State court weighs legality of homosexual ‘marriages’ in San Francisco

Ground zero in the battle for traditional marriage shifted from Massachusetts to California on May 25. Just two weeks after homosexual “marriage” became legal in Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court began hearing arguments on whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom abused his municipal power when he issued some 4,000 marriage licenses to homosexual couples earlier this year.

California law regarding marriage seems straight forward: State law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And in 2000, voters approved a statewide initiative requiring the state to only recognize marriages between men and women.

But in February this year, Newsom tossed state law aside and ordered the issuing of homosexual marriage licenses in what he called an act of “civil disobedience.”

The California Supreme Court stopped the same-sex marriages in March at the request of Attorney General Bill Lockyer and supporters of traditional marriage.

And now supporters of traditional marriage say Newsom should be held accountable for breaking the law, and that the thousands of same-sex “marriages” that took place in February should be declared null and void.

The Alliance Defense Council (ADF) – an Arizona-based Christian law firm – is making that argument to the state Supreme Court on behalf of three San Francisco residents who believe state law should be upheld.

During the May 25 hearing, the ADF said that Newsom had “completely taken away” the Legislature’s power on homosexual marriage by issuing the same-sex licenses.

Attorneys for the city of San Francisco argued that Newsom had the right to interpret the constitutionality of state law. They said the mayor believed state law on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional and that he had the power to disregard it on those grounds.

But several of the justices appeared to disagree, suggesting that approval of Newsom’s actions would encourage legal anarchy under which local officials could choose which laws they would follow.

Justices are expected to issue a decision within 90 days. — E.P. News