Lockyer: SF officials violated separation of powers in gay marriages

[question everything]

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Bill Lockyer told the California Supreme Court Thursday that in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, San Francisco authorities violated the separation of powers doctrine by assuming for themselves "more power than the Governor, or the Supreme Court, or the Legislature."

(snip)

In a 29-page brief submitted at the court's request, Lockyer rejected the city's argument that local officials were obligated to grant the licenses because the California Constitution forbids discrimination. State law "controls every aspect of marriage, leaving nothing to the discretion of local government" he argued, while under the American system of government, only the judiciary can determine a law's constitutionality.

(snip)

City Attorney Dennis Herrera's staff, in papers submitted to Supreme Court last week, said California case law is replete with examples of public officials, including previous attorneys general, refusing to enforce laws on constitutional grounds.

(snip)

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund argued in the brief it submitted on behalf of three San Francisco residents who opposed the monthlong wedding march that if the court accepts the city's argument, "every local official has unfettered discretion to interpret and apply the state and federal constitutions according to the dictates of his or her own conscience."

(snip)

By the close of business Thursday, the court had granted permission to three more groups to file amicus "friend of the court" briefs in the two parallel cases: Roger Jon Diamond, a Santa Monica First Amendment lawyer who has represented the adult entertainment industry, and Alma Marie Triche-Winston and Charel Winston, a lesbian couple, were allowed to submit briefs in support of San Francisco. A San Diego pastor who calls herself Divine Queen Mariette Do-Nguyen filed a brief backing the attorney general.

(snip)

The cases are Lewis v. Alfaro, S122865 and Lockyer v. San Francisco, S122923.

[question everything]

1. Forgot to include the URL

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/03/26/news/state/3_25_0421_56_00.txt

[foreigncorrespondent]

2. Yeah?

Well I will hate to inform them, but the state of CA have been violating their own state constitution for years.

So it is okay to discriminate, but not okay to take the discrimination away?

[mitchtv]

3. Let's see, first he votes for Arnold

now this,WTF? time to give the job to a pug when I vote green. enough is enough.

[cynicinthesouth]

4. I wish this kind of thing hadn't come up

THIS year of all years. This stuff is gonna kill us in the south.

[question everything]

5. Agree. Especially since the first rule came from the MA Supreme Court

and some Bible Thumping can connect this with all the "evil" things that come from MA...

Which means that Kerry will have to make a very clever message. Not just about yes on civil union no on marriage. There were excellent points on these pages. One was to leave marriage to religious ceremonies, or something.

[mitchtv]

6. you wish gay marriages had not come up?

I guess it should have been sooner, you are right. But honey too late to turn around for the south- how about changeing the Constituion so they can leave this time for good?

[FredScuttle]

7. Heaven forfend that we offend bigots

You're thinking it's better to herd those radical sodomites back into the closet so Mr. and Mrs. Heartland won't get spooked?

Newsflash - they aren't voting for Kerry anyway. And civil rights and equal protection under the law shouldn't have to wait for a goddamn election.