San. Fran. defies law, issues licenses to same-sex couples

[Gunny]

San. Fran. defies law, issues licenses to same-sex couples
Feb 12, 2004
By Michael Foust

SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The city of San Francisco made history Feb. 12 by issuing the nation's first official marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even though the state has a law explicitly prohibiting such unions.

The licenses are being challenged in court.

California voters in 2000 overwhelming passed a proposition stating that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." California is one of 38 states with such a protection.

Nevertheless, two homosexual women, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, were pronounced married at the city hall Feb. 12. The women are 83 and 79, respectively, according to The San Francisco Chronicle. Other same-sex "weddings" followed.

The licenses were granted as state legislators 3,000 miles away in Massachusetts debated a constitutional amendment seeking to prohibit same-sex "marriage" from being legalized in that state.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sparked the controversy Feb. 10 by releasing a statement saying he was asking the county clerk to see what needed to be done to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The statement said that Newsom believed the state constitution allowed such unions.

"A little more than a month ago I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California's Constitution which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination," Newsom said in the statement. "Denying basic rights to members of our community will not be tolerated.

"California's Constitution is clear: discrimination is immoral, it is illegal and it is antithetical to our most cherished values -- liberty and freedom."

Liberty Counsel, on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, then filed suit seeking to prevent the city from issuing such licenses. But with a court injunction possibly looming, San Francisco hurriedly issued the licenses.

"They went ahead and did it anyway because of the fact that we filed a suit," Liberty Counsel President and general counsel Matt Staver told Baptist Press. "The court will certainly stop the mayor from doing this illegal act. ... Even though they're lined up at the city hall, the paper will simply be worthless."

Staver added that Newsom "has no more right to do what he is doing than he has to secede San Francisco from the state of California. What he is doing is no more than a symbolic act."

Staver said a court hearing will not take place until Feb. 17.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Which law was defied?

 

[john crawford]

Which law was defied?

The unwritten law forbidding people to marry without church-state approval.

 

[praying]

8 Words

civil disobedience the catalyst for change in America

 

[john crawford]

8 Words

civil disobedience the catalyst for change in America

3 Words: Anarchy equals change.

 

[crazyfingers]

Which law was defied?

Not this one
Amendment XIV

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.

The actions of San Fran city hall seems entirely consistent with the highest law of the land.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I think that it is now time to shake hands and wish the other the best of luck. Once it is legally recognized, Christians are required to respect that even though we disagree with it.

Congradulations to you all! I hope you will find happiness in your success!

 

[revolutio]

It makes people happy so I am fine with it. (source)

 

[Borealis]

Let's take a look at this, shall we? Let's just leave aside the question of 'discrimination' and take a good, hard look at the concept of 'law.'

SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The city of San Francisco made history Feb. 12 by issuing the nation's first official marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even though the state has a law explicitly prohibiting such unions.

Let's rewrite this slightly and see what we get.

Justice Roy Moore refused to remove a monument bearing the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse even though there is a federal court order explicitly prohibiting such monuments.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the people cheering the gay-marriage story were cheering just as loud when Moore was dismissed. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. "Oh, but it's a different case! This is about human rights!" Yes, and so was Moore's case. The difference is that Justice Moore was ordered to remove the monument by one judge (Myron Thompson). Gay marriage was banned in California by the will of the electorate. The hypocrisy of the left in this matter would be stunning if it wasn't expected.

The problem is that traditional rights and values are scorned by 'progressives,' who'd sneer at a pious man upholding his country's traditions (in place since the country was founded), but cheer when someone wilfully breaks a law they don't like. Then they'll go defend him in court after putting their right hand on a Bible, the same Bible that contains the words they don't want Alabama to put up in front of a courthouse.

California voters in 2000 overwhelming (sic) passed a proposition stating that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." California is one of 38 states with such a protection.

Note once again that the will of the majority (this is a democracy, remember?) passed this proposition. OVERWHELMINGLY. In other words, a large majority was against gay marriages. And still are, obviously. How large a majority? Let's turn to the magical internet.

http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/returns/prop/00.htm

The results on Proposition 22 (the ban on gay marriage) was passed with the following numbers: 4,618,673 in favor (61.4%) vs. 2,909,370 opposed (38.6%). That's a 22.8% difference. This isn't the Florida chad issue, people; this is a clear mandate from the people of the state of California. They don't want gay marriage.

Why? Call them homophobes all you want, but the fact is that even in California enough people respect the rule of law and the traditions that go back two thousand years that they chose to make their view clear and entrenched by law.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sparked the controversy Feb. 10 by releasing a statement saying he was asking the county clerk to see what needed to be done to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The statement said that Newsom believed the state constitution allowed such unions.

In other words, Gavin Newsom is illiterate. The state constitution doesn't say one word about gay marriage. This is the same mentality that found a 'right to privacy' in the US Constitution: "I want it to say that, so I'll wave my hand and make it magically appear." The problem here is that gay marriage is SPECIFICALLY forbidden by California law, regardless of what the mayor of San Francisco says.

"A little more than a month ago I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California's Constitution which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination," Newsom said in the statement. "Denying basic rights to members of our community will not be tolerated.

Such as the right to have their votes matter? Again, democracy. It's a real pain, I know, for some people to have to face up to the reality that they are in the minority. The small minority, in this case. Democracy means that the will of the majority takes precendence. If the hmosexual community can convince the majority to vote in their favor, so be it; the law will be there. But so far, they haven't. And power plays by activist judges or end runs by mayors aren't going to help their cause in the slightest.

"California's Constitution is clear: discrimination is immoral, it is illegal and it is antithetical to our most cherished values -- liberty and freedom."

Alright, let's take a look at that. I've made it a policy since joining this board that I will do research on things like this to ensure that I'm not throwing stuff out off the top of my head. So, let's go online and find the clear Constitutional statement that Gavin Newsom is referring to.

Article 1 of the California State Constitution is at the following link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 I invite everyone to actually take a look at it; it's the state declaration of rights. Here's an excerpt:

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Clear enough? Good. Note the complete absence of the word 'homosexual' in that section. There is even a complete search engine available. Raise your hands if you think you know how many times the word 'homosexual', 'gay' or 'lesbian' appear in the California State Constitution. For those of you who guessed 'zero,' congratulations, you move on to the bonus round.

Let me make that as clear as humanly possible. The California State Constitution makes absolutely NO mention of homosexuality. None. Zero. Nada. Zip. Deal with it.

Liberty Counsel, on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, then filed suit seeking to prevent the city from issuing such licenses. But with a court injunction possibly looming, San Francisco hurriedly issued the licenses.

In other words, they know they're going to lose if it comes to court, so they push it through and hope that they can use the 'fait accompli' defense to get people to accept it. I truly hope it backfires, because I can't stand this sort of political garbage. I'd use a stronger word but it would be censored anyway.

Staver added that Newsom "has no more right to do what he is doing than he has to secede San Francisco from the state of California. What he is doing is no more than a symbolic act."

I disagree. This is more a declaration of war by the gay community on the state's voters, telling them that 'we literally DO NOT CARE what you think; we're going to do what we want, and if you don't like it we'll keep calling you bigots, and you can sit there and cry.' Note the top of the article: California has a law that explicitly prohibits this action. The State Constitution does not have any article, amendment, or even a footnote about gay marriage. Therefore, this action has no chance of surviving a court challenge.

Whether you agree with Newsom's decision or not (I don't; no surprise there), he's broken the law he swore an oath to uphold. His action are legally, morally and ethically unjustifiable. For those who wish to argue, feel free to come up with legal proof of his position. You can even call me a bigot and a homophobe if you want; I don't particularly care about insults. I'll even promise that I won't sue you for defamation of character or emotional injury.

 

[revolutio]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the people cheering the gay-marriage story were cheering just as loud when Moore was dismissed. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. "Oh, but it's a different case! This is about human rights!" Yes, and so was Moore's case. The difference is that the rights Moore was defending are traditional values that have been held for centuries, which means by left-wing standards they must be destroyed at all costs. Note also that the judges who forced Moore to resign are themselves operating under the Ten Commandments, not to mention that every witness who comes to the stand in a trial has to swear ON A BIBLE to tell the truth. The hypocrisy of the left in this matter would be stunning if it wasn't expected.

Who is being hypocritical though? Is it the 'Left' for cheering on this decision and Judge Moore's removal. Or is it the 'Right' for frowning upon this decision and Judge Moore's removal.

Seems to me it could be viewed either way but I dont go out of my way to look for generalizations that can be made about entire portions of the country. Let the person who holds no contradictory opinions shout "Hypocrite" first.

 

[john crawford]

Not this one
Amendment XIV

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.

The actions of San Fran city hall seems entirely consistent with the highest law of the land.

What are constitutional 'privileges' and 'immunities' anyway?

Can you list any?

I'd like to know what mine are.

 

[revolutio]

Can you list any?

I'd like to know what mine are.

I would think you already knew the main ones. Freedom of religion, speech, pursuit of happiness, etc.

 

[Borealis]

I edited my post to clarify something before I read your response. Moore was ordered to remove the monument by a single judge, not by the will of the people. That's what the Right is mad about. Isn't it interesting how when the people decide, they have a tendency to swing to the right? Individual judges, or judges acting in groups of four or less, are making decisions affecting millions of people, changing laws even though they were never elected. THAT's what's bothering the Right. If you don't like the law, then change it through the democratic process, not through judicial fiat. Otherwise you might as well just put a crown on the head of Judge Thompson and call him a king. But of course, he wouldn't claim 'divine right of kings,' because that might offend the people who don't believe in God.

 

[praying]

3 Words: Anarchy equals change.

civil disobedience <> anarchy

 

[revolutio]

I edited my post to clarify something before I read your response. Moore was ordered to remove the monument by a single judge, not by the will of the people. That's what the Right is mad about. Isn't it interesting how when the people decide, they have a tendency to swing to the right? Individual judges, or judges acting in groups of four or less, are making decisions affecting millions of people, changing laws even though they were never elected. THAT's what's bothering the Right. If you don't like the law, then change it through the democratic process, not through judicial fiat. Otherwise you might as well just put a crown on the head of Judge Thompson and call him a king. But of course, he wouldn't claim 'divine right of kings,' because that might offend the people who don't believe in God.

Was Moore not acting alone when he decided to put up the monument though? He wasn't elected as far as I know. People were offended by his one-sided religious display so I guess maybe he too should have consulted the people.

The putting up or taking down of such a monument hardly affects millions of people in any serious manner in my opinion.

 

[Borealis]

Was Moore not acting alone when he decided to put up the monument though? He wasn't elected as far as I know. People were offended by his one-sided religious display so I guess maybe he too should have consulted the people.

The putting up or taking down of such a monument hardly affects millions of people in any serious manner in my opinion.

Thank you. Let's repeat that one for the benefit of the rest of the class.

The putting up or taking down of such a monument hardly affects millions of people in any serious manner in my opinion.

You're right, it doesn't. Yet the ACLU went after him as if he'd put up posters of Hitler in the courtroom. If it's not a serious matter, then WHY DID THEY TAKE HIM TO COURT?

Remember where this happened: Alabama. The Bible Belt and all that, remember? How about all the support that Moore (Roy, not Michael) has gotten from Christians and Jews all over the United States?

But, let's say you're right, and he should have gone to the people. Let's suppose he makes an announcement that he's going to seek a way to legally put up this monument without having to go through the trouble and cost of a referendum.

Here's what would have happened. First, CNN would have been on this story as fast as the ACLU could call them up to tell them they were going to protest Moore's statement. We then would have had to listen to countless 'progressives' gravely assessing the risk of allowing people to see the Ten Commandments on a public display, which might make them think that people were supposed to obey them. Commentators on both sides would have had a field day.

So far, we're pretty much where we were anyway, right? The only difference is it would have happened before the monument was up.

Now, let's say that Justice Moore looks into his crystal ball and peers at the future mayor of San Francisco. "What a great idea," he says. "I'll just go ahead and do it, even if people are saying I can't because of the First Amendment." And so, Justice Roy Moore defies the Constitution by putting up a monument.

Alright, pop quiz time. Who's going to support him when he says, "It's clear that in this case the Constitution gives me the right to do this. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

The ACLU? The New York Times? CNN? How about Ted Kennedy? Maxine Waters? Nancy Pelosi? The Massachusetts Supreme Court?

None of the above, perhaps? Why not? Ah, because in this case the law is on their side. So it's wrong to break it. But in San Francisco, the law is clearly against them, so it's wrong to obey it.

Are you getting the point here? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the law, IT IS THE LAW. If you don't like it, get it changed. But don't go running to the nearest Ninth Circuit Court Judge begging him (or her) to make a new rule that fits your worldview. Democracy doesn't work that way, or at least it shouldn't. If you don't like the democratic process, go somewhere where you don't have to be burdened by it.

 

[ctcg]

This really bothers me. I live in Vancouver, BC, where gay marriage is now legal. I feel that since it became legal here, the sanctity of my marriage has been destroyed. I now feel that I really have no legal bond between my wife and I - it is hard to see why I should stay with her and not just go out and be promiscuous and have sex with anyone and everyone (male or female).

She is also upset about this - our marriage was perfect before these gays ruined marriage for the rest of us. Now our children are living with her parents and things are just going really badly.

 

[revolutio]

Well Moore is a smart guy I find it hard to think he wouldn't realize what kind of problem putting up a monument would do. Besides, I didn't even mind him putting it up I just didn't like his comments on the topic. Fishing for martyrdom comes to mind.

Anyway, I wasn't disagreeing that this was against the law. I support getting the law changed. In the meantime though I would prefer these people not lose their newfound union it would be legally justified.

 

[DianeCourt]

Hmm...how is it hypocritical to support this decision and the Moore decision?

Both come down to the constitution...the separation of church and state and equal protection under the law. And the judges who asked Moore to remove his statue were conservatives, not ACLU-dues-paying godless liberals. He was a self-made martyr. I feel no pity for him.

 

[DianeCourt]

And in response to the OP: Yay!!