Petition to Arrest Mayor Newsom

Petition to Gov. Schwarzenegger to Arrest Mayor Newsom of San Francisco ^ | 2/19/2004 | Nick Bradley

[Remember_Salamis]

To: Califonia Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco has violated California law by Marrying Same-sex couples in San Francisco. It is patently unlawful to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Section 308.5 of the California Family Code plainly defines a valid marriage as being limited to one man and one woman. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 115 prohibits the knowing procurement of any false or forged instrument to be filed or recorded in any public office, making such an act a felony punishable by up to three (3) years in prison.

The Mayor of San Francisco is giving the middle finger to the State of California and the United States as a Whole. To make it worse, Mayor Newsom and the City of San Francisco has stated that it is suing the state of California, challenging its ban on same-sex marriages on constitutional grounds. By doing so, Mayor Newsom is proposing that every law that was not a constitutional amendment is un-enforceable. If he is not arrested, there is no basis for drug laws, the carrying of concealed weapons, prostitution, and every other law that is not written into the constitution of the state of California.

Please arrest this man.

[TedsGarage]

I'm insinuating that anyone who didn't pander to the gay community wouldn't BE in his position. They're a huge voting bloc in San Francisco.

[Auntie Dem]

Please cite NT Scriptures where Jesus and St. Paul taught multiple wives.

You obviously have difficulty with reading comprehension. You should recall I said that God approved of polygamy "...at various times..." While there may have been cultural polygamy during NT times, it was not generally recognized as one of the "various" times God required or approved of it.

It would appear you acknowledge "various" OT patriarchs practiced polygamy with God's approval, and sometimes with his disapproval. David's plural wives were only a problem with God after the Bathsheba incident. Although Solomon had problems later in his life God allowed him to build the temple--so he wasn't a total reprobate with several wives until later. I never claimed Noah and his sons had multiple wives--are you trying to build a strawman?

[Auntie Dem]

Oh, please do show where God approves and accepts polygamy. Your interpretation appears to be very private, LOL.

You can't be serious. Do you not agree that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon all had multiple wives?

Are you saying these prophets (save David and Solomon) were not righteous men? Please provide scriptures where God censured these prophets for multiple wives.

The so-called "moral" aversion to multiple wives is a relatively modern invention by apostate christianity, fueled by scriptural ignorance and tinted by puritanical tenets. Modern feminism has also had a hand in portraying the Patriarchal Order, the patriarchs themselves, and specifically polygamy as abusive. I would hardly think Freepers would give feminists any credit for geting anything right. LOL.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

No, I don't have problems with reading comprehension but apparently you do. CITE the Scriptures where God specifically APPROVES of polygamy.

I acknowledge polygamy occurred in the OT but God never instructed it.

Deuteronomy 17:17 17 He shall not have many wives, that may allure his mind, nor immense sums of silver and gold.

Both David and Solomon were great men but sinners. David inherited his enemies wives as part of his enemies' property, as was the custom at that time. Unless you can provide a Scripture otherwise, his prior polygamy was his own choosing not God's instruction.

Second, Solomon's multiple wives were his undoing and led him away from God as predicted above in Deuteronomy.

[djreece]

I did not dispute that several in the Old Testament times had multiple wives. I disputed your assertion that God accepted and approved it as part of His plan.

At times David and Solomon were righteous men; at times they were absolutely evil. By your standard, we would also have to say God approved and accepted adultery and murder and idolatry as these two did these acts as well as polygamy. Furthermore, IIRC Isaac and Moses did not have multiple wives.

The development of polygamy and its promotion by certain sects of Christians was and is an affront to God. The whole record of polygamy in the Bible shows that it was an evil corruption of God's plan for the family that led to jealousy and strife.

However, if you see being one of many wives as the key to your personal happiness, I invite you to head on down to San Francisco City Hall where everyone is busy "doing what is right in their own eyes."

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Wow, any woman who disapproves of polygamy (90+% of the female population) is a feminist and an apostate.

You have encountered a nut of the highest order, LOL.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

By your standard, we would also have to say God approved and accepted adultery and murder and idolatry as these two did these acts as well as polygamy.

Don't forget slavery! Lots of that in the OT and more Scriptural evidence too.

[djreece]

LOL, I hope she never reads about that upstart woman in the Old Testament, Deborah, who had the audacity to be not only her husband's only wife but to serve as a judge and to help lead the army into battle as well. I fear the shock would be too much.

;-D

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the ping Jeff and welcome back. Hope your sense of loss is becoming more bearable. I tried numerous times to access the petition without success. The good news is, I noticed in the sidebar breaking news where Ahnold appears to be putting his foot down. We'll see. Good to have you back.

FGS

[supercat]

The so-called "moral" aversion to multiple wives is a relatively modern invention by apostate christianity, fueled by scriptural ignorance and tinted by puritanical tenets.

More likely it's a recognition that if males and females exist in roughly equal numbers, allowing some men to have multiple wives will mean others won't get any.

Modern feminism has also had a hand in portraying the Patriarchal Order, the patriarchs themselves, and specifically polygamy as abusive. I would hardly think Freepers would give feminists any credit for geting anything right. LOL. It's interesting to note that in Old-Testament times, wives were considered assets while in later times they were considered liabilities. I suspect this is precisely because of the bans on polygyny; when polygyny was legal, it created a shortage of marriageable women, and thus men would have to compete for wives.

BTW, a couple of more general notes on the subject:

• Polygyny has been widely, albeit sparsely, accepted in various cultures throughout the world and throughout history; polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) has never been so accepted. I think the biological reasons should be clear, but the assymetry is interesting. Note also the decidedly assymetric definition of adultery in the Bible, again considering the biological implications.
• Are there any vertibrate animal species in which males and females have roles which are identical except for reproduction? Feminists seem to think humans must be unique in that regard.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

that upstart woman in the Old Testament, Deborah, who had the audacity to be not only her husband's only wife but to serve as a judge and to help lead the army into battle as well. I fear the shock would be too much.

What a feminist! My namesake is a bad influence on me, LOL.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Thus making Newsom a hero.

I said hero, asshole. I'd like to see you rude assholes say something to someone's face that you feel perfectly comfortable saying over the internet. Asshole.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

By the way, seabrain, what do you call Osama bin Laden? He can certainly be seen as a martyr to his cause - and I'm sure his millions of followers also consider him a martyr. He's both a martyr and a hero to his followers. So that blows your theory that "you can't become a martyr for evil" right out of the water.

As far as Gavin Newsom, he's not a martyr. I misspoke (which I thought I clarified in post #148). But he is a hero. Not to me, but to you and your buddies.

[wita]

This is no other than whatshisname from the red green show.Picture him with high-water pants and that typewriter guitarand he's a dead wringer, or is that what we wish he was? Well, compassionatly speaking he needs to be around for the story to play out. Unless of course he ends up with 4 or 5000 co-horts in crime.

[wita]

Thanks for the ping, and welcome back.

[P-Marlowe]

The mayor is in violation of PENAL CODE section 359 and by authroizing the clerk to issue licenses the mayor is also guilty of conspiracy to violate section 359 of the California Penal Code, which would be a FELONY.

The San Francisco Police should have put an end to it on the first day. But it appears the San Francisco Police may be a part of the conspiracy. Thus that Attorney General may need to step in.

Mr. Newsome is not going to be a martyr. IMO he is a felon and putting him in Jail for a couple of years might send a message to would be mayors like the mayor of West Hollywood that this kind of CRIMINAL behavior is not going to be tolerated.

[Wurlitzer]

"The BOTTOM LINE is that ONLY a constitutional amendment will resolve this issue...that's where you should be placing your energy. "

Then should every law which MAY be contested for constitutionality be ignored by the ruling class? Can Arnold issue gun permits. (wish he could). Can the TSA continue to search you without a warrant?

The bottom line is We The People must hold the ruling class to the same laws, as they are currently written, until and only until they are ruled unconstitutional. Your solution is to ignore certain laws for the ruling class because they MAY be overturned.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Attorney General is derelict in his duty. If he does not want to uphold the law, or in fact do what his job requires, he should resign or be removed.

If he is so philosphically opposed to maintaining the law, if he were an honorable man, he would resign.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I wonder if we are being a bit too inclusive in what gets posted to the bang list. There are many stories that should be of importance to gun owners, but it is just my own opinion that the story actually be about guns in some direct respect. No need to reply, and no criticism intended. (It's better to have too many than to miss some stories.) Just food for thought.

Here are some recent ones that didn't seem to have much to do with guns:

#49: Keyless Car & Garage Entry Mystery
To: *bang_list
49 posted on 02/21/2004 8:08:40 AM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)

#135: Petition to Arrest Mayor Newsom

#3: Years Of FBI Agent Crimes Detailed

#58: BILL PRYOR ACCEPTS RECESS APPOINTMENT TO 11TH CIRCUIT

#35: BILL PRYOR ACCEPTS RECESS APPOINTMENT TO 11TH CIRCUIT