As a follow-up to a daily roundup story... Dan Logue and other County Supervisors have filed a "Writ of Mandate" challenging the legality of Gay Marriages in California.

(The Entire Writ of Mandate will be linked as soon as Mr. Flint can uplaod it onto this site)

As often happens with cases of Judicial Activism, they don't do their homework - rather the Judges render a decision based on their opinions of the way things should be without understanding that they emperil others...

Case and point - Logue and other Supervisors from Four Counties have asserted that they can be sued over "gender neutral marriage licenses" because:

(Respondent = State of California)

10.  The California Family Code specifies in additional places the requirement for both one male and one female for a valid marriage.  "An unmarried man of 18 years or older and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older" may marry (Family Code Section 301 (enacted in 1992)); If "an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, not minors, have been living together as husband and wife" they may qualify to be married in a confidential marriage (Family Code Section 500 (enacted in 1992)); As a part of the marriage license, "the form shall include an affidavit, which the bride and groom shall sign" (Family Code Section 505(c) (amended in 2006)); In detailing what is to be included in the License and Certificate of Declaration of Marriage, there is a requirement for "the maiden name of the female, if previously married and if her name has been changed" (Family Code Section 103180(c)(1) (enacted in 1995)).  These statutes are valid, three were enacted prior to the passage of Proposition 22, the fourth was amended in 2006, and the California Constitution expressly forbids RESPONDENT, or any other administrative agency, from declaring a statute unenforceable, or refusing to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional (California Constitution Article 3 Section 3.5(a)).

I am sure that Logue and others will be assailed in the media over this writ - but the reality is clear... The State Supreme Court Really overstepped its' bounds. When you add the above that clearly points out how marriage is defined EVEN BEFORE PROP 22 - which is what the court overturned... you have a problem.

Take a look at this:

7.  On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California held that California Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5 were unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples must be included under the definition of marriage.
8.  In response, RESPONDENT has altered the marriage forms that it issues, removing and adding verbiage, so as to provide forms for same-sex, as well as opposite sex, couples.
9.  The Supreme Court did not, and can not, change the language of California statutes, as such can only be done by the California Legislature (Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 675) (Werdegar, J., concurring, stating that the power to write laws belongs to the people and political branches of government, not the judiciary).

The bottom line is that this Writ of Mandate exposes the adsurdity of Judicial activism. What is going to have to happen again is the courts are going to have to write laws from their bench in order to rule against this writ.

the California Supreme Court does not write law and their decision has created a conflict that could expose counties to legal trouble. Do the courts care?

What is more likely is that our "Republican" governor is going to sign a bill re-defining the marriage code. I am sure Senator-Elect Leno has his staff getting on the bill as we speak.

Meanwhile - the Secretary of State had to certify the initiative that is hitting the ballot in November that will end the debate permanently.