Another California judge has punted in the gay-marriage case, declining to issue a stay even though San Francisco clearly violates the state constitution by issuing licenses to same-sex couples:

Gay and lesbian couples won another reprieve Friday when a judge declined to immediately stop San Francisco from granting them marriage licenses, saying conservative groups failed to prove the weddings would cause irreparable harm.

No other details are available yet. However, it appears that the judge ruled that Frisco's prima facie flouting of the constitutional amendment passed recently by California voters doesn't require an immediate injunction. Imagine, if you will, if a schoolteacher required students to pray every day. Do you suppose a judge would find enough "irreperable harm" to issue an injunction? A California judge would break a finger signing that order to get it out as fast as possible.

As I've stated before, I don't have a big problem with the idea of gay marriage, as long as it isn't imposed on society as a "right" from unelected officials. In California, that seems to be the exact method being used, and it's especially reprehensible after voters passed a constitutional amendment specifying that they did not want such marriages legalized. If people want this to be a wedge issue, they're rapidly becoming successful. The actions of judges to legislate from the bench alienates people like me, who only want to see laws made by the legislature, where law-making belongs.

UPDATE: The AP has updated its story:

Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order but said the group did have the right to a hearing on their argument that the city is violating state law. The conservative group argued that the weddings harm all Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial. "If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.

Rubbish. Under the state law, marriage is defined very specifically and that was done by a referendum, direct democracy in action. While referendums cannot override the constitution, the correct process would be for groups opposing the law to challenge the law in court, not for state agencies to disregard the law at whim.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California Judiciary Punts:

» KGB Firing Squad from The Politburo Diktat
More reactionary bloggers to go up against the wall. Ready, fire, aim! Capitalist Captain Ed offers his reactionary views on gay marriage developments in California. Doublespeak Dowingba on his vacuous vacillations. Jessica's Well speculates on Edwards... [Read More]

Tracked on February 20, 2004 9:43 PM

» Gay "Marriage" update from Pinwheels and Orange Peels
Capt Ed takes a look at the latest news from San Fran. A quote:If people want this to be a wedge issue, they're rapidly becoming successful. The actions of judges to legislate from the bench alienates people like me, who [Read More]

Tracked on February 21, 2004 7:40 AM