San Francisco Officials Marry Gay Couples (Grandma is Gross)

My Way ^ | Feb 12, 11:12 PM | By LISA LEFF

[mgist]

Phyllis Lyon, left, 79, and Del Martin, 82, right, both of San Francisco and a couple for 51 years, are escorted through City Hall after they were married in a civil ceremony in San Francisco, Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004. In a political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of the lesbian couple, then announced they would issue more same-sex marriage licenses.

[livianne]

what is really bothering me about all this coverage is that there is NO indication from news sources if these "legal marriages" have any validity at all since California has a law against gay marriage. They just say the marriages were done and show all the happy queers.

[Iron Matron]

Pictures of those leaving for hades on a fast train.

[New Perspective]

I always said that gays would be able to marry when hell freezes over. I guess these queers will be ordering their LL Bean Satan overcoats soon.

[Redcoat LI]

San Fran cannot bear to be out-gayed by Massachusetts.

[Puppage]

California has a law against gay marriage

Isn't it a country wide law? Didn't x42 sign it into law? Which makes these activist judges criminals...IMHO.

[Lockbar]

"San Fran cannot bear to be out-gayed by Massachusetts."


LOL, LOL Redcoat! Thanks for my first real belly laugh of the day!

[toomuchcoffee]

Well, first of all, they probably aren't anyone's grandma. A couple for 51 years seems pretty okay to me. A lot better than some hetro marriages. Explain to me, without yelling, why Americans should be told by the government who and who not to marry. What business is it of the city, state and/or feds who someone marries. As long as the lisence (why is *that* even necessary?) is paid for, who's business is it? This issue equates to the slavery and womens vote arguements. Like it or not, gays are Americans and as such should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness, even if straights think it's gross.

[livianne]

Isn't it a country wide law? Didn't x42 sign it into law? Which makes these activist judges criminals...IMHO.

I believe that what x42 signed into law was DOMA, which justs says that if one state decides to grant legal marriage other states aren't obligated to recognize it. But you know that doesn't stand a chance in the court system.

I think the Mayor of SF should lose his job, though - performing actions that are against the written law of the state - isn't that grounds for losing the position?

[Iron Matron]

I guess these queers will be ordering their LL Bean Satan overcoats soon.


LOL!

Queers and queer apologists, may drag our society thru the mud, but while they enjoy getting it in the end now (so to speak),they wont when they face eternity.

[Capt. Jake]

"Like it or not, gays are Americans and as such should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness, even if straights think it's gross."

No one denies their right to all of the above. What we object to is their use of the courts to redefine marriage, the building block of civilization, to mean what a small minority wants it to mean. Why can't gays respect the rights of the majority to republican self-determination?

[Puppage]

Ah, ok. Now, it makes sense. Thanks, Liv.

[livianne]

Explain to me, without yelling, why Americans should be told by the government who and who not to marry.

Why should Americans be told who they can and cannot marry? Well, how do you feel about people marrying young teens? As long as the parents sign off on the license it's allowed, and then the child is a legal adult. How do you feel about siblings or first cousins getting married? If you don't like it, then you agree the government should have a say.

The question really isn't should the government be able to tell you who can and can't get married, but where should the line be. And that is the current battleground. You move the line once, and you can move it again, and again, and again. If marriage can have three possible definitions (man and woman, man and man, woman and woman) why not more? Why not three people, or four? There are some very committed and loving polygamous relationships out there - should they have the legal right to be married? Is that in the best interests of the children that will be involved in that situation?

This issue is nowhere near slavery and women's vote arguments. Gays are free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. They have all the same rights as straight people. I, as a woman, married a man. My sister, as a lesbian woman, could also have married a man. Therefore, we have equal rights. I don't think my sister and her partner are gross - I think they are lovely people and I'm glad to have her partner in our family. However, I don't think of them as a married couple, and I don't like that they plan to have and raise a child together. It's not that it's gross - it's that it defies the very basic natural order, and it denies the fact that the ideal situation for a child is with a mother and a father. That is what this is primarily about for me. The children. And much as I love my sister, I'm not going to change my principles for her or anyone else.

[New Perspective]

Well, I can almost agree with you on that. But if someone ask God forgiveness, he grants it, no questions asked. This is my delima, I try and live my life accoring to the book of God, all the time. I do not do what ever I want, enjoy deviency, then just ask for forgiveness. I take the high road, the more difficult one. Practicing homosexuals on the otherhand, do these defiant deviant acts their whole lives, while ruining children, then ask for forgiveness, and it is granted. Now, I am not the one to grant or deny this, but it just pisses me off knowing that I am spending my whole life trying to do the right thing, while the queers actively do the wrong thing. We both ask for forgiveness, and we both end up in Heaven. That is if I am good enough.

[mgist]

Explain to me, without yelling, why Americans should be told by the government who and who not to marry."

The government provides marriage licenses. Do you think they should also provide licenses to polygamists who want to marry several women? Or licenses to men who want to marry their daughters? They are all pursuing life, liberty and happiness, right? So what is the point in regulating the marital institution in the first place? I personally prefer that homosexuals are "out", and don't really care what people do inside their homes. The gay agenda that is being imposed on my children, however, DOES concern me. If these were isolated issues, as opposed to the constant propaganda of homosexual acceptance targeting children and society, I wouldn't give it too much thought. My 8 year old daughter shouldn't be exposed to so much gay sexuality issues or any other sexual issues for that matter. This is just one more slide down the slippery slope of a dysfunctional society. That is the problem.

[lormand]

...Kaliforni is the place you wanna be, so they loaded up the

• Gerbils and pipes
• passive sheep
• whips
• leather
• butt plugs
• enema bags
• strap-ons
• condoms
• fists
  ...and they moved to Beverly!

  I can't wait until the next recruiter tries luring me to Kalifornia again. I will have another ton of reasons to tell him why I would NEVER consider moving to the Sodomite state.

[toomuchcoffee]

Okay, let me put a clearer face on my posistion. Consenting Americans of a determined age. The government can determine the age as a protection measure for children. If siblings want to marry, so what? If first cousins want to marry, so what? What business is it of yours? Procreation? The first cousin myth has already been burst, and if siblings want to have children, so what? I think polygamy is fine too, as long as the participants are free, consenting, legally defined adults.
Procreation is a straw dog. Old folks, way past childbearing years, get married. Young folks get married with a determination not to have children. That's legal, and their rights as Americans. Marriage is a partnership of two (or more) people supporting each other through life.

[toomuchcoffee]

" My 8 year old daughter shouldn't be exposed to so much gay sexuality issues or any other sexual issues for that matter. This is just one more slide down the slippery slope of a dysfunctional society. That is the problem."

This is a sexual society and your daughter is bombarded with it all day long. Bad taste is just that, bad taste, whether gay or straight. Any sort of "in your face" actions, sexual, religous, political, social or in any other manifestation, is offensive and should be censured.

[spunkets]

"Marriage is a partnership of two (or more) people supporting each other through life."

No it is not. It is a union between one man and one woman. You do not have the right to redefine words and meaning for the majority. Especially when the objective of the attempt is to undermine the essence contained within the meaning.

I do not want all the different perversions taught as normal legitimate choices in schools, or elsewhere. Their actions are harmful perversions. That's why those people are called perverts.

[livianne]

If siblings want to marry, so what? If first cousins want to marry, so what? What business is it of yours? Procreation? The first cousin myth has already been burst, and if siblings want to have children, so what?

Aside from the fact that siblings marrying is absolutely disgusting, the odds of a child born with birth defects is incredibly high. Not to mention that it is quite likely that there are some issue present in the parents that caused them to marry their siblings in the first place. NOT a healthy situation for a child or children. And no, procreation is NOT a straw man argument - the primary reason for marriage is to create and sustain a healthy family life. The main purpose is not love, is not to show how you feel, it's to make and sustain a family. Other people do get married, yes, but that doesn't change the primary purpose. The government AND the people have a stake in what marriage becomes because that has a definite impact on the society we all live in and the people who will be raised in that society. Marriage is the creation of a family. If two people want to support each other through life they can do so, and there are legal documents, wills and so forth that can make sure they have the proper protections. Again, the purpose of family is CHILDREN. Not to make you feel good about being with someone.

I think polygamy is fine too, as long as the participants are free, consenting, legally defined adults.

polygamy by itself may be fine, but polygamous legal marriage? you think that is fine? so would you put any limit on it? Four, five, six...ten people getting married? Is that ok? Is THAT good for the kids involved. Keep in mind, THEY didn't consent to having such a confusing family. And what about if that family splits up? You think divorce is hard on kids now, think about what they will go through with shared custody between four people. People have the right to be in any relationship they want to be. They can draw up any legal documents they want to in order to create a legal bond between them. But that doesn't make it marriage.

The real problem these days is that people have forgotten that marriage isn't about the husband and the wife. It's about the family, most specifically the children. WHy do you think couples have to take blood tests to get married, and have to have treatment for syphilis if it is present before marriage is allowed? To protect each other? No. to protect the future children. Do you disagree that the government has the right to do that?