Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 08-12-2004 - 1:13pm |
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court (search) ruled Thursday that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses this spring. The court also voided all the marriages of gay and lesbian couples sanctioned by the city.
Click here to read the court's ruling.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/081204_calif_gaynuptialruling.pdf
The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates and performed the marriage ceremonies in a monthlong wedding march that began Feb. 12, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The court, however, did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass California's judicial and legislative branches.

Pages
Well...one step in the right direction...
"Right" direction, yes...CORRECT direction, no way...as we both know, we disagree on this issue.
ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE RULING, WITH ITS BIAS, IS WRONG.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/9390302.htm?1c
Gays vow to continue to struggle for right to be married.
~mark~
I agree with you Mark....
"It's more properly the place of the courts to determine the Constitutionality of the ban itself as the court here noted."
Many times disobedience is the motivator. :)
Actually in California, marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman. But I guess the rogue actions of a mayor and the gay community, in violation of state laws, mean nothing. The ends justify the means I suppose.
Actually in California, marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman. But I guess the rogue actions of a mayor and the gay community, in violation of state laws, mean nothing. The ends justify the means I suppose.
Actually, it is
Where did the CA courts say this?
"It is flagrantly discriminatory and in direct conflict with our U.S. Constitution."
Really!? Huh, I don't remember the Constitution guaranteeing homosexuals the right to marriage. Marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman. They might have a shot at civil unions but not marriage.
"only that they had enough bigoted people to get it on the books."
When all else fails attack the people with name calling. Isn't is JUST POSSIBLE that these bigots aren't bigots but want to protect the sanctity of something that has been clearly defined for 1000s of years?
"As for the ends justifying the means...sometimes it takes disobedience and rebellion to make changes for the better."
Just remember you believe this when some nut job attacks an abortion clinic or a county clerk locks out homosexuals in a state that allows gay "marriage" because it is just wrong. What's good for the goose...
Where did the CA courts say this?
They haven't yet...and I didn't say they did.
So we agree than that until the courts overturn the law, marriage between a man and a woman is completely constitutionally supported.
"The definition is based on religious beliefs and should be kept separate from legal rights"
Incorrect. It is based on a legal definition as defined by legislatures across the country. In addition marriage has been defined by 1000s of years of tradition, regardless of religion.
"No, not attacking by any means"
I understand it wasn't aimed at any one particular person but when you say that someone is a bigot it is most definitely an attack.
"I realized after rereading my post I should have stated 'peaceful'. I do not nor have I ever advocated violence. Also I'm talking, once again, about 'laws' not someone's 'moral perceptions'."
Ok so then the second part of my hypothetical situation in which the county clerk defies local laws and denies gays a marriage license where it may be legal because the clerk thinks it is wrong would be ok with you?
"But the big question to you...just what is the difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage'?”
A marriage is between a man and a woman. A civil union would grant homosexuals similar rights in the eyes of the law (property, taxes, etc). Now I'm not thrilled with the whole gay movement because they are treating their sexuality like it is equivalent to the transgressions committed against blacks and women. I'd begrudgingly concede to CUs if it would appease the gay community but I know it won't. They don’t want tolerance they want acceptance, and that they won't ever get from me. I'll tolerate their behavior but I won't accept it as natural or normal.
"What happens if a church decides to do 'marriage' ceremonies for same-sex couples who already have a 'civil union' on the books?"
A. Wouldn't be a church that I would even give the time of day, if they were PROFESSING Christianity.
B. I couldn't care less what the Church of Sam & David want to do as long as it isn't legally recognized.
Pages