"Denied"

Constant Readers,

The score is Gay Mischief – 2; Hysterical Closet Cases – 0.

You may recall that after the Supreme Court’s May 15th ruling that the California Constitution guarantees homosexual couples the right to marry, the folks over at the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a Petition for Rehearing on May 22, 2008.  On May 30, the Campaign for California Families filed a Petition for Rehearing and Motion for Stay (until after the November election). Arguing that the passage of the “California Marriage Protection Act” in November will negate the ruling, the petitions contain statements like:

Great public harm and mischief…will result from permitting same-sex “marriages” for a five month period, only to later change the law by returning it to its traditional definition.

– Prop 22 petition, p. 10.

This Court (sic) May 15, 2008 decision, if permitted to be final on June 16, 2008 will create a “perfect storm” that will sweep across the United States leaving chaos and destruction in its wake.

– Campaign petition, p. 12 (Under the heading “This Decision Legalizes Polygamy and Polyamory.” Here is the chart explaining how the gay marriage ruling leads to polygamy, p. 28. I shit you not. This is actually in the court filing.)

The SF City Attorney responded to this hyperbole (not to mention douchy practice of putting the word “marriage” in quotes whenever referring to gay marriage in the petitions) by pointing out a recent Field poll which shows a majority of Californians support gay marriage - so the November ballot measure may not pass. Also granting the stay “would force entities like the City and County of San Francisco to continue violating the rights of their citizens when they want nothing more than to stop doing so." Aw, I love you, San Francisco!

Well, today the California State Supreme Court issued an order denying the petitions and directing the prior ruling to take effect on June 16, 2008 at 5 p.m..  The ruling was close – a 4-3 split.  Justices Baxter, Chin and Corrigan would have granted the rehearing (but apparently not the stay). Note that the order does not contain a discussion of the rationale for denying the motions.

I like to think an earlier draft of the order went something like:

The “petitions” are “denied.”

--Melissa

BONUS: In other judicial news, there will be a runoff in November for San Francisco Superior Court seat 12.  Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval got more votes than incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon, (43.94% to 42.44%) but neither got more than 50% because third candidate Mary Mallen got 13.13% of the vote.

Comments

[Mousqueton]

It is really hard for me to understand the whole "hoopla" about gay marriage. Marriage is just a civil contract between two people and the fact that one is male and the other female has very little bearing on the legal meaning of such contract.

So; anyone should have the right to enter into such civil contracts regardless of their sex.

I can understand that people might not be in agreement about gay couples raising kids but that has nothing to do with marriage. That falls within the minor protection duties of government and in that case you can certainly expect everyone to have a different opinion.

When it comes to marriage though, it is a legal contract no different than a lease contract.

It seems to me that the problem is more semantic than legal. What people resent about gay marriage is the fact that this specific legal contract is typified with the same word religions use for their own brand of civil union.

The solution is therefore simple; based on the principle of what would affect less people, religions should just change the name they use for their branded civil union rituals and there would be no more problem.

For Catholics and Christians I would dare to suggest the names "egairran" or "maridth" which are the original words in Hebrew and Greek in which the old testament and the new testament were originally written.