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

Skip to comments.

California's Gay Marriages Annulled
SkyNews ^ | August 12, 2004

Posted on 08/12/2004 12:27:39 PM PDT by traumer

More than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco have been annulled by California's Supreme Court. The court ruled the city had acted improperly in granting the marriage licences earlier this year in defiance of state law.

The mayor of the San Francisco ignited a passionate nationwide debate in February by allowing 4,037 same-sex couples to wed over a four-week period. The California Supreme Court stopped the marriages while it reviewed the city's actions.

It has now ruled the city violated the law, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. The justices decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the nearly 4,000 marriages.

The court, however, did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage. It ruled only on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass California's judicial and legislative branches.

Polls show most Californians continue to oppose gay marriage.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cascotus; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2004 12:27:39 PM PDT by traumer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: traumer

Well, this is some progress. The fact that the California SC didn't completely ignore the law means something.


2 posted on 08/12/2004 12:29:17 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

So that means they're....living in sin?


3 posted on 08/12/2004 12:31:38 PM PDT by George Smiley (Tagline removed pursuant to threatening letters from DNC and Kerry/Edwards attorneys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traumer

HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY.


4 posted on 08/12/2004 12:33:06 PM PDT by HawkeyeLonewolf (Christian First, American Second)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traumer

When will the mayor report for jail time?


5 posted on 08/12/2004 12:35:24 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

So I guess Rosie O'Donnell is back on the market?


6 posted on 08/12/2004 12:37:43 PM PDT by King Koffee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: traumer

This is a liberal state but most people here support traditional marriage. If the Democrats want to do something stupid like repeal the law next year, let them go ahead. In the event that happens, you can be sure voters will amend the state Constitution to put a stop to these childish games of theirs.


7 posted on 08/12/2004 12:38:07 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
CA Supreme Court Justices have to stand for re-election. A few years back, we threw a bunch out who refused to enact the death penalty. Looks like the Court still remembers the lesson.
8 posted on 08/12/2004 12:40:12 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traumer

Annulled my eye. They were never valid to begin with. A great, big, fat charade, just like homosexuality itself.


9 posted on 08/12/2004 12:40:48 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("This house is sho' gone crazy!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Koffee

LOL!


10 posted on 08/12/2004 12:40:50 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: traumer

"DUH!!" of the Year Award

Dan
11 posted on 08/12/2004 12:41:02 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traumer
The court, however, did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage. It ruled only on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass California's judicial and legislative branches.

Why didn't they 'resolve' on the issue? The people have spoken.... no more inerpretations by a bunch of black robes from the left.

12 posted on 08/12/2004 12:42:20 PM PDT by KingsKindred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley

Dang, ya beat me to the punch


13 posted on 08/12/2004 12:44:43 PM PDT by NRA1995 ("Just call me a proud Republican goon!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traumer
The court, however, did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage. It ruled only on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass California's judicial and legislative branches.

So two justices thought that was just fine and dandy? I have GOT to read the dissent.

14 posted on 08/12/2004 12:46:44 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traumer
Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time." This is one of my favorite lines. NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO MARRY. You just want what has been given.
15 posted on 08/12/2004 12:57:37 PM PDT by ZeonZaku
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
So that means they're....living in sin?

LOL. Well, they were doing that to begin with, unfortunately.

16 posted on 08/12/2004 1:01:27 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traumer

so will the 4000 get their marriage license fees back from the city ? Not likely.


17 posted on 08/12/2004 1:13:52 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Truth, Justice and the American Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KingsKindred

Because this is most likely only a temporary bout of sanity. If the Calif Sup Court doesn't 'resolve' the issue by creating a constitutional right for gays to marry, then you can be sure that the Federal 9th appellate circuit will, and then the Supreme Court will back them up and the courts will have exercised their biggest power grab since, perhaps, Roe v Wade.


18 posted on 08/12/2004 1:35:29 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I have a feeling that the majority of CA whites support gay marriage. It is probably the hispanics, asians, and blacks that put gay marriage opposition in the majority of CA opinion.


19 posted on 08/12/2004 7:35:33 PM PDT by Kuksool (Get Your Souls To The Polls In November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

Right you are.

The 9th circuit will short-circuit this intelligent decision as they have so many times in the past.


20 posted on 08/12/2004 7:44:56 PM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 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