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 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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............)
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!)
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?)
To: ambrose
Thank you for your posts on this thread clarifying the order.
To: Cubs Fan
Forget about concealed carry, open carry ...
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.
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.)
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!
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.
To: demkicker
It was U.S. Attorneys not Judges!
Not to mention, these are State
not Federal Judges...
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.)
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)
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.)
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
(@)
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.
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!)
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.
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
(@)
To: BJungNan
???????????????????????????????????????????????
79
posted on
02/27/2004 5:37:57 PM PST
by
cksharks
(quote from)
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!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson