Posted on 05/25/2004 6:23:27 PM PDT by scripter
Two state supreme courts dealt same-sex marriage a pair of setbacks today, as the Arizona panel refused to hear a case brought by two homosexual men and California justices, in hearing arguments in a San Francisco case, appeared to disapprove of the city's mayor issuing licenses to couples of the same gender.
In the Grand Canyon state, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Standhardt v. Arizona, a case brought by two single men who were denied a marriage license. The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed the suit on Oct. 8, and the homosexuals sought review by the state Supreme Court.
"This is a fantastic victory in the defense of marriage," said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, in a statement. "We are extremely pleased at the Arizona Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case. Arizona's marriage laws are clear. The Arizona Court of Appeals understood that, and now the Supreme Court has agreed. The plaintiffs simply had no case."
ADF represented Arizona state Sen. Mark Anderson as a friend of the court. The group's amicus brief argued Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner, the men denied a marriage license, misrepresented the law, that the Massachusetts Goodridge opinion does not control Arizona law and that there is no national "trend" toward same-sex marriage.
"Although the majority of Americans consistently oppose same-sex 'marriage,' homosexual activists have filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an attempt to find radical judges who will tear down democratically enacted laws and impose a radical, nation-changing agenda on an unwilling public," McCaleb said.
In California, the seven-member Supreme Court heard arguments in a case dealing with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuing of thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the law.
Questions from the justices during the two-hour session lead observers to believe the panel would not rule to approve Newsom's action, saying such a decision would give local officials the option of choosing which laws they want to follow.
"Wouldn't that be setting a problematic precedent?" asked Justice Joyce Kennard. "Presumably, other local officials would be free to say ... I don't like that particular law, be it a ban on guns" or another issue.
There was not clear consensus, however, on how the court might deal with the status of the marriages Newsom sanctioned when he issued licenses in February to 4,000 couples.
One lesbian activist put a positive spin on the court session.
"I am very hopeful, based on the nature of the court's questions and their sensitivity to this issue, that they could craft a solution where they would find the mayor exceeded his authority without finding that the marriages are invalid," Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press.
The court is expected to rule within 90 days.
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0) |
| Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list) |
| Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search |
It's decisions as these two, that the decent, moral citizens of our great nation must take momentum from and not give up to those who wish to see a gutter-culture instilled in the United States.
Did you ever see our governor??? She's one of 'em.
I watched the arguments presented to the CA Supremes today on Court TV Yes, they asked very tough questions of the lesbian lawyer representing San Francisco, , and yes, one of the C-Span host guessed the judges will rule against. But every serious court watcher knows you can't predict what a court will decide by the questions asked. I'd say it's iffy. And it is California, after all.
Yeah, right, Kate. The justices who just said the marriages are invalid are going to uphold them. Where do they find these bozos?
"Although the majority of Americans consistently oppose same-sex 'marriage,' homosexual activists have filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an attempt to find radical judges who will tear down democratically enacted laws and impose a radical, nation-changing agenda on an unwilling public," McCaleb said."
Well said.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
|
|
| Culture of Vice |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
SITREP - SODOMY
Got a picture?
Homosexuals have the *exact same rights* of marriage as heterosexuals do.
Any homosexual may marry any willing, single female.
Thank you for this good news. God bless these men and women for upholding the rule of law!
"I am very hopeful, based on the nature of the court's questions and their sensitivity to this issue, that they could craft a solution where they would find the mayor exceeded his authority without finding that the marriages are invalid," Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press."
That has to be the dumbest statement of the day. He did something that is against the law, your "marriage" licenses are invalid.
Gosh, Justice Kennard, wouldn't that mean that you should rule ALL of California's gun laws preventing private ownership of firearms as unconstitutional?
You know, that Second Amendment thingy.
No picture but look up Arizona Gov site (http://www.governor.state.az.us) and there it is.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - back on the job, I'm gone for a few hours and look what happens!
I'll read them all later tonight -
Open for comments!
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist
Its Kerryesque. "I know gay marriage is illegal but I'll still get to keep my license."
I know of her.
I looked at the Arizona Governor official website. Since Miz N. and her ilk are always insisting how normal homosexuality is I wanted to see if her bio stated that she was a lesbian, and I wanted to see if there would be any pictures of her and the partner.
Lo 'n behold! Nary a mention, let alone a picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.