http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8226.shtml
The Outlaw Gavin Newsom
Exclusive commentary by Ryan Leonard
Feb 27, 2004
If I were living in the city of San Francisco right about now, I would be tempted to call an oldies radio station and dedicate the tune "I Fought The Law, And The Law Won" to Mayor Gavin Newsom.
As probably everyone knows by now, the newly elected mayor raised eyebrows (not to mention blood pressures) and outraged conservative groups when he ordered the city of San Francisco to issue same-sex marriage licenses earlier this month. The move comes several months after the Massachusetts State Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in that state. As of this writing, more than 2,800 of these marriage licenses have been issued in California.
By issuing this order, Newsom is in direct violation of California state law. Voters in the Golden state passed an initiative in 2000, which declares that California recognizes marriages only between a man and a woman. The city, however, cites the California Constitution’s equal protection clause prohibiting discrimination, and state recognition of homosexuals as a protected legal class. Two groups already have asked the courts to block the city from issuing any more licenses and to declare the marriages invalid. Newsom and other city officials say they welcome the coming legal battles, and the city has vowed to appeal any injunction.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials have avoided comment, but Attorney General Bill Lockyer's spokeswoman did note that California's constitution provides broader equal-protection rights than other states.
Newsom addressed the city's sponsorship of these marriages in a Sunday interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. In that interview, Newsom said he was disturbed by President Bush's State of the Union remarks suggesting that marriage should remain off-limits to same-sex couples. In that interview, Newsom encouraged the president to "reconsider" his position on the same-sex marriage issue.
Well, Mayor Newsom, President Bush happens to be right! Let's put aside California state law and the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling for just a moment. By nature's own design, men and women were meant to be together for procreation purposes. Each sex plays a specific role in the continuation of the human race. Just as one might argue that people would have been given wings if they were meant to fly, people would have been given the necessary anatomy if they were intended to mate with same-sex partners.
Getting back to the issue of the events in San Francisco, if Mayor Newsom wants to legalize same-sex marriages in his city (or state for that matter), then he needs to go about it the right way, by taking a constitutional amendment to the California legislature. If that amendment fails, then he needs to respect California state law and put a stop to issuing same-sex marriage licenses; and he needs to revoke those licenses that have already been issued. If that amendment should pass, then let it be signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger.
I have two challenges I would like to issue in this column. The first challenge is to Mayor Newsom and Gov. Schwarzenegger. Upon taking their oaths of office, both men vowed to uphold the constitution and laws of the state of California. Mayor Newsom is already breaking that vow by allowing these same-sex marriages to take place; and if Gov Schwarzenegger refuses to address the issue, then he will be doing exactly the same thing as Newsom.
The second challenge goes out to the entire American judicial system. That challenge is to stop legislating from the bench. It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret the constitutionality of existing laws, not to legislate from the bench. If the Massachusetts Supreme Court believes banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, then the matter should be referred back to that state's legislature (which reconvenes on March 11) for the purposes of adopting a constitutional amendment. Turning to the judges who have heard the case in the city of San Francisco matter, those judges need to uphold California's existing laws and let the legislature adopt any constitutional amendments it may deem appropriate.