Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Knight: Gay marriages 'absolutely illegal'
Valley Press ^ | February 14, 2004 | HEATHER LAKE

Posted on 02/14/2004 9:45:48 AM PST by BenLurkin

As same-sex couples tied the knot in San Francisco, "My first reaction was they have lost their minds," the Palmdale Republican said.

City officials in San Francisco started marrying same-sex couples Thursday at the behest of Mayor Gavin Newsom, and the civil unions were expected to continue throughout the weekend as lines formed outside City Hall.

Calling the unions a "sideshow," Knight said he only hopes the same-sex couples realize that their marriages are not legal. "It's absolutely illegal. Those departments do not have the authority to change California law," he said.

In March 2000, two-thirds of California voters passed Knight-authored Proposition 22 defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

But proponents of same-sex marriage challenge the right of the voters to put in place legislation that violates the California Constitution.

"Prop. 22 did not amend the constitution. When you have a battle between a state law and the constitution - the constitution always wins," said Lorri L. Jean, attorney and chief executive officer of the LA Gay and Lesbian Center.

"People can not pass an initiative that violates the constitution," Jean said.

But Knight doesn't see it that way at all. A lawsuit filed in the Superior Court against San Francisco's treasurer and clerk by the Alliance Defense Fund, representing Knight, was brought to court Friday and held over for a hearing on Tuesday.

"We are asking the courts to provide for an injunction," Knight said.

Though the push by states against the legalization of same-sex marriage has taken on a sense of urgency, some legislators are going against the grain in what they say is a matter of civil liberty.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, decided this week to introduce his "Marriage License Non- Discrimination Act," which seeks to legalize same-sex marriage, and was expected to have at least 20 co-sponsors.

The legislation would amend California family's code definition of marriage from "between a man and a woman" to "between two persons."

Advocates of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is a violation of the California Constitution that illegalizes all forms of discrimination.

"In this country marriage is not a religious institution … making it a civil right," Jean said.

Saying the marriages are more symbolic than anything else, Jean said their significance is twofold .

"It sets in motion a legal case to determine whether the constitution does indeed require that all Californians be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation," Jean said.

Secondly, these are the very first government sanctioned same-sex marriages that have ever occurred in this country, she said.

Knight challenges the argument that denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is discrimination.

"They are defining discrimination. I say there is no discrimination in the fact that they can marry whomever they want … so long as it's a woman," Knight said.

"They can't marry their dog, their horse or their daughter or their son," Knight said. If we were going to discriminate and say they could only marry females of their ethnic background, that would be discrimination," Knight proffered as an example.

"They are saying they are discriminated against because the definition of marriage doesn't allow them the liberty to marry another man (or woman)," Knight said.

Knight chastised city officials in San Francisco for what he said is misleading and unfair to the couples.

"It's going to be a big letdown and it kind of appears they are taking advantage (of the couples)," Knight said.

Jean said couples are being told that their rights can not be enforced.

"I think that people in San Francisco know exactly what this means and doesn't mean and like all civil rights movements, gains are made incrementally … sometimes it advances the cause and sometimes it doesn't," Jean said.

While some legislators scrambled to seek an injunction against the marriages, others took the opportunity to follow suit.

In a press release Friday, Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, urged the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to join San Francisco, taking a stand against discrimination toward same-sex couples by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognizing those granted in San Francisco.

"Marriage is a basic human right. Denying same-gender couples this right is a violation of the nondiscrimination clause of the California Constitution," Koretz stated.

"Armageddon will not arrive, heterosexual marriages will not crumble by the thousands," Jean said. "Life will go on and no one will be hurt."


TOPICS: Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: blueoyster; civilunion; constitution; gay; homsexuals; hoosier; lesbian; marriage; samesexmarriage; sf; stunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
"Armageddon will not arrive . . . "Jean said. "Life will go on . . ."

HA!

1 posted on 02/14/2004 9:45:48 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Right. These people call on the "rule of law" to fire Judge Roy Moore, and take the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse, but now they just ignore the "rule of law" and none of the mayor or anyone is in danger of losing their jobs?

Hey, lets go on down to Alabama and get that statue back in the public eye.....we NEED it!
2 posted on 02/14/2004 9:52:11 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
My business partner and I are going to San Francisco and get hitched. After that, he can't be forced to testify against me next month. Take THAT, tax people!
3 posted on 02/14/2004 10:00:06 AM PST by whereasandsoforth (tagged for migratory purposes only)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"They can't marry their dog, their horse or their daughter or their son," Knight said.

Give them time, give them time.

4 posted on 02/14/2004 10:03:37 AM PST by FormerLib ("Homosexual marriage" is just another route to anarchy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whereasandsoforth
Hey, give it a shot!

I can only imagine how this could be used to thwart criminal proceedings in the God-forsaken state of Masschusetts!
5 posted on 02/14/2004 10:04:40 AM PST by FormerLib ("Homosexual marriage" is just another route to anarchy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Statement: "Knight: Gay marriages 'absolutely illegal'"

Response: He is right. However, being correct will do nothing to stop it. The doctrine of "abstract Rights" in action.

6 posted on 02/14/2004 10:06:53 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Well, that is right. If the marriage laws have to be rewritten, then can not discriminate against those who practice beastiality! How can the homosexuals be "intolerant" and discriminatory against other abberrent sexual practices?

With the price of veterinary care, I might be inclined to marry my horse so that I can put her on my medical plan!
7 posted on 02/14/2004 10:09:16 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Advocates of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is a violation of the California Constitution that illegalizes all forms of discrimination.

On that note, it is unconstitutional to deny people the right to own assualt weapons, hand grenades, land-mines, and tactical nuclear weapons. Darn it, I want my own Pershing Missile! I'm being discriminated against!

8 posted on 02/14/2004 10:09:49 AM PST by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
These people are getting very ruthless. They are losing their minds! Just because a derisorical bunch of ignorant, arrogant, elitist judges in MA usurp the law, they think the people are going to actually put up with this
superciliousness. (for the love of English words that are ridiculous.)
9 posted on 02/14/2004 10:09:55 AM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Life will go on and no one will be hurt."

The taxpayers will be hurt when these bogus “married couples” try to claim the “joint filing” status.

Citizens trying to adjudicate honest lawsuits will be hurt when these bogus “married couples” file for divorce and further clog up an already overburden court system.

Children will be hurt when these bogus “married couples” adopt them and warp their normal heterosexual identity.

Ordinary citizens will be hurt when they are prohibited from speaking against homosexual behavior when this trend eventually reaches the point it has already reached in Canada… Make no mistake, it will.

Joseph Goebbels' big lietechnique is full use by this author and countless others pushing this agenda.
10 posted on 02/14/2004 10:13:17 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
For those of us who wonder who "Knight" is, here's the first line of the article:

""As same-sex couples tied the knot in San Francisco, state Sen. William J. "Pete" Knight was fit to be tied.""
11 posted on 02/14/2004 10:13:39 AM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Marriage is a basic human right. Denying same-gender couples this right is a violation of the nondiscrimination clause of the California Constitution," Koretz stated."

If marriage is a basic human right, why does it require a license? Everything else that requires a license is called a “privilege.” By definition, “privileges” belong only to those who have qualified for them.
12 posted on 02/14/2004 10:20:51 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
You are correct. I have met him in a professional setting and was quite impresssed.:

X-15 Pilots: Pete Knight
http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/people/pilot_knight.html

"Pete Knight grew up in Noblesville, Ind., and enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1951. After receiving his commission through the aviation cadet program, he completed pilot training in 1953.

"Flying an F-89D for the 438th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, he won the prestigious Allison Jet Trophy Race in September 1954.

"After completing his undergraduate education with a degree in aeronautical engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology in 1958, he attended the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base where he graduated later that same year. He remained at Edwards where he served as project test pilot on the F-100, F-101, F-104 and, later, T-38 and F-5 test programs.

"In 1960, he was one of six test pilots selected to fly the X-20 DynaSoar which was slated to become the first winged orbital space vehicle capable of lifting reentries and conventional landings. After the X-20 program was canceled in 1963, he completed the astronaut training curriculum at the new U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School at Edwards in 1964 and was selected to fly the X-15.


Maj.Pete Knight

"He had more than his share of eventful flights in the airplane. While climbing through 107,000 feet at Mach 4.17 on June 29, 1967, the aircraft suffered a total electrical failure and all onboard systems shut down. After arching over at 173,000 feet, he calmly set up a visual approach and, resorting to old-fashioned "seat-of-the-pants" flying, he glided down to a safe emergency landing at Mud Lake, Nev. For his remarkable feat of airmanship that day, he earned a Distinguished Flying Cross.

"Months later, on Oct. 3, 1967, he accomplished a major milestone, as he piloted the modified X-15A-2 to a speed of 4,520 mph (Mach 6.7) — a speed which remains, to this day, the highest ever attained in an airplane. During 16 flights in the rocketplane, Knight also became one of only eight pilots to earn astronaut's wings by flying an airplane in space when he climbed to 280,500 feet on Oct. 17, 1967. After nearly 10 years of test flying at Edwards Air Force Base, he went to Southeast Asia in 1968 where he completed a total of 253 combat sorties in the F-100.

"Following his combat tour, he served as test director for the F-15 System Program Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In this capacity, he became the 10th pilot to fly the F-15 Eagle and completed some of the initial evaluations of the fighter. Following a subsequent assignment as director of the Fighter Attack System Program Office, he returned to Edwards Air Force Base as vice commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center in 1979, his last active duty assignment.

"During this assignment, he remained an active test pilot in the F-16 Combined Test Force. After 32 years of service and more than 7,000 hours in the cockpits of more than 100 different aircraft, he retired from the U.S. Air Force in 1982. In 1984, he was elected to the city council of Palmdale, Calif., and, four years later became the city's first elected mayor. In 1992, he was elected to serve in the California State Assembly representing the 36th District and, since 1996, he has continued to serve as a state senator representing California’s 17th Senate District.

"Among his many honors, Col. Knight was awarded the Legion of Merit with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Distinguished Flying Cross with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Air Medal with 10 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Harmon International Trophy, the Octave Chanute Award, and the Air Force Association Citation of Honor. He was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame (1988), the Aerospace Walk of Honor (1990), and the International Space Hall of Fame (1998)."

13 posted on 02/14/2004 10:21:10 AM PST by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: whereasandsoforth
Good idea.
14 posted on 02/14/2004 10:21:36 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Isn't this wonderful! Gays can finally marry! Maybe, there is a God!
15 posted on 02/14/2004 10:25:54 AM PST by mezz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
…the California Constitution that illegalizes all forms of discrimination. i>

If this statement is true, then it is illegal to choose one restaurant over another since the choice involves discriminating between them. Similarly, one cannot choose one make of car over another for the same reason.

Statements like this one are such utter, logical nonsense, how can anyone possibly conceive that such would be taken seriously?

16 posted on 02/14/2004 10:28:11 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The San Francisco mayor needs nothing less than a full and complete RECALL!
17 posted on 02/14/2004 10:29:08 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Life will go on and no one will be hurt."

Cep't those a**holes that don't cover up real quick.

18 posted on 02/14/2004 10:32:40 AM PST by highpockets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
Great point where's the media and the linguine spined republican's.
19 posted on 02/14/2004 10:33:09 AM PST by Brimack34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Does anyone know if Governor Schwarzenegger has issued any sort of statement?
20 posted on 02/14/2004 10:34:47 AM PST by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson