San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couple

AP ^

[BurbankKarl]

February 12, 2004, 2:57 PM EST

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.

The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch.

The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

[ClearBlueSky]

I'm with you, Dataman. What is the difference between the people in mental hospitals who think they're someone they're not-i.e. famous people,doctors, the Virgin Mary, etc-and people who think they're a sex they're not?
Homosexuality is a deviant mental illness that should be cured, not accepted as 'normal'.
All deviants can claim they were 'born that way'. If they were, it is a biological aberration.

[little jeremiah]

You said: "The gays don't want marriage and all that goes with it. They want to infuriate decent Americans, moon our Christian beliefs, and head this train wreck to lowering the age of consent to 12 (8 if they can keep Manhattan and Beverly Hills liberals behind them)."

This is what several noted homosexual spokespeople have stated about "gay" marriage:

(I know it's long but very revealing and people need to know what homosexuals REALLY want "gay" marriage for.)

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."



"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."
Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position."
(Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness."
(Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality."
(partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "
(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play."
(quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [They also demanded eliminating all age of consent laws.]

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

The last words of a gay marriage ceremony is;

"Who wants fudge?"

[jde1953]

My question still is: "Has anyone been required to show proof of marriage to the IRS to qualify for the MARRIED status on a 1040 return?"

Wouldn't have any idea, but I'll bet if you were audited, they'd be asking for it first thing.

Another - unrelated - question: If this is an act of civil disobedience, then the law is being broken. I have no problem with civil disobedience, as long as the person in question is willing to accept the consequences of the action. The law prohibiting gay marriage stands mute upon what the penalty is if the law is broken. What do you all think the penalty should be for having disobeyed this particular law?

[Dataman]

Homosexuality is a deviant mental illness

And a committee's (AMA's) declaration does not change that truth any more than declaring Oprah president would make it so.

[hotpotato]

I don't remember this. I had just been in CA for a year. Whatever happened? Was there ever a voter backlash on this? I see San Franciscans managed to vote in an anarchist for a mayor.

[hotpotato]

If ever there was a non-issue, this is it.

I agree. My concern in polygamy. When will muslims vote in a mayor who will begin to grant marriage licenses to muslim men in order that they may have their "rightfully" ordained four wives and will most likely be sending for them from overseas... many of whom will be young and ignorant.

[claudiustg]

Seems to me these bozo-heads that they just elected in SF had to take some sort of oath to uphold the law when they took office. The State Attorney General needs get himself to SF and read them the riot act, like he actually will.

This will be my final year in California. I'm voting with my feet.

[jgrubbs]

In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (commonly abbreviated as DSM) as a mental disorder.

The DSM is a book published by the American Psychiatric Association, that is used to officially diagnose mental disorders.

[EdReform]

BTTT

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

[EdReform]

In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (commonly abbreviated as DSM) as a mental disorder.

For future reference, documentation can be found here, here, and here.

[jgrubbs]

Thanks for the links!

I wonder how long it will be before they try to remove Pedophilia from the DSM.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thank you.

[xusafflyer]

Say Bye Bye to Prop 22. The 9th Circus will make sure of that.

It doesn't matter what the Terminator does. The fed courts can make up their own laws.

187, now 22, next on the list, Prop 13.

[Alouette]

We're not going to the back of the bus. We're not not getting on the bus, we're not not sitting at the lunch counter

I missed something here. I don't ever remember homosexuals being forced to ride in the back of the bus, or not allowed to board the bus, or not served at luncheonettes.

I don't know of a time in this country that homosexuals were not allowed to vote, or own property, or were bought and sold as property, or whipped for trying to run away (unless, perhaps, by each other)

[expatguy]

The point people seem to be missing in the entire debate is that homosexuals are NOT discriminated against. They can get married just like everyone else. Just not to each other.

The issue is same sex marriage which is illegal. That is the law and if you don't like it, then by all means repeal it. Attempting to bypass the law by claiming that your crusade is a "rights issue" is nonsense. This has nothing to do with your persona, it has to do with your behaviour.

"Behaviour" as in a person who uses drugs. They have a choice to make and even the arguement that they have an "addictive personality" or are genetically predisposed to be a drug user won't save them from companies that screen their employees for drugs and then deny them a job because of their "behaviour". Is it right? Perhaps not. But, because it is not a "rights issue", it needs to be addressed through our legistlative process and not through an "activist court". The same with homosexuality and "gay marriage".

A "rights issue" is different. It is something that you have no control over. Age, ethnicity, race and gender would be considered a legitimate "rights issue".

A legitimate violation of someone's right's might therefore might be "age discrimination" and yet I not seen it addressed. At 18 years old I can give my life for my country fighting in Iraq but when I come home I can't have a beer because the drinking age is 21. That is discrimination.