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


1 posted on 02/18/2004 7:30:55 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
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?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.
3 posted on 02/18/2004 7:34:32 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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!

7 posted on 02/18/2004 7:36:22 PM PST by mrs tiggywinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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 ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.

16 posted on 02/18/2004 7:41:49 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom,"

For men they replaced it with "pitcher" and "catcher."
For lesbians they put "takes out the trash" and "submissive."

21 posted on 02/18/2004 7:42:56 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
the form in San Francisco says applicant one and applicant two

Applicant one -- How romantic.

25 posted on 02/18/2004 7:47:19 PM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Oops--can't have a wedding without a bride and groom, can't have a marriage without a husband and wife. Who would have thought?
29 posted on 02/18/2004 7:51:54 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Well, at least this bureaucrat is on the right side of the matter, refusing to accept the licenses as valid. Much better than the judge who refused to accept a suit against the gay marriage licenses because he objected to a semicolon.
30 posted on 02/18/2004 7:52:32 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them"


You can't accept them anyway if they don't have a man and a woman listed on them.


31 posted on 02/18/2004 7:52:50 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
Gee, will the city REFUND the illegally collected fees?Bwaaahahahaha!

I just can't stop wondering just how much the city DOE$ manage to rake in with this????
34 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:00 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
It would be interesting to show up there as two brothers or two sisters and demand to be married. I'm betting the law, while prohibiting brother and sister marriages, doesn't address the formerly unthinkable possibility of same-sex sibilings.
36 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:31 PM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping --- the historic phrase that comes to my mind and lips is this:

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!!

Let me know if you want on/off this ping list!
39 posted on 02/18/2004 8:03:10 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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