GAY MARRIAGES VOIDED, BUT QUESTIONS REMAIN: From Law.com

...The California Supreme Court did what many expected Thursday morning and ruled unanimously that the city of San Francisco exceeded its authority by performing marriages not recognized by state law.

The justices stated no opinion on the underlying question of whether denying same-sex marriages violates the California Constitution. They indicated that issue would be resolved later, in the cases now being brought by same-sex couples who have been denied licenses.

The Supreme Court vote was closer on the related issue of whether the marriage licenses already issued should be invalidated. By a 5-2 vote, the court said the marriages were void from their inception because Family Code §300 "clearly limits marriage in California to a marriage between a man and a woman."

"From a practical perspective," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "we believe it would not be prudent or wise to leave the validity of these marriages in limbo for what might be a substantial period of time given the potential confusion (for third parties, such as employers, insurers or other governmental entities, as well as for the affected couples) that such an uncertain status inevitably would entail."

In separate opinions, Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar agreed that the city had acted inappropriately, but felt the court didn't need to take the extra step of invalidating the marriages. The court, they argued, should first decide whether laws prohibiting same-sex marriages meet constitutional muster. ...

Werdegar went further by saying that the court had denied "basic fairness" by invalidating the marriages when none of the couples was a party to the suit. "By postponing a ruling on this issue," Werdegar wrote, "we could preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the constitutional litigation. Instead, by declaring the marriages 'void and of no legal effect from their inception,' the majority permanently deprives future courts of the ability to award full relief in the event the existing statutes are held unconstitutional.

"This premature decision can in no sense be thought to represent fair judicial process."

more

posted by Eve at 3:25 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home