Petition to Arrest Mayor Newsom

Petition to Gov. Schwarzenegger to Arrest Mayor Newsom of San Francisco ^ | 2/19/2004 | Nick Bradley

[Remember_Salamis]

To: Califonia Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco has violated California law by Marrying Same-sex couples in San Francisco. It is patently unlawful to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Section 308.5 of the California Family Code plainly defines a valid marriage as being limited to one man and one woman. Furthermore, 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.

The Mayor of San Francisco is giving the middle finger to the State of California and the United States as a Whole. To make it worse, Mayor Newsom and the City of San Francisco has stated that it is suing the state of California, challenging its ban on same-sex marriages on constitutional grounds. By doing so, Mayor Newsom is proposing that every law that was not a constitutional amendment is un-enforceable. If he is not arrested, there is no basis for drug laws, the carrying of concealed weapons, prostitution, and every other law that is not written into the constitution of the state of California.

Please arrest this man.

[Devil_Anse]

Yes they can, and they have always been able to. I know lots of 'em who have, too.

[Devil_Anse]

Yes, and when the law, in its majestic equality, allows me to marry a person of my same gender, it will have as much meaning for me as the law which forbade rich persons to sleep under bridges had for the rich persons.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Closer ever closer to the coming Social War.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Otherwise you end up with anarchy...and anarchy is almost always followed by something much worse.

Right, and a petition to have someone arrested is...what? Pretty much mobocracy in action. That said, it's hardly surprising in California, where government by petition seems to have more or less obviated (small-r) republican government.

[...]the arrest should occur based on his actions but the pols do not have the cajones to simply do what is right.

Cojones. "Cajones" translates to "drawers" (as one would find in a bureau). Sorry, but it's an error that drives me, uh, nuts.

Snidely

[Snidely Whiplash]

Let’s face it, folks, this is NOT about marriage. This is about the burdensome, wholly unfair tax code.

Partially, yes.

But there are other rights as well that these folks want, if you've noticed. Things like inheritance, hospital visitation, etc, that also accrue to married couples. In fact, I hear those rights discussed a helluva lot more by the gay lobby and gay couples than anything having to do with taxation.

Snidely

[highlander_UW]

excellent quote!

[Jeff Head]

A petition to the government for redress, in this case having the attorney general fulfill his oath of office, is not anarchy or mobocracy. It is in fact far from it and is a provision in the Bill of Rightsd in the U.S. Constitution...and I believe a similar provision exists in the Califgornia constitution. It would not reach the level of mobocracy until the people petitioning took the law into their own hands and threw the individual into a dungeon of their own making, or worse.

But clearly, asking that their duly elected officials fulfill the duty of their office does not come close to that level.

As to the mispell of the Spanish...entirely my bad.

[abraxas_sandiego]

unions, yes. not marriage. a marriage would have no legal effect...so maybe they CALL it a marriage, and SAY they are married, but it's not legitimate in the eyes of the law. correct?

[freekitty]

Hey, I think I am on your side.

[Devil_Anse]

What I'm saying is that I know a lot of homosexual people who have been married (some are still married) to someone who is of the opposite gender. It's done all the time.

I mean, who is to say that a homosexual can't love a person of the opposite gender more than he/she loves anyone else in the world? It happens.

[Auntie Dem]

God did give his people instructions about how to treat the plural wives. Had He intended for his people at that time to not practice polygamy he would have told them so. Instead, he gave them laws to govern the proper practice of polygamy.

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated;
16. Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17. But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

I still maintain your aversion to polygamy is culturally induced. There have been times in the past, and perhaps there may be times in the future, when there may be a valid, practical cultural reason for polygamy to be practiced by his people. If and when that happens, God will instruct his people accordingly--whether you like it or not. Remember, God's ways are not your ways, neither are your ways God's ways.

[Auntie Dem]

Oh, and about Deut 17:17
That prohibition applied to Israel's Kings--not rank-and-file men. Also, what that verse was intended to apply to was marriages of political convenience for political alliances with other countries. Such marriages were common as ways of strengthening tenuous bonds between potential rivals, or avoiding military ot economic conflicts. God did not want his leaders to have their heads turned by wives that worshipped idols or other false gods.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I still maintain your aversion to polygamy is culturally induced.

No, it's biblically and decency induced. I don't want a husband who has sex with other women. You want a reason to have a harem, as did your "prophet".

You reached clear back into OT Judaic law. Earth to AD, "Christians" don't practice it. Jesus Christ came in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. We DON'T follow the old Judiac laws for salvation and we don't continue their cultural corruptions. God made his plans clear with Adam and Eve and Jesus reiterated those plans in the NT.

Now, both your Exodus and Deuteronomy cites are not instructions to commit polygamy, they set down laws within the cultural practice for fair treatment of women is a society which treated women as property.

The Exodus quote in its entirety speaks of the law regarding treatment of slaves, particularly when a father sells his daughter into slavery and IF her master wishes to take her as a wife.

God isn't telling anyone polygamy is a great thing. Moses was merely instructing fair treatment of women in the culture.

Mormon ways are not God's ways. There will be no Divinely ordained polygamy in the future.

You are sick.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Oh, and about Deut 17:17 That prohibition applied to Israel's Kings--not rank-and-file men.

LOL, really? You just condemned your polygamous role models. You have an interesting way of twisting Scripture to suit your theological needs.

[abraxas_sandiego]

true.

[Die_Hard Conservative Lady]

Can I go down and request adoption papers for my cat and dog, so I can clain them on my taxes? Sounds good to me, it's such as far fetch as all that's going on in San Francisco!

[Auntie Dem]

Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not Kings. David and Solomon were Kings. God did not disapprove of their multiple wives until they had committed other sins, in fact it was part of David's punishment that he would lose his wives. It seems you are the one doing all the twisting. Read chapter 17 closer and you will see it is talking about the Kings, not all men.

[Auntie Dem]

We DON'T follow the old Judiac laws for salvation and we don't continue their cultural corruptions.

So you don't keep the 10 commandments? No wonder you are so arrogant.

You are sick.

Physician, heal thyself. Only a truly sick person can completely disregard the FACT that some of God's prophets were polygamists. Whether OT or NT does not matter, isn't God the same yesterday, today, and forever?

The Exodus quote in its entirety speaks of the law regarding treatment of slaves, particularly when a father sells his daughter into slavery and IF her master wishes to take her as a wife.

You're twisting scripture again to fit your private interpretation. Exodus 21 is not exclusively about slaves and servants, even if verse 10 applied to the "Master" or Slave owner, God is still instructing him on the rules of plural marriage--there was no commandment to abandon the practice, because God approved of it at the time.

There will be no Divinely ordained polygamy in the future.

Isaiah seems to say otherwise--See Isaiah 4:1. If he was not predicting a future event please identify when this condition existed in Biblical history. Have a nice day.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Isaiah 4:1 describes a disproportionate number of women to men after a time of war. The women are desperate to avoid the social stigma of childlessness (common in ancient times). It is NOT a teaching nor a command for polygamy.

Lot's daughters committed incest with him. I do hope you are not going to cite that as rationale for another behavior because God did not specifically condemn it in that passage. The OT can be quite a lurid book. If you want validation for sinful behavior you will find it, as you seem to be looking very hard. Unfortunately, people like you lead a lot of other people astray.

And no, I was not discounting the 10 Commandments. Nice try. My point was that Christians do not practice ritual laws to earn salvation. Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross put an end to that practice.

Abraham was not polygamous. He was married to Sarah and committed adultery with concubines. When Sarah died he married Keturah. His firstborn with the slave Hagar was NOT the recipient of the covenant with God. In fact all of Abraham's sons by concubines were sent far away from the legitimate heir, Isaac. God rejected the result of Abraham's sexual sin but rewarded the legitimate son with the Covenant.

Isaac had only one wife, Rebekah. Isaac was so faithful to God that when Rebekah was thought to be sterile he did not find another woman but rather prayed to God and was rewarded for his faithfulness and trust.

Jacob had two wives, the first marriage resulting from a deception. Based on that fraud he could have refused to take Leah but he did not, then proceeded to take his first intended Rachel. BUT, Jacob's heart was not yet fully with God. He still lived life according to his own understanding. After he repented in Genesis 35 God renamed him Israel. Now that his conversion was complete, Rachel, the SECOND wife, DIED. He is no longer a polygamist but the husband of one wife. He did not have any further associations with concubines either.

Moses had only one wife and more than one son with her.

As for King David, he defied God's command that he not take multiple wives. Finally, after his sin with Bathsheba he truly repented. God's punishment was severe. He took David's property and wives and gave them to other men, all except Bathsheba. After that, David did not take any wives. Bathsheba remained his only wife and the Queen. David put away his concubines also (2 Samuel 20:3). He fully gave his heart to God and ceased his polygamy and adultery.

Solomon, on the other hand, did not. He took multiple wives, even foreign wives and worshiped false gods. God punished him and took away his kingdom.

The OT Fathers were punished for sins of the flesh. Once they repented, none practiced polygamy. Those who did not repent were destroyed.

[skr]

Signed bump