SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: 'Bush's Stance Led Newsom To Take Action' (AG Bill Lockyer was given 'heads up')

Sin Freaksicko Comical ^ | February 15, 2004 | Rachel Gordon

[L.N. Smithee]

It was only his 12th day as mayor of San Francisco, but Gavin Newsom decided that night -- the very night he attended President Bush's State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. -- that he was going to defy California law.

And turn the nation on its ear.

[L.N. Smithee]

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who was viciously tenacious in his enforcement of anti-assault weapon laws to the extent that he sponsored public service announcements telling owners of the weapons that they were risking immediate imprisonment, was informed that the mayor of San Francisco was going to deliberately violate California code, and wasn't available for comment when it all began.

I am not a lawyer, but there has to be some sort of statute that pertains to dereliction of duty by the state Attorney General.

[sgtbono2002]

Not being a lawyer it would seem to me that a Mayor cant just make a law on his own. It would seem that a permit granted illegally isnt worth the paper its written on. I certainly hope none of these virgin gays give up their virginity because they think they are married.

[King Black Robe]

Now there's a scandal. But don't count on the liberal presstitutes to follow-up. And don't expect leftists in power in California to be consistent in upholding the rule of law.

Drudge, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, maybe (MAYBE!) FOX. Unless they report it, it didn't happen.

[Servant of the 9]

I am not a lawyer, but there has to be some sort of statute that pertains to dereliction of duty by the state Attorney General.

There can't be any laws against dereliction of duty by a Liberal.
If there were, they would all be in jail already.

SO9

[jwalsh07]

He broke the law. There has to be a statute that prohibits officlial from issuing fraudulent licenses and recording same. I wouldn't know exactly where but I'm 100% sure there is one.

[whereasandsoforth]

This action by SF mayor Newsom and the rest of the lawbreakers means nothing. The queers that lined up go get "married" are no more married now than they were last month. It all means nothing in the legal world. They are playing games with themselves.

Queer little documents with queer little names filed in that queer little county still doesn't mean two queers are married. To ever really be married, they will have to blind God in both eyes and we know how far they will get with that plan.

Queers will forever be queer by definition unless they seek to change into someone who cannot be defined by their vile and unnatural choices.

[John Jorsett]

What I wish is that someone on the anti-gay-marriage side would get married to a same-sex partner. Then when these marriages are declared void, sue the hell out of S.F. for the emotional damage done by their illegal action. Getting stung for a big sum of money is the only thing that would get to lawless lunkheads like Newsome and his ilk.

[BlessedByLiberty]

You are correct. San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors which basically writes the laws and the Mayor signs or vetoes.

Newsom wants to be Governor on his way to the WH and this is how he plans to get there. Stunt after liberal stunt.

One aspect to this not covered is that City Hall was kept open, and staff paid overtime on the weekend to perform these ceremonies.

What happened to the budget problems, Gav?

[Bikers4Bush]

I have to believe that the penalty for issuing a marriage license to gays would be the same as the penalty for issuing a drivers license to an illegal alien.

Fraudulent documents are not to be taken lightly.

[Kahonek]

"What happened to the budget problems, Gav?"

According to some reports, they were raking in $82 per minute over the weekend in filing fees. Sounds like this one is paying for itself, and then some!

[azhenfud]

"I am not a lawyer, but there has to be some sort of statute that pertains to dereliction of duty by the state Attorney General."

Just want to toss out a thought here, but L.N. Smithee, you're much more qualified to be a lawyer than are Phaggots qualified to be married, aren't you? Afterall, why should anyone "discriminate" against you for practicing law just because you don't meet the "criteria" of a lawyer? Couldn't one say the standards that qualify one to sit the Bar Exam "discriminates" and "excludes" similarly to a marriage license?

"Not being a lawyer it would seem to me that a Mayor cant just make a law on his own."

The Mayor isn't any more qualified to make law than Phaggots are qualified to be married.

I guess if some can't make the cut, they just want to remake the cutter.

[Brian Allen]

<< .... a Mayor cant just make a "law" on his own .... the "permit" granted illegally isn't worth the paper its written on ... >>

There is a word to describe what's happening in Sin FRancisco in this matter:

ANARCHY!

And the mayor is an anarchist who should immediately be recalled.

[TommyUdo]

"There is a word to describe what's happening in Sin FRancisco in this matter: ANARCHY! And the mayor is an anarchist who should immediately be recalled."

I would disagree. These "people" are in the final stages of a very well crafted attempt to do what just happened in MA. The next step will be for one of the married "couples" to be denied some sort of "benefit" (perceived or actual), e.g. "Married Filing Jointly" on the old Form 1040, or, more likely, some sort of Employer Supplied benefit.

The lawsuit follows, and this abomination will be codified into law in what is becoming a disgustingly familiar fashion.

Got to give them credit, and I've said it before, they know what the game is and what they are playing for.

It's time to bring back the old practice of "shunning." I've been practicing it for years. In CA it can get awfully lonely.

[hunter112]

He broke the law. There has to be a statute that prohibits officlial from issuing fraudulent licenses and recording same. I wouldn't know exactly where but I'm 100% sure there is one.

I'm sure the mayor of SF is counting on someone to arrest him. This would make him the Martin Luther King, Jr. of gay people, and put him in the history books next to Rosa Parks.

A court challenge involving gay marriage would have already been on a collision course with the CA court system when the first gay married couple showed up fresh from their MA vacation. Newsom wouldn't have had a chance to look like a hero to his constituents if he hadn't done this. It's just opportunism, that's all. Ignoring him is the best way to defeat his game, why create a martyr along the way?

[CaptIsaacDavis]

"anarchy" is the key word -- criminal SEDITION. Open defiance of the law.

[Ohioan]

The Mayor is seriously delusional. As I posted on another thread, the other day:

The notion of "homosexual marriage" is one of the most obvious oxymorons ever to be seriously discussed as a valid proposal. Future generations will view the history of our times with raised eyebrows and snickers, for a number of reasons; but you can be certain the fact that we seriously discussed such a concept will be very prominent among them.

Marriage is not always between one man and one woman; but it always relates to a sexual union--with sexual given its ordinary meaning, in whatever the language--that is relating to the division of the species into two distinct sexes, each with a separate and distinct function. That sexual division is the basis for ongoing human life; the gravamen of continuing existence. That educated people in our society fail to appreciate anything so obvious, says much about the mentally undisciplined way so many of us raise our children. Marriage is about society sanctifying the mating of its members. And while there may be such a thing as a couple marrying without sex--that is without the union of the sexual parts of man and woman--such marriages are allowed because we give people the benefit of the doubt; we assume that people who seek to marry, intend to consummate those marriages. The fact is, in virtually every jurisdiction, as earlier under ecclesiastical law, failure to consummate a marriage could be grounds for annulment. The theory of annulment is quite different than that of divorce. It is premised upon the idea that such a marriage is simply void--that, in effect, it never existed.

Considering all of this, one can only conclude that those proposing such a mockery of marriage; of human experience and Nature's reality, as well as of the entire religious history of the West, are either (1) completely delusional on the relevant questions, or (2) simply exploiting the delusions of others to use those who are delusional for some conceived political advantage.

Of course, it is obvious, also, that none of the arguments being cited; that people are "in love," that people have perverse "attachments," "desires," "attractions" or whatever, have anything to do with the nature of the insitution of marriage. They are totally irrelevant to the question being raised.

One can feel genuine compassion for mixed up people; one can feel total disgust for certain acts; one can fear disease or scoff at all danger, even explore the darker recesses of one'e own mind--if one is one of those fighting with strange impulses, even ones they somehow imagine they were born with (however, actually unlikely); none of this has the slightest bearing on the question.

Marriage is not like a Corporation, where there may be different corporate purposes. Marriage has one role; the role it has always had, and that is to sanctify the sexual union, the mating of the sexes. Anyone who does not see that clearly, has a very serious conceptual and perceptual problem.

I will not even comment on the abject stupidity involved in anyone who seeks a greater degree of public toleration for his or her "idiosyncracy," pursuing anything so counter-productive and idiotic.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Ohioan]

I think that almost every State has legislation protecting the sanctity of official records, etc., and imposing criminal penalties on one tampering with same.

[claudiustg]

---I'm sure the mayor of SF is counting on someone to arrest him. This would make him the Martin Luther King, Jr. of gay people, and put him in the history books next to Rosa Parks.---

What the good people of SF are not counting on is having their state and federal funds cut off. If that were to happen we could bring this matter to a close.
If the courts put a stop to that, then I suppose we could just stop paying taxes. And why should we pay taxes or obey all of the onerous laws that have been put in place? What's good for the queer eyes should be good for the straight guys!

[freeangel]

Bush is at fault again according to this lewd lib mayor. So, what's new?

[Brian Allen]

<< "There is a word to describe what's happening in Sin FRancisco in this matter: ANARCHY! And the mayor is an anarchist who should immediately be recalled."

I would disagree. >>

Disagree away -- but your disagreement will not alter the fact, in Law, that the mayor of Sin FRancisco is an anarchist. One that is, who is acting in the absence of Law -- of Legal Authority.

Being backed by no basis in Law, the pieces of paper he is issuing to the queued deviants are of no value and he and his lacky lickspittles should be made to pay for all of the costs incurred by them in keeping the mayor's office -- currently so squalidly squatted and bemanured by him and by them -- open through the holiday weekend.