ABEL
An Angel In Devil's Shoes
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/17/state1932EST0125.DTL
(02-17) 16:33 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --
Two judges delayed taking any action Tuesday to shut down San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree, citing court procedures as they temporarily rebuffed conservative groups enraged that the city's liberal politicians had already married almost 2,400 gay and lesbian couples.
The second judge told the plaintiffs that they would likely succeed on the merits eventually, but that for now, he couldn't accept their proposed court order because of a punctuation error.
It all came down to a semicolon, the judge said.
"I am not trying to be petty here, but it is a big deal ... That semicolon is a big deal," said San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren.
The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund had asked the judge to issue an order commanding the city to "cease and desist issuing marriage licenses to and/or solemnizing marriages of same-sex couples; to show cause before this court."
"The way you've written this it has a semicolon where it should have the word 'or'," the judge told them. "I don't have the authority to issue it under these circumstances."
The judge said he'd read the voluminous briefs submitted to him, and had done his own research, reviewing all the relevant statutes. His conclusion, he said, was that the conservative groups appear entitled to get their stay eventually.
But until they write their proposed court order correctly, Warren indicated that he would not order an immediate halt to the marriages of gays and lesbians that continued throughout the day across the street at City Hall.
Lawyers for both sides then spent hours arguing about punctuation and court procedures during the hearing, which was still continuing late Tuesday afternoon.
Gay couples from as far away as Europe have been lining up outside the ornate City Hall since Thursday, when city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples in a collective act of official civil disobedience.
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said Tuesday that he was not prepared to rule until at least Friday in a separate challenge of the marriages.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the city will keep marrying gays until the courts order them to stop. And then, the city will pursue the constitutional challenge through the courts. Newsom says the equal protection clause of the California Constitution makes denying marriage licenses to gay couples illegal.
"What trumps any proposition is the California Constitution," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera before the hearing.
The conservatives want the courts to nullify the marriages and block the city from granting any more of the "gender-neutral" licenses. The newly elected mayor's decision to permit gay marriages, while still legally unsettled, has intensified the national debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy the many benefits only married couples receive.
Quidachay told lawyers for the Campaign for California Families that they had not given the city enough notice to obtain an emergency injunction. "The court itself is not prepared to hear the matter," Quidachay said.
Campaign for California Families said state law explicitly defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." The group also is arguing that San Francisco is violating Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2000 that said only marriages between a man and woman are valid.
"If the mayor can't read the law, we're hoping a judge can read it for him," said Randy Thomasson, president of the conservative group.
Whatever the outcome of Tuesday's court hearings, the final judicial word is expected to come later from the California Supreme Court, as both sides have promised to appeal.
After issuing a record-number of 750 wedding licenses on Monday, San Francisco officials scaled back the size of their operation on Tuesday as city staffers who had been recruited to help handle the flood of newlyweds returned to their regular jobs. City Assessor Mabel Teng estimated that 30 to 50 gay couples would be married Tuesday, after being given numbers so that they wouldn't have to stand outside in the rain.
Not everyone in the gay community is in favor of San Francisco's constitutional challenge -- some have expressed concern that it will backfire and harm efforts in Massachusetts to derail a proposed ban on gay marriages. Lawmakers there are debating a constitutional amendment to ban the marriages after the state's Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts' constitution currently permits gay marriages.
(02-17) 16:33 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --
Two judges delayed taking any action Tuesday to shut down San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree, citing court procedures as they temporarily rebuffed conservative groups enraged that the city's liberal politicians had already married almost 2,400 gay and lesbian couples.
The second judge told the plaintiffs that they would likely succeed on the merits eventually, but that for now, he couldn't accept their proposed court order because of a punctuation error.
It all came down to a semicolon, the judge said.
"I am not trying to be petty here, but it is a big deal ... That semicolon is a big deal," said San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren.
The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund had asked the judge to issue an order commanding the city to "cease and desist issuing marriage licenses to and/or solemnizing marriages of same-sex couples; to show cause before this court."
"The way you've written this it has a semicolon where it should have the word 'or'," the judge told them. "I don't have the authority to issue it under these circumstances."
The judge said he'd read the voluminous briefs submitted to him, and had done his own research, reviewing all the relevant statutes. His conclusion, he said, was that the conservative groups appear entitled to get their stay eventually.
But until they write their proposed court order correctly, Warren indicated that he would not order an immediate halt to the marriages of gays and lesbians that continued throughout the day across the street at City Hall.
Lawyers for both sides then spent hours arguing about punctuation and court procedures during the hearing, which was still continuing late Tuesday afternoon.
Gay couples from as far away as Europe have been lining up outside the ornate City Hall since Thursday, when city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples in a collective act of official civil disobedience.
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said Tuesday that he was not prepared to rule until at least Friday in a separate challenge of the marriages.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the city will keep marrying gays until the courts order them to stop. And then, the city will pursue the constitutional challenge through the courts. Newsom says the equal protection clause of the California Constitution makes denying marriage licenses to gay couples illegal.
"What trumps any proposition is the California Constitution," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera before the hearing.
The conservatives want the courts to nullify the marriages and block the city from granting any more of the "gender-neutral" licenses. The newly elected mayor's decision to permit gay marriages, while still legally unsettled, has intensified the national debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy the many benefits only married couples receive.
Quidachay told lawyers for the Campaign for California Families that they had not given the city enough notice to obtain an emergency injunction. "The court itself is not prepared to hear the matter," Quidachay said.
Campaign for California Families said state law explicitly defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." The group also is arguing that San Francisco is violating Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2000 that said only marriages between a man and woman are valid.
"If the mayor can't read the law, we're hoping a judge can read it for him," said Randy Thomasson, president of the conservative group.
Whatever the outcome of Tuesday's court hearings, the final judicial word is expected to come later from the California Supreme Court, as both sides have promised to appeal.
After issuing a record-number of 750 wedding licenses on Monday, San Francisco officials scaled back the size of their operation on Tuesday as city staffers who had been recruited to help handle the flood of newlyweds returned to their regular jobs. City Assessor Mabel Teng estimated that 30 to 50 gay couples would be married Tuesday, after being given numbers so that they wouldn't have to stand outside in the rain.
Not everyone in the gay community is in favor of San Francisco's constitutional challenge -- some have expressed concern that it will backfire and harm efforts in Massachusetts to derail a proposed ban on gay marriages. Lawmakers there are debating a constitutional amendment to ban the marriages after the state's Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts' constitution currently permits gay marriages.
he's my hero...
