Following
the
California
Supreme
Court
ruling
last
week
that
invalidated
the
marriages
of
nearly
4,000
same-sex
couples,
activists
are
now
setting
their
sights
on
a
lawsuit
in
the
lower
courts
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
California’s
gay
marriage
ban.
The
court
ruled
unanimously
that
San
Francisco
Mayor
Gavin
Newsom
exceeded
his
authority
when
he
ordered
City
Hall
to
begin
issuing
marriage
licenses
to
gay
couples
earlier
this
year,
since
voters
approved
legislation
in
March
2000
defining
marriage
as
a
union
between
a
man
and
woman.
The
ruling
did
not
address
the
constitutionality
of
the
state’s
prohibition
of
same-sex
marriage.
Jennifer
Pizer,
senior
staff
attorney
in
Lambda
Legal’s
Los
Angeles-based
Western
regional
office,
said
that
several
cases
challenging
the
validity
of
California’s
same-sex
marriage
ban
have
now
been
consolidated.
She
said
the
lawsuit
is
unlikely
to
reach
the
California
Supreme
Court
for
at
least
a
year
or
more.
In
a
related
development,
California
Assemblyman
Mark
Leno
(D-San
Francisco),
who
chairs
the
Lesbian,
Gay,
Bisexual
&
Transgender
Legislative
Caucus,
has
authored
a
bill
that
would
prohibit
the
state
from
denying
marriage
licenses
to
gays.
He
predicted
the
Marriage
License
Non
Discrimination
Act
(AB
1967)
will
be
on
the
governor’s
desk
this
time
next
year.
The
unanimous
decision
last
week
finally
addressed
the
question
of
whether
or
not
a
civil
magistrate
has
the
authority
to
interpret
the
state’s
constitution.
Newsom’s
controversial
decision
to
grant
marriage
licenses
to
gays
prompted
comparisons
to
the
actions
of
former
Alabama
Chief
Justice
Roy
Moore,
who
last
year
defied
a
federal
court
order
demanding
that
he
remove
a
Ten
Commandments
monument
he
installed
in
the
state’s
Supreme
Court.
Alabama’s
Court
of
the
Judiciary
removed
Moore
last
year
for
his
refusal
to
comply
with
the
order.
“Newsom
and
his
cohorts
in
lawbreaking
were
not,
however,
the
first
elected
officials
in
recent
months
to
engage
in
such
flagrant
lawlessness,”
wrote
Tara
Ross,
a
writer
and
an
attorney
from
Texas
in
a
column
for
the
American
Enterprise.
“The
first
elected
official
to
defy
the
law
in
such
a
manner
was
Alabama
Supreme
Court
Chief
Justice
Roy
Moore.”
Gay
Congressman
Barney
Frank
(D-Mass.)
who
criticized
Newsom’s
decision
in
February
said
that
while
comparisons
between
Newsom
and
Moore
were
unwarranted,
Newsom’s
actions
did
more
harm
than
good
for
marriage
rights
for
gay
men
and
lesbians.
“Moore
kept
defying
the
courts
but
once
the
court
ordered
Newsom
to
stop,
he
stopped,”
Frank
said.
“But
[Newsom’s
actions]
are
a
problem.
In
the
history
of
civil
rights,
whether
it
be
race,
gender
or
GLBT
rights,
we
have
traditionally
done
better
in
the
courts
than
the
ballot
box.
Newsom
should
have
filed
a
lawsuit
to
get
the
right
to
do
the
marriages.
Ignoring
the
law
did
us
more
harm
than
good.”
Bryon
Williams,
a
syndicated
columnist
and
pastor,
said
comparing
Newsom
to
Moore
is
“apples
and
oranges.”
“Does
[Newsom]
have
the
authority
to
interpret
the
state
constitution
in
the
manner
he
did?
No,”
Williams
said.
“That’s
what
the
courts
are
for.
But
the
point
is,
you
need
to
have
someone
do
something
radical
to
wake
up
the
status
quo.
Yeah,
he
broke
the
law,
but
the
question
as
I
see
it
…
there
are
just
laws
and
unjust
laws.
Did
he
break
a
just
law
or
unjust
law?”
Chris
Barron,
political
director
for
the
Log
Cabin
Republicans,
a
gay
GOP
group,
said
neither
Newsom
nor
Moore
“showed
any
respect
for
the
rule
of
law
and
neither
actions
were
helpful
to
what
they
wanted
to
have
had
happen.”
“While
what
Newsom
did
was
emotionally
moving,
it
provided
gas
for
the
fire
on
the
far
right,”
Barron
said.
“I
think
his
heart
was
in
the
right
place
but
I
think
there
were
other
ways
to
do
this.”
