Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials He dismisses governor's as a political ploy (CA RATS ALERT)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/21/04 | Nanett Asimov & Ryan Kim

[I_Love_My_Husband]

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Saturday rebuffed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's demand that he force an end to San Francisco's same-sex marriages, calling the directive political rhetoric.

"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," Lockyer said, adding that Schwarzenegger's written directive "was a statement designed for consumption at the Republican convention."

[livius]

How long can it be before some Cali freak decides argues that murder is not wrong "to him", and that the rest of us have no business imposing our silly old-fashioned morals on him?

Exactly. The whole spectacle of "gay marriage" would be ludicrous and just another Cali insanity were it not for the fact that this has struck at the rule of law. Essentially, you have one local elected official and a bunch of bureaucrats deciding to do whatever they want and reject state law, and a court and legal apparatus that refuses to act.

I thought Lockyer would have to do something to halt this, whether he wanted to or not, simply because this is so patently an attack upon the legal structure of the state and in fact upon all legal structure.

I could scarcely believe it when I sat down at my PC at 6:00 a.m. here in Florida and saw that we had essentially had a coup in California.

The Governor has got to do something to restore the rule of law.

[Alissa]

I know how you feel. I'm here in SAN FRANCISCO!

I lived in San Francisco in the 70's and the homosexual community was brazen and arrogant then, it must be intolerable by now. Too bad, such a beautiful city gone to hell.

[MeekOneGOP]

Situations like this make me want to advocate vigilanteism.

Well, isn't that in effect what the mayor has already done ?? Isn't he taking the law into his own hands ? Isn't he BREAKING the law/ignoring the law he doesn't like and handing out passes (gay marriage licenses) against the will of the people ?

In your face, just as the gay activists do all the time ??

[MeekOneGOP]

Whoops ! Ping to my comment ...

[MeekOneGOP]

INcredible ! Morals have no place in the Californica justice system. IMmoral INjustice ...

[onyx]

You're correct. Not only the damn democrat mayor, but now the duly elected Attorney General Lockyer (another democrat of course) is defying GOVERNOR Arold's directive.

Democrats make laws for others to follow. They do as they damn well please politically, and this time they're on the side of the homosexuals which puts them at odds with "some" people in their own party.

I hope they continue on this road to their self destruction --- CA will vote for Bush and we might even get rid of Boxer too. Oh what a day that will be.

[MeekOneGOP]

I have often wondered how 'Christian' Democrats resolve this (to me) OBVIOUS schism. The immorality the left advocates versus a true or devout Christian following/belief. It rings out loudly as a hollow conscience or total lack thereof, imho.

How do they sleep at night ?? No conscience whatsoever ?? Hypocrisy ?

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep ! Eventually, there's gonna be he** to pay !

[onyx]

The end (winning or keeping elected office) justifies the means. Say and do anything.

Remember, politics (esp. left-wing) is their religion. God is not invited or welcomed. A truly unHoly alliance.
Beastiality and homosexuality --- hey --- if it feels good -- do it. Anything goes. Society be damned.

[newzjunkey]

Since when do you need a marriage license to produce children? Did I miss something in Biology class?

[longtermmemmory]

The marriage license is just a tool for recording marriages. Marriage is a public act. This is important for property rights and inheritance. Marriage is about producing a family not just for the presnet but for future generations beyond the life of the married couple.

It is a simple issue of whether or not you want a society or a mob of animals having sex with whatever is not moving. If you want to sit passivly while the homosexuals disassemble the family unit that is your perrogitive.

Marriage has always been about children and family. Under old common law, an out of wedlock child did not have a claim to family property.

You sarcasm is amusing if not misguided.

[livius]

This is all from Griswold. The mysterious "right to privacy" now has been interpreted to mean that laws and the legal structure essentially have no claim on us.

The dangerous thing in this case is that an elected official and his bureaucrats have taken it one step further and wilfully ignored the law in order to assert their private preference.

I translate a lot of legal analyses and texts, and one thing other countries have always admired about us is our rule of law, and the fact that when people object to a law, they take legal steps to overturn it. This may be by going to court, or by getting enough people together to request the legislature to create a new law.

But only in banana republics is it done by fiat or by flat-out ignoring the existing law.

[MeekOneGOP]

It's all about power, that's right ...

[Patriot1998]

This is great news!!!! It' looks like some people are getting fed up with BS laws we have these days...

[Mariposaman]

This all works to our advantage come November. As the saying goes: "Give someone enough rope...)

[hellinahandcart]

I was saying this last week to my parents: for the duration of this same-sex marriage debacle, teams of conservative "couples" that are blood relatives should be standing in line waiting for marriage licences. Pairs of brothers, pairs of sisters, grandfathers and grandsons, aunts and nieces. They should all have the same last name, if possible. If they are refused a marriage license they should point to the sign outside, in the hands of the Abraham Lincoln statue, that proclaims "We should all have the freedom to marry!" and threaten to sue.

Then ACTUALLY sue, whatever the outcome. Sue if you're denied a marriage license, claiming "equal protection". Sue after your (unconsummated) marriage is invalidated by the state. Sue if the marriage stands, for tempting you into such an unwholesome situation in the first place.

[Grampa Dave]

This was predictable.

Lockliar is a rat who has been bought out by Rat Companies like Whoreacle. He is a male clone of Jake Reno.

He has done nothing as an AG, but get into the way of any investigations of Rat criminal deeds and trying to sue corporations like Micro Soft to get money from them.

Maybe it is time to recall this POS posing as our Attorney General.

[Grampa Dave]

It is time to recall this Rat POS posing as our attorney general.

[Grampa Dave]

I'm reposting the entire article. When we want to use this in the future when LockLiar tries to run for Governor, it will not be available.

---

Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials He dismisses governor's as a political ploy (CA RATS ALERT)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/21/04 | Nanett Asimov & Ryan Kim


Posted on 02/21/2004 10:55:37 PM PST by I_Love_My_Husband


Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials
He dismisses governor's demand as a political ploy







Nanette Asimov and Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer


State Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Saturday rebuffed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's demand that he force an end to San Francisco's same-sex marriages, calling the directive political rhetoric.

"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," Lockyer said, adding that Schwarzenegger's written directive "was a statement designed for consumption at the Republican convention."

Faxed on Friday night to the home of a Lockyer aide, the governor wrote: "I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The message also said that San Francisco's actions to wed gay couples "present an imminent risk to civil order."

Lockyer called that statement "preposterous" and said it is the kind of "exaggerated, hot rhetoric" that risks stirring people up to commit hate crimes.

He said that he and Schwarzenegger have agreed all along that same-sex marriage is illegal under California law. He said it is his duty to defend the state against a lawsuit by San Francisco that calls the state's prohibition against same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Lockyer said his office will file a response early this week.

By dumping the gay marriage hot potato in Lockyer's lap, Schwarzenegger has managed to ease the concerns of his conservative supporters while still staying well clear of an issue he doesn't really need to get involved in.

Schwarzenegger told Republicans at their state convention in Burlingame Friday that he is opposed to gay marriage, but his letter to Lockyer leaves all the heavy lifting on the issue to the attorney general. The fact that Lockyer is a possible Democratic challenger to Schwarzenegger in 2006 is just a bonus for the Republican governor.

Attacking San Francisco has always been a surefire applause line for the conservative activists who typically fill the seats at Republican conventions, and the governor's assault on same-sex marriage brought the crowd to its feet Friday night. On Saturday, the GOP Senate candidates also used the stage to bash Newsom and the city.

"On the issue of civil defiance, San Francisco has to follow the law,'' said Bill Jones, former secretary of state. "It needs to be laid in the lap of the attorney general and he needs to deal with it.''

The tiff at the top between Schwarzenegger and Lockyer serves to clarify the lines of authority in the otherwise messy, often emotional struggle over same-sex marriage, legal experts told The Chronicle on Saturday.

A governor cannot tell an elected attorney general what to do, and neither can he tell a mayor what to do.

"The governor really has very limited authority to do anything in this situation," said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall and the school's former dean. "And the mayor does not report to the governor. The mayor is the chief executive officer of the city and county of San Francisco. He works by himself."

Nor, apparently, can a governor tell a judge what to do. Despite urging from Schwarzenegger, a Superior Court judge decided on Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city to halt the marriages.

Legal experts said Saturday that regardless of the legal outcome in California, the question of whether gays and lesbians may marry someone of their own sex is almost certainly destined for federal court.

If California's Supreme Court ultimately upheld the legality of same-sex marriage, a couple might decide to file a joint tax return, said Joseph Grodin, a former state Supreme Court justice. Or, if the court rejected such marriages, a same-sex couple from Massachusetts might attempt the same thing. (Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriages and said the state may issue licenses beginning in May.)


"So if a couple tried to take advantage of the federal law and was rebuffed, then someone may raise the constitutionality of that statue and argue that under the federal Constitution, it is unconstitutional to discriminate," Grodin said.

Under another scenario, Grodin said, the issue might jump to the federal level if another state questioned its obligation to recognize same-sex marriages authorized in California or Massachusetts.

"One way or the other, the issue of gay marriage is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.

Two recent rulings also lend favor to the viability of same-sex marriage, said Vikram Amar, a professor at Hastings College of the Law. One is the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he said. And the other is the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that invalidated a Texas law, which said homosexuality was illegal. The high court's ruling made such sodomy laws illegal everywhere, he said.

"The court was clear that that wasn't about marriage," Amar said. "But together, these rulings suggest that both state and federal constitutions have something to say about discriminating against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage."

Looming in the background, Amar said, is the possibility that Congress would propose a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, which would have to be ratified by three quarters of states.

"Then it wouldn't matter what (state law) had to say on the issue," Amar said.

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom said he will continue allowing same-sex marriages until a judge says otherwise.

"I'll respectfully keep moving forward and doing the right thing and stopping the practice of discrimination," said Newsom, as he paused for an event honoring black heritage at Yerba Buena Gardens.

He brushed aside criticism from U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, fellow California Democrats who said last week that Newsom was wrong to defy state law and to force the sticky issue in an election year.

"Next year won't be the best time, and the year after won't be," Newsom said. "There's midyear elections, mayoral elections and governor elections. There will never be the best time. It's the same script."

Newsom said he has received threats but declined to elaborate. Flanking the mayor were a pair of suited body guards not often seen at the mayor's public appearances before the weddings began on Feb. 12.

Newsom acknowledged he is taking the issue of security seriously, adding that "you don't do the same things you did yesterday, every day."

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the ping. Remember yesterday, I said this POS Lockliar would do nothing. He is a male version of Jake Reno for the Rats in California who break laws.

With Lockliar in office, "There is no Controlling Legal Authority in in Kalifornicator!"