This is an interesting case, as per con law in general. The bigger issue here seems to be what happens when a state constitution prohibits gay marriage and is countered by the full faith and credit clause of the US Const where California will start regognizing gay marriage. Even more interesting is that the states seeking to prevent CA from starting their new law are using a separation of powers argument because the governor of NY stated policy to honor the CA marriages. It seems the state legislatures beleive it's their jobs to interpret their constitution and set policy, not the governor.
In prior articles, the press reported that full faith and credit usually applies to judicial acts with a far higher level of "oomph" (respect) than statutes, and I'm thinking that a marriage certificate, issued by a court would be such a higher-respected judicial act.
Even more interesting is that Colorado (of Romer v. Evans, loosely: the US sup ct case denying CO the "gay rights ban" to the people of CO's state constitution) is one of the states, but not virginia (where an anti-gay-marriage statute was actually passed in 2004).
10 States Seek Calif. Gay Marriage Delay; Suit to Be Filed in N.Y. | ABA Journal - Law News Now
Updated: Opposing forces are gearing up to fight a major battle over the right of same-sex couples to marry, centered on the recent decision by the California Supreme Court that the state constitution protects their right to do so.
Following a directive by New York's Democratic governor, David Paterson, that New York will recognize as legal any such marriage that is legal in the state in which it is held, a Christian legal group has announced that it will sue over the policy, reports the Associated Press.
"The group, the Alliance Defense Fund based in Arizona, is working with New York legislators on the case that in part will accuse Paterson of violating the separation of powers in his directive this week," the news agency writes.
Joseph Bruno, the New York senate's Republican majority leader, has been considering a possible challenge to the governor's directive, the New York Times previously reported.
Meanwhile, the attorneys general of 10 other states petitioned the California Supreme Court yesterday, seeking to delay the implementation of the gay marriage ruling until after this fall's elections. That is so they can see whether voters approve state constitutional amendments to require that marriages be between a man and a woman before deciding how to respond to the California situation, reports the Associated Press in another article.
California's attorney general is urging the court not to grant the delay.
State officials plan to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses on June 17, and have already unveiled a new form that substitutes "Party A" and "Party B" for traditional bride and groom designations, as discussed in another New York Times article.
The 10 states seeking delay are: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
