8/12 Same sex marriage nullified, yeah!!
\_ Why is this even a surprise. Newsome himself knew this would
happen. He carried out the marriages because:
1) he wanted to shed his image as a prviliged yuppie by breakin'
the law
2) he was pandering
\_ Do you honestly believe that being a pimp helps you get
votes in San Francisco? Or do you mean pander in the more
general "this guy is appealing to a group I don't like"
lazy incorrect fashion that some politicians like to use?
\_ Wow, like this isn't even a good troll.
3) increased revenue from all the licenses
\_ Now I know you're joking. SF collected $200k from the
4000 couples. Compare that to the city budget of $5B.
Less than 4/1000s of a percent.
4) increased tax revenue from all the rings and wedding cakes and
such
If he really cared about the issue, he would have challenged this
through the courts.
\_ You think he handed out gay marriage licenses to get increased
revenue from the the licenses and wedding cake sales? You're
friggin nuts. I don't agree with the pro gay marriage thing,
but I think you're even nuttier.
\_ No, I think the primary reason (the one which I listed first
for a reason and the one you didn't comment on) was to
project an image of a rebel, since Gonzales made it a closer
election than anyone expected. I think the increased revenue
from gay tourists flocking to the City was just icing.
\_ Can't agree more. I'm not against gay marriage, but I'm against
breaking the law, especially while representating a govt body.
\_ Whew! That's good, 'cause I was about to start smokin' pole any
second...
\_ Libertarians to thread...
\_ I think the libertarian position on gay marriage is that
marriage is between two people or two people and their church,
and government shouldn't have anything to do with it one way
or the other. Is that about right?
\_ I doubt that's right--there are legal aspects around things
like inheritance which can't be decided by the church.
\_ Sure they can. The old Church said you should give
everything to them to avoid going to Hell.
\_ Probably, but some of the local Libertarians go through some
amazing contortions to toe the Republican party line...
\_ The government is the recording authority. Beyond that, it
should get out of the business of deciding who or what can
marry and leave that up the the individuals involved. Is
that the Republican line?
\_ no, it isn't.
\_ As a (R) the last thing I want is Libertarians at my party.
\_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
nullified. Everyone should be glad about this, or any Mayor could
start changing state law any way he or she pleased.
start changing state law any way he or she pleased. (this was the
original text of the comment below)
\_ Agreed. If you don't like the law, change it, don't break it.
Especially don't make a City break the law.
\_ More to the point, Same-sex marriages illegally performed in CA were
nullified. Everyone should be glad about this, or any man could
start marrying any dog or box turtle he pleases,
\_ By reading this post, why do I feel like I've gone back in time
50 years?
\_ Because you've missed the point. The courts ruled that the
marriages were carried out illegally. Rather than challenging
the definition of marriage through the courts, Newsom took
the law into his own hands. The above poster is basically
saying he's glad any other mayor cannot now just take the law
into his own hands to marry whatever to whomever. You probably
also thinkthat Clinton got impeached for receiving a bj.
\_ lol. I can't believe you fucking guys. All we ever hear
from you is the evils of "activist judges" legislating
from the bench, and now you want it challeneged through
the courts? man, this would be hilarious if i didn't
have to share a country with you fuckers.
\_ Please tell me this is some kind of troll. No one here
could really be THIS dumb, could they?
\_ It's pretty dumb. Please read my response below:
\_ These judges are enforcing existing law; if they were
"activist", they would leave the marriages legal.
That's what you get from the first look at it.
On a second look, any conscientious judge would feel
ashamed 50 years from now to take part in enforcing
the no-gay-marriage law, as it is clearly a "separate
but equal" issue; and "separate but equal" has been
shown to violate the Constitution.
\_ What "no-gay-marriage" law?
\_ The federal DOMA as well as the California state
initiative. Everyone knows these laws are
unconstitutional - why do you think there's a
rush to desecrate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hamend the
constitution before the Supremes take a look at
DOMA?
\_ Nonono, you got it all wrong: Gay marriage
desecrates the sanctity of Marriage!
\_ Sanctity is a religious concept. Here in the
USA, we have a secular government. Religion
is a private matter. Why is this so hard for
some people to understand? If you really
want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
\_ Inasmuch as Jefferson wrote volumes on
separation of church and state, he is
only one guy, and there is a good
argument that the U.S. was founded on
Christian values and the belief in God.
Between having a government where
mentioning religion in a public place
is illegal, and the "establishment of
religion" clause, there is a lot of room.
\_ It clearly was not "founded on
Christian values". The republican
concepts were lifted from classical
(pagan) philosophy. Christian values
involve strong church authority. They
don't mention anything Christian,
but merely the generic "God" and
"creator" which signify nothing.
\_ They do? What about Protestants?
The whole issue with Protestants was
rebellion against Church authority.
You are spouting, my friend.
-- ilyas
\_ If it is so clear to you, please
show me evidence that this country
was founded on classical (pagan)
philosophy without regard to
the dominant Protestantism at
the time. I also think this
sentence is flat out wrong:
"Christian values involve strong
church authority." C'mon. We
have Christian values throughout
the U.S. today, and there is no
strong church authority.
\_ BZZT! Homosexuals have the same right to marriage
as any straight person. They have the legal right to
marry someone of the opposite sex. The law does not
care about love or personal taste or desire. The
law is only about strict factual concepts like your
gender, age, and race in regards to equality issues.
\_ Sexual orientation is, for the vast majority of
cases, something someone is born with. Over time,
it will be more concretely established in U.S.
law that it deserves the same level of protection
as gender, race, and age -- because it is
something someone is born with.
\_ Url on the statistics on that? Or is this just
a liberal article of faith?
\_ actually, I think it was the part about the dog and box
turtle
\_ Its possible to both support Newsom's actions and the actions
of the court. You may wish to look up the definition of
"civil disobedience."
\_ You may wish to take English 1A again. Box-turtle guy
explains why he thinks this is good news. Critic calls
box-turtle guy intolerant slut. All I said was that
box-turtle guy's statement doesn't have anything to do
with intolerance and everything to do with following
legal procedures.
\_ The fact that you don't think there's anything
intolerant about comparing an expression of love
between two human beings to an expression of "love"
between a man and a turtle is quite revealing.
\_ Love has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage
is a legal state that all people have equal access
to. All people have the legal right to marry
someone of the opposite sex. There is no equal
rights issue here.
\_ Love has nothing to do with marriage? Boy,
I REALLY hope you're not married.
\_ Actually, all I said was that the dog and turtle
part sounded like it came from a stodgy old guy
from 50 years ago with the thick-rimmed glasses.
\_ It actually came from a guy who's covered in
KY and feces.
\_ Actually, it came from some jerkoff (pun
intended) who change my original post.
\_ Civil disobedience isn't an elected official ignoring
the law. It's private citizens disobeying the law. A
Mayor's job is to enforce the law, and if he's unwilling
to enforce it, he should step aside and act as a private
citizen.
\_ This is a stretch when we are talking about San
Francisco, and I think you know it.
\_ Just because San Francisco is full of wackos
doesn't mean it's elected officials shouldn't be
held to their oaths.
\_ I think you're stretching, and I still think
you know it ...
\_ I'm not the above person who thinks SF is
full of whackos, but he does have a point.
Consider racist southern sheriffs who would
refuse to enforce the law against whites
who attacked and murdered blacks.
\_ What about an activist sherriff before
emancipation who refused to track down
escaped slaves, or refused to prosecute
the people who helped slaves escape?
\_ Slavery is a way of making people
unequal and is thus a violation of
the Constitution's equal rights
sections. Allowing marriage only
between those of the opposite sex is
not a violation. All adults are
allowed to marry someone of the
opposite sex and not marry someone of
the same sex. This law is applied
equally to all people. No issue here.
\_ "The law, in its majestic equality,
forbids the rich as well as the
poor to sleep under bridges, to
beg in the streets, and to steal
bread." --Anatole France
\_ Scuse me, Junior Scalia, but I think
your legal analysis is a wee bit
lacking here. But thanks for
posting it three times, repetition
definitely increases the
effectiveness of your arguments.
\_ Not to be too weasely or anything but he took
an oath to uphold the law, and made a
calculated judgement that the (dominant)
equal-protection clause contradicted with the
no-gay-marriage law. Elected officials have to
interpret the law all the time, but courts have
the final say on interpretation of law. |
http://csua.com/feed/