Grr!

Rob The Badger · 14 Aug 2004, 23:28

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - 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, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.

The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.

"Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."

About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and tuxedos, waited on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and some cried when the decision was read.

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.

Anti-gay-marriage groups hailed the ruling, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom acted prematurely.

"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.

The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the San Francisco weddings after emergency petitions were filed by conservative interest groups and Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

"Ultimately, we believe when we deal with the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, Mayor Newsom's position will be vindicated at the end of the day," said Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney.

San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage — prompted President Bush (news - web sites) to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year.

The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.

When the justices agreed to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge — that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution — if such a lawsuit reached the court.

Gay and lesbian couples immediately filed lawsuits making that argument, as did Newsom. The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter.

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."

Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide.

Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California.

A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court.

Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

KebLou · 14 Aug 2004, 23:49

Rob thats in the US, the UK is bringing in something which is not the same as a marriage but gives all the same rights, but isn't a marriage.

Pudding · 15 Aug 2004, 00:17

Although I'm not gay, never have been and never intend to be, I personally don't see why any couple male/female, male/male or female/female can't be legally betrothed to each other, so long as they're in a loving and stable relationship.

I think these type of people should haul their asses out of the Bible and put their prejudistic views in the dustbin and wake up to the 21st Century.

Pud

evil nickname · 15 Aug 2004, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudding

Although I'm not gay, never have been and never intend to be, I personally don't see why any couple male/female, male/male or female/female can't be legally betrothed to each other, so long as they're in a loving and stable relationship.

I think these type of people should haul their asses out of the Bible and put their prejudistic views in the dustbin and wake up to the 21st Century.

Pud :twisted:

What Pud said.

I mean, seriously, can some one give me one good reason why two men or two women should not be married? And by a good reason, I don't mean a book some people choose to believe in.

And Keb, such an thing is just ridiculous. It isn't marriage, but it gives you all the same rights. I'd say, call it a marriage then.
And yes, I know you didn't think it up, nothing personal and all. Just a comment on the "thing" you've mentioned.

Steinfan1978 · 15 Aug 2004, 09:45

Sooooo agreeing here....

Klasien

KebLou · 15 Aug 2004, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by evil nickname

What Pud said.

I mean, seriously, can some one give me one good reason why two men or two women should not be married? And by a good reason, I don't mean a book some people choose to believe in.

And Keb, such an thing is just ridiculous. It isn't marriage, but it gives you all the same rights. I'd say, call it a marriage then.
And yes, I know you didn't think it up, nothing personal and all. Just a comment on the "thing" you've mentioned.

Basically is a legalised realtionship, as quite a few gay couples now have children, and if one partner dies the other would have to pay inheritance tax, which could mean they lost the house etc... and the only people who don't have to pay this tax is married couples.
The thing that really winds me up, is the anti-gay people (whatever they want to be called) they are saying it should be opened up to mother and daughter or such like, because some children are looking after their parents and when their parents die they could also lose their house.
The only reason why it can't be called marriage is because marriage is the union between a man and a woman (RE book was good for something).
Anyway no where in the bible does it say anything about gay relationships. Yet I have loads of people who would like you to believe it does, the best one yet is the fact he (supposedly) created Adam and Eve etc... anyone who gives the verse about to lie down with another man is detestable took it out of context. There are also other things in the bible which people don't abide to, they are changing what the bible says to suit them.

evil nickname · 15 Aug 2004, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by keb

There are also other things in the bible which people don't abide to, they are changing what the bible says to suit them.

Quoted for truth.

Steinfan1978 · 15 Aug 2004, 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Quote:

Originally Posted by keb

There are also other things in the bible which people don't abide to, they are changing what the bible says to suit them.

Quoted for truth.

Amen to that...

Klasien

mariella · 16 Aug 2004, 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinfan1978

Quote:

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Quote:

Originally Posted by keb

There are also other things in the bible which people don't abide to, they are changing what the bible says to suit them.

Quoted for truth.

Amen to that...

Klasien

xxx
Mariella

Skeleton · 18 Aug 2004, 20:32

In Finland gay and lesbians can registered their relationship. It´s not the same thing as marriege but they have same rights as man and a women couples. But gay and lesbians can´t adopt children. .

Biter · 19 Aug 2004, 15:30

My dad is getting 'married' soon. I think it should be legal throughout the world for gay and lesbian people to marry. I also think that adoption agencies should treat homosexual couples with the respect that hetero couples get.

Gez · 19 Aug 2004, 17:48

.........at the end of the day.......Man and Woman were meant for each other. They're bits fit the RIGHT bits!!

Least I say the better, I think above speaks for the Majority of Normal people.

Rob The Badger · 20 Aug 2004, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Normal people.

I resent that.

Biter · 20 Aug 2004, 15:13

What do you mean by 'normal people'? Saying that homosexual relationships are not 'right' would offend a hell of a lot of people, gay OR straight.
Some people prefer relationships with people of their own sex and as long as it doesnt frighten the horses thats cool with me.
If you suddenly fell in love with your best man-friend you would understand how much gay and lesbian people have to go through. They get picked on at school or work, they are almost expected to act in a certain way...
Do you even know any gay people well?

I'll calm down now

Gez · 20 Aug 2004, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Normal people.

I resent that.

No comment

KebLou · 20 Aug 2004, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Normal people.

I resent that.

No worries there is no such thing as a normal person, and I would much prefer to be weird than be normal. Normal is boring!

Rob The Badger · 20 Aug 2004, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Normal people.

I resent that.

No comment

Step down, sir. Please.

Gez · 20 Aug 2004, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biter

What do you mean by 'normal people'? Saying that homosexual relationships are not 'right' would offend a hell of a lot of people, gay OR straight.
Some people prefer relationships with people of their own sex and as long as it doesnt frighten the horses thats cool with me.
If you suddenly fell in love with your best man-friend you would understand how much gay and lesbian people have to go through. They get picked on at school or work, they are almost expected to act in a certain way...
Do you even know any gay people well?

I'll calm down now

I'm closer to Gay people than you think!!.......I still agree though that it is against all nature. How many people you know who buy KY Jelly?? No-one, cause older people need it sometines(I've Heard

), although, because of an un-natural act, Gay people need it!!!!!!!!!!!

Blah Blah and Blah

sick bucket please

Rob The Badger · 20 Aug 2004, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biter

What do you mean by 'normal people'? Saying that homosexual relationships are not 'right' would offend a hell of a lot of people, gay OR straight.
Some people prefer relationships with people of their own sex and as long as it doesnt frighten the horses thats cool with me.
If you suddenly fell in love with your best man-friend you would understand how much gay and lesbian people have to go through. They get picked on at school or work, they are almost expected to act in a certain way...
Do you even know any gay people well?

I'll calm down now

I'm closer to Gay people than you think!!.......I still agree though that it is against all nature. How many people you know who buy KY Jelly?? No-one, cause older people need it sometines(I've Heard

), although, because of an un-natural act, Gay people need it!!!!!!!!!!!

Blah Blah and Blah

sick bucket please

You've embarrassed yourself there.

KebLou · 20 Aug 2004, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biter

What do you mean by 'normal people'? Saying that homosexual relationships are not 'right' would offend a hell of a lot of people, gay OR straight.
Some people prefer relationships with people of their own sex and as long as it doesnt frighten the horses thats cool with me.
If you suddenly fell in love with your best man-friend you would understand how much gay and lesbian people have to go through. They get picked on at school or work, they are almost expected to act in a certain way...
Do you even know any gay people well?

I'll calm down now

I'm closer to Gay people than you think!!.......I still agree though that it is against all nature. How many people you know who buy KY Jelly?? No-one, cause older people need it sometines(I've Heard

), although, because of an un-natural act, Gay people need it!!!!!!!!!!!

Blah Blah and Blah

sick bucket please

Nature, if nature was complied to all the time like it was supposed to, people would not eat meat, they wouldn't do loads of things like fly, thats against nature if we were supposed to fly we would have wings.

Gerry, do you shave? If you do stop right now! Its against nature, have fun being with nature. So I guess you wear no man made fibres.

Gez · 20 Aug 2004, 19:25

Clutching at Straws there guys!!

Shaving,Mmmmm-Gay people SAME THING.........I think Not. You know people say that God put animals on earth for us to eat .You now have an issue with God?????

At least constipation is a thing of the past

KebLou · 20 Aug 2004, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

Clutching at Straws there guys!!

Shaving,Mmmmm-Gay people SAME THING.........I think Not. You know people say that God put animals on earth for us to eat .You now have an issue with God?????

At least constipation is a thing of the past

He did no such thing, in fact if you really know the whole story, you would know that if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit then they would never have eaten meat, as animals weren't put here to be eaten.

You do shave then, well if you were supposed to be clean cut you wouldn't grow a beard in the first place.

Man made fibres?

Gez · 20 Aug 2004, 19:36

For goodness sake..........dry your eyes Mate (could make a song about that) and change your nappy!!

Rob The Badger · 20 Aug 2004, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry

For goodness sake..........dry your eyes Mate (could make a song about that) and change your nappy!!

Yes, because I'm the one who needs to grow up. . .

Biter · 20 Aug 2004, 19:47

HEY! KY jelly is really good for all sorts of stuff! It's not only gay people who use it (its good for fading scars and keeping slugs out of flowerpots.)

(Watch out, here cometh the incensed view of a Pagan...)

Not natural? If we all grew up the way that the holy literatures say we should, we wouldn't have most prime-time TV, alcohol, rock music or promiscuous (sp?) sex... Neither would we have gay people. Can you honestly tell me that you were brought up totally innocent and haven't had any gay friends? Love is a beautiful thing, whether it be gay, straight or whatever. For this reason, I have decided to announce my coming out.
If I am judged, well...thats your opinion. Im happy.

14 Aug 2004, 23:28	#1
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	Grr! By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO - 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, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples. The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco. "Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time." About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and tuxedos, waited on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and some cried when the decision was read. 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. Anti-gay-marriage groups hailed the ruling, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom acted prematurely. "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. The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the San Francisco weddings after emergency petitions were filed by conservative interest groups and Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "Ultimately, we believe when we deal with the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, Mayor Newsom's position will be vindicated at the end of the day," said Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney. San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage — prompted President Bush (news - web sites) to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year. The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers. When the justices agreed to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge — that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution — if such a lawsuit reached the court. Gay and lesbian couples immediately filed lawsuits making that argument, as did Newsom. The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter. 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." Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide. Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California. A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court. Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio. Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

14 Aug 2004, 23:49	#2
KebLou Mega Loafer Join Date: 02.03.2004 Location: The Arena of the Unwell Posts: 3,177	Rob thats in the US, the UK is bringing in something which is not the same as a marriage but gives all the same rights, but isn't a marriage.

15 Aug 2004, 00:17	#3
Pudding I'm A Prize Fight Lover... Join Date: 22.10.2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 5,532	Although I'm not gay, never have been and never intend to be, I personally don't see why any couple male/female, male/male or female/female can't be legally betrothed to each other, so long as they're in a loving and stable relationship. I think these type of people should haul their asses out of the Bible and put their prejudistic views in the dustbin and wake up to the 21st Century. Pud

15 Aug 2004, 09:45	#5
Steinfan1978 Super Loafer Join Date: 11.11.2003 Posts: 303	Sooooo agreeing here.... Klasien

18 Aug 2004, 20:32	#10
Skeleton Mega Loafer Join Date: 13.10.2003 Location: Grinning, Ducking & Running Posts: 3,668	In Finland gay and lesbians can registered their relationship. It´s not the same thing as marriege but they have same rights as man and a women couples. But gay and lesbians can´t adopt children. .

19 Aug 2004, 15:30	#11
Biter Lurker Join Date: 12.07.2004 Location: Kent Posts: 1,067	My dad is getting 'married' soon. I think it should be legal throughout the world for gay and lesbian people to marry. I also think that adoption agencies should treat homosexual couples with the respect that hetero couples get.

19 Aug 2004, 17:48	#12
Gez Knicker thief Join Date: 17.04.2003 Location: auch...not on the fence Posts: 5,633	.........at the end of the day.......Man and Woman were meant for each other. They're bits fit the RIGHT bits!! Least I say the better, I think above speaks for the Majority of Normal people.

20 Aug 2004, 15:13	#14
Biter Lurker Join Date: 12.07.2004 Location: Kent Posts: 1,067	What do you mean by 'normal people'? Saying that homosexual relationships are not 'right' would offend a hell of a lot of people, gay OR straight. Some people prefer relationships with people of their own sex and as long as it doesnt frighten the horses thats cool with me. If you suddenly fell in love with your best man-friend you would understand how much gay and lesbian people have to go through. They get picked on at school or work, they are almost expected to act in a certain way... Do you even know any gay people well? I'll calm down now

20 Aug 2004, 19:25	#21
Gez Knicker thief Join Date: 17.04.2003 Location: auch...not on the fence Posts: 5,633	Clutching at Straws there guys!! Shaving,Mmmmm-Gay people SAME THING.........I think Not. You know people say that God put animals on earth for us to eat .You now have an issue with God????? At least constipation is a thing of the past

20 Aug 2004, 19:36	#23
Gez Knicker thief Join Date: 17.04.2003 Location: auch...not on the fence Posts: 5,633	For goodness sake..........dry your eyes Mate (could make a song about that) and change your nappy!!

20 Aug 2004, 19:47	#25
Biter Lurker Join Date: 12.07.2004 Location: Kent Posts: 1,067	HEY! KY jelly is really good for all sorts of stuff! It's not only gay people who use it (its good for fading scars and keeping slugs out of flowerpots.) (Watch out, here cometh the incensed view of a Pagan...) Not natural? If we all grew up the way that the holy literatures say we should, we wouldn't have most prime-time TV, alcohol, rock music or promiscuous (sp?) sex... Neither would we have gay people. Can you honestly tell me that you were brought up totally innocent and haven't had any gay friends? Love is a beautiful thing, whether it be gay, straight or whatever. For this reason, I have decided to announce my coming out. If I am judged, well...thats your opinion. Im happy.