City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Firestarter 0]

Marriage is between 2 consenting adults

...of opposite genders. Anything beyond that has been practically nonexistent throughout all of recorded history.

 

CBS' documentary program 48 Hours this week had the adventures of a man having gender-changing surgery. Then s/he excited showed off a new driver's license with a big F in the gender box and a letter about how his gender is now officially recognized as female by the DMV

In the UK you don't even have to have surgery. You just get a guy in a white coat to say that you really, really, really, truly think you're a woman. And the government waves a magic wand and makes it so.

[NoCalMike 0]

meanwhile after the past month of gays getting married, I can honestly say my life hasn't been affected whatsoever.  I still work in the morning, go to school at night, and try to fit in some fun stuff on friday nights.  This gay marriage topic would hopefully die out when people just keep living their lives and realize that nothing in their own lives will change or more importantly get worse.  Now for the folks protesting out in SF in the name of Jesus, they are not willing to let this not affect their life, so I suppose they will never move on until Bush pushes his amendment, but for everyone else, life goes on....

I'd kill for a conservative mayor to simply thumb his nose at state gun laws.

-=Mike

...Well, not kill literally. Unless I had to.

for some strange reason I don't think ignoring gun laws would have the same quiet peaceful results....

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And what tax implications? Heck, I've always heard that it's cheaper to file as a single than jointly.

There's tax breaks involved for married couples. Anti-gay-marriage types proclaim that it's intended to help raise a child, but married couples without children are getting them, too.

 

"Idiots of your mindset"? Gee, and conservatives think that the liberals refuse to debate issues without resorting to personal insults. Gee, where would we get that idea?

 

Would you, kindly, bite my ass?

 

Thanks.

 

This isn't just a liberal/conservative thing. Would you believe there are moderates and even right-leaning people who are on my side of this arguement?

 

This isn't just some sort of partisan thought. This is you being a dumbass.

 

I love the logic that unelected, unaccountable judges are more vital to the protection of rights than, you know, voters.

 

I'm right, and you know it.

 

Are judges supposed to support the will of the people if the law is uncostitutional. Isn't upholding the constitution in legal dispute what judges are supposed to do?

 

That's the entire goddamn point of HAVING A JUDICIAL BRANCH.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

...of opposite genders. Anything beyond that has been practically nonexistent throughout all of recorded history.

Legally, it has always been 2 consenting adults. Genders have been left to states.

 

In the UK you don't even have to have surgery. You just get a guy in a white coat to say that you really, really, really, truly think you're a woman. And the government waves a magic wand and makes it so.

 

So, the point is?

[Guest MikeSC]

meanwhile after the past month of gays getting married, I can honestly say my life hasn't been affected whatsoever.  I still work in the morning, go to school at night, and try to fit in some fun stuff on friday nights.  This gay marriage topic would hopefully die out when people just keep living their lives and realize that nothing in their own lives will change or more importantly get worse.  Now for the folks protesting out in SF in the name of Jesus, they are not willing to let this not affect their life, so I suppose they will never move on until Bush pushes his amendment, but for everyone else, life goes on....

I'd kill for a conservative mayor to simply thumb his nose at state gun laws.

-=Mike

...Well, not kill literally. Unless I had to.

for some strange reason I don't think ignoring gun laws would have the same quiet peaceful results....

Because, God knows, gun control works.

 

NYC NEVER had a problem with gun crime. Washington DC? No problem there. LA? Shootings? Nah.

And what tax implications? Heck, I've always heard that it's cheaper to file as a single than jointly.

There's tax breaks involved for married couples. Anti-gay-marriage types proclaim that it's intended to help raise a child, but married couples without children are getting them, too.

That is filed under "Life's unfair".

"Idiots of your mindset"? Gee, and conservatives think that the liberals refuse to debate issues without resorting to personal insults. Gee, where would we get that idea?

 

Would you, kindly, bite my ass?

 

Thanks.

This isn't just a liberal/conservative thing. Would you believe there are moderates and even right-leaning people who are on my side of this arguement?

 

This isn't just some sort of partisan thought. This is you being a dumbass.

But my side is full of Bible thumpers and homophobes?

 

Heck, I have ALL of the Presidential nominees on my side of thr argument.

 

YOU are the one who decided to make this personal (I didn't call you an idiot --- but, of course, I seldom NEED to point it out).

I love the logic that unelected, unaccountable judges are more vital to the protection of rights than, you know, voters.

I'm right, and you know it.

Of course, because NOTHING gives as much freedom as unaccountable people making laws via decree. Heck, I'd trust a lawyer to unilaterally decide that something is legal. God knows they can't be corrupted.

Are judges supposed to support the will of the people if the law is uncostitutional.

Care to point to the Unconstitutionality of this?

Isn't upholding the constitution in legal dispute what judges are supposed to do?

Yes.

 

Making law isn't.

That's the entire goddamn point of HAVING A JUDICIAL BRANCH.

The liberal mindset rears its ugly head.

 

People are too dumb to know what's best for them. They need a "daddy figure" to decide all of the tough decisions.

 

Got it.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

So, the point is?

That you and people like you are trying to lead the United States down the same yellow brick road, and I, for one, refuse to follow.

 

And anyway, what does surgery have to do with it? (Since you brought it up.) Or hormone "therapy?" Or anyone's beliefs, come to that? Who in the blue hell cares whether you think you're a woman? Were you born with a dick? Do you have a Y chromosome? Fine, you're a goddamn man, and nothing's ever going to change that, and I don't give a flying fuck if you want to say you're a woman or a toaster oven, you're a man and a human being despite your almost inhuman stupidity and I'll see you in hell before I refer to you as "she" or "her." Jesus Christ this kind of monumentally surreal nonsense pisses me off, not just as a conservative but as a writer with great respect and affection, even love, for the English language. You're not only trying to turn society on its head, you're trying to make words themselves utterly devoid of meaning. A marriage is between a man and a woman. I could say the sky is green and redefine "green" to mean "blue," but that doesn't mean I'd be right except in my own special little world where I'd imagine reality conforms to my rules. And that's precisely what you blithering idiots are trying to do.

[Perfxion 0]

I'll ask you a little question, then:

 

Suppose gay marriage is totally legal.

Ok, I will answer each one....

 

Think of a reason that woul stand up in court why polygamy should be illegal?

 

All marrriage laws state that ONE person can only marry ONE other person. Laws state you can't marry more than one person

 

Why 15 year olds shouldn't vote?

Comes down to an issue of matureity. It is stated that way only because at 18 you are allowed to fight for this country, you gain the rights to vote. 15 year olds aren't old enough for a draft. They also don't have the responseablity of driving down well enough to let them vote. It is also a CONSENT issue since they are minors and can not consent to anything without their parents involved.

 

Why 15 year olds shouldn't drink?

Again, consent. You need to be an adult to drink in this country for a reason. The laws will not change that. They dropped it down to 18 back in the early 70s and everyone saw how well that worked out.

 

We MUST be allowed some arbitrary laws. If not, you have a hard time banning or forbidding anything.

 

And, don't even go with the "Who'd argue for this?" line because you and I both know there WILL be people who WOULD argue for it?

 

This is a serious question. And, keep in mind, you must come up with reasons that would stand up in court after this decision --- which means possible birth defects are totally out.

-=Mike

 

You forget one thing, one major thing. It is the 14th admendment. If you forgot how it goes here it is.

 

Amendment XIV

(1868)

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

That spells that you can not ban a marriage of two people based off of race, gender, or sexual preference.. This pretty much means laws of taxes do not override allowing people the same freedoms as others. If it is a tax issue about money, then you either ban tax cuts due to marriage, or you get rid of goverment in marriages, or you let homosexual marry due to laws of the above.

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

Nobody is taking away rights. Gays never HAD the right to marry in the first place. You can't take away rights that were never in existence.

Gays have the right to marry.. a person of the opposite sex.

 

It's like telling Joe Schmoe he can buy a Ford, but stay away from them Toyotas. They're trouble for us all, I tell ya.

 

To say rights aren't taken away is laughable. You're taking away a person's right to choose. The line can be drawn for pedophiles, incest, and polygamists.

 

The whole argument that gays are not individually productive to society because they do not reproduce is a load of horse shit, IMO. A productive member of society works for the betterment of their employer, pays taxes and stays out of trouble with the law.

 

Plenty of gay couples have children, or choose not to at all, just like heterosexual couples can.

[Perfxion 0]

And anyway, what does surgery have to do with it? (Since you brought it up.) Or hormone "therapy?" Or anyone's beliefs, come to that? Who in the blue hell cares whether you think you're a woman? Were you born with a dick? Do you have a Y chromosome? Fine, you're a goddamn man, and nothing's ever going to change that, and I don't give a flying fuck if you want to say you're a woman or a toaster oven, you're a man and a human being despite your almost inhuman stupidity and I'll see you in hell before I refer to you as "she" or "her." Jesus Christ this kind of monumentally surreal nonsense pisses me off, not just as a conservative but as a writer with great respect and affection, even love, for the English language. You're not only trying to turn society on its head, you're trying to make words themselves utterly devoid of meaning.

Well, yes and no. You are right about biological meaning of a man and a woman. True enough. But comes down to this, in this country we have the freedom to go from man to woman and back. We have the freedom to get a tattoo of a person's name and then get rid of it when we feel like it. We have all these rights. And the English language is so fucked up now that there is atleast 4 majors versions(UK, US, AUS, and bad) spoken and written at a given time. It does not matter. It a personal issue. If someone or something wants to be a man then a woman or an it, so be "it".

 

A marriage is between a man and a woman. I could say the sky is green and redefine "green" to mean "blue," but that doesn't mean I'd be right except in my own special little world where I'd imagine reality conforms to my rules. And that's precisely what you blithering idiots are trying to do.

 

The problem is the sky isn't blue. At night, it looks right black, on a rainy day it looks a shade of grey. On a very sunny day it is blinding by the yellow. At sun rise and sun set purple and red take over. The sky changes its "defined" meaning, why can't marriage? Marriage is a religious notion that came into goverment. Just like we follow two or three of the 10 Comandments. It isn't a secular rule. If Germany is going to make a law allowing gay marriages why can't the US? Are they less civil. Civil Unions/Marriages do not need to follow religious laws when the goverment gets involved.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If homosexuality is indeed biological, then preventing gays from marrying is a CLEAR violation of the 14th amendment. That's why the amendment is being pushed, because the conservative right knows what shaky ground they are on. And Pat Robinson and his ilk have been pushing this for a year now. Its only recently that the Bush Administration caught on to the rush. An amendment is needed if you intend to prevent gays from maryying. I simply don't want that language in the constitution. The Constitution is about the rights I have, not the ones I don't have.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll ask you a little question, then:

 

Suppose gay marriage is totally legal.

 

Ok, I will answer each one....

Fair enough. I do appreciate the cordiality.

Think of a reason that woul stand up in court why polygamy should be illegal?

 

All marrriage laws state that ONE person can only marry ONE other person. Laws state you can't marry more than one person

Marriage law ALSO states marriage is between a man and a woman. The definition is being radically changed and where it ends up is anybody's guess.

 

And, as an aside, what justification can the CA Supreme Court give for NOT putting a stay on gay marriages? I thought it was, you know, fairly common practice for stays against acts that might be illegal until the decision is handed down --- not that there is a debate about where the Court will rule.

Why 15 year olds shouldn't vote?

Comes down to an issue of matureity. It is stated that way only because at 18 you are allowed to fight for this country, you gain the rights to vote. 15 year olds aren't old enough for a draft. They also don't have the responseablity of driving down well enough to let them vote. It is also a CONSENT issue since they are minors and can not consent to anything without their parents involved.

And that's a very fair and well-reasoned explanation.

 

However, when it boils down, the maturity issue is, still, arbitrary. There are 15 year olds markedly more mature than 18 year olds. Heck, if you go by the stereotypical Spring Breaker, there are 10 year olds more mature than 18 year olds.

 

We have made a decision that there is an age of consent --- but I also firmly believe that should, say, the ACLU decide to side with the youth on this issue, it's going to cause problems. Especially if it occurs in states like MA or CA.

 

Heck, where is the justification in the actions of justices in CA or MA affecting people in other states?

Why 15 year olds shouldn't drink?

Again, consent. You need to be an adult to drink in this country for a reason. The laws will not change that. They dropped it down to 18 back in the early 70s and everyone saw how well that worked out.

Again, I agree. But, again, it is not solely maturity because all of us know immature 18 year olds (though, at least here, the drinking age is 21). It was an arbitrary age we as a society settled upon.

 

However, arbitrary laws can be overturned by a few activist judges.

We MUST be allowed some arbitrary laws. If not, you have a hard time banning or forbidding anything.

 

And, don't even go with the "Who'd argue for this?" line because you and I both know there WILL be people who WOULD argue for it?

 

This is a serious question. And, keep in mind, you must come up with reasons that would stand up in court after this decision --- which means possible birth defects are totally out.

-=Mike

 

You forget one thing, one major thing. It is the 14th admendment. If you forgot how it goes here it is.

 

Amendment XIV

(1868)

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

That spells that you can not ban a marriage of two people based off of race, gender, or sexual preference.. This pretty much means laws of taxes do not override allowing people the same freedoms as others. If it is a tax issue about money, then you either ban tax cuts due to marriage, or you get rid of goverment in marriages, or you let homosexual marry due to laws of the above.

The people in CA voted for the ban on homosexual marriage. Thus, "due process" was satisfied.

 

It's still going to be overturned.

QUOTE (TheMikeSC @ Feb 27 2004, 01:57 PM)

Nobody is taking away rights. Gays never HAD the right to marry in the first place. You can't take away rights that were never in existence. 

 

 

Gays have the right to marry.. a person of the opposite sex.

And the right remains.

It's like telling Joe Schmoe he can buy a Ford, but stay away from them Toyotas. They're trouble for us all, I tell ya.

 

To say rights aren't taken away is laughable. You're taking away a person's right to choose. The line can be drawn for pedophiles, incest, and polygamists.

How can it be drawn?

 

How can you say that 2 loving adults in a "mature, loving relationship" who are, unfortunately, siblings can't be married? And polygamy in and of itself is not illegal. Why shouldn't they be permitted to be married?

The whole argument that gays are not individually productive to society because they do not reproduce is a load of horse shit, IMO. A productive member of society works for the betterment of their employer, pays taxes and stays out of trouble with the law.

 

Plenty of gay couples have children, or choose not to at all, just like heterosexual couples can.

Another problem with gay marriage is that it makes gay adoption very hard to stop and A LOT of people have SERIOUS reservations about it.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

That spells that you can not ban a marriage of two people based off of race, gender, or sexual preference..

 

No, that's not what the 14th amendment says.

 

You're making a normative argument - that gays have the right to marry - but nothing in the constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, says that, and it was certainly NOT something the drafters of that amendment considered. The 14th amendment has been interpreted, over the years, to grant such things as interracial marriage (see Loving v. Virginia), under the "right of privacy" (which is also NOT in the constitution textually). But the right to marriage for homosexuals has not been defined by the court as a right protected by the 14th amendment - largely due to the fact that gays are NOT considered a suspect class or considered, under the law, as deserving of special civil rights status simply because they're homosexual.

 

Does that mean you're 100% wrong? No, because who knows, the Supreme Court might decide that gay marriage is a right.

 

But as it stands, those who are making the argument that gay marriage is not a right? Their argument is just as valid, constitutionally, as yours.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That is filed under "Life's unfair".

Funny, I don't remember that one in the Constitution.

 

But my side is full of Bible thumpers and homophobes?

 

Heck, I have ALL of the Presidential nominees on my side of thr argument.

 

YOU are the one who decided to make this personal (I didn't call you an idiot --- but, of course, I seldom NEED to point it out).

 

You're misrepresenting the Presidential nominees. I don't think any of them have used the pathetic "slippery slope" arguement that you have and refuse to possibly see as illogical.

 

Care to point to the Unconstitutionality of this?

 

Well, in the case of the case of these states, there's pieces of the constitutions that conflict with each other.

 

Pretend you're a judge and you're looking at clauses in the constitution. One provides equal rights for all, and one defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Now, which has the greatest impact if taken away? Same-sex marriages occuring if you remove the man/woman marriage piece, or removing the equal rights piece?

 

How can you not see that the equal rights portion is more important? Remove that and you open a far bigger can of worms, with potential for more social injustices than what you predict by allowing same-sex marraige, with the defendant arguing that the court ruled against equal rights for all, and thus everyone is not entitled to them?

 

I'm going on a bit of a tangent here that's too probably too wordy for what you're asking, but it should be obvious to you.

 

Yes.

 

Making law isn't.

 

Making law and overturning law aren't the same.

 

The liberal mindset rears its ugly head.

 

And again I want to just roll my eyes and then throttle you for thinking that judges ruling on the constitutionality of laws is somehow a liberal/conservative thing. Stop looking at things in black and white and wake up. Do you want the Supreme Court to stop judging whether something is constitutional or not, too?

 

People are too dumb to know what's best for them. They need a "daddy figure" to decide all of the tough decisions.

 

Got it.

 

The Constitution is not invulnerable to attack in it's principles over time. Previously, we thought keeping women from voting and having slaves was constitutional. If we decide that public opinion is more important than the constitution, eventually we will lose a majority of what this nation was created on.

 

But hey, current public trends are far more important than the Constitution. I say we rededicate the foundation of our country on our most valuable asset: Public opinion polls.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That you and people like you are trying to lead the United States down the same yellow brick road, and I, for one, refuse to follow.

Yeah, state's rights people like me. We're so horrible.

 

Were you born with a dick? Do you have a Y chromosome? Fine, you're a goddamn man, and nothing's ever going to change that, and I don't give a flying fuck if you want to say you're a woman or a toaster oven, you're a man and a human being despite your almost inhuman stupidity and I'll see you in hell before I refer to you as "she" or "her."

 

Uh.. Remind me again, when the hell I told you whether you should refer to them as he or she?

 

I don't remember taking a position on transgenders, or encouraging you to. You pointed out a government recognizing gender changes, and I mentioned a case of the State of Florida doing the same thing, in a purely observational sense with no real opinion, and then you attack me for taking sides.

 

I've never expressed an opinion either way on transgendereds. For all you know, I might be uncomfortable about that kind of thing. And as a matter of fact, I am. And you can take that as me finally expressing an opinion on the subject, by the way.

 

A marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

Says who? Nothing but popular convention, as far as I know. Now, if you want to make marriage a religious ceremony only, or simply a title with no government benefit whatsoever over, say, same-sex civil unions, then I'll agree with you. Because then marriage doesn't imply any special legal standing, and it's definition is open to interpretation to be soley between a man and a woman.

 

I wouldn't care so much if it was just a fight over a goddamned word. But there's more at stake than that.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And that's a very fair and well-reasoned explanation.

 

However, when it boils down, the maturity issue is, still, arbitrary. There are 15 year olds markedly more mature than 18 year olds. Heck, if you go by the stereotypical Spring Breaker, there are 10 year olds more mature than 18 year olds.

 

We have made a decision that there is an age of consent --- but I also firmly believe that should, say, the ACLU decide to side with the youth on this issue, it's going to cause problems. Especially if it occurs in states like MA or CA.

The simple thing is consent. You don't have consent to your own person when you're a minor.

 

The amount of what you're entitled to as a minor is limited in the way of civil rights. It's been expressed that it's not good in the interest of the public for minors to watch violent films unattended, view pornography, smoke cigarettes, etc. At the same time, minors also aren't entitled to pay all the taxes their parents are paying, so at least there's some balance.

 

But minors may actually wind up doing these things anyway, and they actually do. Unless you're said minor's parent, there's a limited amount of options at your disposal as to what can be done about it (with exceptions, like drinking, where something is declared illegal at that age and civil servants can get involved.)

 

So while the state can't do anything about, for instance, a 15 year old looking at porn, it is legal to make it difficult for 15 year olds to look at porn.

 

Another problem with gay marriage is that it makes gay adoption very hard to stop and A LOT of people have SERIOUS reservations about it.

                      -=Mike

 

There's issues about it? My high school math teacher was a lesbian and her adopted daughter (said teacher is also adopted, as well as just about nearly everyone in her family) was a pretty cheerful person by what I know, without any kind of social defects because TWOMOMMIESOMG2004!

[Guest Cerebus]

We've been through this JotW, no one has been able to find a half-way decent independent study on how kids do being raised in gay households. If you know one that goes beyond your own personal experience, by all means post it for all to see.

[Guest JMA]

Wouldn't it just be easier to allow civil unions for all states and let said states vote if they want to legalize gay marriage or not? All in all, the Defense of Marriage act seems pretty stupid to me. Hopefully it doesn't pass.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Cerebus, nobody's usually presented any real solid evidence to the contrary either, except "that don't sit well with me."

 

Meanwhile, the DA is getting to his job now:

 

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer bypassed the state's trial courts Friday to ask the state Supreme Court to stop San Francisco officials from issuing same-sex marriage licenses and invalidate the 3,400 gay and lesbian weddings that have taken place at City Hall over the past two weeks.

 

The court did not act immediately but gave city officials until Friday to file a response. Meanwhile, same-sex marriages can proceed at least until then.

 

Lockyer, saying state law specifically bans same-sex marriages, said he decided to go to the state's highest court because of the confusion between state and local agencies over how to handle the steady stream of unions.

 

"For almost 30 years, the state of California has defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman,'' he said in a statement accompanying the 32- page petition. "Unless an appellate court strikes the law down as unconstitutional, state statutes must be followed, and they must be enforced.''

 

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera expressed disappointment in Lockyer's action, saying in a statement that the attorney general should allow the case to run its course through the trial court.

 

"The state makes an unconvincing case for why the Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction and bypass lower courts,'' Herrera said. "Trial courts are uniquely equipped to weigh the substantial evidence necessary for me to fairly and effectively present the city's case on the merits: namely, that laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples are unconstitutional and unjustifiable.''

 

But Mayor Gavin Newsom, who set off a political firestorm Feb. 12 by ordering the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, said he appreciated the fact that the court was willing to hear the city's side of the story. Two San Francisco Superior Court judges, he pointed out, already have refused to issue stays that would have stopped San Francisco officials from granting same-sex marriage licenses.

 

"The legal process is clearly working, and so far, no court has established irreparable harm,'' the mayor said. "It gives us a chance now to make our case next Friday, and that's all we want to do. I feel we've got a good shot.''

 

In justifying his decision to go to the state's top court, Lockyer noted that the city has issued thousands of marriage certificates that are not being recognized by the state. This paper logjam has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and confusion that should be resolved by the justices, he said in his petition.

 

Lockyer, at a rally Friday night at an Oakland union hall for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, said he believes his office will prevail in defending the state law, adding, "I think ultimately gay marriages are not going to be valid.''

 

His appeal to the state's high court came a week after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger publicly directed Lockyer to stop the procession of marriages, prompting a testy response from the attorney general, who called the governor's action a political ploy.

 

Newsom's decision to allow gay and lesbian marriages touched off a national furor.

 

On Tuesday, San Francisco's parade of weddings became an issue in the presidential race when President Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Bush called the issue a matter of "national importance'' and said the matrimonial unions in San Francisco and other communities threaten "the most fundamental institution of civilization.''

 

Democratic presidential candidates Kerry and John Edwards immediately said they opposed a constitutional amendment. Kerry said he favored civil unions instead, while Edwards said it was an issue best left to the states.

 

Legal experts have compared the same-sex marriage controversy to the country's bitter division over interracial marriage a generation ago. San Francisco officials in their legal defense have also noted a similarity between the two civil rights issues.

 

On Friday, Lockyer's appeal to the state's high court drew swift criticism from gay rights proponents as well as from conservative groups that have already filed three separate suits to stop the marriages.

 

"It's about time,'' said Robert Tyler, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing two of the three anti-gay-marriage groups that have sued. "He certainly was violating his public trust by not taking earlier action to preserve the rule of law.''

 

Tyler is representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, which has a lawsuit pending in San Francisco Superior Court challenging Newsom's authority. Proposition 22 was the initiative voters approved in 2000 barring same-sex marriages.

 

A second suit was brought by the group Campaign for California Families. Both groups have sued in San Francisco Superior Court challenging Newsom's authority to allow same-sex marriages. The cases are scheduled to be argued in Superior Court on March 29.

 

Tyler also is representing three San Francisco residents who filed their own petition with the California Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to stop San Francisco city officials from issuing the licenses. The high court has ordered city officials to respond to their suit by Friday as well.

 

"We're not going to trust the attorney general to do this job,'' Tyler said. "That's why we took action well before he did.''

 

The city has filed its own Superior Court lawsuit against the state as well as the Proposition 22 group and Campaign for California Families, arguing that state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are unconstitutional because they discriminate against gays and lesbians.

 

In his petition, however, Lockyer appears to avoid wading into that constitutional minefield. Instead, he insists that Newsom is exceeding his authority by defying state laws banning gay marriages, and he asked the court simply to clarify the law.

 

Jon Davidson, senior counsel at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is representing five same-sex couples that have joined the city in the suits, questioned the need for Lockyer to skip the lower courts, where the legal issues can be vetted and refined.

 

"It's been more than two weeks since same-sex couples have been allowed to wed in San Francisco,'' he said. "Who has been harmed?''

 

Legal experts said they doubt the high court will grant Lockyer's request and jump into the case before it has a chance to work its way through the trial courts. The justices have decided a case at the outset in only about a half-dozen cases over the past 30 years and only when they involved urgent matters of statewide importance.

 

"What's the big emergency here?'' asked Jon Eisenberg, a veteran appellate lawyer in Oakland. "The only thing at stake right now is the marriage of about 6,000 newlyweds,'' he said.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG1Q5ALU11.DTL

[Firestarter 0]

the Defense of Marriage act seems pretty stupid to me. Hopefully it doesn't pass.

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, genius, with 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. Under the auspices of President Clinton, who signed it.

[Guest JMA]

the Defense of Marriage act seems pretty stupid to me. Hopefully it doesn't pass.

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, genius, with 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. Under the auspices of President Clinton, who signed it.

Oops. Guess I'm thinking of the wrong one. My mistake.

 

Edit: I meant the constitutional ban on gay marriage.

[Guest MikeSC]

That you and people like you are trying to lead the United States down the same yellow brick road, and I, for one, refuse to follow.

Yeah, state's rights people like me. We're so horrible.

Didn't we have a WAR over "state's rights"?

 

Who'd have ever imagined that pro-states' rights would become a "progressive" stance?

A marriage is between a man and a woman.

Says who? Nothing but popular convention, as far as I know.

So why can't it be between multiple people? Or family members?

Now, if you want to make marriage a religious ceremony only, or simply a title with no government benefit whatsoever over, say, same-sex civil unions, then I'll agree with you. Because then marriage doesn't imply any special legal standing, and it's definition is open to interpretation to be soley between a man and a woman.

 

I wouldn't care so much if it was just a fight over a goddamned word. But there's more at stake than that.

And that's why the opponents of this are fighting, too.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Didn't we have a WAR over "state's rights"?

No that was SLAVERY. Mike...did ya get that memo?

[Guest JMA]

So why can't it be between multiple people? Or family members?

Isn't that similar to what Rick Santorum said?

[Guest Cerebus]

After reading this thread a bit more I get the feeling that everyone should check out this site but nobody will...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Amen. I learned most of it from taking a Philosophy course a year ago.

[teke184 0]

The mayor of SF is accusing Dubya of political showmanship on the subject of gay marriages. Pot? Meet Kettle.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

After reading this thread a bit more I get the feeling that everyone should check out this site but nobody will...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

 

Posted for importance.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Didn't we have a WAR over "state's rights"?

 

Who'd have ever imagined that pro-states' rights would become a "progressive" stance?

Whoa. Because I supported state's rights in situations X and Y, I must support them in Z.

 

So why can't it be between multiple people? Or family members?

 

Why can't it be so right now? What's so special about gay marriages that somehow gives credibility to polygamy or incest marriage that it doesn't have right now?

 

And that's why the opponents of this are fighting, too.

                -=Mike

 

And that's why I've been saying that if the President wanted truly equal marriage reform, the government would simply hand out same and opposite sex union licenses and let the church perform marriage ceremonies at sees fit.

[Guest MikeSC]

After reading this thread a bit more I get the feeling that everyone should check out this site but nobody will... 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

 

Posted for importance.

na·ive or na·ïve    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-v, nä-) also na·if or na·ïf (n-f, nä)

adj.

Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:

Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.

Unsuspecting or credulous: “Students, often bright but naive, betand losesubstantial sums of money on sporting events” (Tim Layden).

Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment: “this extravagance of metaphors, with its naive bombast” (H.L. Mencken).

 

Not previously subjected to experiments: testing naive mice.

Not having previously taken or received a particular drug: persons naive to marijuana.

 

n.

One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.

Posted for importance.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Can we admit one thing?

 

Mayors in SF and NY, aided by liberal activist judges or liberal A.G (the NY AG won't do anything to stop gay marriages in NY) have done a bang-up job of completely circumventing our basic governmental structure?

 

Because they don't like a law, they have decided that they don't need to follow it and will not follow it.

 

They have decided that THEIR beliefs are more important than the voters or the legislature. They have decided on a coup d'etat in this issue based on THEIR morality.

 

Crap like what's happened this week is WHY a Constitutional Amendment is needed here. If we ALLOW this to happen, the rule of law is effectively dead. They've simply decided that this SHOULD be law and screw anybody who disagrees. There is no legal justification for ANY of their actions. Don't give me this "civil disobedience" crap because this is not that. This is leaders dictating law to the country.

 

I find it ironic that judges who, say, oppose abortion are routinely denied seats on the bench because they'd substitute their morality for the law --- but THIS isn't drawing A LOT more criticism.

 

What's going on is wrong. Newsom; the mayor of New Platz, NY; the CA Supreme Court; and NY AG Spitzer have refused to do their job and violated their oaths of office.

 

You don't want the gov't to get involved? Then get your leaders to actually follow the laws passed by the public. Pro-life judges don't LIKE abortion --- but they don't do anything to BAN the practice. If a judge did decide that abortion is illegal in his/her precinct, then you'd have a comparable situation --- but with a much less sympathetic portrayal by the media.

 

And all it's going to do is turn a lot of people completely against homosexuals. A lot of innocent homosexuals are going to be the target of a lot of resentment because officials can't be trusted with the offices given to them. There might be violence against gays because a lot of people will have serious problems with officials deciding on law via fiat. They will seek out the easiest scapegoat for all of this --- and since you can't easily assault a judge or a mayor, there will only be one target left.

 

And the target left is the target that doesn't deserve what might end up happening to them.

-=Mike