Additional Titles








Cloning Cats - Schwarzenegg-
er's 'Sixth Day' Has Arrived









By Sharon Hughes
August 14, 2004

It's been six months since marriage licenses were illegally issued in San Francisco to four thousand homosexual couples. Thursday the California Supreme Court ruled that San Francisco authorities had no authority to issue them, and decided by a 5-2 vote to nullify the gay marriages and ordered city officials to "undo" their "unauthorized actions."

In their ruling it states, "In the present case, this legal issue arises out of the refusal of local officials in the City and County of San Francisco to enforce the provisions of California�s marriage statutes that limit the granting of a marriage license and marriage certificate only to a couple comprised of a man and a woman...registered domestic partners are unconstitutional because they improperly amend or repeal the provisions of the voter-enacted initiative measure commonly known as Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act (Fam. Code, � 308.5) without a confirming vote of the electorate, in violation of article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution."

You an listen to the oral arguments and read the decision on the California Courts' website.

Please note the wording, "registered domestic partners" as violating the Family Code, not "registered homosexual or gay marriage." Now, I'm not an attorney, but those words could pose a problem for future domestic partner bills.

So far there are three gay/homosexual bills California's Supreme Court will decide on in the next two years. According to Randy Thomasson, President of Campaign for California Families, the original plaintiff in the case, "This is one down and three to go. Next year, the State Supreme Court will decide whether to create �gay marriage by another name� and full-blown gay marriage. The year after that, the high court may decide whether the Democrats� homosexual-marriage bill violates marriage and the people�s vote.�

I had a hard time finding the gay community's responses to the ruling online. I thought for sure Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in Washington D.C. would issue threats to the judges, such as those he gave a few months back to politically "punish, terrify and torture" those who oppose their agenda on gays rights, in Between the Lines, a Detroit area homosexual magazine.

"I'm � interested in going after, politically, local legislators and leaders that have launched these anti-gay initiatives," he said. "We would set up a [political action committee] and go in and terrify them with a credible challenge...And the word would go out very quickly, 'You know what, this really isn't worth it.'"

Foreman also said, "We want full equality under the law, which, right now, means the freedom to marry. But we're also hopeful that we create different ways in which people can form relationships and families that don't come with all the baggage and the downsides of marriage. One of the great things about where we're going is that we are creating new ways for people to relate, new ways for people to obtain rights and benefits."

Californians voted 61.4 percent in favor of Prop. 22 to protect marriage four years ago. If you want to encourage the Court to make the same decisions in the future to uphold the will of the people thank them today. You can write or call:

Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister
Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4783
Office of the Clerk: 415-865-7000

� 2004 Sharon Hughes - All Rights Reserved

Sharon is the President of The Center for Changing Worldviews, and hosts Changing Worldviews TALK Radio which is heard Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6:30 pm on KDIA AM1640 San Francisco/Vallejo; on Saturdays at 8:30 am & 8:00 pm, KGDP AM660 Santa Maria WITA AM1490 Knoxville, TN, as well as online daily at

Her column appears on several online news sites including,, and others. For further information go to or comment at Contact [email protected]









Please note the wording, "registered domestic partners" as violating the Family Code, not "registered homosexual or gay marriage." Now, I'm not an attorney, but those words could pose a problem for future domestic partner bills.