Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses
19
Thu, 08-12-2004 - 1:13pm
Well...one step in the right direction...

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128818,00.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 12:30pm

Statement made on the Larry King show last night.


>"Bush, who has championed a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, also made some of his most explicit comments to date on whether he believes states should be able to provide legal recognition to gay and lesbian couples with civil unions that stop short of marriage.


"That's up to states," Bush said. "If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage. I don't think our country should.""<


Quote from........ http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/bush.lkl/index.html

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 1:02pm

So we agree than that until the courts overturn the law, marriage between a man and a woman is completely constitutionally supported.


No.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 1:26pm
"No. It's still unconstitutional and unsupported. Again, just because a 'law' is on the books doesn't mean that it is a constitutional law. "

Until it's declared unconstitutional it is constitutional. But this is just semantics.

"Once again, not ALL traditions have same-sex taboos."

Maybe not but the ones that this country is based on do have same-sex taboos, and rightly so in my personal viewpoint.

"again, I'm stating my opinion of their actions."

Yes but the word bigot carries a negative tone. Use the word if you like but there are better ways to disapprove of their beliefs without calling them bigots.

"Still, this is an act of 'exclusion' where the Mayor of SF's act was one of 'inclusion'."

And the mayor of SF excluded every citizen who voted for prop 22 by his actions. The citizens of CA overwhelming voted for Prop 22. This mayor's actions said "I don't care what the citizens of this state support, I know better and will do what I see fit".

"Separate but supposedly equal, huh?"

In this case I can't see why it wouldn't work. But of course outlawing separate but equal with schooling worked so well didn’t' it?

"Your interpretation of the Bible & Christianity?"

Correct, my interpretation, which is why I wouldn't support a church that supported gay marriages or gay anything.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 3:50pm

Until it's declared unconstitutional it is constitutional. But this is just semantics.


Unconstitutional is unconstitutional...doesn't mean that such laws aren't on the books already, just that they may have never been challenged or are still in the process of being challenged.


Maybe not but the ones that this country is based on do have same-sex taboos, and rightly so in my personal viewpoint.


This country was based on FREEDOM...not Christianity.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 4:03pm

JMO but this

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 4:14pm
"Unconstitutional is unconstitutional...doesn't mean that such laws aren't on the books already, just that they may have never been challenged or are still in the process of being challenged."

Ok. Then I'll agree that banning same sex marriage is constitutional right after you agree that abortion is unconstitutional.

"This country was based on FREEDOM...not Christianity."

We've already beat this one to death.

"They are discriminating against others and depriving them of equal rights without any legally based arguement...therefore they fit the definition"

You keep mentioning legality. Yet legally the gays are wrong and the "bigots" are right. You wouldn't mean morally wrong would you? Of course not because we have established many times on this board that no one can establish a moral foundation, whose morals do you use after all.

“Besides, in what way, shape or form was ANYONE hurt in ANY way because same-sex marriages were allowed? How did it hurt YOUR marriage?"

We've been through this too. The fabric that holds this country together is being ripped apart by these types of issues. The left may not want to admit it but the values and traditions that made this country what it is is being shredded in the pursuit of socialism and moral relativism. So it hurts my marriage, my family, my community, and my country.

"I hope you're not saying what it sounds like you're saying...perhaps we should go back to the days of separate schools for minorities/women? Hmmmmm????"

No but tell me how outlawing separate but equal helped? Brown v Board has been a failure. Unintended failure but failure non the less.

"What makes your interpretation more correct than anothers?"

Because its mine.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 4:59pm
Here is a question: Why do so many people care so much about what other people are doing?

I would be damned as a heterosexual American if ANYONE tried to tell who I could or could not marry, so therefore, I don't think that it is my right to do that to anyone else.

And, frankly, who cares? If they are not killing people or forcing someone to do something against their will, what is the big deal?


If Americans would focus half of the energy that they do on other people on to themselves, then this nation would probably be a much greater place.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 5:57pm

Ok. Then I'll agree that banning same sex marriage is constitutional right after you agree that abortion is unconstitutional.


I assume you meant 'unconstitutional'???


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 08-13-2004 - 6:07pm

Cool!


Pages