ALL California Marriage Licenses should be regarded as INVALID

Self | 18 Feb 2004 | Ralph W. Davis

[AnalogReigns]

Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?

[So Cal Rocket]

Flies in the face of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I think we shouldn't abuse the topics...

[Kerberos]

"Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?"

I'm not an attorney but it would just give more spotlight and air time to the issue.

[AnalogReigns]

Since it involves potentially the state law of 49 other states, no "abuse" of topics.

[Auntie Dem]

I think that all those married under the new rogue license, along with all city officials aiding and abetting this conduct, should be arrested and imprisoned. The precedent justifying such a drastic course of action is what the U.S. govt did to the polygamous Mormons in the late 1800's. If one group can be arrested and imprisoned for violating US marriage laws, then all groups violating those laws should be treated the same.

If the "Law" refuses to arrest the current crop of criminals, then I want reparations for my ancestor's arrests in the 1880's. With 120 years of interest compounding I think I can finally retire. /sarcasm

[azhenfud]

"Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?"

I'm no lawyer, but I'm as qualified to give legal advice as Phaggots are to MARRY.

[AnalogReigns]

"full faith and credit" clause applies to other state's laws. What's going on in California with marriage licenses is outside the law.

Since its hard (on paper) to determine if a California marriage license is legal or illegal--IF issued after Feb 12, 2004, until this issue is resolved, other states arguably have not only a right, but a responsibility to not recognize California's marriage licenses.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

The mods didn't think so.;-) Anyway, I guess I should be able to rob all of the banks in San Francisco...

[Prime Choice]

The real litmus test in all this will be how the IRS treats these "couples." Regardless of whether one marries on January 1st or December 31st of any given year, they are required to file their taxes as "Married" on the following April 15 tax bill. This is true whether the marriage is intact or dissolved at the end of said year.

So it'll be interesting to see how the IRS handles this situation a year from now. Maybe the "marriage penalty" tax rate will be enough to dissuade the gays from this foolish course of action? It's obvious that arguments of religious and societal tradition and morality don't get anywhere with them...

[Wildkat150]

San Francisco Doing Exactly What Judge Roy Moore Did

February 17, 2004


The Washington Times reported Tuesday: “The city of San Francisco has issued more than 2,000 'marriage' licenses to homosexual couples over the past four days, an act of civil disobedience that attorneys for two traditional-values groups will seek to end in court today. San Francisco officials have vowed to keep issuing licenses until told to stop by the city's top law-enforcement officer. The licenses are invalid under a voter-passed state initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”



What's happening in San Francisco is against the law. As I said last week, they've taken the flag down and they've raised the middle finger and they've said "up yours" to the city, to the state of California, and to the country. However, perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to remind you about Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments. Judge Roy Moore defied a court order, put the Ten Commandments where the court told him he couldn't put them, and the world came down on Roy Moore. Everyone said: you can't do that, you're in violation of the law. And the Commandments were taken out. The city of San Francisco is issuing marriage licenses. It's no different.

Let me put it to you this way, what if they start passing out guns? What if they said, to hell with this, everybody ought to be armed and anybody who wants a gun come down here, get a license, and you can get a gun? What do you think the outcry would be? It's in the Second Amendment, everybody is entitled. This is nowhere in the Constitution. And yet they're having a grand old time out there and they're laughing it up and they're yukking it up and they're doing all these wonderful, marvelous little things, in open, wanton violation of the law.

This is the question. If you're going to say that marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what is it? Why does stop there? You can hear me explore that possibility, read from the stories and talk to some callers in the audio link below.

[Wildkat150]

San Francisco Doing Exactly What Judge Roy Moore Did

February 17, 2004


The Washington Times reported Tuesday: “The city of San Francisco has issued more than 2,000 'marriage' licenses to homosexual couples over the past four days, an act of civil disobedience that attorneys for two traditional-values groups will seek to end in court today. San Francisco officials have vowed to keep issuing licenses until told to stop by the city's top law-enforcement officer. The licenses are invalid under a voter-passed state initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”



What's happening in San Francisco is against the law. As I said last week, they've taken the flag down and they've raised the middle finger and they've said "up yours" to the city, to the state of California, and to the country. However, perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to remind you about Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments. Judge Roy Moore defied a court order, put the Ten Commandments where the court told him he couldn't put them, and the world came down on Roy Moore. Everyone said: you can't do that, you're in violation of the law. And the Commandments were taken out. The city of San Francisco is issuing marriage licenses. It's no different.

Let me put it to you this way, what if they start passing out guns? What if they said, to hell with this, everybody ought to be armed and anybody who wants a gun come down here, get a license, and you can get a gun? What do you think the outcry would be? It's in the Second Amendment, everybody is entitled. This is nowhere in the Constitution. And yet they're having a grand old time out there and they're laughing it up and they're yukking it up and they're doing all these wonderful, marvelous little things, in open, wanton violation of the law.

This is the question. If you're going to say that marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what is it? Why does stop there? You can hear me explore that possibility, read from the stories and talk to some callers in the audio link below.

[Prime Choice]

This one pretty much says it all...

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?double_standard

[heleny]

Since its hard (on paper) to determine if a California marriage license is legal or illegal

Why would it be hard?

The SF licenses issued to the same-sex couples are not the real thing; the forms have been altered to have 1st/2nd applicant or something like that. The forms have not been approved by the state of CA, so when the completed fake licenses get sent back, the state will reject them.

Besides, a marriage license is only good for 90 days; for it to be worth anything, you have to get married before it expires, perhaps within the same county, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

[heleny]

perhaps within the same county

Correction, that's only if you get a confidential license. Regular licenses allow you to get married anywhere in the state.

[.38sw]

My husband and I certainly wouldn't appreciate having our marriage license regarded as invalid. Thanks anyway.

[kcamtx]

Reproduction should be banned California.

[TheDon]

Some have said this is a state issue, not a federal issue. However, they know that is not true, due to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only solution to prevent the judiciary from legislating in this case is a constitutional ammendment.

[Scenic Sounds]

Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?

Well, your proposal would lead to a lot of litigation. How do you think lawyers might feel about the prospect of a lot of litigation? ;-)

[ancient_geezer]

I find it interesting that few ask why anyone should need a license(i.e. gain permission) from government to get married?