San Francisco sues over gay vows

WASHINGTON -- The City of San Francisco, taking a hint from the California Supreme Court, has opened a new legal front in its campaign to open marriages to same-sex couples -- a tactic aimed at settling the issue once and for all in the state.

In a lawsuit filed in a local court in San Francisco late Thursday, City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera made a direct challenge to a series of state laws that limit marriage in the state to opposite-sex couples. Herrera asked the court to strike down those laws under the state constitution.

The city's lawsuit was followed yesterday by a similar challenge in local court by a group of same-sex couples, also seeking a ruling against the opposite-sex marriage laws.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday refused to take up that specific question when it issued a preliminary ruling ordering city officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, after the city had issued 4,200 such licenses.

It made clear it would not decide the constitutionality of the marriage laws when it takes action in two pending cases -- one filed by the state, the other by a conservative advocacy group opposed to gay marriage, the Alliance Defense Fund -- testing the scope of the city mayor's power over marriage licenses.

Both the city and the state had asked the state's highest court to use those cases to resolve the constitutionality issue, but it declined, without explanation.

Yet the Supreme Court said its order did not bar the filing of a new, separate lawsuit making a "substantive constitutional challenge to the current marriage statutes." Herrera promptly followed that suggestion, with a new lawsuit.

A separate lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, involves six same-sex couples, including two women, Pali Cooper and Jeanne Rizzo, who canceled wedding plans after the city was ordered to stop issuing licenses for gay and lesbian marriages. Since the state Supreme Court itself has opted to bypass that issue for now, the two new lawsuits seek to ensure that the constitutionality question does not linger. The city attorney will ask that the local court speed its review of the new lawsuit, according to Matt Dorsey, spokesman for Herrera's office. The ACLU also said it would ask for an expedited ruling.

Herrera, in a statement, said he was disappointed with the order blocking more licenses for now, but added: "Our overriding purpose is to ensure equality for all Californians seeking to marry -- not merely those performed within our city limits."

He said, "San Francisco seeks an unequivocal declaration . . . that state provisions that prohibit marriage between same-sex couples are unconstitutional."

The key law under challenge in the new case declares that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The city contends the provision, added to state law by the voters in a ballot measure that went into effect four years ago, violates a state constitutional clause that says, "A person may not be denied equal protection of the laws." That provision bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the lawsuit notes.

Yesterday, Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers said that banning gay marriage probably violates Oregon's constitution, effectively placing the issue in the hands of the state's highest court.

Myers's nonbinding written opinion also said current state law forbids counties from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, as Multnomah County has been doing for about a week in Portland.

But the state will not try to compel the county to stop, meaning Portland apparently is the only city in the nation in which gay couples can marry.

Material from the Associated Press was included in this report.