4000 automatic divorces...because your a "deviant"!

U

Undecided

Banned
Banned
Yes the saga of the American homosexual community takes yet another odd twist in the wind, the California supreme court has decided that the mayor of San Francisco has over stretched his bound when allowing homosexuals to marry.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
------------------------------------------
The court said the city illegally issued the certificates and performed the ceremonies, since state law defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
---------------------------------------------
The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials.
----------------------------------------------
Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.
------------------------------------------------
The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom's "act of disobedience" could lead other local officials to sanction "polygamists."
------------------------------------------------
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html
Click to expand...

Its sobering to know that 4000 marriages are now fully void simply because these two people do it a different way. I just wonder how far this bigotry can go?
 
bu... but..Undecided....the fabric of morality and all is torn down if two people of same gender kiss. The 5,000 years social development and societal advancements will all come crashing down if two dudes kiss each other...I mean why can't people see that. Why can't these people just put their feelings aside and love the opposite gender like the good god intended, like their daddy wants them to.
 
That court should have kept its mouth shut. They know where the gay marriage train is headed, it’s only a matter of time before it is legal, so suck it up and let the people have their marriage. Of course with a topic as politically charged as this one, the thing that matters least to a public authority are the rights or happiness of a bunch of queers.
 
sargentlard

I hear you brother society will collapse as a result of anal sex; remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? Do you wonder why they call them there homosexuals “Sodomites”? It’s really quite ridiculous in the modern era that we as a society cannot give people the same basic rights that we all deserve as human beings. I personally find the concept of marriage idiotic, so I think anyone who gets married have a 50% chance of getting divorced and committing a sin. Anyways marriage is a farce today anyways and always has been it has been used to get up in the social latter more then the questionable existence of “love”. Its all so childish…
 
Undecided said:
sargentlard
Anyways marriage is a farce today anyways and always has been it has been used to get up in the social latter more then the questionable existence of “love”. Its all so childish…
Click to expand...


The funny thing is that heterosexuals, for the greater part, themselves have shit upon the insitution that is marriage. They have turned it into a running joke but they are so adament about protecting it now that someone of a different preference wants to take part in it. Now it becomes so holy and scared....not when you're fighting to the bitter end with your lawyers to keep the last shred of your materialistic goods.

I mean there is no saying that homosexuals won't want a divorce either but ofcourse they'll be labeled as heathens for divorcing simply because they are gay....not because, like every other couple they might eventually grow out of love too.
 
Undecided said:
Its sobering to know that 4000 marriages are now fully void simply because these two people do it a different way. I just wonder how far this bigotry can go?
Click to expand...

The court's decision was not an example of bigotry. They were not considering the broader issue of whether the state constitution requires that gays have the right to marry, only the narrow issue of whether or not Newsom had the authority to issue marriage licenses to same sex partners when he did.

:m: Peace.
 
The court's decision was not an example of bigotry.

I personally think it was an example of it, granted the mayor did go ultra vires on this one and he not the 4000 marriages should be reprimanded. I find it presumptuous and very troubling that 4000 marriages can be null and void without taking into consideration the concept of gay marriage. I think that the court should have stopped all further gay marriages until the legislature, or the supreme courts decided on the matter.
 
Undecided said:
I personally think it was an example of it...
Click to expand...


Then you'll have to explain how, as the justices were interpreting law and not behavior.

:m: Peace.
 
The decision was colored by bigotry. They didn't have to invalidate those marriages if they found that the SF mayor was beyond his authority in issuing them, they could have reprimanded him but found it beyond their own power to forcibly break those 4,000 existing unions.
 
Then you'll have to explain how, as the justices were interpreting law and not behavior.

I believe the decision by the courts vis-à-vis the illegal action taken by the mayor was correct he did do something legally wrong. But to destroy 4000 marriages because of a technicality is very immoral and it demands ASAP a trail to discern the status of homosexual marriages in California. It’s not fair to the people of California nor to those 4000 who were mislead into getting married. Courts have a dualistic responsibility legal and ethical and I feel this court only fulfilled the former.
 
It's an awful thing to have happened, for sure, and if it were me in that situation I'd be pissed. Unfortunately I doubt that we'll see rioting in the streets (the gay community just isn't that uppity I suppose, and it's not like this ruling was a huge shock) but I wonder how things might have gone if this ruling were say in Arizona, where everyone happens to be armed. It's one thing to flat out deny people a right, but to trick them with it and then take it away is another thing entirely.

Sadly the court's ruling makes sense in this scenario, Newsom really didn't have the authority to do what he did, even if it was the right thing to do. Handing out marriages like this in violation of the written law vs. campaigning to get the law changed is the difference between revolution and reform, and frankly setting a standard of revolution rather than reform (as benign and non-harmful as this one may have been) just generally isn't a good policy.
 
Sarge...
The funny thing is that heterosexuals, for the greater part, themselves have shit upon the insitution that is marriage.
Click to expand...

Because of this I find it oddly funny that homosexuals are fighting so hard for the legal right to enter into this already fuq'd institution.
 
fireguy_31 said:
Sarge...


Because of this I find it oddly funny that homosexuals are fighting so hard for the legal right to enter into this already fuq'd institution.
Click to expand...

Well, as fucked up as it may be it still offers real genuine legal protections which are relevant to two people who come together to share that sort of long term relationship. That’s mostly where the appeal in fighting this fight comes from.

There’s also the secondary bonus of removing governmental admonishments of homosexuals so that they might some day live in a nation where it seems less and less acceptable to harass, beat, or kill them. There's always that.
 
I couldn't care less when the moralists scream 'blasphemy' at the mere thought of same sex unions. I was simply pointing out a funny. C'mon, you do see the humor?
 
fireguy_31 said:
I couldn't care less when the moralists scream 'blasphemy' at the mere thought of same sex unions. I was simply pointing out a funny. C'mon, you do see the humor?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, certainly I wasn't trying to lecture you or anything, I understood your tone. I'm just in the habit of posting little bits of rhetoric like that on certain cues. There are those who question the validity of why homosexuals should even seek to be eligible for marriage, and I feel an obligation to respond even when only remotely appropriate, heh.
 
Undecided said:
I believe the decision by the courts vis-à-vis the illegal action taken by the mayor was correct he did do something legally wrong. But to destroy 4000 marriages because of a technicality is very immoral and it demands ASAP a trail to discern the status of homosexual marriages in California. It’s not fair to the people of California nor to those 4000 who were mislead into getting married. Courts have a dualistic responsibility legal and ethical and I feel this court only fulfilled the former.
Click to expand...
They didn’t ‘destroy’ the marriages, they simply ruled that the marriages were invalid because the mayor who issued them didn’t have the authority to do so. I mean, I could go out and pronounce two people as married and it wouldn’t be ‘destroying the marriage’ for someone to come along and point out that I don’t have the authority to marry people. It’s a case of the marriage not legally existing in the first place.

I don’t have a problem with homosexuals being allowed to marry, but I think you’re being pretty unfair to the California supreme court. The court’s job is to consider strictly legal issues, and they’re supposed to do it without regard for any social or political considerations – and that’s exactly what they did. They’re supposed to be legal scholars, not social policy setters. Regardless of the broader issue of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry, it is a clear legal fact that the mayor didn’t have the authority to do what he did.
 
Well, one thing that I think we can be certain of is that Rosie O'Donnel is going to be really pissed off. I'd bet that she'll rise up out of the ocean and destroys Los Angeles. Hell hath no fury like that of a bull dyke scorned.
 
Yeah. Now there's a dyke you can't hold back by sticking your finger in.
 
Yea you gotta love that veto power. I mean the issue has never even been put up to a vote by the people. The level of infidelity for the political industy is scandlous at best. Not a group I would ever want to learn about fidlelity from. I would much rather have a law in affect that says that members of the legistlative and executive branches can't marry than gay couples. At least than we could avoid our once-a-month polictical fill-in-the-blank-with-a-name sex scandle.

Nasor you post is right on the money. California, the state with scheduled brown outs inflation that is out of control huge cost of living gaps and politicians that spend their days deciding which marriages should be allowed and which ones should not.
 
They didn’t ‘destroy’ the marriages, they simply ruled that the marriages were invalid because the mayor who issued them didn’t have the authority to do so.

They still destroyed those marriages, that’s the effect of the ruling. Granted what the mayor did was legally wrong, but the people who got married should not have their lives altered in such a way. To me the courts have two responsibilities one to serve the law and one to serve the public, and that involves legal and ethical duties.

It’s a case of the marriage not legally existing in the first place.

Well at the time they did exist, in the interim period the marriages did exist did they not?

They’re supposed to be legal scholars, not social policy setters.

That hasn’t stopped them before from being the latter, the courts should have dealt with the situation of gay marriage alongside the issue of “illegal marriages”.

Regardless of the broader issue of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry, it is a clear legal fact that the mayor didn’t have the authority to do what he did.

Granted he should be reprimanded by not 8000 persons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top