States Urge Calif. To Delay Gay Marriage

Other Attorneys General Claim Interest In Case, Push Court To Delay Final Ruling

(AP)  The attorneys general of 10 states have joined conservative legal groups in urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriages.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed late Thursday, the attorneys general said they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine whether their states should recognize the marriages of gay residents who got married in California.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. Except for Florida and New Hampshire, all of them have state constitutional provisions banning gay marriage.

The attorneys general asked the California high court to stay its May 15 ruling until after the November election, when California's voters likely will decide whether to adopt a similar amendment, which would overturn the court's decision. The court's decisions normally take effect after 30 days.

What happens in California is being watched carefully elsewhere because unlike Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where same-sex couples can now marry, California does not have a residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license.

"We reasonably believe an inevitable result of such 'marriage tourism' will be a steep increase in litigation of the recognition issue in our courts," Utah Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff wrote in the brief submitted on behalf of the 10 states.

New York Gov. David Paterson, meanwhile, has indicated that the state plans to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, meaning New Yorkers who get married in California would be entitled to spousal support, and other marriage rights at home.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office originally argued to uphold the state's one man-one woman marriage laws, submitted its own brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court not to grant the stay.

"The Court has declared the law governing the right of same-sex couples to marry, and the Attorney General undertakes to give effect to that declaration with no less vigor than he previously sought to give effect to the statutes in dispute," Brown's brief states. "It is time for these proceedings to end."

The Supreme Court has until the close of business on June 16 to decide on the stay request, but it also could give itself a 60-day extension to consider the matter. The California Office of Vital Records informed local officials this week they can start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17, barring further instructions from the court.

"The court's decision firmly establishes there is a fundamental right to marriage equality for same-sex couples under the California Constitution," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office joined two dozen same-sex couples in bringing the lawsuit that led to the court's 4-3 decision. "To deny that fundamental right based on speculation about what might happen in November is terribly inappropriate."

Ron Prentice, chairman of the coalition sponsoring the proposed California Marriage Protection Act, said he welcomed having other states support the stay request.

"Redefining marriage will affect the entire nation, not just California," Prentice said. "There is no good reason for these four judges to create nationwide chaos when a ballot measure to reverse the decision is pending before the voters."

More than 9,500 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since gay marriage was legalized in 2004 by the state's high court.

The California ruling is considered monumental because of the state's population - 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million - and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

Four states - Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire recognize same-sex civil unions. Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia offer domestic partnership or reciprocal benefits laws that provide some marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

Voters in 26 states have approved state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.

Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to outlaw same-sex marriage; lawmakers did so in 1998.

[jboxton]

Why do normal people care so much if these sissies get married? Let them do what they want? Why care?

[culturechang]

The court of CA has already ruled. Why should they delay just because people dont like it that they cannot control someone else''s morality by THIER standards? No reason to wait. No reason to ban gay marriage in a country we call "free". Never was except that theocracy has been ruling here for far too long.

[therex10]

Because it is wrong - in God''s eyes & the Bible. Not only are morals, trust & values gone but if this is ok - what will be next? killing people for sport or because they are old, sick or weak? It will continue to get worse & decline if we keep allowing immorality to occur - read in the Bible about Sodom & Gamorrha

[feelfree4u]

The tiny, demented world of the theocrats and neo-fascists is closing in on them fast.

Must be pretty scary.

[sandy19731]

I live in Nebraska and our Attorney General is a headline grabbing idiot.

[sandy19731]

Because it is wrong - in God''''s eyes & the Bible. Not only are morals, trust & values gone but if this is ok - what will be next? killing people for sport or because they are old, sick or weak? It will continue to get worse & decline if we keep allowing immorality to occur - read in the Bible about Sodom & Gamorrha
Posted by therex10 at 07:07 PM : May 30, 2008

Letting people who love each other get married is not hardly the same as murdering old people. Get a grip! And, your bible doesn''t make any sense, have you tried to read it?

[bud28dy]

Jboxton -- you''re right. *** shouldn''t be the only ones getting married. Sissies should also be allowed to marry so you go right ahead and get hitched.

[jboxton]

You wrote:
"Because it is wrong - in God''''s eyes & the Bible. Not only are morals, trust & values gone but if this is ok - what will be next? killing people for sport or because they are old, sick or weak?"
I personally would love hunting the elderly. I would make our highways alot safer.

[mcvet]

All this hate will rip this nation apart. Over the last 3 decades its been like a war zone in a nation built on indiviual thought. Whatever happened to open and honest debate. Whatever happened to the American who left their neighbor alone and minded their OWN business. With the price of everything, the mess in Iraq and all the other things we the people have on our plate, who sleeps with whom is NOT real high on my list. Sieg Heil Bush

[mcvet]

Because it is wrong - in God''''s eyes & the Bible. Not only are morals, trust & values gone but if this is ok - what will be next? killing people for sport or because they are old, sick or weak? It will continue to get worse & decline if we keep allowing immorality to occur - read in the Bible about Sodom & Gamorrha


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by therex10 at 07:07 PM : May 30, 2008
+ report abuse

You have a right to YOUR religious Beliefs and these people have a right to theirs as well. How about BOTH of you worship YOUR religion as you see fit and BOTH of you leave the rest of us out of it?? Sieg Heil and AMEN

[yongamerica]

The term marriage is religious in connotation. Every state should support same *** unions as well as opposite *** unions and strike the term marriage from its laws.

[yongamerica]

*** = s e x

[misands]

I never understood how or believed that these people getting married would make a difference in my own marriage. Expanding civil rights to them is a good thing!

[liselle3]

tiddsanbeer
Obviously you don''t have any real contact with women...

[liselle3]

tiddsanbeer
Obviously you don''t have any real contact with women...

[formrusmcsgt]

Isn''t it amazing how so many have no qualms about sustaining discrimination against others?

[ixoye_02]

It seems to me that divorce is the real harm to "traditional" marriage. And I am not sure why a married gay/lesbian couple would harm or challenge my marriage? Marriage is between two people and the state. Everyone else has to mind his/her own business because nobody should interfere in anyone''s own marriage. If everyone thinks that marriage is so sacred and santificed, why is it easy for people to obtain a divorce. The real outrage for traditional marraige should be against divorced people because of the breakup of the family unit, right? But I think we recognize that sometimes marriages fail and need a way to get out. It seems as though some people are mean-spirited enough to deny others the right to marry or disgusted with their own marriage that it seems a convenient thing criticise and opine. Marriage is largely a personal thing. If the extended families can''t deal with it, it''s not the couples'' problem. Get over it!!

[randynason]

Separation of church and state sounds good in theory but it doesn''t really translate in real life. I don''t like the idea of organized religion, personally. Fundamentalists are quick to act offended that *** exist at all. I would prefer to be concerned about whether or not the person is an honorable and intelligent person who has some good qualities to share, than what genetalia that person is sporting.

[nonayabiness]

I''m all for civil unions (but not ''marriage'') between same *** couples, but why shouldn''t roommates get the same civil liberties as well? Civil liberties and rights for everyone! Its the only way!

[rafterman1]

===Isn''''t it amazing how so many have no qualms about sustaining discrimination against others?===
Posted by formrusmcsgt

I''ve asked the question many tmes in different threads and I''ve yet to see a reasonable answer. In what way will gay people getting married affect your life that does NOT end up in a comparison with (a) your religion saying so (state laws do not recognize any official religion) or (b) doing something illegal? (so, no, "hunting the elderly" is not an acceptable comparison)

[brugs2]

I didn''t marry with a church. I married at the townhall. No God''s or morals. Just love.
So why can''t *** enjoy that too?

[dowjones20k]

Another blatant act where a court redefines the the voters wishes ...

Odd how the reporter fails to mention that California already has LAWS on the books the offer the exact same rights to same *** couples as any other ..

Not to mention the fact that Californians already voted in 2000 and passed a law that marriage is defined as between a man & woman ....

So why after 8 years does the court decide to overturn the voters wishes?

a few thoughts ....

Money for lawyers ... another way to increase the pie for all the legal crooks ...

Maybe a way to excite a voting group to get out and vote this November?

Maybe California wants to be like Massachusetts?

who knows ..

[rafterman1]

===So why after 8 years does the court decide to overturn the voters wishes?===
Posted by dowjones20k

They overturned it because a suit was brought, until it reached the CA Supreme Court. What, you think they just decided to do it out of the blue because they wanted to? That''s not how it works.

[mikejrexec]

Civil rights should never be brought before a majority vote. If that were the case, minorities would never achieve equal rights. That is why we have a court system in this country.

[mikejrexec]

ttracymorgan you make no point.

[sandy19731]

ttracymorgan,
Although that sceneo sounds really strange, as long as there was NO possibility of offspring I wouldn''t have any problem with it. Bringing up highly unusual cases doesn''t really bolster your case, though. Society is able to put limits on what it wants to limit and incest has always been off limits in all societies. Whereas homosexuality has not.

[sgtrds-e4]

I almost laugh when people claim to only be interested and angry about the California case because the judges "over-ruled the will of the people". What a lying steaming pile of cr*ap that is! They just plain don''t want gay people to get married and they wouldn''t give a dam*n about "activist judges" if the judges had ruled for the ban. the judges weren''t activist in this case anyway, they were doing their job which is to review laws to see if they are constitutional. The people do not have the right in this country to make an unconstitutional law. So quit the BSing about the judges being the only thing you object to and at least just be honest and say you don''t like gay people.

[sgtrds-e4]

If two gay people fall in love and want to get married it''s no one eles''s business.

[sgtrds-e4]

It seems to me that divorce is the real harm to "traditional" marriage. And I am not sure why a married gay/lesbian couple would harm or challenge my marriage? Marriage is between two people and the state. Everyone else has to mind his/her own business because nobody should interfere in anyone''''s own marriage. If everyone thinks that marriage is so sacred and santificed, why is it easy for people to obtain a divorce. The real outrage for traditional marraige should be against divorced people because of the breakup of the family unit, right? But I think we recognize that sometimes marriages fail and need a way to get out. It seems as though some people are mean-spirited enough to deny others the right to marry or disgusted with their own marriage that it seems a convenient thing criticise and opine. Marriage is largely a personal thing. If the extended families can''''t deal with it, it''''s not the couples'''' problem. Get over it!!

Posted by ixoye_02 at 08:29 PM : May 30, 2008

Bravo! Well said!

[veteran72]

The Religious Reich Taliban branch of the Neocon Nazi Party, isn''t only interested in stopping GLB persons from marrying, they now want to ban scarves as a show of support for the "Terr''ists" at our sacred Donut Shops.......LMMFAO.....I can''t wait till these loons are flushed in November.......

[drivelphobe]

The voters in California are ignored. We voted for English only. We voted that marriage is between a man and a woman. We overwhelmingly support deportation of illegals and elimination of anchor babies, entitlements, and any support for these parasites.

Now it''s fine for queers to get married. What a disgusting mess.

Hey tiddsanbeer, i sure hope you don''t say your prayers with that mouth.

[jeffstersf]

jboxton says "Why do normal people care so much if these sissies get married? Let them do what they want? Why care?".

Dude I am a big muscled gay male, you''d never know I was gay if you met me and if you had the balls to call me a "sissy" in my face, I''d smash yours in.

Is that "normal" enough for you p**sy?

[jeffstersf]

So the only marriage that counts is a "Christian Marriage", huh tech77? So Lieberman''s Jewish marriage doesn''t count.

ALL marriages, even Christian ones, were arranged primarily for financial reasons for most of history. Can''t expect a closed-minded moron like to you understand that.

Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the US. THAT''S what gay marriage has to offer you low lives.

[irliberal]

We reasonably believe an inevitable result of such ''marriage tourism'' will be a steep increase in litigation of the recognition issue in our courts
Mark L. Shurtleff, Utah attorney general


Hmmm Utah. No agendas there are there?

Is this a bad thing? No, no it isn''t.

[harp1963]

We are evolving into a nation without a conscious. If people want to live this lifestyle that is their business, but to make it law is completely wrong and sends the wrong message to the youth of our nation. Male and female genitals are for reproduction and the creation of families.

We are turning into a pagan society that turns a blind eye to torture, who crave and worship money, who accept same gender couples as completely normal, who don''t demand harsher sentences for pedophiles, who will do anything (cheat, steal, use illegal drugs) to win, who stand by while gambling establishment pop up on every corner of our neighborhoods, who medicate our children instead of spending time with them so we can golf with our buddies. It''s all about self gratification. What has happened to our nation?! Where are we going with all of this? Yes we''re all sinners, but now we''re legislating sin to make it legally o.k. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

[sylvernight-2009]

I''m not going to get into my personal views on homosexual marriage, because I don''t think that''s the real issue here. The real issue, as I see it, is the government increasingly trying to get into and affect our personal lives, when what we do on a personal basis is none of their business. Firs we ban the things that we find personally or religiously offensive, then we find ourselves banned because we don''t meet someone else''s measure of moral perfection. If you think about it, everyone is a deviant to some degree. I think that as long as we''re not harming each other, what do I care if two consenting adults want to do something I personally would never do also?

[grammawhamma]

harp1963: So according to you, male and female genitals are for reproduction. Are you going to stop having intercourse with your spouse when your family is large enough or when the female in your marriage is no longer fertile?

Repent: There are many "married" heterosexual couples who have a.n.a.l and or oral s.e.x behind their bedroom doors.

And to all the rest of you homophobics and religious zealots...the odds are great that a portion of you will have a child who is homosexual. Food for thought..."homosexuals had heterosexual parents, or they would not exist."

[haoli25]

Ah, let ''em get married. I am heavily invested in Crisco.

[harp1963]

GrammaWhamma

Wrong is wrong and even if you debate well, wrong is still wrong. The enjoyment of s ex between married men and women is part of the procreation of the species. Animals in the wild who don''t have the gift of free will enjoy mating with the OPPOSITE s ex, but they still don''t engage in same s ex activity. Wrong will always be wrong. My sins are wrong and I don''t expect the government to legislate my weaknesses to make me feel better about my sinfulness.

We''re not here because two rocks collided in outerspace. If you honestly believe the story of a carpenter, who was the son of a carpenter in some obscure town in the middle of the desert traveled across 2008 years and around the globe wasn''t divine intervertion, then you are dumb. I''m sorry, but most people have already forgotten who Andrew Carnegie was.

[honestabe8]

Repent6: Atheists cannot be in rebellion against a being in which they do not believe. I do not understand why you are having problems understanding that, other than your persecution complex

[tmn]

Why should gay people be denied the right to be every bit as miserable as straight married couples?? We owe it to ''em!

[grammawhamma]

harp1963: It is your "opinion" that homosexuality is wrong because you chose to interpret the Bible that way. My God tells me to love my neighbor and to not judge others. Even if you are correct and God frowns on g.a.y. relationships...it is for God to judge, not you.

And BTW if you know anything about animal behavior...animals do engage in same s.e.x activity. I know cows, horses, dogs and cats do. Did a dog ever hump your leg?

[ixoye_02]

Why are we injecting religion in this debate. We are talking about a secular, legal, institution called marriage and the laws that govern the arrangement. The State just happens to recognize marriage as performed or solemnized by religious tradition and calls those marriages legal. The churches are not the only venue for marriage. So, gay marriage is fundamentally about legal recognition of same-*** unions, especially those where there are children. You can''t say that marriage is strictly for procreation because infertile men/women and those who choose not to have children get married too. Should the state declare those marriages illegal since there are no children? The religious argument has little bearing on a legal and secular definition. By the same right, the church cannot be told that they have to marry ***/lesbians. There is separation.

[grammawhamma]

ixoye: Exactly...very well put! However, you will never convince the religious zealots...just like they can''t convince me homosexuals will burn in hellfire.

[andor3]

well the debate is over and as expected and reasonable, same s e x marriage is fine with everyone sane.

It also has exposed a lot of perverts--anyone who thinks they can define who can marry, what is true love, or believes intercourse is for reproduction only is more than a little sick and twisted (not surprisingly these are the folks calling everyone else sick and twisted).

[formrusmcsgt]

Not believing is rebellion honestabe8.

Posted by Repent6 at 07:20 AM : May 31, 2008

No, not believeing in fairy tales as an adult is a sign of clarity of thought, not rebellion.

[formrusmcsgt]

I find it a bit ironic, to say the least, that those most vocal about continuing to discriminate against homosexuals are those who call themselves "Christians".

So much for Christian tolerance, eh?

[formrusmcsgt]

-Hey Gramma, if you don''''t believe anyone has a right to "judge" then why did the California Supreme Court "judge" that it was ok for homosexuals to get married?


Posted by Repent6 at 07:28 AM : May 31, 2008

You fail to perceive the difference between a decision about legality versus one about morality......

[formrusmcsgt]

Then why do you believe in the fairy tales of Darwinian evolution and the planet of the apes timeline?

Posted by Repent6 at 07:29 AM : May 31, 2008

Considering that anthropology, microbiology, and archeology all support evolution while you cling to a belief without any scientific support whatsoever, I don''t think you have much room to criticize here....