• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rosie O'Donnell to marry girlfriend in San Francisco

Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)

she's nnot breaking the law. If your city government said "Hey, come get a check from the City for $100" would you consider it theft n your part? They are only doing what the city is allowing them to do.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)

What exact law is being broken?
 
I say more power to her. I don't particularly like her, but she is standing up for what she believes in, and what she does or doesn't do has no harmful effect on me, so...
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)

What exact law is being broken?

California Codes

Family Code Section 308.5
"California Defense of Marriage Act"
(Enacted by Initiative March 7, 2000)

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/calfamcode308.5.html
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)

What exact law is being broken?

California Codes

Family Code Section 308.5
"California Defense of Marriage Act"
(Enacted by Initiative March 7, 2000)

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/calfamcode308.5.html

So, all that means is the current marriages being performed are not legally recognized or valid.
 
"I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell said on the program. "I am stunned and I'm horrified.

"I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco. And I hope they put more people on the steps to marry as many people as show up. And I hope everyone shows up."

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."


You go, girl!


😀
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)

What exact law is being broken?

California Codes

Family Code Section 308.5
"California Defense of Marriage Act"
(Enacted by Initiative March 7, 2000)

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/calfamcode308.5.html

So, all that means is the current marriages being performed are not legally recognized or valid.

The mayor of San Francisco explicitly disobeyed state law in allowing the marriages. That is what I'm referring to.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)

What exact law is being broken?

California Codes

Family Code Section 308.5
"California Defense of Marriage Act"
(Enacted by Initiative March 7, 2000)

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/calfamcode308.5.html

So, all that means is the current marriages being performed are not legally recognized or valid.

The mayor of San Francisco explicitly disobeyed state law in allowing the marriages. That is what I'm referring to.
is there a difference between allowing one to be wed, and the actual recognition/validity of the marriage? I'm guessing there is, thus the reason all these marriages are allowed to be performed, even though the couple is not recognized as a married couple by the state of california

 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Good for her. Nice to know she's breaking the law.

(note that I support civil unions, but what is happening in SF is NOT legal)

What exact law is being broken?

California Codes

Family Code Section 308.5
"California Defense of Marriage Act"
(Enacted by Initiative March 7, 2000)

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/calfamcode308.5.html

So, all that means is the current marriages being performed are not legally recognized or valid.

The mayor of San Francisco explicitly disobeyed state law in allowing the marriages. That is what I'm referring to.

Well, two state judges have so far decided not to stop the marriages from being performed. Doesn't seem like anyone is in too much of a hurry to label the mayor a criminal except those who want gays to suffer from unequal rights.

Granted, the way the mayor is doing this is not the best way but he's going to bring the issue to a solution one way or another.
 
Originally posted by: conjur

Well, two state judges have so far decided not to stop the marriages from being performed. Doesn't seem like anyone is in too much of a hurry to label the mayor a criminal except those who want gays to suffer from unequal rights.

Granted, the way the mayor is doing this is not the best way but he's going to bring the issue to a solution one way or another.

I want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else, conjur, I would hope that by now you'd recognize my beliefs in that regard. However, it is my opinion that this is not the way to go about it.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: conjur

Well, two state judges have so far decided not to stop the marriages from being performed. Doesn't seem like anyone is in too much of a hurry to label the mayor a criminal except those who want gays to suffer from unequal rights.

Granted, the way the mayor is doing this is not the best way but he's going to bring the issue to a solution one way or another.

I want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else, conjur, I would hope that by now you'd recognize my beliefs in that regard. However, it is my opinion that this is not the way to go about it.

I'll agree with that. But, I disagree that any laws are being broken.

The mayor could have a "Let Your Pet Get Married Day" and do the same thing he's doing now but have it for people's pets. That's not breaking the law. In fact, didn't some city (maybe even S.F.) do that not too long ago?
 
Back
Top