QUEERLY BELOVED: Action filed to remove S.F. mayor, AG

Friday, February 27, 2004

1 posted on 02/26/2004 10:22:29 PM PST by JohnHuang2

Does anyone know if it is true that homosexuals were not being charged money for their "marriage" licenses?

2 posted on 02/26/2004 10:29:58 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)

Sure would like to see some Sheriff out there start issuing CHL's while the laws of Kalipornia are being ignored ...........

3 posted on 02/26/2004 10:53:27 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)

Well it's about danged time someone held these officials accountable for dereliction of duty.

4 posted on 02/26/2004 11:07:41 PM PST by Humidston (Two Words: TERM LIMITS)

To: longtermmemmory

I thought the charge was $82 !

5 posted on 02/26/2004 11:21:34 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)

To: Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; NormsRevenge; onyx; Brad's Gramma; farmfriend

6 posted on 02/26/2004 11:25:18 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)

What a great title. I really hope something becomes of this. If any of us blantantly broke the law, we'd be in jail. I just don't understand why this mayor has not been arrested.

7 posted on 02/26/2004 11:26:00 PM PST by Indy Pendance

"We're putting Lockyer on notice that we will recall him if he doesn't do his job," Kaloogian told the Los Angeles Times.

Love the Recall weapon!

8 posted on 02/26/2004 11:26:40 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

9 posted on 02/26/2004 11:27:28 PM PST by JohnHuang2

To: longtermmemmory

I heard they were being charged $82 dollars - or something close to that. Hmmmm? This is going to get interesting.

10 posted on 02/27/2004 12:09:59 AM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping list - Let me know if anyone wants on or off this ping list.

Soon I will post some stuff from Lively's website, he is doing a yeoman job fighting the homosexual tsunami. If you donate to his organization (even a pittance) he sends you a newsletter every month. Anyone who wants to help his organization should check out his website, he's got a lot of books and materials, and his book (along with co-author Kevin Abrams) "The Ping Swastika" is a book everyone should read.

11 posted on 02/27/2004 12:15:25 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)

Sheesh...California's image sure is going down the toilet!
Instead of the "Golden State" it is now the "Golden Shower State."

12 posted on 02/27/2004 12:16:58 AM PST by ATCNavyRetiree

To: little jeremiah

The Ping Swastika" is a book everyone should read.

Even better is The Pink Swastika. ;-)

13 posted on 02/27/2004 12:27:52 AM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)

The legal action charges Lockyer was given advanced notice of Newsom's intentions to break state law but did not intervene.
...
...Newsom's and Alfaro's actions, and Lockyer's complicity, "constitute contempt for the rule of law and for the constitutions they vowed to defend."

How does what they did violate the US Constitution or CA Constitution? Is there something unconstitutional about their threatening the peace of the nation or eroding confidence in the government?

Obviously, they are violating various CA state laws, such as for issuing/accepting fake documents or recognizing non-marriages, but I'm not sure I see the Constitutional angle.

14 posted on 02/27/2004 1:38:54 AM PST by heleny (No on propositions 55, 56, 57, 58)

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the
section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary
to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or
public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating
any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the
effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for
any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of
federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county,
city and county, public university system, including the University
of California, community college district, school district, special
district, or any other political subdivision or governmental
instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be
the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for
violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of
this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the
United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the
maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution
permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the
remaining portions of this section.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

15 posted on 02/27/2004 2:33:38 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood)

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 26. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and
prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be
otherwise.

Or in other words this is the law of the land unless we decide to break it then it dont count !

16 posted on 02/27/2004 2:36:46 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood)

The rule of law means holding public officials who flout or ignore the law accountable. When the U.S Senate acquitted Bill Clinton, it established a dangerous precedent of official lawlessness that is now taking root in California and across this nation. If we are to keep our republic, we must remove and prosecute and send to prison those in power who betray their oaths of office and undermine the law. For our sake and the sake of our children.

17 posted on 02/27/2004 2:41:37 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

To: goldstategop; Ernest_at_the_Beach

I am voting FOR Howard Kaloogian in the GOP primary on March 2, 2004.

18 posted on 02/27/2004 2:45:22 AM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)

To: goldstategop

Right, I agree. I am glad to see that there are groups like the one mentioned in the article that are willing to fight for our rights as a family unit.
Sad that it's come to this where we have to fight for our rights.

19 posted on 02/27/2004 3:09:33 AM PST by stopem

20 posted on 02/27/2004 3:15:22 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794