Same-sex marriages face legal challenges

CNN ^ | 17 February 2004

[MegaSilver]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The challenge to the legality of San Francisco's same-sex marriage licenses moved to another courtroom Tuesday afternoon after a judge postponed an earlier hearing until Friday.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said there was confusion over the timeliness of the filing by Campaign for California Families and over two different versions of the complaint.

[MegaSilver]

I must say, this mayor has an unusually froward worldview for a life-long Irish Catholic...

[stopem]

"President Bush in his State of the Union address said he was prepared to support a constitutional amendment to prevent "activist judges" from "redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives."

President Bush please do it now!!

These people and their agenda's will make the healthcare problem even worse, they are militant and dangerous.
Don't leave it up to the liberal judges.

[DameAutour]

First of all, this judge is delaying because he is trying to find a way to let these sham marriages continue. After looking at his record, I believe there is nothing this judge wants more than to find in favor of Newsom.

Secondly, after reading Gavin Newsom's reasoning, I am serious when I say that I see no reason why he should not also lobby for incestuous marriage. He talks about two adults who love one another, no discrimination, etc. Why not a father and a son getting married? All of his arguments would apply.

[Jack Black]

BOAT. It's coming.

[Jack Black]

oops that's BLOAT.

[madprof98]

Don't give him any more ideas!

[PaxMacian]

Government does not possess the power to decree a sacrament upon two people for their sins.
There need not be any kind of Constitutional amendment to declare the simple fact that marriage
can only be between a man and a woman. Marriage is a sacrament which should not be forced to
bear the burden of promoting inequality. However, governments have used their power unwisely
by promoting through incentives the legal status of marriage. Thereby, the illusion of inequality
becomes palpable to those who do not seek this status. Moreover, a seeker drawing distinctions
based upon a question of morality is not an act of discrimination nor is it prejudice.
Rather, it is discernment as regards the way of the Lord and the gifts of the Father.

[vikingchick]

Forgive me if somebody has already pointed this out, but couples need a blood test in CA before they can get married. Forget arguing the equal protection angle for now, (which is exactly what they want) and use this to invalidate the gay 'marriages'.

While they're chasing their tails trying to figure that one out, our side can solidify our case.