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

Skip to comments.

S.F Judge Delays Ruling on Gay Marriage
Fox News ^ | 02/17/2004 | Fox News

Posted on 02/17/2004 12:33:46 PM PST by You Dirty Rats

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:39:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151 next last
To: dpwiener
And what might that have to do with marriage, the union of one man and one woman, other than the fact that the meaning of the word marriage was perverted by racists?

Marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman. Perverting the meaning now is no better than perverting the meaning then.

But your analogy fails on many bases, not just the above.

Homosexuals, as a group, have never been enslaved, lynched, equated to 3/5 of a human being or denied rights based on the color of their skin.

Homosexuals can do what they want, they can even marry as long as the marriage fits the definition of marriage. What they should not be allowed to do is use judicial oligarchs to make law and elected executives to interpret law.

101 posted on 02/17/2004 4:54:43 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: swampfox98
When divorce hits it means someone will have to pay alimony and child support, health care and who gets the Social Security benefits? I mean do these people have any idea how horrible the divorce courts are going to make their lives?

....NO PROBLEM the ACLU will be there for them!!!!!!

102 posted on 02/17/2004 4:55:15 PM PST by GrandMoM (Get the most out of every day. Do your part, but do not try to do GOD"S part!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
BUMP!
103 posted on 02/17/2004 4:58:52 PM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
Unless I'm mistaken, I recall him saying that he didn't have much of a problem with this subject prior to the election.

Yikes. It's even worse than I thought. I just don't get it. How can anyone in a responsible political position allow a mayor to assume dictatorial control of a city? Lockyer's and Ahnold's inaction is mind-boggling to me.

I had no strong feelings either way during the Recall Election . . . but I'm certainly disappointed now.

104 posted on 02/17/2004 5:01:29 PM PST by geedee (Words without actions are the assassins of idealism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but in any event, your logic is flawed. It's like saying that because Ku Klux Klan members were against shoplifting, shoplifting is OK.

I was making an analogy, not a deductive argument. No analogy is exact, but the more apt an analogy is, the more persuasive power it has. You'll have to make up your own mind how good my analogy was, but it followed very closely the form and substance of Spunky's statements.

As far as Ku Klux Klan members and shoplifting go, the issue of shoplifting is not a core part of the KKK's identity or beliefs. It would be much more relevant to note that the KKK was against blacks being able to vote or ride in the front of a bus, and the KKK was especially against black men having sexual intercourse (even if consensual) with white women. The latter constituted a beating/hanging/burning offense.

If someone were to argue that gays or Jews or Chinese should not be able to vote or ride in the front of a bus or have consensual sexual intercourse with those outside their groups, and that to do so merited beating/hanging/burning, it would be perfectly proper to analogize those attitudes with the KKK's attitude towards blacks, and thereby denigrate those attitudes.

Of course that approach only works if such attitudes are intrinsic to the nature of the Ku Klux Klan, and if one abhors the Klu Klux Klan...

105 posted on 02/17/2004 5:08:43 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: L.N. Smithee
Racists who forbade cross-race marriages never had a Biblical leg to stand on in the first place.

Millions of people thought the Bible did forbid cross-race marriages, and they wrote their religious views into law. That's the problem you run up against when government has the power to enforce one religious group's beliefs on the rest of society: It works great when your beliefs are ascendant, but not so great when those with objectionable beliefs gain control of the levers of power.

106 posted on 02/17/2004 5:21:29 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Homosexuals, as a group, have never been enslaved, lynched, equated to 3/5 of a human being or denied rights based on the color of their skin.

First, your statement is a tautology. Since the defining characteristic of "homosexuals, as a group" is not the color of their skin but rather their sexual orientation, of course they have not been oppressed "based on the color of their skin".

I presume that the point you were really trying to get at is that blacks as a group have suffered enormous oppression and harm, unlike homosexuals as a group. I think it's indisputable that blacks have suffered far more harm overall than homosexuals (mostly because it was easier to identify blacks). Still, there have been a significant number of killings of homosexuals because they were discovered to be homosexual, and in the past they have been denied rights and sometimes thrown in jail merely for being homosexual.

Discrimination against homosexuals shares many similarities in kind if not in degree with past discrimination against blacks. (Discrimination has declined drastically for both groups, but blacks have generally been about two or three decades ahead.) And current attitudes about gay marriage can very definitely be analogized to past attitudes about interracial marriage. If that analogy makes you uncomfortable, maybe there's a good reason...

107 posted on 02/17/2004 5:43:41 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
First, your statement is a tautology

No, my statement was a factually accurate one in all of its components.

Self identified homosexuals are one of the wealthiest sub groups of Americans. They are hardly the "victims" of discrimination.

Now that may make you feel uncomfortable when making fallacious analogies but thats life weiner.

You failed to address my original thesis which succinctly stated id this: No matter what one does with ones genitals, one can get married as long as the marriage contains one from the male column and one from the female column. No discrimination.

You are lobbying for special privileges for a specific sub group of Americans based on what they do with their genitalia.

To be consistent you should, at least, expand your argument to include argue polyamory, polygamy, asexual marriage of convenience. Or do you support discrimination against those choices?

108 posted on 02/17/2004 6:02:12 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
As far as Ku Klux Klan members and shoplifting go, the issue of shoplifting is not a core part of the KKK's identity or beliefs.

No, I don't think you want to go there either, because many of the KKK's "core beliefs" were pretty much standard, normal, typical "orthodox" mainstream American "core beliefs". If you want to claim that their outrageous "core beliefs" are to be condemned because they are their "core beliefs", then you'll have to condemn all of their core beliefs, and not restrict your condemnation to their despicable "core beliefs".

My logic stands.

Basically, the "core foundations" of American culture are burning down, and you're playing hair-splitting/angels-dancing-on-heads-of-pins word games. Find someone else to play with.

109 posted on 02/17/2004 6:08:50 PM PST by Don Joe (I own my vote. It's for rent to the highest bidder, paid in adherence to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It's pointless to try to reason with Mr. Wiener. He's playing games, and he seems to have an agenda.
110 posted on 02/17/2004 6:10:48 PM PST by Don Joe (I own my vote. It's for rent to the highest bidder, paid in adherence to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
We should all freep this line and try to obtain marriage licenses to mary our pets, mothers, sisters, fathers, horses, and cars. These are also not allowed under California law, so why stop at same sex marriage? This will show the media what we are all in for if we open up Pandora's box and allow same sex marriages.
111 posted on 02/17/2004 6:13:19 PM PST by ScottLA37 (Pandora's Box?? (Vanity))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
Yeah, you're probably right.
112 posted on 02/17/2004 6:13:24 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener; jwalsh07
What is a miscegenist?

My guess would be a person who practices miscegenation. You know, like a physicist would practice physication . . .

Its a two-for-one deal; newly created law & freshly minted words. Hot off the Mayor's desk, timely and fresh as the new day. All that puttering with legislation is just so inconvenient. Why waste time on this silly concept of Rule of Law?

113 posted on 02/17/2004 6:15:26 PM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
Hey, you got it! LOL
114 posted on 02/17/2004 6:16:25 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
Laws are now whatever a Mayor says it is.

Only in Liberal land. Where is Arnold on this issue ? Hmmmm ?

The Mayor

115 posted on 02/17/2004 6:22:43 PM PST by The Mayor ("If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate."- Nikka - age 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ScottLA37
We should all freep this line and try to obtain marriage licenses to mary our pets, mothers, sisters, fathers, horses, and cars. These are also not allowed under California law, so why stop at same sex marriage? This will show the media what we are all in for if we open up Pandora's box and allow same sex marriages.

Why stop there?

We should demand to be allowed to marry our imaginary friends, ghosts, comic book heroes, and space aliens.

And let's not stop there, either. There's still The Biggie. The Mother of All Discriminations.

Yes, that's right. We should demand to be allowed to marry those who don't want to marry us! That's the biggest social taboo remaining! They even have laws against it! They give this type of "forbidden love" mean-spirited names like "stalking." The bias is incredible!

The amount of bigotry and discrimination that remains unchallenged is intolerable!

We demand change!

116 posted on 02/17/2004 6:23:08 PM PST by Don Joe (I own my vote. It's for rent to the highest bidder, paid in adherence to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
Why waste time on this silly concept of Rule of Law?

Rule of law, law of rule, it's all the same thing, right?

No? It's not the same thing?

Well, would you settle for "might makes right"? (If it helps any, you don't have a choice.)

There, it's settled. We now live under the Law of Rule. So Mote it Be, etc.

117 posted on 02/17/2004 6:28:10 PM PST by Don Joe (I own my vote. It's for rent to the highest bidder, paid in adherence to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
Be committed, get hitched to your pooch. You have just as much right as anybody to tag a mate for life. Just think, if your hound has a good inheritance you can reload every 12.5 years. Silly
118 posted on 02/17/2004 6:40:17 PM PST by Broker (Dr. Dimento was only the beginning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
You are lobbying for special privileges for a specific sub group of Americans based on what they do with their genitalia. To be consistent you should, at least, expand your argument to include argue polyamory, polygamy, asexual marriage of convenience. Or do you support discrimination against those choices?

I am indeed consistent; I would not discriminate (or more precisely I would not have the government discriminate) against any of those choices. As I stated in a previous post, I think marriage should be considered a private religious matter, and the government should butt out altogether.

The aspects of marriage which require government involvement are primarily contractual matters (e.g., property ownership while married or following a divorce). Those could all be handled by standardized or customized contracts between (or among) individuals (irrespective of gender). The government should not be granting special privileges or immunities or tax breaks or tax burdens based upon marital status.

119 posted on 02/17/2004 6:46:13 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
When the debate devolves to "eliminate marriage", "dissolve the public schools" and "privatise the public highways" the debate has reached a point of no return.
120 posted on 02/17/2004 6:51:32 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
When the debate devolves to "eliminate marriage", "dissolve the public schools" and "privatise the public highways" the debate has reached a point of no return.

Ah, you sensed it too. "DPwiener" is actually an "LPwiener" :)

121 posted on 02/17/2004 6:55:39 PM PST by Don Joe (I own my vote. It's for rent to the highest bidder, paid in adherence to the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
many of the KKK's "core beliefs" were pretty much standard, normal, typical "orthodox" mainstream American "core beliefs".

No, the KKK's "core beliefs" were their bigotry against blacks (and Jews and Catholics and foreigners), and their willingness to enforce that bigotry. Many Americans may have exhibited varying degrees of bigotry, but the Klan was the extreme exemplification of such bigotry. That's why they wore those pointy little hats which hid their identities while they burned crosses and lynched blacks. That's why they are now held in such disrepute. And that's why bigoted attitudes which mirror the Ku Klux Klan's attitudes are justifiably viewed with such suspicion.

122 posted on 02/17/2004 6:58:34 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
The "homophobes" were right.
They've been vindicated.
123 posted on 02/17/2004 9:09:08 PM PST by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
privati[s]e the public highways

You seem to have a penchant for English rather than American spellings (the "s" in lieu of "z" appears regularly). Don't tell your clan.

How do you spell the public place in which go to watch movies? :)

124 posted on 02/17/2004 9:44:19 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman

Welcome to the new age of Orwell:

From

Merriam-Webster's definition of marriage

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

125 posted on 02/17/2004 11:39:48 PM PST by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Well there's the right way, the wrong way and my way.

Actually my spelling is impeckabul, it's my typing skills that are kwestunabul.

How do you spell the public place in which go to watch movies? :)

Living roomz.

126 posted on 02/18/2004 6:41:13 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Eala
So it can be ignored like other inconvenient amendmnts?(sic)

Well you're right, we should just all give up and hang our heads and quit.

Or oh wait, I get it, you're just like the DIMRATS, the law doesn't mean anything so we should take matters into our own hands and do something against the law to stop them from doing something against the law. Yeah, that makes sense.
127 posted on 02/18/2004 7:42:00 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Even that won't fix it. The real problem is that the homosexual agenda needs to be rejected morally in this country, not just legally.

No argument there. But it will take both. The majority U.S. citizens already oppose same sex marriages (I've seen polls saying as high as 70%).
128 posted on 02/18/2004 7:43:58 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: jocko12
I thought Newsom was gay? He talked about his wife yesterday
129 posted on 02/18/2004 7:44:49 AM PST by petercooper ("daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime" - Nicole Gelinas, 02-10-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
No it doesn't, all it requires is a congress that will stand up to the judiciary. I would not hold my breath waiting on the current crop of leaders to take a righteous stand on anything.

Actually, if the Supreme Court ruled a law passed by congress to be unconstitutional, all the congress could do is pout. An amendment would be the only way to stand up to the judiciary.
130 posted on 02/18/2004 7:45:45 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: cwb
Or we could just have some enlightened conservative mayor in California start passing out concealed weapons permits to its citizens:)

Huh? I have a CHL and there's absolutely nothing it can do about this situation.
131 posted on 02/18/2004 7:58:50 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
No argument there. But it will take both. The majority U.S. citizens already oppose same sex marriages (I've seen polls saying as high as 70%).

Agree that we need the amendment post-haste.

MM

132 posted on 02/18/2004 8:16:17 AM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
Sorry...I guess that went over your head.
133 posted on 02/18/2004 9:06:14 AM PST by cwb (Kerry may have saved one man but he abandoned thousands of others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: cwb
Sorry...I guess that went over your head.

Nope, but I don't find joking about using firearms in that manner funny.
134 posted on 02/18/2004 9:50:56 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
Again...It has totally gone over your head. It's not about the "use" of firearms, dufus. It's a similar act of civil disobedience that others have been talking about for days. I'm sure the activist judges would have something to say (unlike, in this case) if a conservative mayor decided to forego California law and start issuing concealed weapons permits to anyone he wanted. Get it? Obviously not!
135 posted on 02/18/2004 10:09:22 AM PST by cwb (Kerry may have saved one man but he abandoned thousands of others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: cwb
Again...It has totally gone over your head. It's not about the "use" of firearms, dufus. It's a similar act of civil disobedience that others have been talking about for days. I'm sure the activist judges would have something to say (unlike, in this case) if a conservative mayor decided to forego California law and start issuing concealed weapons permits to anyone he wanted. Get it? Obviously not!

Sorry, it sure didn't. You're nonsensical posting doesn't give enough information to convey an analogy. Poor analogies can not convey meaning.

How sad that you're own anger at being unable to express a thought forces you to turn to name calling. I pray that you can find God and that he can bring peace and eliminate the hate from you heart. You have my prayers.
136 posted on 02/18/2004 10:50:48 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: stopem
I'm not too sure what President Bush can do at this point since this is a state matter.
137 posted on 02/18/2004 10:55:47 AM PST by imfleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Yeah, why is SF going to have an 8.5 before the end of the month? Is it because G-d is going to rid the area of the infidels? Hmmm, I'm not sure G-d goes around punishing his children...
138 posted on 02/18/2004 10:58:40 AM PST by imfleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Will some lawyer here explain HOW a MAYOR can IGNORE not only the STATUES outlawing gay marriage BUT THE CALIFORNIA Constitutional Amendment defining a marriage between one man and one women?

What good is a LAW and a Constitutional Amendment if they can be ignored with impunity? Lastly WHY doesn't the Governor send in state law enforcement officials to arrest those culpable? (i.e. the Mayor and those performing the ILLEGAL marriages)

139 posted on 02/18/2004 11:03:12 AM PST by PISANO (Our troops...... will NOT tire...will NOT falter.....and WILL NOT FAIL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
Please...take your self-righteous "prayers for me" and put them somewhere else. I don't need a sermon from you. This analogy has been being made for days on both radio and TV. Maybe I did assume too much, but no more than you in thinking that I wanted others to use firearms against gays.
140 posted on 02/18/2004 11:06:28 AM PST by cwb (Kerry may have saved one man but he abandoned thousands of others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
I don't feel very magnanimous to these law breakers today. I don't feel very tolerant at all.
141 posted on 02/18/2004 11:07:43 AM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cwb
Again, you have my prayers. There is nothing self-rightous in my remarks. I'm trying to help you find God's Way.
142 posted on 02/18/2004 11:11:38 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
I appreciate your concern...but for now, I'll find my own way.
143 posted on 02/18/2004 11:13:16 AM PST by cwb (Kerry may have saved one man but he abandoned thousands of others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: cwb
I appreciate your concern...but for now, I'll find my own way

Good luck...
144 posted on 02/18/2004 1:21:16 PM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
>What would Emperor Constantine do?

I don't think you want to know the answer to that question. Suffice it to say it would innvolve legions, swords, and many dead sodomites in San Francisco. Starting with Newsome.

Unlike the goobernator, Roman emperors did not take kindly to having their authority challenged by local functionaries like Newsome.
145 posted on 02/18/2004 9:19:25 PM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
>Lastly WHY doesn't the Governor send in state law enforcement
>officials to arrest those culpable? (i.e. the Mayor and those
>performing the ILLEGAL marriages)

Good question! As I've cross posted to another thread, if a University President in California suddenly had his campus security denying blacks entry, the national guard would be in the street in a matter of hours.

Hello? Arnold?
146 posted on 02/18/2004 9:24:05 PM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Vermont allowed civil unions for same-sex couples, and now look. The population of the state was decimated in a wave of plagues, famine, floods and strife. Now only hideous mutations haunt the burnt out wreckage of the once fine state.


147 posted on 02/19/2004 7:45:03 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
"I'm trying to help you find God's Way."

That's great. . .but is it God's way to blow your top because YOU misunderstood someone's post? I think not.

148 posted on 02/19/2004 7:56:11 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
That's great. . .but is it God's way to blow your top because YOU misunderstood someone's post? I think not.

Sadly, his post was unintelligible. For instance, the statement, "George Bush is President" does not mean that, "It is raining in Florida."

I certainly did not blow my top, and was only trying to help a lost soul find his way. Thanks for your input though.
149 posted on 02/19/2004 8:13:34 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
"Sadly, his post was unintelligible."

I don't know why you found it unintelligible. That analogy did not originate with the poster - in fact, someone used it on Hannity's radio show a day or so ago.

"I certainly did not blow my top, and was only trying to help a lost soul find his way."

The individual make a humorous comment, you didn't get it, he stated that 'it went over your head,' and you got extremely defensive. Yes, you did blow your top, and pretending to be trying to 'help a lost soul find his way' is pretty lame. Everyone sees through that.

If you are a Christian, you are giving a poor witness at this point.

150 posted on 02/19/2004 8:44:48 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151 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