Knight: Gay marriages 'absolutely illegal'

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

Has anyone else noticed the complete disingenous position the Democrats are taking on this issue? Kerry claims to personally oppose gay marriage, while he supports civil unions (that's a contradiction in itself since they are basically the same thing, but not my main point). But as a matter of policy he thinks the matter should be left up to the states.

Nevermind that Kerry voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act which did just that, but the truly despicable part is that he knows full well that the type of judges he would nominate would not only support gay marriage, but that they would force them (or civil unions)on the states, thus negating his phony belief that states should be able to decide. Then he and his ilk could just sit back and say 'the courts have spoken, its time to move on', which is likely their true strategy.

It will play out one of the following ways: A federal judge/court will rule that gay marriages must be accepted, leading to a Supreme Court showdown. And considering how O'Connor sold out on racial preferences, one can't be to confident. Or a federal court will rule that gay marriages or civil unions performed in one state must be accepted by all other states due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thus voiding the federal DOMA. Either way, the result will be the same---gay marriages nationwide.

And the distinction between gay marriages and civil unions is important as it relates individual states, because while the people of Vermont, Mass, or Calif may be mollified by the semantic game of substituting a euphemism like 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' for marriage to the point where they support legally recognizing these gay - without the word 'marriage' - marriages, most other states would not voluntarily acknowledge civil unions for the forseeable future, while many probably never would voluntarily.

Thats' why the Musgrove Amendment truly should be accepted by those Dems claiming to oppose gay marriage but suport civil unions, while believing states should have the final say. This Amendment would ban gay marriages, thus providing conservatives with a symbolic victory in the cultural war by protecting the word 'marriage', but at the same time would allow states to voluntarily adopt civil unions (i.e. not have them ordered by courts) which would be a victory for the left so long as they could be happy having the institution of marriage and not the name (that they arent, that they demand the word too is a big sign of their extremism and boldness in telling Americans to take your beliefs and fuck off) while again at the same time would permit the people of other states decide for themselves whether or not to recognize the civil unions performed in other states, which would be a victory for conservatives willing to accept that while most states would still reject them, there are many states where they have simply lost the cultural war.

This should be one of the tactics used by Republicans and conservatives debating this issue--point out the untenable, contradictory nature of their position in saying one thing while appointing judges who would do the exact opposite. I have yet to see any of the talking heads take this obvious approach, and I'm sorry to say I just can't see President Bush being aggressive enough to bust Kerry for this in a debate, seeing as how it might get in the way of 'compassionate' conservatism.

I know what the GOP braintrust fears is scaring off those suburban soccer moms who say they oppose gay marriage, but yet are fans of Queer Eye and Will and Grace, so they might be put off of someone pushing an Amendment that while it puts into policy their stated conviction, at the same time will be called mean-spirited and bigoted by the media. This is easily countered by pointing all the stuff about how it would allow democratically enacted civil unions for the states that want them.

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.

LOL! Oh, it'sa "GOOD" word, alright!!!!

I am the president of the Creative Spelling Society (CSS) and I have deemed "derisorily" an impactive word. (I can do that being the Prez and all!) The suffix "cal" was added for the full effect...Thus the new and improved d-e-r-i-s-o-r-i-c-a-l (CREATIVE SPELLING)

Please contact me if you would like to join the CSS...curently there is 1.4 members and growing!

We at the CSS are making a defineranary (just let your tongue go!) differance!!

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.