ALBANY, N.Y. (Catholic Online) - Defenders of Marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman faced another challenge in the growing activist led effort to compel Legal recognition of equivalent status for homosexual partnerships and married couples.

On Wednesday, May 28th, California’s Chief of Vital Statistics issued guidelines to the 58 County Clerks’, effective June 17, 2008, requiring that they issue marriage licenses to homosexual partners. In addition, she issued new language which removes any reference to the applicants being a man or a woman, assigning instead the new identification of “Party A’ and “Party B” to the applicants.

A Motion to stay the Order of the California Supreme Court to grant equivalency to homosexual partners has been filed by a group of parties who seek to defend Marriage against this effort to redefine it until the people of California have a right to vote on the issue in the November Election.

There is a ballot initiative pending which would reaffirm the people of California’s express desire to keep Marriage as between one man and one woman. The Justices have until June 16, 2008 to rule on this Motion. Thus, the guidelines issued by Janet McKee, the Chief County Clerk, are dated June 17. She apparently anticipates that the Justices will decline the Motion.

Within hours of the issuance of the guidelines from the Chief Clerk in California, the Governor of New York decided to enter the fray.

Gov. David Patterson, who replaced the former Governor Spitzer who left office in the midst of a corruption scandal, issued an order to all State Agencies. The Order requires that the agencies immediately rewrite all regulations, including all pertaining to insurance and health services, to recognize homosexual ‘marriages’ from other States.

The Governor has given the agencies until June 30, 2008 to comply with his order. They are to report back to him on how they will comply.This executive action does not change New York law, which does not grant equivalency between homosexual partnerships and marriage.

The New York State Court of Appeals has already made clear that only the Legislature could ever make such a change in the law.

Rather, the Governors' unilateral action opens the door for New Yorkers who are homosexual partners, and desire to be recognized as a married couple, to marry in California and then move back to New York.

It also lays the groundwork for further litigation in this hotly contested debate, clearly a goal of activists who seek to redefine marriage.