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

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California will not accept the marriage licenses granted to thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom," a state official said on Wednesday.

"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.

Meanwhile, President Bush joined a chorus of those opposing San Francisco's nearly week-long experiment in allowing gay marriages, a practice condemned on Tuesday night by California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Evans said her agency, which processes all state marriage license applications that become state records, would return the forms if the city sent them in -- but she admitted that the issue will really be decided in the courts because the weddings violate a state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Nancy Lafaro, director of the San Francisco County Clerk's office, said the marriage license applications gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco have filled out since last Thursday were changed. "For example, instead of saying bride or groom, the form in San Francisco says applicant one and applicant two," she said.

Lafaro added the same-sex marriage application form also uses the terms "unmarried individuals" rather than "unmarried man" or "unmarried woman.

EQUAL PROTECTION STANCE

About 2,600 gay and lesbian couples have been married since Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed same-sex marriages on grounds that homosexuals have the right to wed under the state's equal protection clause.

Same-sex marriages, however, defy Proposition 22, a law approved in 2000 by California voters, that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples. The measure passed with support from about 60 percent of those who voted on the initiative.

President Bush on Wednesday told reporters in Washington he was "troubled" by San Francisco's same-sex marriages.

"I have consistently stated that I'll support (a) law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And, obviously, these events are influencing my decision," Bush said in his first public comments on the city's same-sex marriages.

On Tuesday night, Schwarzenegger said he supported California's domestic partnership laws but called on San Francisco to obey Prop. 22.

"Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law and encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law. The courts should act quickly to resolve this matter," he said.

Gay and lesbian couples continued to roll into San Francisco city hall on Wednesday to exchange wedding vows a day after two California state judges refused to issue temporary restraining orders to halt the practice California Superior Court Judge James Warren asked San Francisco to "cease and desist" from issuing more marriage licenses but agreed to let city lawyers argue on March 29 why it should be allowed to wed gay and lesbian couples.

A second California judge, Robert Evans Quidachay, on Tuesday delayed a hearing until Friday on another lawsuit challenging the decision to allow same-sex marriages. (Additional reporting by Adam Entous)


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: aids; anarchy; civilunion; genderneutralsociety; hedonism; hedonist; homosexual; homosexualagenda; leftsagenda; marriage; prisoners; romans1; samesexmarriage; sf; stunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 02/18/2004 7:30:55 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...
Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

2 posted on 02/18/2004 7:31:52 PM PST by mhking (This tag line is "3 Laws Safe." Is yours?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Form be damned, the state of California does not recognize same sex marriages. This is sortof like a newspaper columnist writing a note on the evils of murder, due to the perp using the wrong ammo to carry out the act.

Yes I recognize the gravity of the two subjects is different, but the underlying principle is the same. Illegal is illegal, despite our nation's not being able to understand the term any longer.
3 posted on 02/18/2004 7:34:32 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
nation's "leaders..."
4 posted on 02/18/2004 7:35:13 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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.

The irony here is absolutely amazing.

5 posted on 02/18/2004 7:35:33 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Forever is as far as I'll go.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; mhking
The entire city government is issuing invalid forms to unqualified couples.

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

6 posted on 02/18/2004 7:36:11 PM PST by GeronL (http://www.ArmorforCongress.com..............................send a FReeper to Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mhking
**California will not accept the marriage licenses granted to thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom," a state official said on Wednesday. **

Marriage between same sex people is illegal in California. No piece of paper will *make* it legal. The majority of Californian's voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. The law needs to be enforced!

7 posted on 02/18/2004 7:36:22 PM PST by mrs tiggywinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
So the city is guilty of running a fraudulant pyramid scheme??
8 posted on 02/18/2004 7:36:49 PM PST by GeronL (http://www.ArmorforCongress.com..............................send a FReeper to Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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," said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Agency.

I hope she works for Arnold, and I hope he enforces the LAW ...

9 posted on 02/18/2004 7:37:30 PM PST by 11th_VA (Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
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'. A 14-year-old girl and a woman of 50 and insist on being 'married'. Stand in the line. it would be like the scene from Blazing Saddles where wierdos from everywhere lined up for mayhem. Get the attention of the media. (or not?) Leftists were always good at this game.
10 posted on 02/18/2004 7:38:10 PM PST by squarebarb ('The stars put out their pale opinions, one by one...' Thomas Merton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mhking
we will not accept them

Oh how cool : )

11 posted on 02/18/2004 7:38:55 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 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
I love technicalities, don't you?!
12 posted on 02/18/2004 7:39:38 PM PST by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace (Michael <a href = "http://www.michaelmoore.com/" title="Miserable Failure">"Miserable Failure"</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
So they found a technicality. Apparently the violation of the law regarding California's legal definition of marriage wasn't enough.
13 posted on 02/18/2004 7:40:09 PM PST by skr (Pro-life from cradle to grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
This is what you get when there is no leadership coming from the governor's office.
14 posted on 02/18/2004 7:40:24 PM PST by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
If they took fees for these forms, possibly.

Wouldn't that be a hoot!
15 posted on 02/18/2004 7:40:53 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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

Makes you wonder what the real motivation was behind the event.

16 posted on 02/18/2004 7:41:49 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Form be damned, the state of California does not recognize same sex marriages.

Agreed. The "licenses" aren't worth the price of the paper they're printed on.

17 posted on 02/18/2004 7:42:01 PM PST by mhking (This tag line is "3 Laws Safe." Is yours?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mhking
"Enter the bureaucrats..."
18 posted on 02/18/2004 7:42:24 PM PST by Imal (Ironically, there really is a vast, right-wing conspiracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
What form could be right? Marriages are between men and women. Who can help it if they can't find the right form(or name) for their union.
19 posted on 02/18/2004 7:42:34 PM PST by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Oh those people were paying for those invaid documents all right.... fraud! false advertising!
20 posted on 02/18/2004 7:42:42 PM PST by GeronL (http://www.ArmorforCongress.com..............................send a FReeper to Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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]

To: sd-joe
I understand they had to throw out some of the forms because the line for 'Applicant' was filled in as "KY"...
41 posted on 02/18/2004 8:05:08 PM PST by mikrofon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mhking
The real problem is not the wrong paper form--it's the wrong human form.
42 posted on 02/18/2004 8:05:19 PM PST by Samwise (There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking; John Jorsett; Grampa Dave
California will not accept the marriage licenses granted to thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom," a state official said on Wednesday.

Oh, man - I am hoping and praying that the State of California accepts these forms as is.

I can't wait to submit my very own "original artist" state income tax forms - I mean, people in California can make up state forms, submit them and have them accepted, can't they?

And as California goes, so goes the nation, right?

I'll just get rid of various annoying lines on the state-issued form and all will be right in my little world. ;-)

43 posted on 02/18/2004 8:06:33 PM PST by an amused spectator (articulating AAS' thoughts on FR since 1997)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes
San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren told plaintiffs their argument likely would succeed but rejected their petition because of a misplaced semicolon.

Three threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080354/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080629/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080159/posts

What goes around...
44 posted on 02/18/2004 8:07:23 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 40 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
wait this just in from sin Francisco...The city has found a way to grant a liscense for lesbians. They will grant them a Liqour liscense...
45 posted on 02/18/2004 8:12:07 PM PST by imadeepdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mhking
If the San Francisco forms turn out to be invalid, does that mean they have to refund all of those license fees they've collected?
46 posted on 02/18/2004 8:12:46 PM PST by Redcloak (This tagline is for external use only. Discontinue if a rash develops. Induce vomiting if swallowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearnsFromMistakes
Te judge refused to hear the case to issue an injuction against SF marriages. The basis of his refusal was that the Complaint had a Semi-colon out of place.

Apparently this judge prefers his colons filled.

47 posted on 02/18/2004 8:13:01 PM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Newsome may try to bull it on through by going back to the old forms and performing the marriages anyway.

1/2 the lesbians will sign as "husbands" and 1/2 the gays will be "wives". Think they'll have a problem with that? No.

This situation needs decisive action, not beaurocratic cowardice. IMO this ain't gonna cut it.

48 posted on 02/18/2004 8:13:46 PM PST by ZOOKER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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

Sounds like we have a massive case of FRAUD here by the city of San Francisco.

To this point the City has made in excess of $250,000 using FRADULENT forms to issue ILLEGAL Marraige Licenses.

49 posted on 02/18/2004 8:16:15 PM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
"I doubt a jury in San Franciso would convict."

To true ..

as I understand this:

The Mayor gets fired up after hearing GWB speak.

Instructs his staff to find a way.

They come up with a document that is not recognized by the State.

They sell it at $104 a pop to the general population.

Judges won't touch it.

The Governor won't touch it.

Sounds like fraud to me but the gays want so to believe in it. They won't bitch about being taken for $104.

They see it as a step.

So: We have Feds who won't enforce our laws. We have State Officials who won't enforce our laws and are willing to go out of their way to circumvent them.

Bureaucrats are a pain in the @ss however they keep the ship steady when we elect idiots.

I love my home state (CA) and carry the burden.

We have met the enemy ... and he is us ... Pogo

50 posted on 02/18/2004 8:23:41 PM PST by Bobibutu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 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