San Francisco Forced to Halt Gay Marriages
By DEAN E. MURPHY
AN FRANCISCO, March 11 — The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered city officials here to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, bringing at least a temporary end to a monthlong experiment that had thrust San Francisco to the forefront of a national debate on gay marriage.
"Effective immediately, we are stopping the issuance and recordation of same-sex marriage licenses," the city's assessor-recorder, Mabel S. Teng, announced at a news conference after receiving word of the court's unanimous decision.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the marriages, nor did it address the constitutional issues raised by city officials in defense of them. It also left open the possibility that the city could issue the licenses again after further review of two lawsuits on the matter.
"The people who were seeking to stop the marriages prevailed for the time being," said Jesse H. Choper, professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley. "The only question was who would win for the time being, and they won for the time being."
[The ruling came on a day when Massachusetts legislators moved a step closer to amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Page A14.]
Opponents of the marriages, stymied in several efforts to block them in the lower courts, declared a long-awaited victory.
"It is an overdue day, but a good day," said State Senator William J. Knight, a Republican who was the author of a successful ballot measure in 2000 opposing same-sex marriages. "Finally the courts have taken action to put an end to the anarchy in San Francisco."
The ruling came as a shock to city officials and groups who support the same-sex marriages. The advocacy group Marriage Equality California organized a march from the Castro District to the Supreme Court building, where a rally was planned.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city would continue to challenge the constitutionality of the state's ban in court. The city filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court raising some of its concerns.
"I believe confidently that when we get to the constitutional question, I will prevail," Mr. Newsom said at a news conference. "But I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other setbacks in this process. This is the beginning of a struggle, hardly the end."
The court said it would consider in May or June the question of whether city officials, under the direction of Mr. Newsom, had acted beyond their authority "in refusing to enforce the provisions" of the state's family code that define marriage as between a man and a woman.
In the meantime, the justices directed the city officials "to enforce and apply the provisions" of the family code without regard to their "personal view of the constitutionality" of the laws. In allowing the licenses to be issued, Mr. Newsom had argued that the constitution's guarantee of equal protection took precedence.
The court issued the ruling in two separate cases brought by the California attorney general, Bill Lockyer, and the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious group based in Arizona representing three San Francisco residents opposed to the marriages.
"I think what it does is it restores confidence in our justice system and brings law and order back to California," said Robert H. Tyler, a lawyer for the defense fund, "and tells the rest of the nation that it is time for rogue mayors and city officials to stop the destruction of democracy."
Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of public interest law at the University of Southern California, said the court's ruling amounted to "a freezing of the status quo," as it existed before the first license was issued to a same-sex couple on Feb. 12.
Professor Chemerinsky, who had predicted that the court would not get involved in the matter, described the ruling as "extraordinary" and said it offered some hints about the justices' thinking about the legality of the marriages.
"I think what we know at this stage is it means they are troubled with what San Francisco is doing," Professor Chemerinsky said.
Several couples who were waiting at City Hall for appointments to receive licenses were turned away, some of them in tears.
"They were heartbroken," said the county clerk, Nancy Alfaro, whose office issues marriage licenses. "It was very sudden."
At last count, Mr. Newsom said that more than 4,100 licenses had been issued to same-sex couples. An additional 2,600 couples had made appointments for a license.
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights who was among the witnesses at the first same-sex marriage ceremony, said proponents were disappointed but not deterred. Ms. Kendell warned against reading too much into the court's order.
"I think the California Supreme Court has signaled one thing and one thing only, and that is a desire to approach this historic moment cautiously, deliberately and slowly," she said. "We consider this to be simply a pause."
The reaction among some couples at City Hall was more emotional. Patricia Egan, 46, a real estate agent, and Meghan Wharton, 29, a lawyer, were among the first would-be newlyweds who were turned away from the county clerk's office.
The two women had flown to San Francisco in the morning from Phoenix for a 2:30 p.m. appointment. They had filled out the proper paperwork for the license, but when they approached the counter for their appointment they learned that they were two minutes late.
"I thought they were kidding," Ms. Wharton said. " I didn't think it was possible, and certainly it wasn't possible to happen to me. I started crying. I'm devastated."
Carolyn Marshall contributed reporting for this article. |
