State urges California Supreme Court Not to Delay Same-Sex Marriages

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the State of California Attorney General's office is urging the justices on the California Supreme Court to turn down the petition filed by anti-gay groups seeking to stay the Court's May 15, 2008, decision pending a vote on the initiative to amend the state's constitution. No doubt there must be wailing and shrieking not to mention spittle flying at the Christianist organizations (now they'll be whining about "activist attorney generals"). I can only wonder when we'll find out that homophobe extraordinaire, Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, is another Ted Haggard. He's a wee bit too hysterical in his anti-gay efforts. But I digress. The California AG's office correctly states that staying the Court's ruling is an improper mixing of politics with judicial matters. Here are some story highlights:

*

SAN FRANCISCO -- After fighting same-sex marriage for four years, the state Thursday urged the California Supreme Court to reject petitions that would delay enforcement of the court's landmark ruling permitting gays to wed. "This historic litigation is now concluded," wrote Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Christopher E. Krueger in a brief filed with the high court. "It is time for these proceedings to end."

*

California's change of heart came as 10 other states, including Florida and Utah, filed a brief in support of a request by gay marriage opponents to delay the effective date of the court ruling. The offices of attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah protested that their states, which restrict marriage to unions of a man and a woman, would be inundated by litigation seeking to have them recognize same-sex nuptials in California.

*

The state said the group's request was improperly asking the court "to enjoin the exercise of a newly recognized fundamental constitutional right based on speculation that voters will abolish that right in the future." The delay "would have the effect of mingling judicial processes with political processes, and would be tantamount to anticipatory implementation of the proposed initiative even before it is submitted to voters," Krueger argued."To the extent that the law may hereafter be changed by the political process, that process should proceed independently and separately," he wrote.