Schwarzenegger: Gay marriage licenses illegal

CNN ^ | 02/20/04 | CNN

[Pikamax]

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.

San Francisco on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, the city attorney's office said.

[kellynla]

"Schwarzenegger...the actor-turned-politician, who garnered a plurality of ballots from a wide field of candidates Oct. 7 on the same day voters recalled Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, has said he wants to repeal a newly signed law allowing illegal aliens to apply for driver's licenses." 10/15/2003 The Nation

"Another battle Schwarzenegger soon could face is over the promise he made during the recall campaign to repeal a controversial bill Davis recently signed granting 2 million undocumented immigrants in California the right to obtain a drivers license. It will take effect in January -- unless Schwarzenegger stops it." Fresno Bee 10/15/2003

Don't bother apologizing to me for "making things up: just get your facts straight next time!

[backhoe]

I think this will lead to a double whammy on the gay agenda. First, the "in your face" illegality of this move is going to create a backlash among family oriented people. Second, the small recorded number of "gay couples" is going to show they are not a significant voting bloc. Kind of like when they did the census on homeless people and found out the numbers were about 10% of what the libs had been telling us they were.

I think you are right- excellent "cut to the chase" observation.

[cinFLA]

Will they refund the $100+ paid for the fake licenses?

[Tempest]

HAHA!! Just as I suggested just render the marriage certificates null and void. It's a silent defeat to Newsmm and gang and it doesn't elevate him to the status of political martyr.

[Tempest]

I don't think being a reactionary and hauling off Newsmom in this case would have achieved anyting except to elevate the issue as a civil rights case.

The approach in which Arnold is taking is the right one. He's using the city of SF own arrogance against them and demonstarting his authority without inciting further civil unrest. By rendering the marriage licenses null and void he would have achieved the same goal without firing off a shot. Good job I for Arnold I say.

[MeekOneGOP]

You are on to something here . .

I heard the other day that legalizing gay (mairrage) was not the end objective.

The end objective is to legalize
MULTIPLE PARTNERS - READ: MORE THAN ONE LEGAL QUEER PARTNER!

[hobson]

Yes, there was a missing semicolon that changed the meaning of a sentence.

[Buffettbassman]

Took him long enough!

[clamboat]

Although based in Sacramento, the governor apparently didn't get the memo from the Sacramento Bee "journalist" who has re-named this "same-gender marriage."

Maybe that was done so you could actually see these news articles if you are trying to use an internet connection at a public library or elsewhere that has mandatory internet filters installed (thanks John McCain!). Anything web page with the word SEX will not make it past a filter.

[clamboat]

Ever heard of a Will?

A will does not grant you any of the privileges that a married couple enjoys. A spouse may inherit 100%of the estate tax free, and also will get a stepped up basis on any real property (house, land, etc) that is part of the estate.

A domestic partner, even if named as the benefiiary of a will or trust, cannot can inherit only about 50% of the value of the estate over a certain amount (don't know what that amount is - 100K?). The state and federal govt. takes the rest. What this usually means is having to sell the house you live in just to pay the death tax. That does not apply to married couples.

[MegaSilver]

Score one for the conservatives...

[McGavin999]

We're talking about state inheritance, we're talking about state property issues, we're talking about children's issues, we're talking about power of attorney," Ralph Neas, president of the group People for the American Way, said.

There is not one single issue here that can't be taken care of by seeing an attorney.

[nopardons]

No, it's one million dollars, or its equivalent in property/stuff, that anyone can now inherit " free"/untaxed.

[clamboat]

No, it's one million dollars, or its equivalent in property/stuff, that anyone can now inherit " free"/untaxed.

Thank you. But I think my wife can inherit all of my estate, tax free, right? And she gets a stepped up basis on the house. It is only when she dies that the $1 million limit applies (to whoever inherits it from her)?

[nopardons]

Yes, spouses get it all; sort of.Probate fees and some states still have have death taxes, which hits a widow/widower. If your property isn't in both of your names, you need to see a lawyer and an estate planner.

Non-spousal bequests of 1 million, are tax free.But tax laws are in continual flux.

[clamboat]

If your property isn't in both of your names, you need to see a lawyer and an estate planner.

My wife and I are ok - I don't own anything - the trust that I manage owns everything. And upon my death the trust goes to my wife, so that way we avoid probate entirely (presumably a simple Will still has to go through probate).

The specifics aren't important - my point to the original poster is that a Will cannot confer the same rights to an unmarried couple that a married couple enjoy. The tax consequences are not the same without a marriage certificate.

[goldstategop]

Criminals going on the offense with our tax dollars. That's how much things have changed in this country. And we have liberal judges who think anarchy to advance the liberal agenda is cool.

[goldstategop]

Americans are schizophrenic. They don't like gay marriage but think nothing should be done to stop them either. Go figure!

[goldstategop]

You mean the Feds putting a stop to judicial activism? No we can have that - it would violate people's rights and even some conservatives want to preserve judicial activism just in case the results favors us. Leaving the final say about marriage in the hands of the elected representatives of the people is apparently too radical a step to contemplate amending the Constitution but its perfectly fine for judges to throw out the separation of powers to order the other branches of government to do what they want.

[calcowgirl]

I heard on the radio yesterday that judge who throw out a request to 'cease and desist' because of a misplaced punctuation was Earl Warren's grandson and he was gay.

Is this true?

Yep to all of the above.