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

Skip to comments.

Wrong Form May Invalidate Calif Same-Sex Marriages
Reuters ^ | 2.18.04 | Spencer Swartz

Posted on 02/18/2004 7:30:55 PM PST by mhking

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: mhking
because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom,"

For men they replaced it with "pitcher" and "catcher."
For lesbians they put "takes out the trash" and "submissive."

21 posted on 02/18/2004 7:42:56 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb
Get the attention of the media. (or not?) Leftists were always good at this game.

Just the picture of an old queen and a 16 year old boy holding up a marriage license would make the headlines -- guaranteed.

22 posted on 02/18/2004 7:43:28 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Bush Bot by choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Illegal is illegal,

That depends on what the meaning of 'illegal' is...

If illegal is illegal, then it's legal...

23 posted on 02/18/2004 7:44:33 PM PST by CommandoFrank (If GW is the terrorist's worst nightmare, Kerry is their wet dream...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skr
**So they found a technicality. Apparently the violation of the law regarding California's legal definition of marriage wasn't enough. **

bingo.

24 posted on 02/18/2004 7:44:37 PM PST by mrs tiggywinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mhking
the form in San Francisco says applicant one and applicant two

Applicant one -- How romantic.

25 posted on 02/18/2004 7:47:19 PM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Interesting idea. I prefer to think of them as merely breaking the obvious law in this case. The rest makes my head hurt, I'm afraid.
26 posted on 02/18/2004 7:47:28 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Forever is as far as I'll go.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mrs tiggywinkle
Ya, right. This is the same state that wants driver licenses issued to illegal aliens. The squashed SB 60 after Arnie was put in place and now the next generation SB 1160. I'm embarrassed to say I'm a native Californian.
27 posted on 02/18/2004 7:48:19 PM PST by pooh fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mhking
"There is a statewide form that every county has to use for marriage applications. If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them," said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Agency.

LOL, not only the form is wrong but also the sex.

28 posted on 02/18/2004 7:49:09 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (Freedom isn't won by soundbites but by the unyielding determination and sacrifice given in its cause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Oops--can't have a wedding without a bride and groom, can't have a marriage without a husband and wife. Who would have thought?
29 posted on 02/18/2004 7:51:54 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Well, at least this bureaucrat is on the right side of the matter, refusing to accept the licenses as valid. Much better than the judge who refused to accept a suit against the gay marriage licenses because he objected to a semicolon.
30 posted on 02/18/2004 7:52:32 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them"


You can't accept them anyway if they don't have a man and a woman listed on them.


31 posted on 02/18/2004 7:52:50 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
There was no way they could use the designated form in this situation. This is hilarious.
32 posted on 02/18/2004 7:53:40 PM PST by buffman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb
It would take a lot of chuzpah, but conservatives should take two 12-year-old and fifteen-year-old sisters and insist on being 'married'. An old man of 70 and a young boy of 16 and insist on being 'married'....

Some guy should take a goat in a tutu...

33 posted on 02/18/2004 7:56:04 PM PST by Drango (Liberals give me a rash that even penicillin can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Gee, will the city REFUND the illegally collected fees?Bwaaahahahaha!

I just can't stop wondering just how much the city DOE$ manage to rake in with this????
34 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:00 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffman
It sure is. I just hope it becomes reality.
35 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:28 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (Freedom isn't won by soundbites but by the unyielding determination and sacrifice given in its cause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mhking
It would be interesting to show up there as two brothers or two sisters and demand to be married. I'm betting the law, while prohibiting brother and sister marriages, doesn't address the formerly unthinkable possibility of same-sex sibilings.
36 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:31 PM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Sounds like someone should go to jail for FRAUD!! =o)

I doubt a jury in San Franciso would convict.

37 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:49 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
At something like $104 a pop for those "licenses," San Francisco made a tidy bundle from the 2300 or so "marriages."

I think the Mayor ought to be fined ten times as much for each violation.

38 posted on 02/18/2004 8:01:48 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping --- the historic phrase that comes to my mind and lips is this:

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!!

Let me know if you want on/off this ping list!
39 posted on 02/18/2004 8:03:10 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Wasnt there a thread a few days ago, the crux was that there was a semi-colon in the wrong place in some text. Onthat technicality, the judge was trying to say this whole uni-gender marriage thing was acceptable. Touche...
40 posted on 02/18/2004 8:03:56 PM PST by LearnsFromMistakes (Abortion is the law of the land. Remind me - what was the number on that bill in congress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 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