Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Knight: Gay marriages 'absolutely illegal'
Valley Press ^ | February 14, 2004 | HEATHER LAKE

Posted on 02/14/2004 9:45:48 AM PST by BenLurkin

As same-sex couples tied the knot in San Francisco, "My first reaction was they have lost their minds," the Palmdale Republican said.

City officials in San Francisco started marrying same-sex couples Thursday at the behest of Mayor Gavin Newsom, and the civil unions were expected to continue throughout the weekend as lines formed outside City Hall.

Calling the unions a "sideshow," Knight said he only hopes the same-sex couples realize that their marriages are not legal. "It's absolutely illegal. Those departments do not have the authority to change California law," he said.

In March 2000, two-thirds of California voters passed Knight-authored Proposition 22 defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

But proponents of same-sex marriage challenge the right of the voters to put in place legislation that violates the California Constitution.

"Prop. 22 did not amend the constitution. When you have a battle between a state law and the constitution - the constitution always wins," said Lorri L. Jean, attorney and chief executive officer of the LA Gay and Lesbian Center.

"People can not pass an initiative that violates the constitution," Jean said.

But Knight doesn't see it that way at all. A lawsuit filed in the Superior Court against San Francisco's treasurer and clerk by the Alliance Defense Fund, representing Knight, was brought to court Friday and held over for a hearing on Tuesday.

"We are asking the courts to provide for an injunction," Knight said.

Though the push by states against the legalization of same-sex marriage has taken on a sense of urgency, some legislators are going against the grain in what they say is a matter of civil liberty.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, decided this week to introduce his "Marriage License Non- Discrimination Act," which seeks to legalize same-sex marriage, and was expected to have at least 20 co-sponsors.

The legislation would amend California family's code definition of marriage from "between a man and a woman" to "between two persons."

Advocates of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is a violation of the California Constitution that illegalizes all forms of discrimination.

"In this country marriage is not a religious institution … making it a civil right," Jean said.

Saying the marriages are more symbolic than anything else, Jean said their significance is twofold .

"It sets in motion a legal case to determine whether the constitution does indeed require that all Californians be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation," Jean said.

Secondly, these are the very first government sanctioned same-sex marriages that have ever occurred in this country, she said.

Knight challenges the argument that denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is discrimination.

"They are defining discrimination. I say there is no discrimination in the fact that they can marry whomever they want … so long as it's a woman," Knight said.

"They can't marry their dog, their horse or their daughter or their son," Knight said. If we were going to discriminate and say they could only marry females of their ethnic background, that would be discrimination," Knight proffered as an example.

"They are saying they are discriminated against because the definition of marriage doesn't allow them the liberty to marry another man (or woman)," Knight said.

Knight chastised city officials in San Francisco for what he said is misleading and unfair to the couples.

"It's going to be a big letdown and it kind of appears they are taking advantage (of the couples)," Knight said.

Jean said couples are being told that their rights can not be enforced.

"I think that people in San Francisco know exactly what this means and doesn't mean and like all civil rights movements, gains are made incrementally … sometimes it advances the cause and sometimes it doesn't," Jean said.

While some legislators scrambled to seek an injunction against the marriages, others took the opportunity to follow suit.

In a press release Friday, Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, urged the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to join San Francisco, taking a stand against discrimination toward same-sex couples by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognizing those granted in San Francisco.

"Marriage is a basic human right. Denying same-gender couples this right is a violation of the nondiscrimination clause of the California Constitution," Koretz stated.

"Armageddon will not arrive, heterosexual marriages will not crumble by the thousands," Jean said. "Life will go on and no one will be hurt."


TOPICS: Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: blueoyster; civilunion; constitution; gay; homsexuals; hoosier; lesbian; marriage; samesexmarriage; sf; stunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last
"Armageddon will not arrive . . . "Jean said. "Life will go on . . ."

HA!

1 posted on 02/14/2004 9:45:48 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Right. These people call on the "rule of law" to fire Judge Roy Moore, and take the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse, but now they just ignore the "rule of law" and none of the mayor or anyone is in danger of losing their jobs?

Hey, lets go on down to Alabama and get that statue back in the public eye.....we NEED it!
2 posted on 02/14/2004 9:52:11 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
My business partner and I are going to San Francisco and get hitched. After that, he can't be forced to testify against me next month. Take THAT, tax people!
3 posted on 02/14/2004 10:00:06 AM PST by whereasandsoforth (tagged for migratory purposes only)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"They can't marry their dog, their horse or their daughter or their son," Knight said.

Give them time, give them time.

4 posted on 02/14/2004 10:03:37 AM PST by FormerLib ("Homosexual marriage" is just another route to anarchy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whereasandsoforth
Hey, give it a shot!

I can only imagine how this could be used to thwart criminal proceedings in the God-forsaken state of Masschusetts!
5 posted on 02/14/2004 10:04:40 AM PST by FormerLib ("Homosexual marriage" is just another route to anarchy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Statement: "Knight: Gay marriages 'absolutely illegal'"

Response: He is right. However, being correct will do nothing to stop it. The doctrine of "abstract Rights" in action.

6 posted on 02/14/2004 10:06:53 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Well, that is right. If the marriage laws have to be rewritten, then can not discriminate against those who practice beastiality! How can the homosexuals be "intolerant" and discriminatory against other abberrent sexual practices?

With the price of veterinary care, I might be inclined to marry my horse so that I can put her on my medical plan!
7 posted on 02/14/2004 10:09:16 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Advocates of same-sex marriage say denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is a violation of the California Constitution that illegalizes all forms of discrimination.

On that note, it is unconstitutional to deny people the right to own assualt weapons, hand grenades, land-mines, and tactical nuclear weapons. Darn it, I want my own Pershing Missile! I'm being discriminated against!

8 posted on 02/14/2004 10:09:49 AM PST by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
These people are getting very ruthless. They are losing their minds! Just because a derisorical bunch of ignorant, arrogant, elitist judges in MA usurp the law, they think the people are going to actually put up with this
superciliousness. (for the love of English words that are ridiculous.)
9 posted on 02/14/2004 10:09:55 AM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Life will go on and no one will be hurt."

The taxpayers will be hurt when these bogus “married couples” try to claim the “joint filing” status.

Citizens trying to adjudicate honest lawsuits will be hurt when these bogus “married couples” file for divorce and further clog up an already overburden court system.

Children will be hurt when these bogus “married couples” adopt them and warp their normal heterosexual identity.

Ordinary citizens will be hurt when they are prohibited from speaking against homosexual behavior when this trend eventually reaches the point it has already reached in Canada… Make no mistake, it will.

Joseph Goebbels' big lietechnique is full use by this author and countless others pushing this agenda.
10 posted on 02/14/2004 10:13:17 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
For those of us who wonder who "Knight" is, here's the first line of the article:

""As same-sex couples tied the knot in San Francisco, state Sen. William J. "Pete" Knight was fit to be tied.""
11 posted on 02/14/2004 10:13:39 AM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Marriage is a basic human right. Denying same-gender couples this right is a violation of the nondiscrimination clause of the California Constitution," Koretz stated."

If marriage is a basic human right, why does it require a license? Everything else that requires a license is called a “privilege.” By definition, “privileges” belong only to those who have qualified for them.
12 posted on 02/14/2004 10:20:51 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
You are correct. I have met him in a professional setting and was quite impresssed.:

X-15 Pilots: Pete Knight
http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/people/pilot_knight.html

"Pete Knight grew up in Noblesville, Ind., and enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1951. After receiving his commission through the aviation cadet program, he completed pilot training in 1953.

"Flying an F-89D for the 438th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, he won the prestigious Allison Jet Trophy Race in September 1954.

"After completing his undergraduate education with a degree in aeronautical engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology in 1958, he attended the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base where he graduated later that same year. He remained at Edwards where he served as project test pilot on the F-100, F-101, F-104 and, later, T-38 and F-5 test programs.

"In 1960, he was one of six test pilots selected to fly the X-20 DynaSoar which was slated to become the first winged orbital space vehicle capable of lifting reentries and conventional landings. After the X-20 program was canceled in 1963, he completed the astronaut training curriculum at the new U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School at Edwards in 1964 and was selected to fly the X-15.


Maj.Pete Knight

"He had more than his share of eventful flights in the airplane. While climbing through 107,000 feet at Mach 4.17 on June 29, 1967, the aircraft suffered a total electrical failure and all onboard systems shut down. After arching over at 173,000 feet, he calmly set up a visual approach and, resorting to old-fashioned "seat-of-the-pants" flying, he glided down to a safe emergency landing at Mud Lake, Nev. For his remarkable feat of airmanship that day, he earned a Distinguished Flying Cross.

"Months later, on Oct. 3, 1967, he accomplished a major milestone, as he piloted the modified X-15A-2 to a speed of 4,520 mph (Mach 6.7) — a speed which remains, to this day, the highest ever attained in an airplane. During 16 flights in the rocketplane, Knight also became one of only eight pilots to earn astronaut's wings by flying an airplane in space when he climbed to 280,500 feet on Oct. 17, 1967. After nearly 10 years of test flying at Edwards Air Force Base, he went to Southeast Asia in 1968 where he completed a total of 253 combat sorties in the F-100.

"Following his combat tour, he served as test director for the F-15 System Program Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In this capacity, he became the 10th pilot to fly the F-15 Eagle and completed some of the initial evaluations of the fighter. Following a subsequent assignment as director of the Fighter Attack System Program Office, he returned to Edwards Air Force Base as vice commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center in 1979, his last active duty assignment.

"During this assignment, he remained an active test pilot in the F-16 Combined Test Force. After 32 years of service and more than 7,000 hours in the cockpits of more than 100 different aircraft, he retired from the U.S. Air Force in 1982. In 1984, he was elected to the city council of Palmdale, Calif., and, four years later became the city's first elected mayor. In 1992, he was elected to serve in the California State Assembly representing the 36th District and, since 1996, he has continued to serve as a state senator representing California’s 17th Senate District.

"Among his many honors, Col. Knight was awarded the Legion of Merit with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Distinguished Flying Cross with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Air Medal with 10 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Harmon International Trophy, the Octave Chanute Award, and the Air Force Association Citation of Honor. He was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame (1988), the Aerospace Walk of Honor (1990), and the International Space Hall of Fame (1998)."

13 posted on 02/14/2004 10:21:10 AM PST by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: whereasandsoforth
Good idea.
14 posted on 02/14/2004 10:21:36 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Isn't this wonderful! Gays can finally marry! Maybe, there is a God!
15 posted on 02/14/2004 10:25:54 AM PST by mezz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
…the California Constitution that illegalizes all forms of discrimination. i>

If this statement is true, then it is illegal to choose one restaurant over another since the choice involves discriminating between them. Similarly, one cannot choose one make of car over another for the same reason.

Statements like this one are such utter, logical nonsense, how can anyone possibly conceive that such would be taken seriously?

16 posted on 02/14/2004 10:28:11 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The San Francisco mayor needs nothing less than a full and complete RECALL!
17 posted on 02/14/2004 10:29:08 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Life will go on and no one will be hurt."

Cep't those a**holes that don't cover up real quick.

18 posted on 02/14/2004 10:32:40 AM PST by highpockets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
Great point where's the media and the linguine spined republican's.
19 posted on 02/14/2004 10:33:09 AM PST by Brimack34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Does anyone know if Governor Schwarzenegger has issued any sort of statement?
20 posted on 02/14/2004 10:34:47 AM PST by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mezz
Isn't this wonderful! Gays can finally marry! Maybe, there is a God!

You accidentally left off the /sarcasm identifier.
21 posted on 02/14/2004 10:36:06 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Don't hold your breath on that one.

My concern is over the window of opportunity in Massachusetts which will be opened up after the Massachusetts Supreme Court's order takes effect and before the legislature there can amend the state constitution. During that time there will be a flood of these "marriages" which then become forbidden. What will the legal status of these "marriages" be after the Amendment goes into effect? Just a curiosity.

I'm hoping that as John Kerry hits the home stretch of his campaign - the news is flooded with stories of gays going to Massachusetts to get married. It won't be necessary to sink his ship - but it will be icing on the cake.
22 posted on 02/14/2004 10:39:28 AM PST by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right, never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I don't think San Francisco would recall a mayor for marrying gays. Surely this calls for State intervention. It's time for Arnold to take a stand on this issue.
23 posted on 02/14/2004 10:41:14 AM PST by AZLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
If someone had access to a stack of blank birth certificate forms, he could take one of them and type in his dog's name and date of birth. The resulting document would have no legal validity. Taking a marriage certificate and typing in the names of two men, or the names of two women, in a jurisdiction where there is no such thing as "gay marriage," creates a document with no more validity than that.
24 posted on 02/14/2004 10:42:33 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Oh the "gays" have not changed in thousands of years. Just read about their ways in Genesis 19:3-9:

"After the meal, as they were preparing to retire for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have sex with them."

Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. ......"Stand back!" they shouted. "Who do you think you are? We let you settle among us, and now you are trying to tell us what to do! We'll treat you far worse than those other men!" And they lunged at Lot and began breaking down the door.

Very similar to what is happening now. They will not be constrained by laws, or decency. They don't want us telling them what to do!

Michael Swift, one of their leaders told us that they would seduce our sons, in Boy Scouts, at the YMCA, Schools, Churches, everywhere, to turn them into homosexuals! He said that they would "conquer the world because warriors inspired by, and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible. The family unit, the spawning ground of all lies, betrayals, hypocrisy and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens the imagination and curbs the free will must be eliminated."

We are at war, not just with Islamic terrorists but these homosexuals who pave the way for the militant terrorists by tearing apart the strength of our society. If you like your life here in the USA, you better fight these gay lobbiest, and stop them in every neighborhood! Our country will fall if we let it continue.

25 posted on 02/14/2004 10:49:08 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Why doesn't this guy run against Babble mouth Boxer?
26 posted on 02/14/2004 10:51:32 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Pete Knight grew up in Noblesville, Ind.,

SS. Another " Hoosier" America can be proud of!

27 posted on 02/14/2004 10:58:24 AM PST by sausageseller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
It is a good thought. Knight is not a wealthy pwerson and he is (so far as I know) too honest to do much of what needs to be done to raise political money. He is also getting up there in years - I'd guess he's in his late sixities/early seventies.
28 posted on 02/14/2004 10:59:04 AM PST by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
These people are going to be so pixxed that their weddings are nullified.
29 posted on 02/14/2004 11:00:27 AM PST by Glenn (What were you thinking, Al?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Like all homosexuality, it's just one big charade; a huge pretense.
30 posted on 02/14/2004 11:01:56 AM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
The verse you skipped over is interesting: Lot tries to placate the crowd by offering them his two virgin daughters. Not exactly Father of the Year material.

There's a similar story in Judges 19, when a crowd in the city of Gibeah in Benjamin demands that a Levite spending the night in their town (at the house of an Ephraimite, an outsider there just as Lot was in Sodom) be handed over to them to be sexually abused; the householder offers them his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine. Eventually the crowd accepts the concubine instead and abuse her so severely that she dies from the ordeal.

31 posted on 02/14/2004 11:05:39 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
We know what God thinks of this.


32 posted on 02/14/2004 11:10:42 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"In this country marriage is not a religious institution … making it a civil right," Jean said

What a moronic statement!
Is this person a lawyer? or pretending to be one?

Sure.
If it not a religious institution it is a civil right?
Hello?

33 posted on 02/14/2004 11:10:51 AM PST by Publius6961 (40% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
The verse you skipped over is interesting: Lot tries to placate the crowd by offering them his two virgin daughters. Not exactly Father of the Year material.

Lot had become depraved in that evil city. There is no effort to hide this fact.

But because they saw fit to leave, they were spared (all except Lot's wife, of course).

34 posted on 02/14/2004 11:16:49 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
We are at war, not just with Islamic terrorists but these homosexuals who pave the way for the militant terrorists by tearing apart the strength of our society.

Um, if you knew much about Islamic sexual behavior, you'd know that they believe sodomy is not sex (coherent with Islam's pagan origins). Mulim rapists sodomize a female victim, so as not to defile themselves by having sex with her. Such gang rapes by Muslim thugs are now common in Europe. It is not uncommon for a Muslim shopkeeper to keep a boy around to please himself.

Your concerns about Islam and sodomy are one and the same.

35 posted on 02/14/2004 11:22:44 AM PST by Carry_Okie (A faith in Justice, none in "fairness")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
There's a similar story in Judges 19, when a crowd in the city of Gibeah in Benjamin demands that a Levite spending the night in their town (at the house of an Ephraimite, an outsider there just as Lot was in Sodom) be handed over to them to be sexually abused; the householder offers them his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine. Eventually the crowd accepts the concubine instead and abuse her so severely that she dies from the ordeal.

Is the history of Israel one of absolute purity and righteousness? No. To the contrary, it's the struggle of Man's nature striving to overcome it's own perversions and injustice. Israel ended up being divided and conquered for its failure to honor the laws of God.

36 posted on 02/14/2004 11:23:57 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
These people are getting very ruthless.

Ruthless. Exactly right.

37 posted on 02/14/2004 11:24:06 AM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
OK #9, am not wanting to create a mountain out of a mole hill here but I cannot find derisorical in any dictionary or dictionary website.

If it is a good word would love to hear about it.
38 posted on 02/14/2004 11:27:03 AM PST by auntdot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
In both stories (Lot in Sodom, the Ephraimite in Gibeah), the point of the offer is to illustrate the host's fidelity to the obligations of hospitality; the story of Sodom shows us that the people of Sodom are wicked, but also why Lot survives (remember the preceding chapter, where Abraham haggles with the Lord over how many just men he needs to find in Sodom to spare it...I take it that Lot is considered a just man).
39 posted on 02/14/2004 11:29:08 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Yesterday, here in Houston, there were some gay couples that went down and tried to file a marriage license. They had a dozen cameras on them as they were told they could not have one. Then they went out and protested in the streets. This is only the beginning of this madness and it needs to be nipped in the bud. Common sense tells you marriage is between a man and a woman. These people want to change this to fit their own selfish needs and agendas.
I think I'll go down and apply for a license to marry my car. If they don't give it to me, I'm gonna stomp my feet and whine that my rights are being violated.
40 posted on 02/14/2004 11:33:56 AM PST by dougherty (I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free. -Michelangelo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
In both stories (Lot in Sodom, the Ephraimite in Gibeah), the point of the offer is to illustrate the host's fidelity to the obligations of hospitality;

LOL!

41 posted on 02/14/2004 11:37:41 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Oh, you are right about homosexuality and Islam. One needs go no further than the belt way snipers, to see the truth of which you speak.

My point is, that immorality rots a country from within. Immorality weakens society. Sexual immorality in all forms, breeds violence, crime, drug abuse, which then produces proverty. This is fertile ground for the Islamic militants to come in.

42 posted on 02/14/2004 11:40:06 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
The Mayor Hickenlooper (rymes with . . .?)is promoting
same sex marriage ove rin Denver on this Valentines Day.
Sent mail to Gov.Owens and asked if he was going to act
like the Cal.Terminator and just ignore the sideshow--if
Hickenlooper should decide to act like that odd Mayor of
SF.Will not hold my breath for a response.let the dead bury
their dead.
43 posted on 02/14/2004 11:41:24 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Gay marriage is a trivial, boring topic. For some reason, the media is/are picking up on it as though it were hot stuff. NOT. Gay people who need to get "married" are just looking for attention. Why can't they live in peace and obscurity, like most other people?
44 posted on 02/14/2004 11:45:06 AM PST by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The ordinance that San Francisco enacted still must conform to state law, and if it could be found to be non-conforming, then the gay 'marriages' have no more standing than marriages arranged through some cult in defiance of laws that do not permit group marriages. Even the simple act of tolerating the mock weddings that the homosexual couples engage in, in an effort to show compassion, was a misguided application of the meaning of the ritual.

Marriage laws are, essentially, contract obligations. The exact terms of the contract are in case law, and change over time. Nobody looks over the contract before marriage, and the only time the terms are down on paper is in the case of a pre-nuptial agreement. But if people did not read or understand the terms then, they will for d*mn sure be spelled out on the divorce papers.

Proposal: If couples had to pay $50,000 to apply for a marriage licence, and $10 for a divorce decree, an awful lot of marriages that are entered into now lightly would be seriously reconsidered.
45 posted on 02/14/2004 11:45:58 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: tuckrdout
Even now I am considering which law I want to break. Speeding? Driving the right direction on the road? Public disturbance? How about teaching full-blown creationism? Hey, if it's ok for hizzoner of Gay Bay to do it, why not we plebians? After all, we're all equal in the eyes of the law.

Lock and load.....

47 posted on 02/14/2004 11:55:26 AM PST by Othniel (Democrats are like roaches: Shine the Light on them, and they scatter for the darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
I know. I did skip it on purpose. I wanted to keep the discussion on the subject of the attitude of homosexuals, instead of the attitude of disdain that middle eastern men have for women. Although that attitude does continue to this day as well.

48 posted on 02/14/2004 11:57:29 AM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: edmck1
Lucky Dog, you need to take get some sleep. You're sounding a bit over the edge with that homophobe rant.

Sorry, to which "rant" are you referring?
49 posted on 02/14/2004 11:59:19 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
Yep, we know what God thinks of it. But, because of this story, we know that there must be more than 1 righteous person in SF, or they would suffer the same fate!

But, just to be on the safe side, I think I would move, if I lived there!
50 posted on 02/14/2004 12:00:36 PM PST by tuckrdout (Terri Schindler (Schiavo) deserves to have her wishes honored: Give her a DIVORCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson