 |
 |
The marriage of Stephen Weir (right) and his partner, John Hemm, who hope to be the first couple to wed in California on June 17, could be short lived as a referendum that could render their union obsolete is slated for November’s ballot. Weir is the county clerk in Contra Costa. His office handles marriage licenses for the county. (Photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP)
|
|
|
| | |
| |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS
By: CHRIS JOHNSON COMMENTS
 
The California secretary of state confirmed Monday that proponents of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage have collected enough signatures for the measure to appear on the ballot in November.
The announcement ensures that California voters will be able to weigh in on the state Supreme Court’s May 15 ruling permitting same-sex marriage.
Proponents of the measure needed to submit more than 1.1 million signatures to qualify for the ballot and the California secretary of state certified that a sufficient number of the gathered signatures were valid.
If voters approve the amendment, it would place in legal jeopardy any same-sex marriage licenses obtained in California after June 17, when California is slated to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
Ron Prentice, chair of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment, said passing the initiative is “the only way for the people to override the four Supreme Court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said beating the amendment is “going to take everything we have as individuals and as a community.” He encouraged same-sex marriage supporters to donate money to campaigns geared toward defeating the amendment and for gay Americans to talk about “how hurtful this amendment is” to allies.
Despite the possibility of an amendment invalidating same-sex marriage in California, a local couple is still planning to make the trek to the West Coast to take advantage of their newly acquired right to marry there.
D.C. residents Stephen Gorman, a retired emergency medical responder, and Richard Cytowic, a retired physician, originally planned to marry in Vancover, Canada this summer, but after the California high court decided in favor of same-sex marriage, the couple changed plans and decided to marry in California instead. California, unlike Massachusetts, has no residency requirement for marriage, so gay couples from across the country are able to marry in the state.
Gorman said the couple changed their plans because getting a marriage license in the United States is important to them.
“Since it’s an American document, it’s a whole lot better than a Canadian one,” he said. “When we return home, I will frame the license, treasure it, show it off and then add it to our collection of legal documents.”
Gorman acknowledged that the passage of the amendment could bring his marriage license into legal question, but he said he wanted to tie the knot anyway because even if the amendment were passed, he would still have “a pretty piece of paper” representing his commitment to Cytowic.
The possibility of an amendment invalidating his marriage is not “sufficient cause to miss this golden opportunity, especially given the fact that the governor of California himself has put out the welcome mat,” Gorman said.
The couple intends to get married in a small ceremony at a library in Apple Valley, Calif., in San Bernadino County.
Gorman said out-of-state couples getting married in California would “give a lot of energy and impetus” to having same-sex marriages recognized elsewhere.
The California ruling prompted Gov. David Paterson of New York late last month to instruct state agencies to recognize the marriages of gay couples that wed outside the state. New York agencies have until the end of June to work out the logistics.
Gorman said he is hoping the District of Columbia will issue a similar order enabling the District to recognize same-sex marriages enacted in California.
At a news conference May 30, Paterson emphasized that he issued the directive so that he could follow existing state law, which requires New York to recognize common law marriages from elsewhere. Not issuing the directive would leave the state open to lawsuits and the treasury open to damages, he said. It would also discriminate against couples moving to New York from other jurisdictions, he said.
“We have been respecting these common law marriages for many, many years,” Paterson said. “We as a state would be liable if we did not take this action.”
Paterson said if lawmakers are angry with him and accusing of him circumventing the legislative process for taking this action, the lawmakers “should actually go into the legislature and work on something.”
The New York Assembly passed a same-sex marriage rights bill last year but the bill is stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate because leaders have bottled it in committee.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, praised Paterson for his decision, arguing it keeps New York in line with existing law.
“He’s not making any new decision, he is saying there won’t be a gay exception to the way the state has traditionally operated,” Wolfson said.
Paterson’s ...
| 
