San Francisco challenges state's same-sex marriage ban in court

CNN ^ | Friday, February 20, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The city of San Francisco Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman only, the city attorney's office said.

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 20, 2004

Quote of the Day by Made In The USA

[farmfriend]

Short list.

[calcowgirl]

Newsom has said that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."

Newsom is fundamentally wrong... as is homosexual 'marriage'.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats ARE for gay marriage. They just don't want it to be established in an election year.

[Travis McGee]

I just want to ask the pro-homo"marriage" crowd this question:

If you were the judge, on what basis would you allow homo "marriage" but forbid polygamous marriage, which has much greater precedential history? What exactly is so damn magical about the number two?

If a man and a woman may marry, and a man and a man may marry, by what legal basis do you disallow a man and two women from marrying? What is the legal argument for erecting a firewall right after homo "marriage?"

What about two brothers, if they love one another, and it's consensual? Can they "marry?"

What about a father and a 19 year old consenting son?

What about a father and a 19 year old daughter? For argument's sake, he's had a vasectomy, and they plan to adopt. Why not? Be logical, explain in detail.

What incredible HOMOHUBRIS to scream, "You must throw out 5,000 years of civilization and embrace OUR perversion, but we will draw the new boundary line right here beyond gay couples. No polygamists! No related couples!"

What stunning HOMOHUBRIS!

[little jeremiah]

Okay, one more for the Homosexual Agenda Ping list.

Let me know if anyone wants on or off this (very busy) ping list.

I still think conservatives should wend their way to SF and line up to get married - parents to children, brothers to brothers, sisters to sisters, brothers to sisters, etc. And pets - can't forget the pets. Bring llamas, dogs, cats, pot bellied pigs, milk goats, etc.

Then if they say no, sue Thug-Clown "Mayor" Noisome.

[JohnHuang2]

The Democrats ARE for gay marriage. They just don't want it to be established in an election year.

Correctomundo.

[Southack]

Great questions.

The better question, however, is why don't the Democrats want a democratic vote of the people on this issue.

Why are they only trying to legislate from the judicial benches?

Where are the calls for public votes on this matter?!

[Howlin]

Why doesn't Arnold just send the licenses back, stating they are not legal because of the way they are filled out?

[Travis McGee]

We DID have a vote on it (prop 22) and it passed 62-38 for "man-woman marriage only."

But our beknighted commissars in black robes know better than we peasants. As will prop 187, they disregard the laws they don't like.

(I just want a list of laws that "really count," and a list of the laws that I can ignore.)

[JohnHuang2]

Travis, this issue will be huge at the Democrat convention, threatening party unity when gays demand recognition in the party platform.

[Travis McGee]

There is a silver lining, at least for the election.

[JohnHuang2]

The scenario unfolding before our eyes could not have been scripted better by Karl Rove himself ;-)

[JohnHuang2]

It's a great education for the American people -- illustrating just how far out of the mainstream the Democrat Party has become.

[onyx]

This is such an abomination. No matter the will or the voice of us voters, the democrats and special interest groups always undermine us successfully.

I never thought I would say this, but I am finished with CA and I am a third generation native of San Diego. We have had it. Moving out of CA.

[goldstategop]

California has already said the marriages are invalid due to illegally altered forms. The liberals went through a meaningless symbolic exercise to show Midde America their Big Finger.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

[Travis McGee]

I'd go to Wyoming to take part in the FSP, western edition, but it's too damn cold and oceanless. FL or TX for me in 2 years.

[FFIGHTER]

There are many other government programs and or licenses that are not available to the public as a whole, therefore under their warped argument they should be available to everyone, because to deny them would would be an affront to due process and equal protection. Doctors, lawyers, dentist, plumbers, carpenters, etc. Additionally there are numerous government programs that administered on the basis of sex (not withstanding the debate on their legitimacy, another topic) such as WIC, prenatal health-care, etc. Then one is also being affronted under their argument with regards to Medicare, food-stamps, etc, as the government does not open these programs to "all" people.