Was the annulment of gay marriages fair?

Eric Heins, right, and boyfriend David Glenn rally in support of gay marriage in San Francisco

California's Supreme Court has annulled nearly 4,000 gay marriages that took place in San Francisco.

The Court ruled that the Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, overstepped his powers issuing same-sex marriage licences earlier this year.

Newsom gave the go-ahead to issue marriage licences, saying current legislation was discriminatory.

"The same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect," the judges said.

Gay groups slammed the decision to annul the unions as "shockingly disrespectful" while conservatives hailed the ruling as a major victory.

What do you think about the Court's decision? Could this ruling have an impact in the outcome of the next presidential election?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

When special interest groups begin thinking they are above the laws of the land, their cause loses support. Patricia , Toronto

The law must be upheld regardless of how many gays are affected. If they want to get married, they should go about it in a lawful manner and have respect for the law. When special interest groups begin thinking they are above the laws of the land, their cause loses support. Be patient, your time will come and you can remarry without fear of annulment. Those of us who feel gays should have equal rights under the law, recognise that acceptance of gay marriage takes time. It is legal here and it will be legal in many countries in the near future.
Patricia , Toronto

This court ruling is not only fair, but it backs up the vast majority of Americans, Californians included, who oppose gay marriage. So why can't gays just be happy with civil unions, which are like marriage?
Justin Hughes, Tacoma, USA

This was not about gay marriages. This was about a mayor of a city in California, who took it upon himself to turn his back on a law. This would set a precedent for any other official to disobey laws with which he or she does not personally agree. Can you imagine the mayhem if every city in California decided to interpret the State's laws every which way?
Olene, California

It would be political suicide to support gay marriage at this time. Ryan, Philadelphia

This is a non-issue for the 2004 election. Over 75% of the US citizens are against "marriage" between gay couples. It would be political suicide to support gay marriage at this time. The only reason that Major Newsom made this stance in the first place was to curry favour with the very large and powerful San Francisco gay community. He had to have known that he was breaking the law and that the marriages would be annulled. It just shows that you cannot pick and choice which laws you will or will not support. The PEOPLE make the laws and the PEOPLE have spoken.
Ryan, Philadelphia

If a brother wants to marry his sister, would that be permissible as well? And if not, why not? Society has a right to insist on rules.
Glenn, Perth, Australia

The homosexuals were simply pawns in a power struggle between local officials who had their own political agenda and the state which is required to enforce the constitution. If there are to be "gay marriages" or other new contractual arrangements which are legally binding, they will have to be allowed as the result of a change to the state's constitution. That is how new laws are made in a democracy.
Mark, USA

Of course it isn't fair. These people married. A ruling from a group of judges will not change the nature of their relationships. It only gives the rest of society free reign to continue treating those couples unfairly in contrast to heterosexual married couples. I think it is a disgrace that people are so controlling and close minded. And no, I am not gay.
Kerri, New York, USA

With this and every other ruling like it, we are not equal. Dan, St. Louis, USA

Gay marriage will never be "wrong." Nor will it ever be "right." Neither side will ever get what they want totally. Leave it at civil unions. People are devoted to each other, let that be expressed maybe not through marriage, but through civil union. The only organization that should have any sort of say in "marriage" should be religious organizations. Our country has forgotten two things: separation of church and state, and the fact that the people of this country have worked very hard for equality, and with this and every other ruling like it, we are not equal.
Dan, St. Louis, USA

Though I am neutral on the position of gay rights, people have the right to live their lives the way they see fit. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness". By annulling the gay marriages that took place in San Francisco, the California Supreme Court is violating the right of people, gay or straight, to be happy.
Monique C, Wisconsin, USA

If homosexual marriage were put to a vote, it would lose in every state. But now people cry, "what about tyranny of the majority?" The fact is, no one's rights are being denied, all Americans have the same rights regarding marriage. If you want to marry, one must choose a member of the opposite sex. If you want to expand the definition of marriage to include marriages between people of the same gender, or marriages to multiple women, or even to your dog you must do it through the legislature, not the courts. You cannot allow the justices, who rightfully answer to nobody, to continue to consolidate their power over the everyday lives of the American people.
JD, Boston

Let the voters decide Mike, Seattle, Washington, USA

The decision was right and correct. The mayor was acting outside of California law; in fact, an impartial observer could conclude that he acted purposely in contempt of a law passed by the people of California. This should not be a matter decided by the courts anyway. Let the voters decide, as this decision affects the very fabric of our views of society and family.
Mike, Seattle, Washington, USA

It's probably a legal decision but obviously it can never be fair. So many people are deprived of their rights to marry the one they love, even if they have already, or pledged to stay with his/her lover for the whole life. I hope the world can become fairer.
Keith, Hong Kong

The annulment of gay marriages was American bigotry at its worst. What happened to "liberty and justice for all"?!
Phillip, USA

The court simply upheld the law but the outcome is deeply unjust. Gays pay the same taxes as everybody else, but are deprived of specific social rights and benefits because of a pointless prejudice.
Mike, London, UK

The decision was both legal and right. Marriage is not a "right" but a privilege, for those who meet the standards. Common sense and natural law say that it's one man with one woman. No negotiation.
Vernon, Nashville, USA

From all accounts the decision of the Court was "fair" in that it is based on the law. That does not mean that the outcome is "right" or desirable. The people who took advantage of the brief "window of opportunity" to marry their same sex partners were apparently sincere and genuinely wished to be married.

I don't see the Court decision as good or desirable - it is a continuation of a policy of discrimination.

I don't see the Court decision as good or desirable - it is a continuation of a policy of discrimination. Dave Woods, Cleveland, Ohio/USA

While legally the mayor of San Francisco was found to have been wrong, I applaud his view that the legislation prohibiting same sex marriages is discriminatory - it is and he had the nerve to say so and try to do something about it.
Dave Woods, Cleveland, Ohio/USA

It's is a hugely regressive step back towards the dark ages. What next? Bring back stoning in the streets and ducking witches. This is the 21st century, let's live and let live, people!!
Aj, Scotland

It was a great decision. Now maybe the Liberals will start to feel fire breathing down their neck that support their twisted minds.
Tony, USA

The Court's decision was correct, the local Mayor was wrong; all is now back to some kind of moral normality. As for the Presidential elections, if homosexuals and lesbians think that their desire to have same sex marriages is a vote winner then let a candidate declare for them. They must know the majority of the population find their life styles repugnant and any political support is suicide at the ballot box.
Mike Hall, Kingham, UK

It's a shame to human race, let them do what ever they want in the name of freedom, but marriage is between two opposite-sex couples
Babu, USA/India

I believe that same-sex marriages should be legally recognized; however, the Court is technically right, Newsom did not have the authority to determine the marriages' legality. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of voters will care, as most

I believe that same-sex marriages should be legally recognized; however, the Court is technically right Rebecca, Philadelphia, USA

people truly prefer to pretend gay people (like poor people) don't exist.
Rebecca, Philadelphia, USA

To annul a marriage between 2 consenting adults is like opening Pandora's box. What if a racist gets in power and want to annul a mixed race marriage.
Hermione, UK

The mayor clearly broke the law by issuing the marriage certificates. California has marriage defined as a union between man and women. If gays want social change, then they must follow the proper procedures to change the law. Without law, every fanatical Mayor or judge will be able to decide what is right for the country.
Matthew McCormack, Philadelphia, USA

The next time you tell your children that everyone in the United States has equal rights, remember this: You're lying.
Robert, Eugene, Oregon USA

This doesn't seem unreasonable. It doesn't judge on the merit of gay marriages, merely that the Mayor over extended beyond his legal powers.
Mike, GA, USA

How could it possibly be any thing but fair? The Court was just applying the law, that is what Courts are supposed to do. The Mayor and the participants knew that they were acting outside California law when they embarked on this enterprise.

The Court was just applying the law, that is what Courts are supposed to do Kurt, Baton Rouge, USA

Do they not realize that the judicial tyranny or legal anarchy that would be required for them to get what they want now could also be used against them by the majority in many more grievous ways?
Kurt, Baton Rouge, USA

No! What has the USA become? it's no longer liberal, democratic or free. Could this be the end of the USA as a free country, and perhaps a respected superpower? If it is, and if it was planned that way, all the way from the top then it should send shivers down everybody's spine, what's next, multi racial?
Steven Brewis, Tswane Pretoria

It was perfectly fair and legal, and just what Newsom and the couples really wanted. They knew he was deliberately overstepping the limits of his powers to make a social point. It's just like when protesters lay down in the streets, the pay-off is an arrest, to demonstrate the unfairness of whatever they're protesting.
T.J. Cassidy, Arlington, VA, USA

The whole issue is very annoying, if not terrifying. The marriages should not have taken place in the first place. I do not mean to discriminate anybody with sexual disorders, they should be taken very seriously, but issuing same-sex marriages is clearly on step further into social chaos. Gavin Mayor wants to be fashionable. What he (and others of the same breed) has actually achieved, is to bog down all good efforts to sort out this problem in a professional manner.
Johannes Adler, Germany

The Mayor took a bold decision. Yes, if gay marriage were put to the vote in the USA, it would probably get the thumbs down - just another nail in the coffin of America's image as the "land of the free". This is just another example of American pseudo-prudish hypocrisy.
Andrew, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Even if this mayor was wrong in granting these couples the type of union the majority of this world enjoys, there is no reason to take this very union away from them again. It harms no-one and only brings joy to them.
Erik, Netherlands

I'm always amazed that there is a fundamentalist religious right in the United States. You expect it in the Islamic world where it's not fashionable to use your head for thinking. I imagine they haven't accepted Darwin either. No problem in a nice neutral Buddhist country. But Buddhism's more of a philosophy than a religion, so has no problem accepting scientific advances.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan

People can't control who they fall in love with, and the US has a separation of church and state. Nick, Nashville, USA

To Vernon, USA: Since marriage isn't a natural institution, nor is love based on common sense, your argument doesn't hold water. Most animals have gay members in their species, humans included. People can't control who they fall in love with, and the US has a separation of church and state. Denying a group of people their rights based on nothing more than religious dogma and the "ick factor" is completely anti-American.
Nick, Nashville, USA

When God sent man to earth, He gave him an assignment. "Go and multiply and fill up the earth". In order for man to implement those directives, God created instruments, tested them and to his satisfaction he let man put them in motion. this instruments are called "the manufacturer's manual". Question: How are people of the same sex going to meet their obligations in Biblic terms? The Court's decision was right, is right and will be right.
John Upindi, Windhoek, Namibia

The court was right in its judgement. Only, one feels sorry for the gays. They cannot marry the person they love just because they are 'different'. And, I am not gay.
Sheree, Mumbai, India

People need to remember that marriage is not a financial contract. I have had more gays tell me that they are getting married so they can be on their partners insurance policy. Do not change the laws of marriage because of the few that want save money.
Lonsfoote, WH, USA

Its a sad day when equal opportunities are squashed in such a grand and brazen manner name here

I have had enough of these moral crusaders who seem to think that their self righteous opinions should be inflicted on others. Of course people should have equal rights to get married and the judges were wrong. Obviously the president does not want to side with a minority when its the majority vote that counts. Its a sad day when equal opportunities are squashed in such a grand and brazen manner.
Heather, Amagasaki, Japan

Everybody should just mind their own business and stop interfering with someone else's personal life. It is a revealing fact that the US rather legalize guns while banning celebrations of love.
Catherine Hewitt, Australia, Port Hedland

I am confused and I'm not being snide. I have read a lot of e-mails from Europe and Asia saying we are going back to the stone age by not allowing two partners of the same sex to marry. How many European and Asian countries allow same sex marriage? Just need a note of clarification.
Diana Downey, Rochester Hills Mi. USA

Fair, right? I believe it was more courageous of the Mayor to let them get married! I believe he made a clear point of the ridiculous and discriminating laws in 'free' America... The church laws of marriages are outdated, America should maybe try to catch up with times and new ideas. Otherwise they will get lost in their stubborn old laws. And you're saying America is fighting for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, ... ?! What a joke!!
Maarten Peeters, Barcelona, Spain