Posted on 02/16/2004 2:05:54 PM PST by truthandlife
A Christian law firm is calling for the arrest of the mayor of San Francisco in the wake of his decision last week that has resulted in hundreds of same-sex marriage licenses being issued. Despite the threat of that lawsuit, the City by the Bay continued throughout the weekend to grant licenses to homosexual couples who waited in long lines.
Steve Crampton, a spokesman for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (CLP), calls Mayor Gavin Newsom's move "an arrogant stunt [that] proves the radical homosexual movement will trample the rights of all who stand in their way."
Newsom started handing out marriage licenses to homosexuals on Thursday in the midst of the debate on homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. According to the mayor, California's law banning same-sex marriage amounts to discrimination -- and he is ready to go to court to make his point.
Crampton believes the mayor's action demonstrates that "even criminal law and the constitution of the State of California are no barrier to radical homosexuals attempting to force their agenda on the rest of the nation."
On Friday the CLP sent letters to the governor and attorney general of California and to the San Francisco city attorney, calling for Newsom's arrest and removal from office. Those letters state that it is "patently unlawful" in California to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, citing the specific portion of the California Family Code being violated. But the CLP's letters do not stop there.
"Mayor Gavin not only acted in violation of the civil law, he apparently violated the criminal law as well," the letters state. "California Penal Code section 115 prohibits the knowing procurement of any false or forged instrument to be filed or recorded in any public office, making such an act a felony punishable by up to three (3) years in prison. Since Mayor Newsom has procured approximately 96 such false certificates as of yesterday [Thursday], he may face up to 288 years in prison."
The potential penalty has increased substantially since those letters were written. Associated Press reports that the city hall offices in San Francisco remained open over the weekend and experienced brisk business from homosexual couples. According to AP, more than 1,700 marriage licenses have now been issued -- and that the demand was so high that authorities had to turn away hundreds of waiting "couples" on Sunday, many of whom had rushed to the Golden State from around the country.
Many of those couples chose to go before city officials, exchange vows, and be declared "spouses for life." Among those were the mayor's chief of staff and policy director, both of whom married their long-time "partners" with Newsom himself officiating.
Pro-family activist Gary Bauer says Newsom's action has created "yet another constitutional crises with respect to marriage" -- a direct reference to events last week in Massachusetts. "But this time instead of activist judges rewriting the law, renegade municipal officials are flagrantly violating the law and ignoring the will of the people," he says. In March 2000, more than 60 percent of California voters approved Proposition 22, the Defense of Marriage Act in that state.
Bauer says it remains to be seen what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will do. "[Thursday's] actions by a radical sexual minority and their liberal sympathizers are direct assaults upon the rule of law and the institution of marriage," he says. "Will Governor Schwarzenegger act to impeach the mayor and county clerk? Will he issue executive orders rescinding the phony 'marriage' licenses?
"It's time to see just how tough Arnold really is," Bauer says.
No Court Hearing Till Tuesday Meanwhile, the president of Liberty Counsel describes Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples as "a reprehensible abuse of power." Mat Staver's group has filed a lawsuit in San Francisco, claiming the mayor's actions are void and unconstitutional -- and ridiculous.
"This particular mayor [Newsom] has a radical homosexual agenda to push," Staver says. "Back in 1998, this same mayor issued a resolution that said that pro-family groups that say homosexuality is wrong or is a choice [constitutes] hate speech and ought to be prohibited. This [recent action] is simply ridiculous, and he's engaging in illegal acts that we intend to stop."
The lawsuit, filed by Liberty Counsel on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, was filed Friday morning in San Francisco Superior Court but, because of the Presidents' Day holiday, will not be heard until Tuesday morning. In contrast, the County Clerk's office remained open on Monday, staffed by employees volunteering their time, to accommodate the demand for same-sex marriage licenses.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of CCF, says the city's open defiance of state law and "trashing" of traditional marriage is getting the attention of people across the globe.
"Parents and grandparents are shocked at seeing these counterfeit marriages being paraded on TV," Thomasson says. He adds that his group is looking forward to the citizens of California having their day in court on Tuesday to protect marriage for a man and a women -- as they did when they passed Proposition 22 in 2000.
Across the nation in Charlotte, North Carolina, a black pastor from Detroit told the National Religious Broadcasters convention that most black and white churches agree that homosexual marriage is wrong. Glenn Plummer, who is also the NRB's chairman, says the organization want to help black and white Christians unite in bringing the nation "back in line" so that "one man and one woman are man and wife in a marriage."
Also speaking at the NRB convention, Christian broadcaster Warren Duffy told his colleagues that the hustle and bustle surrounding the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples in San Francisco makes it seem like a "different country" -- one he jokingly calls "the people's union of soviet socialists of northern California."
OK, tpaine, where is that in the Cosntitution? The Constitutioin specifically addresses this issue. To me, it is starting to look like you believe in some part of the Constitution but not others. What is any different between you and any other person that finds some part fo the Constitution objectionable and decides to ignore it?
BTW, "booze prohibiton" ended because Congress and the States went through the Constitutional process of repealing the ammendment, not because people disobeyed the law.
McClintock concession speech is here. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/07/se.04.html
Let's start with two words: HE WON
Nice try. Clinton didn't run as a republican.
Well, OK, so ... according to the Constituiton: Who is given the authority to determine what is and is not repugnant to the Constitution?
Ultimately, every man is his own judge of what law he follows.
For instance, booze prohibition failed because millions of Americans refused to obey its repugnant 'law'..
OK, tpaine, where is that in the Cosntitution?
Our free will is self-evident. It didn't need to be enumerated.
The Constitution specifically addresses this issue. To me, it is starting to look like you believe in some part of the Constitution but not others.
Yep, you have a lot of strange ideas, imo.
What is any different between you and any other person that finds some part of the Constitution objectionable and decides to ignore it?
'Ignoring it' is your straw man. I don't ignore it.
BTW, "booze prohibition" ended because Congress and the States went through the Constitutional process of repealing the ammendment, not because people disobeyed the law.
Civil disobedience sparked repeal.. It's happening again, now, - in the drug war.. --- And in the prohibitions on guns.. People are disobeying drug & gun laws by the millions
Are you kidding? If they refused MClintock, I WANTED the RINO freepers to SUCCESSFULLY elect Arnie so they have only THEMSELVES to blame when CA continues the downward spiral. If Bustamente had gotten in, all you'd here from them is incessant whining about how much "better" things would be with ARINOLD as governor and how the evil "kool-aid drinking death-before electablity" Republicans who had a coincidence "sabotaged" the recall.
Well, THE RINOS GOT THEIR GUY IN. California is soooooooooo much better with a socialist "R" in charge, isn't it?
Hey Arniebots, enjoying your higher park fees, crushing defeat of Prop. 54, and gay activists running amuck? How about your state voting to "celebrate" abortion on demand? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until the "fiscal conservative"'s borrowing scheme is defeated and he hikes all your taxes up sky high. Please see IL and TN if you'd like a sneak preview on how your state will look after a lying "fiscally conservative" RINO has completed his full term in office and betrayed all his campaign promises.
Have fun! And remember...
YOU VOTED FOR THIS!
That's what I'm discussing. The Constituion has specific authority given for the determination of what is and is not Constitutional. Do you know what it is? There are also also several Constituional provisions to keep this authorty in check (from getting out of control). Do you know what they are?
It most certainly does not.
Actually the entire San Francisco Peninsula-Oakland-Berkeley-Emeryville region is on my "don't visit, don't patronize" list. I won't even buy mail order goods from those places.
I didn't call you any nasty names, I let you know what crowd I think you belong to. Calling you a name would be done quite differently than expressing my opinion. Since you don't (won't) address the Constitutional issue I have brought up in the form of a simple question, it's hard for me to show any "constitutional correctness" in my posts to you. Skipping the usual veiled terroristic threats, what do you find in the Constitution that decides who determines Constitutionality of any issue? Either quit pretending to be a Constitutionalist and drop the dialog or answer the question. It's very clear and readily available to anyone that wants to take a little time and read the Constitution.
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.