San Francisco Bay Times

San Francisco Bay Times

Argentine Government Seeks To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage By Rex Wockner
Published: June 5, 2008



Not bad, as presidential palaces go. Argentina's presidential palace, the Casa Rosada. Photo by Rex Wockner.
A bill legalizing same-sex marriage was informally presented to Argentina’s Congress May 22 by the head of the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism. “The Casa Rosada (presidential palace) tells us we should do our work, and that’s what we’re doing,” María José Lubertino told La Nación newspaper. “When I took this job, everyone knew that two of my priorities were the legislation on abortion and marriage for everyone. This is no surprise.”

The draft bill - unveiled at a gathering of activists, legislators and others in the Senate’s Eva Perón Hall - moves next to the Ministry of Justice, Security and Human Rights, which will arrange for it to be formally introduced into Congress by the executive branch.

If allowed to marry, same-sex couples would acquire new rights in areas such as adoption, inheritance, property, social security and pensions.


Russia Lifts Ban on Gay Blood
Russia’s health ministry has lifted the nation’s ban on blood donation by gay men. The change was implemented in April but only became known publicly in late May. The decree by Minister of Health and Social Development Tatyana Golikova overturned a policy that had been in effect since September 2001.

Similar bans targeting prostitutes and drug addicts also were lifted. “We conducted our campaign against the ban for two years and it brought the results,” said leading gay activist Nikolai Alekseev. “Not so many people believed in our success but we proved that actions can lead to serious results.

“Russia will become an example in this respect for other countries, including Western democracies, where such restrictions are still in force.” Alekseev said the ban was “the last direct discriminatory provision against homosexual people” in Russia.

Authorities in numerous nations have justified keeping such bans by citing the brief period between when one gets infected with HIV and when the virus can be detected. However, many of these nations, including the U.S. and Canada, incongruously continue to ban blood donation by any man who ever had sex with another man, even if only one time 30 years ago.


Hundreds March in Romania
More than 200 people marched in Bucharest’s fifth gay pride parade May 24, protected by some 1,200 police officers. Anti-gay organizations failed in a legal effort to stop the march. More than 40 apparent counterprotesters were detained during the procession, two for carrying a knife and most of the others for refusing to show police their identification document.

Thousands turned out to watch the parade. Some cheered while others booed. “Bystanders were rather curious, as opposed to outraged by the march,” said Florentina Bocioc, executive director of the GLBT group Accept, which organized the parade. “Those living in the buildings along the streets on which we marched no longer threw eggs, tomatoes or stones at us; some of them even waved at us. This is a small step towards ‘normality.’”

The parade’s goal was to draw attention to the need for spousal rights for same-sex couples, the organizers said. Marchers included European Parliament member Michael Cashman, Swedish Ambassador Mats Aberg, and, from the U.S., the Rev. Elder Diane Fisher of the Metropolitan Community Churches. A weeklong GayFest preceded the parade.

Last year, more than 50 people were arrested for throwing bottles, rocks and eggs at the 500 marchers, and 10 people were injured in the fracas. More than 1,000 protesters - including nuns and priests carrying crosses - targeted last year’s march.

Millions at São Paulo Pride
More than 3 million people turned out for the 12th gay pride parade in São Paulo, Brazil, on May 25. The city’s pride celebration is the world’s largest, in South America’s biggest city. The parade went down Avenida Paulista, the heart of the financial district.
Reports said pride generates $115 million in spending, creates 13,500 jobs and brings in 330,000 visitors.

Holocaust Gay Memorial Unveiled in Berlin
A memorial commemorating the tens of thousands of homosexuals persecuted by the Nazis was unveiled in Berlin May 27. The large, gray rectangular block - 11.8 feet (3.6 meters) tall and 6.2 feet (1.9 meters) wide - is breached only by a small window on one side through which visitors can view a 90-second black-and-white art film of two men kissing.

“A simple kiss could land you in trouble,” says a plaque associated with the $942,000 box, which was designed by the Danish-Norwegian duo Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset and paid for by the federal government. The plaque adds: “In many parts of the world people are still persecuted because of their sexual identity, homosexual love is a criminal offense and a kiss can spell danger.”

Openly gay Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit and the federal culture minister, Bernd Neumann, took part in the ceremony in the city’s prominent Tiergarten park. The memorial sits half a block from the Brandenburg Gate and just across from the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.

“The Berlin memorial has an important symbolic value by being erected in the center of the city from where six to seven decades ago the policies of extermination of homosexual people - along with such groups as Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and political dissidents - were conceived and the deadly orders were given,” said the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

ILGA-Europe said an estimated 54,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis and 7,000 were killed.

Retired Czech Gay Leader Runs For Senate
Czech gay leader Jirí Hromada, who retired from activism in 2006 after the nation’s same-sex civil-union law came into force, is running for the Czech Republic Senate as a Green Party candidate in the fall election. According to The Prague Post, the announcement of Hromada’s candidacy led to such a barrage of homophobic posts by users of online news portals that the discussion areas had to be shut down. He is the first openly gay candidate to run for the Senate in the nation’s history.

“During our effort to pass the partnership bill we met two types of political gays,” Hromada told the Post. “Some would secretly admit their orientation and quietly support us, while others became our staunchest opponents and tried to stop the bill at all costs.”


Malta Court: ‘Homosexual’ Not Defamatory
Calling someone a homosexual is not defamatory anymore, Malta’s Court of Magistrates has ruled, according to a May 21 report in The Malta Independent. The decision came in a case where three newspapers reported that a homicide victim was homosexual, and the victim’s brother sued over the characterization, claiming it defamed his brother’s memory.

Local police have said the victim’s sexual orientation is relevant to their ongoing investigation of the unsolved killing.

The brother plans to appeal Magistrate Michael Mallia’s ruling.

-assistance: Bill Kelley

Gay couples can get marriage licenses at 5:01 p.m. June 16 - San Jose Mercury News

Gay couples can get marriage licenses at 5:01 p.m. June 16 - San Jose Mercury News


By Linda Goldston
Mercury News
Article Launched: 06/05/2008 09:37:26 PM PDT


It's official: Some gay marriage licenses in California will be issued at 5:01 p.m. on June 16 and not a day later, as originally thought.
But not in Santa Clara County.

"It's a little difficult when you have to undo everything," said Regina Alcomendras, Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder. "We'll stick with the plan we have."

Alcomendras said her office will open at 8:30 a.m. June 17 and urged couples planning to take out licenses to make appointments if they plan to marry that day as well.

"We'll take walk-ins but when there are no available rooms for the ceremony, they'll have to wait," she said.

The California Supreme Court's June 4th order legalizing same sex marriage becomes final at 5 p.m. June 16. Clerks and city and county officials had believed licenses could not be issued until the following morning.

But in a clarification notice on Thursday, the Californa Department of Public Health's Office of Vital Records told county clerks and recorders they could begin using the new state marriage license forms at 5:01 p.m. June 16. The new forms designate "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "bride" and "groom."

'If the courts take additional action, we will provide further guidance to the counties as needed,' the notice stated.

But, the notice said, county clerk's offices are not required to stay open beyond normal business hours.

Alcomendras said her office has been training for the upcoming nuptials. She said she has deputies who will be able to perform the civil wedding ceremonies.
San Francisco officials said Thursday they will keep their clerk's office open and begin issuing licenses at 5:01 p.m. June 16. Mayor Gavin Newsom had been pressing the state to allow San Francisco to issue their first same-sex licenses at 5:01 p.m. June 16.

Excellent Summary- Anti-Guv Suit Faulty

This is an excellent summary of the NY situation with the Paterson decision to recognize legally performed marriages.


GayCityNews - Anti-Guv Suit Faulty

By: ARTHUR S. LEONARD
06/05/2008

Governor David Paterson acted clearly within his executive authority and with prudent attention to both long-standing precedent and a series of recent court rulings.
The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based right-wing litigation organization, filed a lawsuit in Bronx County Supreme Court on June 3 on behalf of five individual Republican state senators, seeking an injunction against Governor David A. Paterson's order that New York State government agencies extend recognition to marriages of same-sex couples contracted lawfully in other jurisdictions.

At the same time, a spokesman for the Senate Republican conference, John C. McArdle, told the New York Times that it was unlikely that the GOP senators as a group would do anything, either legislatively or through the courts, to counter the governor's move.

The lawsuit, charging that Paterson exceeded his authority and violated the prerogatives of the Legislature, totally misconceives the nature of marriage recognition as practiced under New York law, and essentially asks the courts to order the governor not to comply with their own recent rulings.

On February 1, a unanimous five-judge panel of the New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department, based in Buffalo, ruled in Martinez v. Monroe Community College that two women married in Canada, Patricia Martinez and Lisa Ann Golden, were entitled to have their marriage recognized by Martinez's employer, and that the college's refusal to include her spouse under the employee benefits plan violated the New York Human Rights Law.

The conservative upstate court, whose judges were elected by voters in Western New York and four of whom were appointed to the Appellate Division by former Republican Governor George Pataki, concluded that the 2006 Hernandez v. Robles decision by New York's highest court - finding that the state Constitution does not compel the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and that the existing gender-neutral marriage statute cannot be interpreted to authorize such marriages - did not address the issue of recognition of marriages contracted out-of-state.


The New York State Legislature has not passed any law instructing either the executive branch or the courts how to deal with the question of marriage recognition. Instead, the process has evolved over the course of the state's history through ad hoc decision-making - by public officials confronted with the question whether to recognize certain out-of-state marriages for specific purposes, such as payment of benefits to a surviving spouse, for example, and in the case-by-case decisions of courts faced with similar questions.

Looking at this history, the Appellate Division found that New York State normally recognizes marriages that were valid in the place and at the time they were contracted, unless such recognition would be "abhorrent" to New York law. Past cases suggested that various kinds of marriages not authorized by New York statutes would nonetheless be recognized - including those between first cousins allowed in some other jurisdictions, marriages of younger people in states with lower ages of consent, and common law marriages.

The case of common law marriages is most relevant for the issue of same-sex unions. Before governments got into the business of licensing marriages, common law marriage was the norm for couples who did not desire a religious ceremony. Two people set up housekeeping together, declared themselves to the community as married, and their relationship would be recognized by the state after a reasonable period of time. By the early 20th century, most states had concluded that this informal arrangement was inadequate in light of the number of benefits and responsibilities that had been added to the status of marriage through federal and state laws.

A "bright line" was needed to determine who was married, and the state wanted to impose some eligibility requirements for public health reasons, so New York, like most other states, legislatively abolished common law marriage. Some states, however, retained common law marriage, and New York courts had to rule about whether those marriages were recognized when questions arose about couples who moved here or owned property here.

Despite the legislative ban on forming common law marriages in New York, the state courts recognized them if they complied with the law of the state where the couple previously resided, even though they lacked the license and formality of New York law.

This provided a clear precedent for the Appellate Division, which additionally noted that same-sex marriages would not be found "abhorrent," considering that New York had already gone a long way toward recognizing the family status of same-sex partners, from the Court of Appeals' historic Braschi decision in 1987, protecting surviving same-sex partners from eviction from rent-controlled apartments, to the many municipal domestic partnership laws in the state, the adoption of domestic partnership benefits for state employees, and the State Assembly's recent passage of a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry.

One could hardly label as "abhorrent" a concept that had recently been embraced by one house of the Legislature. And, unlike most other states, New York has not reacted to the controversy over same-sex marriage by passing a state-level Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages here.

The Appellate Division's ruling set a precedent for trial courts throughout the state. A few weeks later, on February 25, a trial judge in Manhattan ruled in Beth R. v. Donna M. that a same-sex couple married in Canada could get a divorce in New York because their marriage would be recognized here, following the Martinez precedent. The next week, on March 3, another state trial judge, this time in Albany, rejected a lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund against the state Civil Service Department, challenging its decision to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages for purposes of administering the employee health program for state employees.

Not long after that, on March 25, the Second Department of the Appellate Division, based in Brooklyn, vacated a ruling by a Nassau County trial judge that had refused recognition of a Canadian same-sex marriage. Duke Funderburke, a retired public school teacher, was suing to get his husband onto the health plan offered to retirees and their spouses.

That case had in fact been settled by the parties prior to the appellate ruling when the State Civil Service Commission, which oversees the school district's benefits plan, decided it would recognize same-sex marriages, but the Second Department panel unanimously granted a motion by Funderburke's lawyers to vacate the trial court's decision, citing the Martinez case.

This was a significant development - the Fourth Department ruling is at present a controlling precedent for trial courts statewide, but it does not control the other Appellate Departments, which are free to disagree. If two Appellate Departments differ, a statewide precedent can only be restored by the Court of Appeals.

In other words, in the short space of two months, there were already four cases where the courts were lined up to recognize same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere by New Yorkers.

Governor Paterson's legal counsel, David Nocenti, advised the governor of these developments and recommended that, in light of this rapidly expanding body of judicial decisions, it was prudent to get out in front of the issue and get all the state executive agencies on the same page, to avoid unnecessary and unproductive litigation. The governor could have waited for a definitive ruling by the New York Court of Appeals, but that was not likely to come for some time.

In fact, on May 6 the Court of Appeals quickly rejected Monroe County's premature attempt to appeal the Martinez decision before the trial judge had entered a final order in the case.

Events were moving fast enough to make the question of New York's position on marriage recognition urgent. When the governor acted, the California and Connecticut Supreme Courts were poised to rule in same-sex marriage cases, and neither jurisdiction has a residency requirement for marriage licenses. The small trickle of same-sex couples marrying in Canada could easily be dwarfed by the numbers drawn by the chance to marry without having to leave the country.

The evolving political situation in neighboring Massachusetts is also a factor that likely was part of the calculation. The Legislature there, with the support of Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, has begun the process of repealing a 1913 statute that prohibits issuing licenses to non-resident couples from states that have some sort of policy against their marrying there (in New York's case, the 2006 Court of Appeals ruling against gay marriage).

Paterson actually proceeded cautiously, authorizing the internal distribution of Nocenti's memo to state agencies on May 14, weeks before a California decision had been expected in early June. The June 30 deadline given to state agencies in Nocenti's memo would allow them to be ready to respond to same-sex couples married in California by early July.

Nocenti's memo directed state agencies to determine what would need to be changed in their rules and regulations in order to recognize same-sex marriages contracted out of state, and to report back by June 30. Everything was internal, nothing public, and possibly the governor, a consultative type of guy, was planning to discuss the issue with legislative leaders before making a formal announcement, but advice and consent was not required by state law in making this executive decision.

The California Supreme Court surprised everybody by issuing its marriage decision on May 15, several weeks before its 90-day deadline had elapsed. Suddenly there was a possibility of large numbers of New York couples getting married in California as early as mid-June - and with the issue suddenly in the public consciousness, somebody leaked the Nocenti memo to the press, the governor's office confirmed its authenticity, and the story went public sooner than anticipated, before consultation had taken place.

This led to erroneous charges that the governor was improperly taking unilateral action in response to the California case. Republican State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno rattled his sword and said his staff was looking into taking legal action. The Alliance Defense Fund, stalwart opponents of same-sex marriage, announced they would file suit against Paterson.

But what was the governor actually doing? He was obeying his oath of office, to uphold the Constitution and laws of the state of New York, and acting as a prudent chief executive, managing the affairs of the executive branch of the state government.

Having been advised, accurately, that the state courts were consistently ruling that these marriages had to be recognized, noting that the Assembly has passed a bill supporting same-sex marriage, making it very unlikely that any legislation opposed to recognizing same-sex marriages would be passed by the Legislature, the governor took the logical step of a prudent executive and moved to get state agencies subject to his direction prepared to deal in a consistent way with the marriage recognition issue already in play all across New York due to Canadian marriages.

What are the chances that the Alliance Defense Fund's lawsuit will succeed in countermanding the governor's order? The Martinez decision is a binding precedent on the trial courts, so no trial judge in the state should rule against the governor on this.

One has to question why the suit was filed in the Bronx, when the defendant's official residence is in Albany? Perhaps, thinking strategically, ADF was trying to avoid a county where a trial court has already ruled on the issue, and to steer the question to the First Department of the Appellate Division, which despite its Manhattan location had been "packed" by Republican Pataki with conservative judges elected upstate, a situation that Eliot Spitzer had barely begun to correct when he resigned several months ago.

Ultimately, however, the question must be decided by the Court of Appeals, since the governor would promptly appeal any injunction issued against him by a lower court.

On the merits, it seems unlikely that the unanimous view of the Fourth Department panel and the implicit concurrence of a Second Department panel will be rejected by the Court of Appeals. Since the Legislature has not spoken on the issue, it falls to the governor and the courts to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages, an exercise in discretion and judgment unlikely to be reversed unless the highest court is prepared to sharply alter its existing precedents on marriage recognition - a possibility but not a probability.

In the 2006 Hernandez case, the court indicated that although same-sex couples were not entitled to marry in New York, neither did the Constitution prohibit them from marrying. This was not a ruling that same-sex marriage is "abhorrent," merely that state officials have not been legislatively authorized to issue licenses for the performance of marriages by same-sex couples within the state and that such couples had no constitutional basis to change the status quo.

Was the governor guilty of violating "separation of powers?"

Definitely not.

Executive branch officials frequently decide on an ad hoc basis whether to recognize marriages contracted out-of-state by foreign immigrants, tourists, people who are here to do business, or those who move here from other states. Such decisions have been made in the course of routine administration of state laws since the founding of New York without any instruction by the Legislature, and they have frequently involved recognizing marriages that could not have been contracted here.

Paterson was merely moving that process forward to avoid having inconsistent ad hoc decisions made on this issue when New Yorkers return from Canada or California or other places seeking recognition of their same-sex marriages. While it is unusual for the chief executive to interject himself into what has been a routine function of the departments under his control, it does not involve crossing any separation of powers lines and is sensible in light of the evolving reality of same-sex marriage.

This could be a legislative decision, if the Legislature were actually to take the matter of out-of-state same-sex marriages, debate it, and pass a bill, but they have not done so, and show no inclination to do so now. By default, the front-line decision-makers on marriage recognition are in the executive and judicial branches.

That is how it has always worked in New York State.

GayCityNews - McCain Steps Up Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

GayCityNews - McCain Steps Up Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

By: ANDY HUMM
06/05/2008
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendlyJohn McCain said he had a "respectful" disagreement with Ellen DeGeneres on the marriage issue when on her show. But at a rally in Tennessee this past week, he drew raucous cheers from the crowd as he declared that he believes "in the sanctity and unique status of marriage between a man and a woman," adding, "That's what I will fight for."


He also said this week, "I welcome the news that the people of California will have the opportunity to decide on the question of the definition of marriage, rather than having that decision made by judicial fiat as the California Supreme Court asserted in their recent ruling."

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama also says he believes in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, but unlike McCain he supports civil unions for gay couples and opposes the California amendment.

Silliness of Ad Attacking Gov. Paterson's stand on Marriage

My Opinon

This is a desperate attempt by the opposition and Maggie Gallaghers organzization to stop the momentum of acceptance of marriage for same sex couples. The NYS Legislature (as Maggie said they should) has weighed in. The Assembly—the “voice of the people”—has already voted FOR same-sex marriage. Plus the ad is silly,especially the last line, since those kids will already know who they have as parents,and they have a mommy and daddy. Why would they ask for what they have. Maggie give it up! Besides which the governor is simply a chief-executive instructing his department heads to inform him, by a certain date, as to how they will comply with a newly clarified, court-ordered policy ruled in the Martinez case in the fourth department. Mr. Paterson is guilty of nothing but responsible management. I like that in my chief executive.





Politics on the Hudson


The National Organization For Marriage plans to start running radio ads in New York City and in Albany and Rochester beginning tomorrow, ripping Gov. Paterson for beginning to recognize gay marriage in New York.
“So many people in New York have called us and phoned us and emailed us and demonstrated concern about Gov. Paterson’s unilateral decision to recognize same-sex marriage in New York, when the Supreme Court said it’s up to the Legislature,” said Maggie Gallagher, a Westchester County woman who is president of the organization, which opposes gay marriage.

The ad will run in New York City on WABC-AM; in Rochester on WHAM-AM; and in Albany on WGY-AM.

Here’s the ad, which begins and ends with a child’s voice and at the end says, “I want a mommy and a daddy.”

Here’s the script:
Grandma, my teacher says if grandpa was a girl it’s okay, you can still be married…
ANNCR: If we change the definition of marriage…
GIRL 1: God creating Adam and Eve? That was so old-fashioned…
ANNCR: Our kids will be taught a new way of thinking…
BOY 1: If my Dad married a man, who would be my mom?
ANNCR: This is an URGENT marriage alert!
Governor David Paterson just ordered state officials to use our tax dollars to help same sex couples evade New York’s marriage laws.
These are the same politicians who can’t figure out how to lower our taxes, or our gas prices, or fix our schools…but they have time to mess around with marriage! Marriage in New York means a man and a woman.
Go to Nation-For-Marriage.org and send Governor Paterson a message: Stop messing with marriage and get back to work! That’s Nation-For-Marriage.org.
GIRL 2: I want a mommy and a daddy.

Paterson's same-sex nuptial order challenged -- Newsday.com

Paterson's same-sex nuptial order challenged -- Newsday.com


BY MELISSA MANSFIELD | melissa.mansfield@newsday.com
June 4, 2008
ALBANY - A Christian legal organization filed a lawsuit yesterday to stop a gubernatorial order to state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages.

The Alliance Defense Fund's suit targets Gov. David A. Paterson's order to agencies last week to change regulations to extend benefits to gay couples who married outside the state. The Arizona-based organization contends the governor does not have the constitutional right to make the directive, a sentiment brought up last week by the Senate Republican majority.

"The governor should respect New York's marriage laws over the laws of foreign jurisdictions," said the group's senior counsel, Brian Raum.

Empire State Pride Agenda director Alan Van Capelle denounced the suit. He said, "This is another pointless lawsuit of an extremist, out-of-state organization that seems intent to kill equality legislation with litigation."



The Alliance Defense Fund has attempted similar legal actions three previous times in the state, with no success. In 2007 the group challenged the comptroller's office for offering retirement benefits to same-sex married couples.

Paterson's instructions last week came after a February appeals court decision found that "marriage recognition law" applies to out-of-state marriages of gay couples.

Before hearing about the lawsuit, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the governor did not seek his legal counsel before speaking to the state's agencies, but instead made the decision internally.

Noting that he personally supports same-sex marriage, Cuomo said, "If the legislature has a strong opinion and they disagree with the governor, they can act. It's called a piece of legislation."

California Supreme Court clears the way for same-sex marriages starting June 17 - San Jose Mercury News

California Supreme Court clears the way for same-sex marriages starting June 17 - San Jose Mercury News

By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 06/04/2008 09:22:47 AM PDT



The California Supreme Court today rejected a bid to freeze last month's ruling legalizing gay marriage, paving the way for same-sex couples to begin walking down the aisle as soon as June 17.
Moving swiftly to remove legal uncertainty, the court turned a way a request from gay marriage foes to stay the ruling until after the November election, when voters will consider a ballot measure that would change the state Constitution to again outlaw same-sex weddings. The secretary of state earlier this week qualified the initiative for the November ballot.

The justices were divided 4-3 on whether to rehear their earlier decision, the same split that unfolded when the gay marriage case was decided in May. Conservative organizations, joined by 10 other states, asked the court to reopen the case, a move opposed by civil rights groups, San Francisco city officials and Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The Supreme Court found California's ban on same-sex weddings unconstitutional in a 4-3 ruling that reverberated across the country. Since that time, state officials have created new marriage licenses and announced that they would be prepared to handle gay marriages on June 17, the day after the Supreme Court's ruling becomes final.

Conservative organizations had argued that the court's ruling should not go into effect until after the election because of the uncertainty surrounding same-sex marriages that are expected to take place between now and November. If voters approve the ballot measure banning gay marriage, it would cast doubt over same-sex marriages, an issue expected to be tied up in the courts.
Civil rights lawyers have vowed to challenge the ballot measure if it is approved by voters in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples should have an equal right to marry