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."
He's in favor of "civil unions," which is marriage in everything but name.
Are you admitting that you don't know then? if not, then you tell us where it is since I asked the question.
I'll continue with two words: HE WON
So I guess if Clinton had put an R after his name on the ballot, you would be happy?
You know he would, just as you can bet he's right behind Mayor Bloomberg all the way.
Easy, the bride is the one with the whiskers.
Well. lets see here. I think it wa, maybe, six months or so ago we went through this and I DID prove it, I stated the article and section and posted the language as well. (Short memory maybe?) You simply said nothing after I did, you quit responding. I asked you a question and you have't answered it. I will ask again that you answer my original question and will do so every time you post to me on this thread till you do. Unless you just simply admit that you either don't know or that you refuse to because it negates a whole bunch of stuff you profess. Trying to divert my attention, and avoid the question isn't going to work.
Sorry, I happened to miss that thread. And since you posted the contended statement to me on this thread, I'd like it if you could now back it up.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ....
This act of defiance by an arrogant executive against the legislative and judicial branches cannot be tolerated.
Well. lets see here. I think it wa, maybe, six months or so ago we went through this and I DID prove it, I stated the article and section and posted the language as well. (Short memory maybe?)
You're delusional. Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, -- or this supposed previous thread..
You simply said nothing after I did, you quit responding.
Didn't happen, or you would prove it.
I asked you a question and you have't answered it. I will ask again that you answer my original question and will do so every time you post to me on this thread till you do. Unless you just simply admit that you either don't know or that you refuse to because it negates a whole bunch of stuff you profess. Trying to divert my attention, and avoid the question isn't going to work.
Whatever.. - Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, or look like a fool.
I asked you a question and you have't answered it. I will ask again that you answer my original question and will do so every time you post to me on this thread till you do.
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.