California Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: paulney
I applaud the decision. You have to respect the law. If everyone starts doing what he'd like to do despite the current laws - that would be anarchy. You want to change smth - file a legal action.

For those who are racing to label me as 'homofobic' - I'm not against same sex marriages. I'm against violating the law and claiming it's your right to do so, just because you've been waiting for so long.

if people label you anything, they will probably label you with proper spelling ( "homophobic" )

 

[dragonballgtz]

I still surprises me that with everything else going on in the world, people are still willing to waste my tax dollars arguing something which has almost zero effect on most of our country's population.

Give it a rest, let the gay people get married and let the world move on. Its not worth anyone's time and money trying to fight it.

To bad most if not all of the Christian population don't understand this. They will fight it to the bitter end.

 

[cHeeZeFacTory]

Originally posted by: dragonballgtz

I still surprises me that with everything else going on in the world, people are still willing to waste my tax dollars arguing something which has almost zero effect on most of our country's population.

Give it a rest, let the gay people get married and let the world move on. Its not worth anyone's time and money trying to fight it.

To bad most if not all of the Christian population don't understand this. They will fight it to the bitter end.

Agreed.

 

[Vic]

Quote from article:

"The constitutional validity of California's statutory provisions limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is not before our court in this proceeding, and our decision in this case is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to reflect any view on that issue," the court wrote.

This court decision had very little to do with gay marriages and everything to do with a mayor who broke the law. For the same reason, I applaud the decision. We cannot have bureaucrats running around doing whatever they please, breaking the law, and blatantly ignoring the democratic process. You want gay marriages? Fine, I don't care, just don't break the law in getting them.

 

[DotheDamnTHing]

Originally posted by: paulney
I applaud the decision. You have to respect the law. If everyone starts doing what he'd like to do despite the current laws - that would be anarchy. You want to change smth - file a legal action.

For those who are racing to label me as 'homofobic' - I'm not against same sex marriages. I'm against violating the law and claiming it's your right to do so, just because you've been waiting for so long.

 

[Doboji]

IMHO the state should have no jurisdiction in marriage. The state should grant civil unions between any adults of any sex. The religious institutions should handle the "marriage" titleing.

The whole homosexual prohibition is completely based upon religion. It has no place within the legal system. Either adults can form civil unions or they can't, gender should be irrelevent.

-Max

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dragonballgtz

I still surprises me that with everything else going on in the world, people are still willing to waste my tax dollars arguing something which has almost zero effect on most of our country's population.

Give it a rest, let the gay people get married and let the world move on. Its not worth anyone's time and money trying to fight it.

To bad most if not all of the Christian population don't understand this. They will fight it to the bitter end.

Not like Mayor Newsom helped the pro-gay marriage supporters by breaking the law and ignoring the democratic process. Quite the opposite. And at about the same time, the county commissioners of Multnomah county, OR (Portland) did the same thing, meeting behind closed doors to make an important decision and ignoring the people and the democratic process. That really pissed a lot of people off, scared even more (I'm sure), and turned a lot of fence-sitting people who might have been more accepting of the gay marriage issue into being against it.
Here's what the anti-gay marriage crowd has to say about it:

"Instead of helping his cause, Mayor Newsom has set back the same-sex marriage agenda and laid the foundation for the pro-marriage movement to once and for all win this battle to preserve traditional marriage," said Mathew Staver, who represents Campaign for California Families in a lawsuit challenging the San Francisco marriages.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Tomato
So sad. 🙁

If you support gay marriage this is a good thing. What the mayor did wasn't the correct way to make that change. Anything to undo the mis-step he took is forwarding the gay marriage issue.

Personally I'm a little torn between gay marriage and civil unions, I'm at least for civil unions (equal legal status as marriages)... But that's another can of worms.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Meh, I don't care.

 

[imported_Tomato]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Tomato
So sad. 🙁

If you support gay marriage this is a good thing. What the mayor did wasn't the correct way to make that change. Anything to undo the mis-step he took is forwarding the gay marriage issue.

Personally I'm a little torn between gay marriage and civil unions, I'm at least for civil unions (equal legal status as marriages)... But that's another can of worms.

I'm sad because of the emotional duress the couples must be experiencing, especially that one mentioned in the article (how old were they? 79 and 83?), who experienced the joy, happiness, and triumph of a marriage... only to find out it null and void, for whatever reason. From celebration to sadness... for that, I sympathize.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Vic
Quote from article:

"The constitutional validity of California's statutory provisions limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is not before our court in this proceeding, and our decision in this case is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to reflect any view on that issue," the court wrote.

This court decision had very little to do with gay marriages and everything to do with a mayor who broke the law. For the same reason, I applaud the decision. We cannot have bureaucrats running around doing whatever they please, breaking the law, and blatantly ignoring the democratic process. You want gay marriages? Fine, I don't care, just don't break the law in getting them.

According to the books, it may have been illegal. However, the Supreme Court should've looked to see if the Defense of Marriage Act was unlawful/unconstitutional to pass. If it was, the Mayor had every right to go ahead and challenge it. He needs to give the courts a swift kick to make them start thinking. It's too bad that the courts decided to go backwards a couple of steps. Think about the civil rights movement. Someone's gotta get things rolling.

 

[waggy]

this is eventually going to end up in the supreme court. I wonder how they are going to vote? are they going to allow discrimination again or what? the government should not be saying who can merry who.

I would think they can find better things to waste my tax money on.

 

[Maleficus]

Good stuff, same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed.

 

[rh71]

I find it funny that there was a do-first/worry-later attitude in the first place...

How many people wasted their time, effort, and emotions ?

 

[Wahsapa]

Originally posted by: paulney
I applaud the decision. You have to respect the law. If everyone starts doing what he'd like to do despite the current laws - that would be anarchy. You want to change smth - file a legal action.

For those who are racing to label me as 'homofobic' - I'm not against same sex marriages. I'm against violating the law and claiming it's your right to do so, just because you've been waiting for so long.

erhem, heres something with a little different view on it.

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Declaration of Independence

it IS your right to violate unjust laws. like someone else said, "would you have supported the civil rights movement?"

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Wahsapa

Originally posted by: paulney
I applaud the decision. You have to respect the law. If everyone starts doing what he'd like to do despite the current laws - that would be anarchy. You want to change smth - file a legal action.

For those who are racing to label me as 'homofobic' - I'm not against same sex marriages. I'm against violating the law and claiming it's your right to do so, just because you've been waiting for so long.

erhem, heres something with a little different view on it.

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Declaration of Independence

it IS your right to violate unjust laws. like someone else said, "would you have supported the civil rights movement?"

heh.

 

[paulney]

it IS your right to violate unjust laws. like someone else said, "would you have supported the civil rights movement?"

Who said it's unjust? The voters of California (the majority of those) decided they want a marriage between a man and a woman. You want otherwise - start your grass roots campaign. In this case, a political figure with a desire to attract more support for his actions on the city givernement decided to please a minority group. By violating the decision of the majority of the state. His decisions were overruled. Case closed.

This has nothing to do with civil rights movement.

 

[LTC8K6]

It is also your duty to accept the inevitable consequences of getting married outside the law.

They should have waited to get the law changed before making life changing plans.

The court said nothing about whether gays could get married.
It said you can't break the law to get married.

Now you have a Mayor who is supposed to uphold the law essentially ruled by the state supreme court to have broken it. I wonder if that ruling will affect his career?

I think the DOI would be relevant if the laws of California had been imposed on it by another country. They weren't, though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
According to the books, it may have been illegal. However, the Supreme Court should've looked to see if the Defense of Marriage Act was unlawful/unconstitutional to pass. If it was, the Mayor had every right to go ahead and challenge it. He needs to give the courts a swift kick to make them start thinking. It's too bad that the courts decided to go backwards a couple of steps. Think about the civil rights movement. Someone's gotta get things rolling.

Read the damn article for fsck's sake.

First, the CA Supreme Court was not deciding on the Defense of Marriage Act and said so. They were deciding on the mayor's actions. The court has said that they will look at the Defense of Marriage Act next year.

Second, the mayor had asolutely NO right right to challenge or go against the law regardless of his opinion of it or the legality of the law. That is not the way our country works. If officials flauted the law every time they felt like it, we would fall into anarchy.

If this is the Civil Rights movement (which I personally disagree but that's another argument) and the law needs to be broken to get things rolling, then let a private citizen do the breaking, and not an elected official who has taken an oath to uphold the law.

Originally posted by: Wahsapa
erhem, heres something with a little different view on it.

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Declaration of Independence

it IS your right to violate unjust laws. like someone else said, "would you have supported the civil rights movement?"

While I am a big supporter of Jefferson, neither the Declaration of Independence nor Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" are laws in the US, and I think that Jefferson spins in his grave every time some idiot like you abuses his ideology. The paragraph you quoted was Jefferson explaining the need for the colonies to seperate from Britain and proclaim independence. Are you saying that the gay community needs to seperate from the rest of the US? 😕

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: paulney
it IS your right to violate unjust laws. like someone else said, "would you have supported the civil rights movement?"

Who said it's unjust? The voters of California (the majority of those) decided they want a marriage between a man and a woman. You want otherwise - start your grass roots campaign. In this case, a political figure with a desire to attract more support for his actions on the city givernement decided to please a minority group. By violating the decision of the majority of the state. His decisions were overruled. Case closed.

This has nothing to do with civil rights movement.

:thumbsup:

It appears that some people only support democracy when the majority is in their favor.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TuxDave
According to the books, it may have been illegal. However, the Supreme Court should've looked to see if the Defense of Marriage Act was unlawful/unconstitutional to pass. If it was, the Mayor had every right to go ahead and challenge it. He needs to give the courts a swift kick to make them start thinking. It's too bad that the courts decided to go backwards a couple of steps. Think about the civil rights movement. Someone's gotta get things rolling.

Read the damn article for fsck's sake.

First, the CA Supreme Court was not deciding on the Defense of Marriage Act and said so. They were deciding on the mayor's actions. The court has said that they will look at the Defense of Marriage Act next year.

Read the damn post for fsck's sake.

The said they were not gonna look at the DeMaAc it before ruling to void gay marriages. So I posted they SHOULD'VE looked at the DeMaAc. Sheesh... such negativity.

Edit: Something I just noticed. They said they would 'nullify' the marriage but debate their legality later. Since they nullified it, doesn't that mean they deemed it illegal?

 

[imported_KirbsAw]

Originally posted by: cHeeZeFacTory

Originally posted by: dragonballgtz

I still surprises me that with everything else going on in the world, people are still willing to waste my tax dollars arguing something which has almost zero effect on most of our country's population.

Give it a rest, let the gay people get married and let the world move on. Its not worth anyone's time and money trying to fight it.

To bad most if not all of the Christian population don't understand this. They will fight it to the bitter end.

Agreed.

yep.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

:thumbsup:

 

[Wahsapa]

gah, i was just trying to say its your right to violate a law. consequences be damned.

edit: theres also no need for name calling, bad form.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: paulney
it IS your right to violate unjust laws. like someone else said, "would you have supported the civil rights movement?"

Who said it's unjust? The voters of California (the majority of those) decided they want a marriage between a man and a woman. You want otherwise - start your grass roots campaign. In this case, a political figure with a desire to attract more support for his actions on the city givernement decided to please a minority group. By violating the decision of the majority of the state. His decisions were overruled. Case closed.

This has nothing to do with civil rights movement.

:thumbsup:

It appears that some people only support democracy when the majority is in their favor.

Constitution > Democracy. If the majority of the population becomes fanatically religious, I don't want to start stupid laws, like banning people from being atheist, start popping up.