Gay marriages voided, NJ Gov steps down b/c of gay affair...

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Gay marriages voided, NJ Gov steps down b/c of gay affair...

Post by Akaran_D »

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/sames ... index.html
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 justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages performed between February 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-same-sex 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.

"There is nothing that any court decision or politician can do that will take that (wedding) moment away," Newsom said in a midday news conference. "I'm proud of those 4,000 couples."

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


San Francisco Mayor Newsom: "I'm proud of those 4,000 couples."
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 September 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.
http://www.cnn.com
> BREAKING NEWS New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey resigns his post, citing an extramarital homosexual affair. Details soon
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Niffoni
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1318
Joined: February 18, 2003, 12:53 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia

Post by Niffoni »

It's a shame, but maybe things weren't quite ready for that step forwards. And from what I understand, rightly or wrongly, certain boundaries were overstepped.

But the floodgates are open now, and it's just a matter of time before social pressure is unstoppable. Sure the "family" protectors (as if they care about families) are mobilized, but hey... if worst comes to worst and they outnumber the activists, all the gays have to do is wait a couple of years... They're mostly old enough that they'll die soon. Can't vote when you're dead!

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't help but beam with pride when I saw the headlines in Canadian newspapers showing our first gay marriage unions (as recognized by the govt.) since they were only something like the 3rd country to take that step, but I'm not going to pretend that the U.S. is some backwater dinosaur... we've only had gay marriages for a little over a year!
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Animalor
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5902
Joined: July 8, 2002, 12:03 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Anirask
PSN ID: Anirask
Location: Canada

Post by Animalor »

Poor Rosie O'Donnell..
User avatar
Niffoni
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1318
Joined: February 18, 2003, 12:53 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia

Post by Niffoni »

Animalor wrote:Poor Rosie O'Donnell..
It had a positive effect, in that watching Rosie O'Donnell kiss another woman convinced hundreds of thousands of attention-seeking faux-lesbian teenage girls that it was no longer hip to be gay.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
User avatar
a_guide
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 443
Joined: February 21, 2003, 4:44 pm
Location: City of Sin

Post by a_guide »

Niffoni wrote:
Animalor wrote:Poor Rosie O'Donnell..
It had a positive effect, in that watching Rosie O'Donnell kiss another woman convinced hundreds of thousands of attention-seeking faux-lesbian teenage girls that it was no longer hip to be gay.
Hahaha and AMEN!
User avatar
Bubba Grizz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 6121
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:52 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin

Post by Bubba Grizz »

I am willing to bet they won't get a refund of all their fees for the marriage license and such.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Post by Avestan »

I felt bad for the guy until I learned that he was paying his israeli poet boyfriend 110000 bucks per year to do absolutely nothing because foreigners cannot get security clearances. . .so he made him a "special advisor" with no duties at the same salary. As a taxpayer. . .that pisses me off. I imagine it should piss off NJ taxpayers more.
User avatar
Metanis
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1417
Joined: July 5, 2002, 4:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Metanis »

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
I'm just musing here... what if mayors and governors all over the country started to explore this concept of fundamental rights? I would hope my mayor would decide that speeding is a fundamental right! :)

Seriously, I think this is a sad event for 8,000 people. But I think it is a good example of the system of checks and balances working.
Lynks
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2774
Joined: September 30, 2002, 6:58 pm
XBL Gamertag: launchpad1979
Location: Sudbury, Ontario

Post by Lynks »

"There is nothing that any court decision or politician can do that will take that (wedding) moment away," Newsom said in a midday news conference. "I'm proud of those 4,000 couples."
What a bunch of BS. If I won the lottery and had it taken away from me and some ass said that to me, I'd punch him in the nuts.
User avatar
Avestan
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 905
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:45 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Post by Avestan »

he is the one who allowed those 4000 to get married in the first place. . .the problem was that he is a mayor and not the Grand Poobah of the United States (or of California) and he did not have the right toi do what he did.
Lynks
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2774
Joined: September 30, 2002, 6:58 pm
XBL Gamertag: launchpad1979
Location: Sudbury, Ontario

Post by Lynks »

I'm not arguing that, I was just saying that quote is just a bunch of BS.
Hesten
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2620
Joined: April 29, 2003, 3:50 pm

Post by Hesten »

It actually scares me that people will stand for stuff like this.
Being married is a fundamental right that secure you legally, and the US appearantly think that gay people cant have that right. And i see it as a direct insult to the gay community to first allow them to get married, THEN revoke the legality of it, especially after Bush tried to change the constitution to make it illegal for gay people to get married.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
User avatar
Metanis
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1417
Joined: July 5, 2002, 4:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Metanis »

Hesten wrote:It actually scares me that people will stand for stuff like this.
What do you mean? Both sides are exercising their legal rights by taking this to court. You expect armed insurrection?
Hesten wrote:Being married is a fundamental right that secure you legally, and the US appearantly think that gay people cant have that right.
This is the central point in contention, yes.
Hesten wrote:And i see it as a direct insult to the gay community to first allow them to get married, THEN revoke the legality of it, especially after Bush tried to change the constitution to make it illegal for gay people to get married.
You got it wrong here slugger. Gay marraige was never legal in the first place. So there was nothing to Revoke. The mayor exceeded his legal authority and everyone in town knew that it would end up in court.

Dragging Bush into this is nonsensical. He has/had nothing to do with this specific situation. Because of this situation and the one in Massasschusetts, Bush decided to propose a constitutional admentment to clarify the definition of marraige. However, that process is already bogged down in congress and is going nowhere this year. And unless the makeup of the US Senate changes substantially in November the admendment will go nowhere next year either.

You are welcome to your opinion, but the legality of the 4,000 weddings has always been in question. This court ruling merely confirms they were never valid and legal in the first place.
User avatar
Sylvus
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7033
Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mp72
Location: A², MI
Contact:

Post by Sylvus »

It appears to me that gay marriage is one of those "personal freedoms" that the "pussy liberals" seem to support a bit more often than the conservatives.

I'm sure you disagree?
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama

Go Blue!
User avatar
Metanis
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1417
Joined: July 5, 2002, 4:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Metanis »

Sylvus wrote:It appears to me that gay marriage is one of those "personal freedoms" that the "pussy liberals" seem to support a bit more often than the conservatives.

I'm sure you disagree?
Why should I disagree with the truth? In fact I would say the pussy liberals support gay marraige much, much more than conservatives.

I don't like the idea of gay marraige but I'm not opposed to it. I also think it's time the government gets out of the business of regulating or rewarding personal behaviors.
Wulfran
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1454
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Location: Lost...

Post by Wulfran »

Honestly I think the whole Gay Marriage thing is a distraction issue. It was in Canada and I think it is for you guys too. I mean seriously what does it harm does it do to anyone if Bill and Bob or Jane and Joanne get legally bound to each other? I don't say or agree e that they should be able to do things like force a particular church to wed them, but if all else failed they should still be able to stand before a J.P. and get it done.

On the other hand, blowing gay marriage out of proportion is an awesome way to detract from other more important (and in most cases more damaging) polictial issues be they foreign policy blunders, governmental waste, economic bungling or whatever.
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage, "pussy liberal" is fitting. very few of them have the courage to stand up for what is right. If you look at the statements of soem of the most Liberal in our Congress - Sens. Barbra Boxer and John Kerry, for example, they all give the same BS line "I don't support gay marriages, but I support domestic partnerships for full rights as marriage." It's crap and they are "pussy liberals."

Not entirely their fault of course (well, being a pussy is their fault), as the gay community (like the black community and most ofther minoritys) will be voting 90+% Dem again this election. If people can count on your votes no matter what shit is shovelled on them, don't expect your issues to matter.

As for "the pussy liberals support gay marraige much, much more than conservatives," I'd say that depends on what you consider conservative. If you mean fucked up bible thumpers, of course. There is, however, a large base of conservatives for whom gay marriage (and a whole slew of other civil liberties) are non-issues, since everyone would have the same rights.
User avatar
Xzion
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2567
Joined: September 22, 2002, 7:36 pm

Post by Xzion »

Metanis wrote:
Sylvus wrote:It appears to me that gay marriage is one of those "personal freedoms" that the "pussy liberals" seem to support a bit more often than the conservatives.

I'm sure you disagree?
Why should I disagree with the truth? In fact I would say the pussy liberals support gay marraige much, much more than conservatives.

I don't like the idea of gay marraige but I'm not opposed to it. I also think it's time the government gets out of the business of regulating or rewarding personal behaviors.
then dont vote for Bush!

fundamental Republicans like small government...he obviously doesnt
fundamental Republicans like the government to stay out of there personal lives...he doesnt
fundamental Republicans like to spend little money and avoid huge defecets, he doesnt

Vote for Kerry, save your party from corruption and carving a new path that will forever change the pricipals and pervert the values of your party. The party of Regan will no longer exist
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
Post Reply