Same-Sex Wedding Stay Sought

Gov. Mitt Romney said Thursday he will seek emergency legislation aimed at forestalling same-sex marriages, which are scheduled to become legal in Massachusetts on May 17.

The legislation would allow Romney to appoint a special counsel who would ask the state's highest court to delay its ruling on same-sex marriage. The governor said it would allow him "to protect the integrity of the constitutional process."

Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly last month rejected the Republican governor's request to seek a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court until November 2006, when voters may have a chance to weigh in on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and legalizing civil unions.

The man Romney hopes to tap as special prosecutor is retired state Supreme Judicial Court Justice Joseph R. Nolan, who has called the court's November ruling legalizing same-sex marriage an "abomination."

The attorney general, as the state's chief legal officer, determines legal policy for the commonwealth.

"This would be an unprecedented intrusion on the attorney general's authority," said attorney Robert Sherman, who served as counsel to former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger.

Any legislation to stop same-sex marriage would likely face an uphill battle in the state Senate, where 22 of the 40 members last month voted against the constitutional amendment. It passed anyway because there were enough votes among House members.

Even Senate President Robert Travaglini, who supported that amendment, has said there is little appetite in the chamber to block same-sex marriages on May 17.

Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court indicated it's mulling how to treat the 4,000 couples who were wed before last month's halt to the same-sex marriage spree in San Francisco.

The justices asked Wednesday for a briefing for the first time on whether they should invalidate the same-sex marriages if they rule that Mayor Gavin Newsom did not have the authority to issue the marriage licenses.

The justices, in a brief order, asked Newsom, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage for their views.

Since the high court halted same-sex marriages in San Francisco last month, it has focused the case solely on whether Newsom had the authority to override state law and dole out same-sex marriage licenses earlier this year.

But on Wednesday, the justices asked Newsom, Lockyer and the Alliance Defense Fund — the conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage — what the court should do if it finds against Newsom.

The court would have to decide if the 4,000 marriages remain valid, if they would be automatically be voided or of they could they be voided at some time in the future.

Assuming Newsom's defeat, which many legal scholars predict, the court asked: "Would the marriages that have been performed and registered nonetheless be valid, would the marriages be voidable or would the marriages be void?"

Lockyer has already told the court in briefs that the marriages, which have left the newlyweds in a state of legal limbo, are invalid and that those married should get their $82 fees refunded.

Robert Tyler, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, which is opposing Newsom in the litigation before the high court, said the court should nullify the marriages.

"I've said from day one that these certificates are not worth the paper that they are written on," Tyler said. "I believe the Supreme Court should find that they are completely void."

In a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, most New York voters said they oppose same-sex marriage but would support a law allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions.

Statewide, 52 percent of surveyed voters said they supported a civil union law and 40 percent opposed it, but there were major differences along party lines. While 58 percent of registered Democrats and 55 percent of independents were in favor, 52 percent of Republicans were opposed.

Asked about a law that would permit same-sex couples to get married, 55 percent overall were opposed and 37 percent in favor. Opposition was 70 percent among Republicans, 55 percent among independents and among Democrats a narrow plurality at 46 percent.