Skip to comments.
Wrong Form May Invalidate Calif Same-Sex Marriages
Reuters ^
| 2.18.04
| Spencer Swartz
Posted on 02/18/2004 7:30:55 PM PST by mhking
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
1
posted on
02/18/2004 7:30:55 PM PST
by
mhking
To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...
Just damn.If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
2
posted on
02/18/2004 7:31:52 PM PST
by
mhking
(This tag line is "3 Laws Safe." Is yours?)
To: mhking
Form be damned, the state of California does not recognize same sex marriages. This is sortof like a newspaper columnist writing a note on the evils of murder, due to the perp using the wrong ammo to carry out the act.
Yes I recognize the gravity of the two subjects is different, but the underlying principle is the same. Illegal is illegal, despite our nation's not being able to understand the term any longer.
To: DoughtyOne
nation's "leaders..."
To: mhking
"There is a statewide form that every county has to use for marriage applications. If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them," said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Agency. The irony here is absolutely amazing.
5
posted on
02/18/2004 7:35:33 PM PST
by
Colonel_Flagg
("Forever is as far as I'll go.")
To: DoughtyOne; mhking
The entire city government is issuing invalid forms to unqualified couples.
Sounds like someone should go to jail for FRAUD!! =o)
6
posted on
02/18/2004 7:36:11 PM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com..............................send a FReeper to Congress!)
To: mhking
**California will not accept the marriage licenses granted to thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom," a state official said on Wednesday. **
Marriage between same sex people is illegal in California. No piece of paper will *make* it legal. The majority of Californian's voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. The law needs to be enforced!
To: Colonel_Flagg
So the city is guilty of running a fraudulant pyramid scheme??
8
posted on
02/18/2004 7:36:49 PM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com..............................send a FReeper to Congress!)
To: mhking
If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them," said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Agency. I hope she works for Arnold, and I hope he enforces the LAW ...
9
posted on
02/18/2004 7:37:30 PM PST
by
11th_VA
(Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining ...)
To: mhking
It would take a lot of chuzpah, but conservatives should take two 12-year-old and fifteen-year-old sisters and insist on being 'married'. An old man of 70 and a young boy of 16 and insist on being 'married'. A 14-year-old girl and a woman of 50 and insist on being 'married'. Stand in the line. it would be like the scene from Blazing Saddles where wierdos from everywhere lined up for mayhem. Get the attention of the media. (or not?) Leftists were always good at this game.
10
posted on
02/18/2004 7:38:10 PM PST
by
squarebarb
('The stars put out their pale opinions, one by one...' Thomas Merton)
To: mhking
we will not accept them Oh how cool : )
11
posted on
02/18/2004 7:38:55 PM PST
by
The Mayor
("If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate."- Nikka - age 6)
To: mhking
I love technicalities, don't you?!
12
posted on
02/18/2004 7:39:38 PM PST
by
NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
(Michael <a href = "http://www.michaelmoore.com/" title="Miserable Failure">"Miserable Failure"</a>)
To: mhking
So they found a technicality. Apparently the violation of the law regarding California's legal definition of marriage wasn't enough.
13
posted on
02/18/2004 7:40:09 PM PST
by
skr
(Pro-life from cradle to grave)
To: mhking
This is what you get when there is no leadership coming from the governor's office.
14
posted on
02/18/2004 7:40:24 PM PST
by
claudiustg
(Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
To: GeronL
If they took fees for these forms, possibly.
Wouldn't that be a hoot!
15
posted on
02/18/2004 7:40:53 PM PST
by
tet68
To: mhking
At something like $104 a pop for those "licenses," San Francisco made a tidy bundle from the 2300 or so "marriages."
Makes you wonder what the real motivation was behind the event.
To: DoughtyOne
Form be damned, the state of California does not recognize same sex marriages.Agreed. The "licenses" aren't worth the price of the paper they're printed on.
17
posted on
02/18/2004 7:42:01 PM PST
by
mhking
(This tag line is "3 Laws Safe." Is yours?)
To: mhking
"Enter the bureaucrats..."
18
posted on
02/18/2004 7:42:24 PM PST
by
Imal
(Ironically, there really is a vast, right-wing conspiracy.)
To: mhking
What form could be right? Marriages are between men and women. Who can help it if they can't find the right form(or name) for their union.
19
posted on
02/18/2004 7:42:34 PM PST
by
dalebert
To: tet68
Oh those people were paying for those invaid documents all right.... fraud! false advertising!
20
posted on
02/18/2004 7:42:42 PM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com..............................send a FReeper to Congress!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson