Gay marriages illegal

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
He overstepped his boundries as was argued. Aren't we all surprised?

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 and performed the
ceremonies, since state law defines 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.

AP
 
I'm wondering if they'll reimburse all those who paid to be married... :confused:

Oh...and I'm awaiting the class-action lawsuit that'll come with it. :brush:
 
MrBishop said:
I'm wondering if they'll reimburse all those who paid to be married... :confused:

Oh...and I'm awaiting the class-action lawsuit that'll come with it. :brush:

I seem to remember somebody saying that the gay couples who got 'married' would be happy just to have the paper stating so. I wonder what he'll say when the suits start...
 
Gato_Solo said:
I seem to remember somebody saying that the gay couples who got 'married' would be happy just to have the paper stating so. I wonder what he'll say when the suits start...

Yeah...and now the paper that they were given and paid for has now been turned into so much toilet-paper. :shrug:

I don't know about you...but that'd tick me off. :evilcool:
 
MrBishop said:
Yeah...and now the paper that they were given and paid for has now been turned into so much toilet-paper. :shrug:

I don't know about you...but that'd tick me off. :evilcool:
I was surprised at how little outrage there was when it was announced that anyone could buy a list of the names and addresses. I'm thinking it was a money grab on all fronts... charge for the licenses and then sell their names to advertisers.
 
Look smartasses, public record is open source is it not? Anybody can see & those qualified get to screw it up. Maybe GPS :p
 
I think it's "source" that I'm having trouble not laughing about. Linux is open "source," the public record is simply public. Open "source" refers to the code in some programming. Your point does stand, it's just the way you made it that I was making fun of. :D
 
chcr said:
I think it's "source" that I'm having trouble not laughing about. Linux is open "source," the public record is simply public. Open "source" refers to the code in some programming. Your point does stand, it's just the way you made it that I was making fun of. :D
:elaugh1:
 
Gonz said:
He overstepped his boundries as was argued. Aren't we all surprised?

Not in the least.

He did overstep his bounds, but he took a chance, and that makes him a hero. I agree with the courts decision to revoke the licenses, but on the grounds that the Mayor didn't have the authority to issue them. The courts made it clear that their reason for revoking the licenses was due to this, and not that the courts were taking a position on the legality of gay marriage.

It takes people taking chances to make changes.

 
[b] said:
Not in the least.

He did overstep his bounds, but he took a chance, and that makes him a hero. I agree with the courts decision to revoke the licenses, but on the grounds that the Mayor didn't have the authority to issue them. The courts made it clear that their reason for revoking the licenses was due to this, and not that the courts were taking a position on the legality of gay marriage.

It takes people taking chances to make changes.



Welcome back, . Your perspective on this is right on the money. There is a framework that exists for changing laws, and this framework has existed since the constitution was written. Follow it, and see what happens before you decide to break a law. Yes, it takes time. Sometimes the struggle can last 400 years, give or take a few. Also don't try to equate your struggles with the struggles of others (they got it why can't I). Let your fight stand, or fall, on it's own merits. That is how you gain respect instead of scorn...
 
[b] said:
Not in the least.

He did overstep his bounds, but he took a chance, and that makes him a hero. I agree with the courts decision to revoke the licenses, but on the grounds that the Mayor didn't have the authority to issue them. The courts made it clear that their reason for revoking the licenses was due to this, and not that the courts were taking a position on the legality of gay marriage.

It takes people taking chances to make changes.



, back to stay?

The argument at the time was his breaking the law more than the marriages which were null & void on conact due to California law. Had it been anybody but a duly elected politician it may have been heroic. As it stands, he should be impeached.
 
Heros count to the people who seem them that way, so I won't get into an argument about that. And I agree that he did overstep his bounds, but impeachment... no, I don't think he went so far as deserve to be stripped of his office. Besides, no one but a duly elected politician could of been in the position to do what he did. There was no possibility for anybody else to do it.

 
A Mayor, elected to represent all the people & sworn to uphold the law willingly & wantonly violates the law. That is not an impeachable offense?
 
If he believes that he was:

a) within his powers to do so
b) acting within the best interest of the people he was elected to serve

then no, I don't believe it is.

 
Abuse of public trust, Abuse of power, not keeping his oath of office.

He knowingly disregarded the law that was clearly in opposition to what he chose to do.

If public officials do not act with-in the rule of law, that is anarchy. What ever his personal feelings are has ZERO importance or validity no matter the cause. There is process for change that all held accountable too.

I think he should not only be removed from office but those civil servants that chose to break the law should also be removed from public service. The city of SF and Newsome personally should be held accountable for the resulting financial cost to the state associated with the issue.

What is to prevent any official the doing what they feel like doing on any issue if he is allowed to pass, justice can only be served blindly.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
He knowingly disregarded the law that was clearly in opposition to what he chose to do.

I still don't see this as being the case, and perhaps this is just something we won't agree on. If his actions are as you describe then yes, he deserves to fry for his actions.

However, I believe that he felt that there was some basis in the law that justified his actions. No politician is going to fragrantly break the law in such a public way if he doesn't think he can win.

If the law was clearly against him then I don't think there would of been debate on the subject. The marriage licenses would of been immediately revoked and he would of been forced to resign.

Instead a court had to interpret the laws and decide if he was outside the bounds of said law. They decided he was and precedent was set. Clearly the courts could of decided he was right, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

ResearchMonkey said:
What is to prevent any official the doing what they feel like doing on any issue if he is allowed to pass, justice can only be served blindly.

That's easy... the people. Our government is based on rule by the people for the people. If the people turn a blind eye to what goes on in government and let our politicians just do whatever they feel like, then yes, anarchy will ensue. But as we can clearly see using this case, the people didn't agree that he was interpreting the rules correctly and eventually it came to the courts, who's job it is to interpret the laws, who decided the people were right and the mayor was wrong.

Checks and balances.

 
Back
Top