Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA Supreme Court Refuses To Block Gay Marriages
Fox News

Posted on 02/27/2004 4:54:56 PM PST by William McKinley

They refused the Attorney General's request that they issue an injunction preventing further gay marriages to be conducted in San Francisco.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: adamandsteve; anarchy; anytwosomenewsome; californicate; civilunion; disgusting; fallofhumanity; gaymirage; homos; homosexualagenda; lawbreaker; leviticus1822; marriage; perverts; poopsex; prisoners; queers; samesexmarriage; sf; spreadingaids; stoolstuffers; stunt; yuck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-224 next last
To: chiller
True, but California is the epicenter of a large part of this country's decay. In order to defeat the cancer that spreads through the body American, you must first go after the tumor that was the catalyst. If it can't be healed, then pluck it out (so to speak).
61 posted on 02/27/2004 5:27:14 PM PST by Viking2002 (I think; therefore, I Freep............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
They should have ordered a stay until March 5th

CA Law states that Gay Marriage are not recognized

This is UNBELIEVABLE

62 posted on 02/27/2004 5:27:27 PM PST by Mo1 (THE CUSTER CONSERVATIVES: "Not Smart... But Principled, Dammit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Move to Yuma Arizona while property is affordable. The soon to be, Newest Hot Selling Ocean Front Property (post the Big Quake and the whole bloody state sinks like Atlantis.)
63 posted on 02/27/2004 5:28:21 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Thank you for your posts on this thread clarifying the order.
64 posted on 02/27/2004 5:28:22 PM PST by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
Forget about concealed carry, open carry ...


65 posted on 02/27/2004 5:28:39 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
Go back and read/study the founding documents of the United States of America - also what the founding fathers wrote about in letters and journals, etc at that time.

Our "rights" come from, and are granted to "we the people" by our Creator (God) -

Under the republican form of government (this is not a pure democracy), the people select elected representatives to represent and protect their rights and interests for the common good.

66 posted on 02/27/2004 5:28:48 PM PST by VRWCTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
Very accurate posting, which needs to be read by many. Your name is well-chosen.

Accurate posting? FO is full of crap. The majority of the judges on the California Supreme Court were appointed by REPUBLICANS.

67 posted on 02/27/2004 5:28:55 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dc-zoo
No kidding! I really hope conservatives won't give a collective yawn and say, "Oh well" over this one. Hey folks, it's time to stand our ground and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I liken this to the in our face Janet Jackson episode. We just need to keep raising a stink and not go away. There IS hope!
68 posted on 02/27/2004 5:29:33 PM PST by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
Aren't these the same judges Bush could have fired when he came into office just like Clinton did?

Presidents can't fire judges. You're thinking of U.S. Attorneys.

69 posted on 02/27/2004 5:30:14 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
It was U.S. Attorneys not Judges!
Not to mention, these are State
not Federal Judges...
70 posted on 02/27/2004 5:30:34 PM PST by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Marriage law Probably violates CA Constitution.

No it doesn't. Every adult has an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex. They can't marry their siblings, their kids, or animals and they can't marry people of the same sex either. It is not a violation of equal protection in the least.

71 posted on 02/27/2004 5:30:48 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
There was a time when I could tolerate the gay lifestyle. Do your thing, but leave me alone.

No longer. They asked for trouble and special rights and I say no friggin' way. We've had enough and will now stick this back down your G*DAM throat. They've pissed off not only me, but millions of others. Look out MFers.

72 posted on 02/27/2004 5:33:19 PM PST by chiller (JUDGES is JOB #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: VRWCTexan
Under the republican form of government (this is not a pure democracy), the people select elected representatives to represent and protect their rights and interests for the common good.

In California, there has been a lot of bad selecting going on.

73 posted on 02/27/2004 5:34:40 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
No it doesn't. Every adult has an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex. They can't marry their siblings, their kids, or animals and they can't marry people of the same sex either. It is not a violation of equal protection in the least. ----

I bet under equal protection any 2 non-married persons can get married.

74 posted on 02/27/2004 5:35:47 PM PST by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The AG took the path of greatest delay and most likely failure.

The AG is play games.

Will someone post the recall link.
75 posted on 02/27/2004 5:36:19 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe; ambrose
Excuse me but gay marriage is against the law in California. What's to decide?


I don't have a copy of the state codes, but it may not be technically. I wonder if the gays are pulling this based on a technicality? Wouldn't be the first time. Nor will it be the last.

I would like to see the actual state code on this matter, should someone care to post it for us to look at.
76 posted on 02/27/2004 5:37:18 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (smaller government? you gotta be kidding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I have had enough! We the straight people of America are tired of being made out to be ignorant red-neck bigots. The gays tell us "who are you to tell us we can't get married" I say "Who are you to tell soceity there can be no limits on behvior?" ALL people know what a marriage is yet normal Americans have to ask for a constitutional amendment to define something we already know. If the gays want to re-define marriage, let THEM get the amendment to change it. When we begin to tolerate any and all behavior we begin to rot from within. Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying soceity.
77 posted on 02/27/2004 5:37:41 PM PST by StoneColdTaxHater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer refused to block the New Paltz ceremonies and did not issue an opinion on whether the marriages were legal. "The validity of the marriages and the legality of the mayor's action will be determined in due course in the courts," Spitzer said.
78 posted on 02/27/2004 5:37:41 PM PST by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
???????????????????????????????????????????????
79 posted on 02/27/2004 5:37:57 PM PST by cksharks (quote from)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
I suspect you are right on this.

I have YET to see the actual code of California law this violates. Yes, I find it disturbing, but not surprising that this may not be illegal under the law in that State.

This is clearly an election year play for someone's benefit... Hillary?
80 posted on 02/27/2004 5:39:14 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (smaller government? you gotta be kidding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-224 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson