1 posted on
02/18/2004 7:30:55 PM PST by
mhking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 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?)
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: 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: 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: 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
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: mhking
At something like $104 a pop for those "licenses," San Francisco made a tidy bundle from the 2300 or so "marriages."
Makes you wonder what the real motivation was behind the event.
To: mhking
"Enter the bureaucrats..."
18 posted on
02/18/2004 7:42:24 PM PST by
Imal
(Ironically, there really is a vast, right-wing conspiracy.)
To: mhking
What form could be right? Marriages are between men and women. Who can help it if they can't find the right form(or name) for their union.
19 posted on
02/18/2004 7:42:34 PM PST by
dalebert
To: mhking
because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom," For men they replaced it with "pitcher" and "catcher."
For lesbians they put "takes out the trash" and "submissive."
21 posted on
02/18/2004 7:42:56 PM PST by
Hillarys Gate Cult
(Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
To: mhking
the form in San Francisco says applicant one and applicant two Applicant one -- How romantic.
25 posted on
02/18/2004 7:47:19 PM PST by
sd-joe
To: mhking
Oops--can't have a wedding without a bride and groom, can't have a marriage without a husband and wife. Who would have thought?
To: mhking
Well, at least this bureaucrat is on the right side of the matter, refusing to accept the licenses as valid. Much better than the judge who refused to accept a suit against the gay marriage licenses because he objected to a semicolon.
30 posted on
02/18/2004 7:52:32 PM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: mhking
If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them"
You can't accept them anyway if they don't have a man and a woman listed on them.
31 posted on
02/18/2004 7:52:50 PM PST by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: mhking
Gee, will the city REFUND the illegally collected fees?Bwaaahahahaha!
I just can't stop wondering just how much the city DOE$ 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!)
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.
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.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson