hammer. Cool.
Richard Simmons.
There must be some mistake.
The Iranian government would be happy to issue them a fatwa, er ... license.
Put them on a plane.
Hey Smelt and Hammer,catch the red eye flight to my home state of Massholechusetts.The authorities here love to join two homo's in marriage because it makes em feel so happy, no it makes em feel so .........gay !!!
Gotcha...with names like that, it's not hard to tell which one plays which role.
so it was denied on a "ripeness" basis.
IOW the court said "not yet" not "no"
Just to get it clear, it's the CA Supreme Court who won't hear it?
Nope--US Supreme Court won't hear it.
Here is some background.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=23203
May 8, 2006
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press
SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--A federal appeals court panel May 5 dismissed a lawsuit against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, unanimously ruling that two homosexual men who brought the case lacked standing.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the first-ever ruling concerning DOMA by a federal appellate court. Signed into law in 1996, DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing "gay marriage" and gives states the option of doing the same. If DOMA is overturned, then all 50 states presumably would be forced to recognize "marriage" between homosexuals. Massachusetts remains the lone state to legalize "gay marriage."
(snip)
The lawsuit was brought by the two men, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, after they applied for but were denied a marriage license in Orange County, Calif. They sued in federal court, arguing that both the California law and the Defense of Marriage Act violate the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in June 2005 ruled against the two men, and they appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
LOL!
Thanks for the elucidation for a bizzy fool like me!
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Good news. Check it out.
If anyone wants on/off this pinglist, freepmail wagglebee and/or little jeremiah.
Was this queer trying to marry his brother? I don't follow the reason for refusal.
Just putting it off for a more liberal court. Sigh. It would be really nice if the SCOTUS showed some cojones and whacked this perversion down hard right here and now.
Were their names Neil and Bob, or is that just what they do?
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.