“How Appealing” has …

“How Appealing” has links galore on the latest ruling of the California Supreme Court on the same-sex marriages that were performed in San Francisco. Short answer: Mayor Newsom had no standing to unilaterally break the law by performing those ceremonies. Therefore, they are null and void.

In an AP article on the ruling, there’s quite a bit to comment on.

The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolism. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.

“Del is 83 years old and I am 79,” Lyon said. “After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time.”

…but plenty of time for violating the law. Time is not the issue–the rule of law is.

The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass state judicial and legislative branches.

…which, you’d think, would have been patently obvious to a politician like the mayor of San Francisco. His blatant disregard for the law is not a characteristic you want in any sort of public servant. That’s a lot of wasted time and money by someone who should (and most probably did) know better.

The California court sided with Lockyer’s arguments, ruling that Newsom’s actions would foment legal anarchy and sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.

Is this the liberal way of affecting societal change; fomenting legal anarchy?

When the justices agreed in March to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge – that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution – if such a lawsuit worked its way to the justices through the lower courts.

Gay and lesbian couples immediately acted on that invitation, suing in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging laws barring them from marrying were discriminatory. Mayor Newsom filed a similar lawsuit.

…which is one way this should have been handled in the first place. A far more preferred way would be to work it through the legislature. Of course, that would mean letting the people have more of a say, and liberals know where the majority of the country stands on this. When the “will of the people” doesn’t support them, all of a sudden it’s not such a great ideal to them.

The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter, and have left the politically volatile issue to its Supreme Court.

There’s “leadership” for you.

The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom’s “act of disobedience” could lead other local officials to sanction “polygamists.”

There hasn’t been any reasonable explanation of why this expansion to polygamy wouldn’t happen by those advocating for same-sex marriage among just 2 people. And don’t forget that man and his horse.

This has been one set of legal proceedings that has shown liberal activists for what they are and how they operate. I will admit, though, to being very pleasantly surprised that the California Supreme Court hung in there for the rule of law, although this really isn’t about same-sex marriage per se, but about whether a constitutional ban against discrimination trumps a state law forbidding same-sex marriage. The proper channel would have been to do what they’re (finally) doing now; take the same-sex marriage ban to court. In handling it the way he did, Newsom made sure he fired up, in a big way, those who agreed with him first, no matter the cost to the taxpayers, and then follow the proper procedures. Totally dishonest, but not out of character in how this issue has been handled by the left.

ScrappleFace has the best commentary I can think of on this. >grin<

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!