Skip to comments.
California will reject altered marriage forms
Washington Times ^
| 2/19/04
| Cheryl Wetzstein
Posted on 02/18/2004 10:00:38 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:13:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
The California state agency that records marriages said yesterday that forms that have been altered, which San Francisco has done on its homosexual "marriage" licenses, will not be registered.
California has a standard application form for marriage licenses, "and if it has been altered in any way, then it will not be registered and recorded. It will be sent back to the county of origin," said Nicole Evans, spokeswoman for Kim Belshe, the California Health and Human Services secretary.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: gavinnewsom; invalid; license; marriage; samesexmarriage; sf; stunt; wetzstein
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
1
posted on
02/18/2004 10:00:38 PM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
The forms should simply be trash-canned at the state level. Anyone attempting to receive benefits should be prosecuted for fraud.
2
posted on
02/18/2004 10:03:45 PM PST
by
js1138
To: js1138
EXCELLENT NEWS!
WHOO HOO... someone in CA actually follows the law.
DEPORT THAT PERSON! They dont fit in here at all.. especially not in a gov office.
3
posted on
02/18/2004 10:05:29 PM PST
by
wadeintothem
(www.NoJohnKerry.org - Stop Hanoi John!)
To: kattracks
However, San Francisco City Assessor Mabel Teng told the Sacramento Bee that altering the documents to make them gender-neutral had been approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and that she didn't think the state could invalidate the documents based on those changes.LOL! A judge wouldn't even consider issuing an injunction to stop these "marriages" because the party filing suit had a semi-colon in the wrong place.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, er, goose#1 and goose #2....
4
posted on
02/18/2004 10:08:58 PM PST
by
freebilly
To: js1138
"The forms should simply be trash-canned at the state level"
Yeppers, file 'em in the round file, for sure. I wouldn't even return them.
How soon do these freaks want the shooting war to start stateside anyway?
Anyone who thinks the culture wars are not going to actually be fought, be it with guns or politics is nutz.
I used to be quite sympthetic to the homos, no longer. Their every quest for total acceptance makes me less and less tolerant.
5
posted on
02/18/2004 10:09:47 PM PST
by
jocon307
(The dems don't get it, the American people do.)
To: js1138
In addition to tossing the forms and not respecting in any way these sham "marriages" - someone (Cal. AG) should be suing the City of San Francision to disgorge the fees they collected for these illegal acts.
6
posted on
02/18/2004 10:10:17 PM PST
by
Wally_Kalbacken
(Seldom right, never in doubt!)
To: kattracks
I smell a law suit in the making.
To: Wally_Kalbacken
BINGO....we have a winner..
"someone (Cal. AG) should be suing the City of San Francisco to disgorge the fees they collected for these illegal acts."
Something about disregard for fiduciary duty as an elected official in charge of the peoples money..
Make them PERSONALLY responsible for monies wasted....
8
posted on
02/18/2004 10:21:34 PM PST
by
spokeshave
(She said one of the men yelled after the retreating burglar: "And that's just our womenfolk.")
To: kattracks
I think everyone has been snookered into thinking that they were handing out marriage licenses, but the Mayor knew he wasn't.
9
posted on
02/18/2004 10:30:13 PM PST
by
TheDon
(John Kerry, self proclaimed war criminal, Democratic Presidential nominee)
To: Mrs Zip
ping
10
posted on
02/18/2004 10:32:05 PM PST
by
zip
To: kattracks
If 15% of the San Francisco population is homosexual and the population is about 776,000, then this is roughly 116,000. So 2600 couples out of 116,000 is less than 5% of the homosexual population. This means that approximately 95% of homosexuals have no interest in a commitment to a single partner. Why does this not surprise me?
11
posted on
02/18/2004 10:51:57 PM PST
by
Kirkwood
To: kattracks
Marriage has a husband and a wife if gays want gay marriage to be equal then they will have to flip a coin. Different is not equal.
To: kattracks
"The courts should act quickly to resolve this matter," the governor said.Oh, like the courts will clear this up. Sad performance, Arnold.
13
posted on
02/18/2004 11:13:30 PM PST
by
XHogPilot
(I don't know history, but I've got an opinion!)
To: kattracks
What is needed is a constitutional amendment allowing the Assmembly to impeach and the Senate to convict local officials who violate their oaths to uphold the US and state constitutions. It should also be possible to prohibit someone from ever holding public office in the state again or even be a atate employee.
14
posted on
02/19/2004 12:06:46 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Kirkwood
If 15% of the San Francisco population is homosexual Total population or the adult (voting age) population?
15
posted on
02/19/2004 12:08:13 AM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: kattracks
It would be interesting to know where the money went for the purchase of these alter marriage licenses. Could this be a BIG SCAM to get money and then say 'I don't know what happened to it' type of situation. Although the clerks worked on their own time during the time that the court house was supposed to be close. Who is or who will pay for the maintenance bill for three days. Just for the sake of argument would a person have been able to record anything else in those three days if they had wanted to?
16
posted on
02/19/2004 8:06:25 AM PST
by
AIC
To: Wally_Kalbacken
Even more delicious is the possibility of a class action lawsuit filed by those who have "in good faith" paid the City and County of San Francisco for documents and a civil ceremony now seen as "fradulent" by the state.
17
posted on
02/19/2004 11:49:27 AM PST
by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: kattracks
However, San Francisco City Assessor Mabel Teng told the Sacramento Bee that altering the documents to make them gender-neutral had been approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and that she didn't think the state could invalidate the documents based on those changes. Oh, well then, the documents are legal. Mabel Teng said that they were approved by the city attorney so the state couldn't invalidate them. End of story. A city attorney's approval trumps state law? Mabel, your meds need to be titrated.
18
posted on
02/19/2004 11:53:22 AM PST
by
.38sw
To: kattracks
I think the laws requiring a medical license are a discrimination against me and every person who wants to help others, just because we didn't go to medical school. I wonder if I can get the SF mayor to give me a license?
19
posted on
02/19/2004 12:05:36 PM PST
by
Defiant
( (*)( ) We would like to apologize for the preceding unintentional font malfunction.)
To: kattracks
I think the laws requiring a medical license are a discrimination against me and every person who wants to help others, just because we didn't go to medical school. I wonder if I can get the SF mayor to give me a license?
20
posted on
02/19/2004 12:07:14 PM PST
by
Defiant
( (*)( ) We would like to apologize for the preceding unintentional font malfunction.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 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