San Francisco sues state over gay 'marriage'

Washington Times ^ | 2/20/04 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[kattracks]

San Francisco officials yesterday filed suit against the state of California, saying that state laws outlawing same-sex "marriage" are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The state constitution prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said yesterday.

"The rights afforded by California's constitution clearly trump laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Mr. Herrera said.

[sinkspur]

This, along with Mayor Daley's statement that he wouldn't mind seeing some gay marriages in Chicago, will help to sink John Kerry.

Keep it comin', keep it comin'.

[Spunky]

All of this is giving me a headache and a heartache to what our country is becoming. :-(

[Wally_Kalbacken]

I've seen enough of the lawyers who are aligned on the gay rights front - they're good and they're aggressive and you can see a particular strategy evolving here. Attack state laws on state constitutional grounds, until enough states have de-facto gay marriage and then let the opposition die slowly under the weight of the federal constitutional amendment process. This approach calls for the big one - a fast and furious federal amendment, like yesterday!

[Aeon Flux]

I honestly don't care who gets married, there are other issues more important!

[GeronL]

you will soon be hearing "don't worry, it'll never happen, its a conservative country....". (we don't even have a conservative party!)

[Aeon Flux]

Marriage sucks!

The only benefit I found in marriage is that after I threw him out....I took up shooting!!

So if Gays want to marry, who the hell cares?

I don't.

Besides, after they have to deal with being married, they'll become pro-gun too!!!

This could the growing force for the "Pink Ps"!

[ysoitanly]

No offense or attack intended, but you need to GET REAL. This is NOT about saying gay marriage is 'OK' or not at this point. Take your own stand. It's about BREAKING THE LAW in California which specifically says 'a man and a woman'. And if you're still touchy-feely about the LAW, they broke it on pure administrative grounds. You can't rewrite a public, official government docment such as a marriage license and submit it 'because you want to.' If you break this one, why not break ANOTHER one you don't like? And the 'constitutionality' argument part of it is CRAP. The California State Constitution, plus the US Constitution provides 'equal protection under the law' - that means when the LAW IS OBEYED. Not happening in my hellhole state of California. Why can't people get this???? /rant

[Squantos]

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3637

Check this out if ya get time.......Stay safe !

[pollywog]

All of this is giving me a headache and a heartache to what our country is becoming. :-(

Me too. We are watching the decline of our civilization right before our eyes!!

[Aeon Flux]

Yeah...well ....tax time is here and the friggen laws are looking pretty grim to me about now.

I really don't care about laws of nonviolent crimes that are being broken.

The enforcement of all these laws is a tax drain anyway!

Those gay couples are hurting no one, and the rhetoric about the destruction of marriage is crap, straights have been screwing up marriage since forever.

And if gays actually have the love and commitment enough to fight and risk the "evil law breaking" of having a "legal" document of their love, then they will give marriage a better name than most straight marriages I know.

[puroresu]

So you expect the gay agenda crowd to defend the 2nd amendment?

Good luck!

Maybe you can ask Margaret Marshall to rise up and defend the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure she's a strong 2nd amendment proponent, like the Mayor of San Francisco.

Sorry for sounding sarcastic but I'm so tired of seeing conservatives fall for the idea that a judicial fiat imposing gay marriage on us is somehow libertarian. It's just one more step in the direction of socialism and the loss of our true constitutional freedoms, including the 2nd amendment.

[Travis McGee]

I honestly don't care who gets married, there are other issues more important!

A man and two women? This has been traditionally far more accepted than homo marriage, which has NEVER been accepted before. So you are for polygamy?

A 40 year old father and his consenting 19 year old daughter? Why not? What if he has a vasectomy? Please explain why not.

A father and 19 year old son, or mother and daughter? If not, why not?

[Waco]

Didn't the S.C. visit the marriage issue when they had the case about the "polygamists" in Utah, years go? Wouldn't the ruling in that case still apply?

[ysoitanly]

Anarchy-R-Us is NOT the answer. If you don't like a law, lobby to change it. You can't just break it! Courts are NOT allowed to legislate, just enforce, in both the US and ANY state, and if you read the articles of virtually every state constitution, you will find that clearly stated. If everyone's going to keep bastardizing the constitution of states and nationally, citing 'equal protection' trumps law, then we have no law. Have you read any state constitutions? It's crystal clear.

[RightOnline]

"I honestly don't care who gets married, there are other issues more important!"

Like what? Think carefully before you answer.

[Aeon Flux]

Ballocks! Laws are broken all the time in demonstration for a cause, and that is PART of a lobby.

Go git your butt up on The Hill and ask any of those rats where they would be without the grassroots activism.

[ysoitanly]

Troll? Signed up 2/11 with nothing else to say anywhere else that I can find. Moby?

[puroresu]

I'm sure you can find a small fringe of gays who own guns, but if you think the gay agenda movement is gun friendly, you're dreaming.

I've asked this question before, and no one has yet answered it, so maybe you can give it a try.

How does legally sanctioning gay marriages REDUCE the size of government? I'll be glad to tell you how it will INCREASE the size of government. But first, I'm giving you the chance to tell us how it will REDUCE the size of government to grant legal recognition to gay marriages.

Legally sanctioned gay marriage is what is being demanded, after all, not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy where government "gets out of the marriage business".

So tell us how the gay marriage proposals made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the San Francisco mayor will REDUCE the size of government.