Calif. clerks: When does gay-marriage ban begin?
11.14.2008 8:45am EST
(Fresno, Calif.) County clerks across California are clamoring for legal advice to resolve confusion about when to begin the gay-marriage ban that voters passed last week in a ballot initiative.
At least three same-sex couples have obtained marriage licenses since the Nov. 4 passage of the measure overturning the state Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.As California wrestled with the issue, a gay-rights activist on Thursday filed a complaint accusing the Mormon church of failing to report the full value of the work it did campaigning for the ban. And nationwide, gay marriage advocates planned dozens of rallies this weekend to speak out against the Election Day setback.
Despite California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s declaration that the state wouldn’t recognize any gay unions after Election Day, confused clerks kept handing out licenses for days.
Complicating matters further, some couples who signed their paperwork before Nov. 4 and have yet to say “I do” will be requesting civil marriage ceremonies, gay-rights attorneys say.
County officials who inquired with Brown’s office about how to handle the situation were told to ask the state’s 58 county attorneys. That puts local authorities in the uncomfortable position of interpreting the law for themselves, said Merced County Clerk Stephen Jones, whose office allowed a male couple to fill out marriage forms on Nov. 5.
“We weren’t guaranteeing couples that their marriage licenses would be good, but our attorney said we had to keep issuing them, so that’s what we did,” said Jones, who called off gay marriages on Nov. 7. “His opinion was that those marriages are good until we get a final count of the election results.”
That may not happen until mid-December.
The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials has told its members to suspend all gay marriages, unless they receive different advice from a state agency or the final tally of votes shows that the proposition failed.
Gay-rights advocates have filed three legal challenges asking the state Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the grounds that voters don’t have the authority to revoke equal rights. They say only the state Legislature can do that.
“We’re in a real limbo period right now,” said Shannon Minter, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “There is a good chance that some of these marriages could turn out to be valid, depending on what the court does.”
It’s unclear how many couples have gotten married since the vote, said Rebecca Martinez, president of the clerks association.
In Sacramento, a lesbian couple and two men from nearby suburbs said their vows Nov. 5 hours after Proposition 8 passed, officials said.
In Norwalk, about 15 miles south of Los Angeles, the registrar’s office kept handing out licenses until at least midmorning, but officials said they couldn’t tell whether any same-sex couples had tied the knot because the forms don’t track participants’ gender.
From June 16 – when the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage went into effect – until Nov. 4, an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples in California tied the knot.
The complaint against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints alleges that it ran out-of-state phone banks, produced commercials and provided other services that must be reported as contributions to the Proposition 8 campaign.
“Let’s be transparent here. If they are going to play in the political process, they need to abide by the rules like everyone else,” said Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, who submitted the complaint to the enforcement division of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
Mormon church spokeswoman Kim Farah said the church has complied with all campaign finance laws and is confident an investigation would prove that.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has 14 days to decide to open an investigation, to warn the party named in the complaint or conclude no action is needed, according to commission spokesman Roman Porter.
Gay-rights advocates say at least 150 rallies are planned this weekend to re-energize support for gay unions.
In Boston, organizers expect thousands to attend a Saturday rally, which advocates say will highlight the positive aspects of gay marriage. Marc Solomon of MassEquality says Massachusettts is in a unique position to show that gay marriage is a benefit to families, children and society.
“We’re the place where it’s happened,” he said, noting that the state was the first to legalize gay marriage. “You can look to us and see that marriage equality works and it’s a good thing, and the scare tactics were just that, scare tactics.”




We want a ban on churches fnding Propositions! It’s called separation of Church and State. CLEARLY the Mormons have (once again) broken the law.
These are the people who think Jesus told them they could marry 38 women and little girls (Joseph Smith) and that their Magical Underwear will protect them from harm.
The separation exists for good reasons. Charges are filed. Suits pend. And the religious people of the world will reap what they have sewn.
churches hold a different type of tax bracket than a non-profit… so the rules are different on how/what they can “preach from the pulpit”
My church went on record as opposing Prop 8; I don’t know if church funds went to actually fighting the measure so I’m not sure if I want a ban on church funding for propositions but it probably wouldn’t be a bad thing if all non-profits were banned from working on propositions and ballot measures
If people made tax deductable contributions to their churches who in turn used that money to fund the Yes on 8 campaign, the churches must be held accountable.
Can delay the ban until “hell freezes over” as far as I am concerned.
It took forever to get gay marriage legalized, so why the unseemly rush by the clerks to get the ban rammed down gay couples’ throats?
Shouldn’t the ban be stayed until the Supreme Court decides on the matter – you know, like what the pro Prop 8 people wanted regarding the allowance of gay marriages before the vote occurred to possibly ban it? Why aren’t those same people arguing something like that now? Because it’s not in their favor about something?..