"Those photos are why I'm considering becoming a liberal.
That ideology attracts so many smokin' hot babes!"
Posted on 02/13/2004 10:41:09 AM PST by gdyniawitawa
"Those photos are why I'm considering becoming a liberal.
That ideology attracts so many smokin' hot babes!"
Well for one thing, they don't believe they are undermining anything. You must understand that they feel so good about themselves, they are so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They wrap themselves in the cloak of enlightenment and superiority that they fail to ever see the damage that results from their vison of morality.
You must have missed this from the article:...... The US city of San Francisco has become the first civil authority in the United States to officially marry gay couples in open defiance of laws banning the practice. The city, under the orders of new liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom, officially married at least 15 gay couples and issued marriage licences to around a dozen others.
Nope. I did did not miss that part.
It does not change what I said in the least.
Marriage have legal standing by "the powers invested in (the priest, rabbi, pastor, judge, etc.) by the State of (insert the name of one of the 50 States here)."
A marriage ceremony without the force of State law = A pretend marriage.
A mayor claiming such marriages are "official" = A politician blowing hot air.
The City of San Francisco's "official" marriages carry as much legal weight in a California court of law as my kid's pretend marriage between the pet dogs.
What's stopping them from adding a 3rd and 4th applicant?
The law does not ban homosexual 'marriage' anymore than the laws of gravity and aerodynamics ban me from flapping my arms up and down and flying through the air.
Natural law, and the laws of physics, are not arbitrary; they just are.
The law simply reflects what already exists in natural law. The state cannot change the natural law definition of marriage--it can only misapply the term to homosexual partnerships.
SAN FRANCISCO - Opponents of gay marriage went to court Friday to stop an extraordinary act of ongoing civil disobedience in which San Francisco has issued more than 150 marriage licenses to gay couples. Weddings appeared likely to continue through the long holiday weekend despite efforts by the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund to obtain a temporary restraining order that would prevent the city from granting more licenses. A Superior Court hearing was scheduled Friday afternoon.
Around the country, gays and lesbians emboldened by San Francisco's move and by the constitutional debate over gay marriage in Massachusetts went to courthouses Thursday and Friday demanding their own marriage licenses — and getting summarily rejected, since every state in the nation bans gay marriage. But in San Francisco, with the blessing of newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom, the county clerk has issued more than 150 marriage licenses to gay couples. Many of the weddings have taken place in quick civil ceremonies inside the ornate City Hall, and the building was to remain open Saturday in observance of Valentine's Day.
"I'm not interested as a mayor in moving forward with a separate but unequal process for people to engage in marriages," Newsom said in an interview Friday on ABC News' "Good Morning America." "I think the people of this city and certainly around the state are feeling that separate but unequal doesn't make sense."
Hundreds of same-sex couples began lining up at 4 a.m. Friday, many of them rushing into town from other cities to get married before the courts could shut them down.
"Even people who are anti-gay marriage might shift their thinking now and realize it's most harmful to take something away when someone already has it," said Virginia Garcia, 40, after wedding Sheila Sernovitz, 50, her partner of 14 years.
The opposition groups want a Superior Court judge to order the county clerk not to issue any more licenses to same-sex couples, to void any licenses that have been granted, and to require city officials to abide by the rules that govern changes in law.
"Apparently, Mayor Newsom felt he's above the law and like a dictator, could simply dictate what the law should be. And he has no authority to do that, either under the city charter or state law," Richard Ackerman, an attorney for the Campaign for California Families, said Friday.
While it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will carry, their symbolism was self-evident as lawmakers in Massachusetts debate a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions. City officials tried to keep the first marriage — between longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83 — confidential so they could complete it before any court intervention. The pair, who will celebrate 51 years together on Valentine's Day, were wed by San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng at 11:10 a.m. in a closed-door ceremony.
Afterward, Lyon said she "never dreamed" that she and Martin would be wed within their lifetimes, but that she was excited "to make it legal." Newsom was not present at that ceremony, but later presented the couple with a signed copy of the state constitution with sections related to equal rights highlighted.
"I don't think there is anyone in good conscience who can tell me that denying the same rights my wife Kimberly and I have to same-sex couples is anything but discrimination," said Newsom, who maintains the equal protection clause of the California constitution obliges the city to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
As word spread about the marriages, couples rushed to City Hall, most dressed casually in jeans with hastily assembled witnesses, and holding hands as they waited in a long line to pay their $82 license fee. The marble passages beneath City Hall's ornate golden dome echoed with applause as jubilant couples breezed through brief ceremonies, promising to be "spouses for life" instead of husband and wife.
"There is a part that doesn't feel romantic at all, but obviously it feels historic," said Guillermo Guerra, 29, who married Andrew Parsons, 39, his partner of eight years.
Many state officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, shied away from commenting on the events. Attorney General Bill Lockyer said through a spokeswoman he has not been asked to issue an opinion on the legality of same-sex marriages under California law. But Lockyer has asked his civil rights enforcement section to review how Massachusetts' legal debate might apply to California law.
"California's constitution provides broader equal protection rights than other states," spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said.
The Massachusetts Legislature, to undo the high court ruling by rewriting the state constitution, must pass an amendment with at least 101 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions — this year and in 2005-06 — before it winds up on the ballot before voters in November 2006. The most votes any of the varying amendment proposals received Wednesday and Thursday was 98. Thirty-eight states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage. link
Sure.
Those licenses would be the legal equivalent of Monopoly money.
What do you think would happen if the California Highway Patrol pulls you over and you hand him one of these?
The CHP officer and the Judge will both have a good laugh and you would be charged with driving without a license.
What do you think will happen when these people claim a a marriage tax deduxtion on their California and Federal income taxes and they produce a non-valid marriage license as proof of their legal standing?
The IRS and the Judge will have a good laugh and the jokers will be charged with tax fraud.
Gotta see how Mass. is handling it before he can decide how to handle it for Calif? geeze
Prairie
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.