|
|
|
|
Gay marriage bill advances in California; Oregon halts weddings while amendment hits snag
Legal challenges and battles across the country trying to weigh in on “marriage” |
| By Staff Reporter |
| CHRISTIAN EXAMINER |
|
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California Assembly committee on April 20 became the first legislative body in the nation to vote for a bill that legalizes same-sex marriages. AB 1967, authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would change the definition in the California Family code to read “two persons” instead of “a man and a woman.”
The move came the same day an Oregon judge issued an injunction to stop same-sex marriages in his state. Judge Frank Bearden said he believes such unions will ultimately withstand Constitutional review, but in the mean time, Multnomah County needs to wait until the state Supreme Court issues a ruling on the matter.
Two days later, April 22, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a challenge to the proposed marriage amendment, delaying efforts by pro-family groups in gathering the signatures required to put the amendment on the ballot. They need approximately 100,000 signatures by July 2. The "ballot title" is the actual language that is placed on the ballot explaining the purpose of the amendment.
Even though the petition process began in early March, the actual petitions have yet to be certified by the state. If the ACLU had not acted, pro-family groups likely would have been gathering signatures within days. Now, that could be weeks away.
"I'm quite sure that the ACLU has at least as much interest in delaying the process of the ballot measure as it has any real concern about the inaccuracy of the ballot title," Kelly Clark, a lawyer for the Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition, told Baptist Press. "A huge question will be how quickly the Supreme Court turns that around."
The Oregon Supreme Court is responsible for handling the challenge by the ACLU. Clark said the court usually is sensitive to the fact that the clock is ticking on gathering signatures. He said he hopes to hear something near the end of May.
In California, the bill vote went along party lines, as expected, with 8 Democrats voting yes and the three Republicans casting no’s.
Assemblyman Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, according to published reports, took Leno to task for the legislation.
“You took an oath to uphold the Constitution the same time I did—you are going about this the wrong way,” Harman was reported as saying.
Pro-family groups are condemning the passage, saying the legislation is a slap in the face to voters, who overwhelmingly supported Proposition 22, which banned gay marriages in California.
“We are shocked and appalled that the majority of committee members decided to ignore the will of the people they represent,” said Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute. “The people of California overwhelmingly voted in Prop. 22 that marriage in California is between one man and one woman only.”
The bill now moves to the assembly appropriations committee and if it passes there, will be voted upon by the entire assembly before moving over to the state senate.
Massachuetts groups seek to stop ruling
In Massachuetts, a pro-family group filed a legal challenge April 27 on behalf of a group of Massachusetts legislators, asserting that the state high court overstepped its constitutional jurisdiction when it issued its controversial same-sex “marriage” ruling.
It was the second time in a week that various pro-family groups have sought to stop or delay the ruling.
In the latest request, which spans 39 pages, the American Center for Law and Justice argues that under the state constitution the governor and legislature have authority over marriage laws. The request was filed on behalf of 13 state representatives.
The request asks the court to vacate its decision -- in essence, declaring it void. But if the court declines to do that, then it should at least delay its ruling until the issue of which branch has jurisdiction in marriage law is resolved, the request states. The ruling is scheduled to take effect May 17.
For any request to succeed, one of the justices in the 4-3 majority must change his or her mind.
“Under the Massachusetts Constitution, no branch of government shall exercise the powers of either of the other two branches,” the request states. “... [T]his Court has unconstitutionally infringed on the Legislature’s jurisdiction as the sole authority empowered under the Constitution to transfer jurisdiction in all cases involving marriage.”
If the court’s ruling takes effect May 17, Massachusetts would become the first in the nation officially to recognize same-sex “marriage.” Some conservatives warn that it is the first step toward nationwide legalization.
“We’re simply asking the Massachusetts court to comply with what their constitution already says,” ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said on his radio program April 27. “... They have taken over the legislative function, which is not the role of the courts.
Oklahoma sends amendment to voters
In a related issue, Oklahoma became the fifth state April 22 to send a constitutional marriage amendment to voters. The Oklahoma House passed a marriage amendment by a vote of 92-4, sending the issue to state citizens for a fall vote. Oklahoma joins Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Utah in sending a state constitutional marriage amendment to voters.
The Oklahoma amendment, which passed the state Senate 38-7 a week earlier, would protect the traditional definition of marriage, thus banning same-sex "marriage."
"Oklahomans deserve the right to protect traditional marriage, and they'll get a chance to do so this November," Senate Republican leader James Williamson said, according to the Associated Press.
Other states take action to protect marriage
Pro-family groups in Michigan and Ohio also have announced plans to gather signatures in an attempt to put a marriage amendment on the ballot in those states.
While at least 38 states have laws explicitly banning same-sex "marriage," only four of them deal with the issue in their respective constitutions. State constitutional amendments are considered to be greater protection against court rulings -- such as the one in Massachusetts -- than are state laws.
Nationally, pro-family groups are pushing for a federal constitutional marriage amendment, noting that federal courts can strike down state constitutional marriage amendments. Nebraska's marriage amendment is being challenged in federal court.
Baptist Press reports were used in this story.
Published, May 2004
|
|
| All site contents copyright © Christian Examiner™ |
|
Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com
|
|
