Homosexual 'Marriage' in CA and NY?
Defenders of Marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman faced another challenge in California and New York.
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.
© 2014 - Distributed by THE NEWS CONSORTIUM
Pope Francis Prayer Intentions for March 2014
Respect for Women: That all cultures may respect the rights and dignity of women.
Vocations: That many young people may accept the Lord’s invitation to consecrate their lives to proclaiming the Gospel.
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- Russia seeks access to new facilities for navy: Is a new Cold War ahead?
- Bill that would allow surprise inspections at abortion clinics close to approval in Arizona
- UN: Almost 10,000 incidents of school violence from 2009-2013
- Syria, Venezuela, North Korea and Uganda called out by U.S. State Department for human rights abuses
- Citing 'negative consequences,' Arizona Governor vetoes anti-gay bill
- 'Shared responsibility payment' in Obamacare tax hides veiled threat
- California Senator faces 400 years in prison on corruption charges
- Leaked document shows NSA spied on trade talks, U.S. lawyers
- First medical doctor in Texas suspended under new abortion law
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?