Skip to comments.
New Mexico... AG's ruling prompts her to STOP(gay marraige OVER in NM!)
AF via SFgate ^
| 2/20/04
| Susan Montoya Bryan
Posted on 02/20/2004 5:59:14 PM PST by I_Love_My_Husband
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: CyberAnt
But here's a point of clarification: Couldn't Arnold publicly harangue Mr. Lockyer? You bet -- but Arnold is basically sitting this one out.
To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Good news! I like good news.
If anyone wants on or off this ping list, ping me. I obey orders.
22
posted on
02/20/2004 6:39:42 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
To: Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; SAJ; mhking; Trueblackman; BOBTHENAILER
c#20
23
posted on
02/20/2004 6:39:59 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: little jeremiah
Agreed it is good news. But if you look at what Southack says above...sigh. However I'm going to take this as 1 bit of good news for right now!
24
posted on
02/20/2004 6:42:22 PM PST
by
I_Love_My_Husband
(Borders, Language, Culture, Straights - now more than ever)
To: little jeremiah
All that they have to do is to nominate Richardson, and he can point out that he "stopped" gay marriage in his state. Poof! The Dems can suddenly claim to be against gay marriage with some level of feigned credibility.
...And that's what this little event was all about. It was a setup to show that a Democrat was against gay marriage, just as Bill Clinton's 1992 execution of a retarded Arkansas inmate was a setup to feign that Democrats were tough on crime.
25
posted on
02/20/2004 6:44:02 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: mhking
Fags have the same exact rights concerning marriage that normal folks do.
Any homosexual is allowed to marry any willing, single female.
Show me how my rights differ from theirs?
26
posted on
02/20/2004 6:47:11 PM PST
by
Guillermo
(It's tough being a Miami Dolphins fan)
To: mhking
I'm speaking rhetorically, I'm not asking you to defend their positions.
27
posted on
02/20/2004 6:48:58 PM PST
by
Guillermo
(Pun not intended this time)
Comment #28 Removed by Moderator
To: Guillermo
Any homosexual is allowed to marry any willing, single female. That's the point - the law permits men and women to marry, provided the appropriate rules are followed (i.e., the participants are of legal age, the proper paperwork is filed, a commensurrate blood test is administered, an authorized individual conducts the ceremony). That is entirely different than a "right."
29
posted on
02/20/2004 6:53:31 PM PST
by
mhking
(My gravely throat feels like it's been attacked with a rusty rasp....)
To: longtermmemmory
The problem is the state law, which requires NM recognize any marriage from anywhere. She was just dumb enough to think that meant she had to be as liberal as any other state, and their attorney was either equally stupid opr politically motivated.
30
posted on
02/20/2004 6:53:36 PM PST
by
sharktrager
(The last rebel without a cause in a world full of causes without a rebel.)
To: I_Love_My_Husband
Marriage isn't a right; it is a responsibility to husband and wife.
31
posted on
02/20/2004 7:11:28 PM PST
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Agnes Heep
"Marriage is a privilege granted to one man and one woman to facilitate the begetting and rearing of children." Absolutely right. Marriage is a privilege, a duty, a responsibility and an institution that is needed for civilization to work well. Those who take up that responsibility get some privileges. But it is not a right.
Marriage is a responsibility, Not a Right
32
posted on
02/20/2004 7:13:14 PM PST
by
WOSG
(Bush/Cheney 2004!!)
To: Slings and Arrows
Well .. the AG in NM didn't seem to have any problem doing her job .. so Lockyer is just playing politics as usual.
Like Rush said today .. "let them play this out .. they are showing their true colors"
33
posted on
02/20/2004 7:53:37 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
(The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
To: CyberAnt
Fairly spoken. I don't care what two or more consenting adults do in private, but this is not private. Sometimes you have to say "enough."
To: Constructionist
Arnold is a complete and total WIMP. Maybe he is just choosing his battles wisely.
As I understand this, the state has already declared that it does not recognize any of the "marriages" performed in SF because the form has been altered. The places for Bride & Groom have been changed to #1 and #2 or some such.
These things are going to start bouncing as soon as the state gets them & then the major battle will be fought. Why expend your ammunition in a minor skirmish when you know a real war is coming?
To: Southack
Arnold just announced, via the Atty Gen's office he's gonna make SFO stop it early next week!!! Again... we shall see... (to be continued)
36
posted on
02/20/2004 10:17:58 PM PST
by
SierraWasp
(EnvironMentalism is NOW beyond the point of "Diminishing Returns!" GANG-GREEN is setting in!!!)
To: Credo
The governor can order the AG to put an end to it.
He finally got around to it a short while ago.
37
posted on
02/20/2004 10:24:51 PM PST
by
Prime Choice
(I'm pro-choice. I just think the "choice" should be made *before* having sex.)
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
To: Southack
South, I guess where I'm unclear is whether you think Richardson is a "stand-in" for a Hillary either as veep or pres. If Kerry wins with Rich. as veep, then some dirt will come out and he will resign, putting Rich. in the presidency? Do you really think the Clintons would go this route?
On the other hand, why move Rich. into the veep spot now to lose? Still too murky. Moreover, know one knows who the hell Richardson is outside of the fanatical political circles, so he doesn't "give the Dems credibility" on anything. That would require Kerry or Clinton to come out against gay marriage. But it's irrelevant, as the mayor of SF is going to push this to the point that no one, Dem or Repub. can ignore it, and for that we should thank him.
39
posted on
02/21/2004 6:29:44 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
To: redlipstick
Ping in case you missed this last night like I did. The NM AG stepped in and put a stop to this nonsense. Yay!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 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