Posted on 07/20/2004 10:14:57 PM PDT by ambrose
Posted on Tue, Jul. 20, 2004
Lesbians sue to have all states recognize Massachusetts marriage
MITCH STACY
Associated Press
TAMPA, Fla. - A lesbian couple from Bradenton who were married in Massachusetts sued the federal government Tuesday to have their union legally recognized in the rest of the country.
The suit was filed against U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal court in Tampa.
The couple's attorney, Ellis Rubin, has filed five previous suits in state and federal courts challenging the ban, but Tuesday's was believed to be the first to attempt to compel the federal government and other states to recognize a union that occurred in a state where same-sex unions are legal.
The suit was filed on behalf of the Rev. Nancy Wilson, a Metropolitan Community Church minister, and Paula Schoenwether, a family marriage counselor. The two have been together for 27 years and were married July 2 in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriages are recognized.
"No one has anything to be afraid of by recognizing our marriage," Wilson said outside the courthouse Tuesday. "We consider ourselves to have been married for 27 years, but we know this is a moment in history, this is a time in which gay and lesbian people are not going to accept second-class citizenship in our country."
Rubin's suit claims that the ban on gay marriage is a constitutional issue, which is why Ashcroft is named as a defendant. Hillsborough County Clerk Richard L. Ake is also named because he had declined to issue the couple a Florida marriage license.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and a 1997 Florida statute that defines marriage as the union between a man and woman violate the equal-protection rights of his clients, Rubin said.
"The Florida law and federal law separates and makes second-class citizens out of gays and lesbians because of their gender and sexual orientation," Rubin said. "I hope that the court recognizes that and says it isn't equality if opposite sex couples can marry but same-sex couples cannot."
Ashcroft spokesman Charles Miller said Tuesday that no one in his office had seen the suit, and he would not comment.
Ake said he was following Florida law when he denied the couple a marriage license.
The U.S. Senate last week handed a defeat to President Bush when it scuttled a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
A "reverend" in a lesbian union? What kind of a chuch has that?
How can this be, I have it on good authority, from almost every Senate Democrat, that this wasn't even close to happening.
Will Massachusettes be forced to recognize CCW laws from all other states?
I would like all of these people to
shut up
sit down and
leave us alone.
We do not want to know.
We don't care.
We will not respect them more, and with the grief they subject us to, we will respect them less.
We do not want to modify our laws, our school books or our legal system just so they can play "getting married".
The only usefullness homosexual couples present to us right now is the corner they put JF'nK in, on the issues.
President Bush is rather clear on where he stands...JF'nK is not.
Good point. Lets do the same as the homos, force CCW to be acknowledged through the Full Faith and Credit clause.
It's more Constitutional too.
Amen.
The Non-judgmental Apostate Church of Carpet Munching, Rump Riding and Marxist Theology.
I think the interesting problem is that the political process is not moving quickly enough to get a Constitutional Amendment in place in time to stop a likely Ct. of Appeals decision followed by a S.C.O.T.U.S. affirmation.
So we may have a period when Federal right to marry may apply, followed by the implementation of a Constitutional Amendment which prohibits gay marriage. With a prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws – presumably we would be faced with a large number of gay marriages that would be “grandfathered”. Clearly the gay and lesbian legal organizations (which are very talented and very aggressive) are speeding along this path in an effort to be able to make the argument against a proposed Constitutional Amendment that “x00,000 marriages can’t be wrong”.
Republicans and conservative Democrats need to grow some balls on this issue and get an Amendment out of the Senate.
I always thought the argument was that they just wanted to be left alone to live their own lives...it seems they don't want to leave us alone. They instead seek to intrude on institutions in which they have no place--you can't have a husband and wife with two people of the same sex. It's just a fact.
Bunch of dang freaks.....doom on em all.
Stay safe Ambrose !
Bring it on, fags.
Homosexual Agenda [Jihad] Ping - Definitely a Jihad Alert, this one.
Another article - seems a bit more detailed - on the lawsuit filed by two female homosexuals.
(other thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174999/posts
A Federal lawsuit - against Ashcroft, that their "marriage" be recognized in every state in the Union.
States' rights, my *ss.
(Sorry for the crudity, all this duplicity and homo-nazi steamrollering is firing up my intolerance.)
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
How is it that, if these ideots commit themselves to marriage and a legal split of their combined posessions when they divorce, it effects the rest of us.
Let them marry, let them divorse, let them get the distaste for it that they deserve. How does this effect any other individual other than those getting married.
Think of the marriage tax hit.
Well this pretty well removes this issue from the old " let the states decide" arguement...So now where do people stand? That ought to be asked over and over and over again until all the dodgers are shown for the cowards they are.
Let's change this statement a little and wonder how the court would deal with it:
"I hope that the court recognizes that and says it isn't equality if two people can marry but three people cannot."
The Metropolitan Community Church, a church founded by and for sodomites. Also the Unitarian-Universalist Association and various apostate ministers in main-line denominations (and elsewhere).
You can in Massachusetts. :o(
There's an Episcopal church about ten blocks from my home with a lesbian pastor, who rooms with her 'lover' in the church rectory. Why anyone attends that 'church' is beyond me, but they do.
This will be an interesting test of the "full faith and credit" argument.
They are residents of Florida, not Massachusetts.
CERTAIN MARRIAGES PROHIBITED
Chapter 207: Section 11 Non-residents; marriages contrary to laws of domiciled state
Section 11. No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.
They're judge shopping - looking for a liberal judge who will agree with them.
"No one has anything to be afraid of by recognizing our marriage," Wilson said outside the courthouse Tuesday. "
Who says anyone is afraid of it. We are downright sick of these people flaunting their unethical and sinful behaviour in our faces. These people won't be happy until their lifestyle is rated one step higher than heterosexual marriage.
Myn friend, it is most likely a "church" taking advantage of the tax free status accorded religious institutions. I have enough "gay" (I still prefer homosexual, there are times when I get gay, but not that way. Guess it does save ink at least), I really don't care if they get civil union laws, but it is not a "marriage". Until you have stepped out on the front porch of the bar and told officer Friendly, " Yes, I can positively identify the babe who just sidewall stabbed 13 tires, she was my ex-wife's wife's ex-wife" you really ain't been there.
I want to see the same "Full Faith and Credit Clause" applied to valid concealed carry laws, and while we are at it, medicinal marijuana use. Works for drivers' license, works for civil contracts, seems to work for anything politically correct.
Of course. What they're really bothered by is the fact most of us don't approve of homosexuality as a morally valid lifestyle. So they want to coerce us to consent to something we would never consent to out of our own free will. Yeah these people feel they need our approval to live in a way contrary to the will of God and they're not exactly tolerant of other people's right to have a different view on the matter.
They are non-residents who are tried to do an end around Florida law. Their pretend "marriage" is null and void according to the statute that I posted.
Then again, whats the law to an activist judge with an agenda....
As I said, the argument marriage is a state's rights issue was phony from the get-go. The Left doesn't recognize it and there is prior precedent (polygamy in 1890 Utah) for a federal rule on the issue of marriage. Conservatives delude themselves into thinking the liberals and their gay allies simply want a live and let live arrangement on the subject. The federalism approach would be fine if the other side respected the right of this country to say NO to gay marriage. They don't, which is precisely why a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage has become necessary.
The liberaltarians take the same approach. They secretly WANT sodomite "marriage" (Mostly out of hatred for morality) but they can't say it outright because they will lose whatever conservative claim they still hold onto.
So instead they also retreat to the States right's argument.
The libertarians and democrats want marriage to be perverted, they just can't say it out loud.
"Then again, whats the law to an activist judge with an agenda...."
And all you need are a few folks with money and committment to bring these lawsuits up. I read an article in the newspaper awhile back about a small group of people in some environmental activist law group (like 4 - 8 people). All the cases funneled through them, and all the money too. The cases they had brought forward and won were amazing (spotted owls (logging), snail darters (dams), frogs (California development), and many more.
One small group of environmental activists are able to use the court system and activist judges to set the laws in America. And now the homosexuals.
I live there but unfortunately have yet to own a gun. But I'm pretty sure that there are people more than willing to do this. My college used to have a gun club and we've got a sizable number of Republicans. Some of them are from out of state so they might already have a gun.
Bump, wildcat. You GO!
"Intrusion"--- good way to put it. And you are right. The one(s) I know say, "We're just like any other couple, living monogamously and in peace." Peace?!! Then why are they constantly stirring up hornets' nests? If they want to fit in with the rest of us, how about just shutting up and keeping their private lives, like, PRIVATE, as the rest of us? Thanks.
NOW .. DOES EVERYBODY SEE WHY WE MUST HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!
This scum will not stop until they destroy America.
The Metropolitan Community Church, a church founded by and for sodomites.
Indeed. More about the Metropolitan Community Church here:
Sex, torture and erotic electrification in America's 'gay' churches
Can we sue to force all states to recognize "concealed carry" laws?
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
First Satan's and Friends.
The House is voting on a bill to stop this kind of thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1175499/posts?page=4
The Sunday New York Times has had 4 or 5 announcements of Massachusetts non-resident gay marriages. I called Governor Romney's office about it - since he has been trying to uphold the residency law. The young man I spoke with (probably a student intern, probably gay) did NOT want to hear about it.
Yaaayyy! EdReform's back!! Heeeyahh!
If anyone thinks that radical homosexuals (and remind me again, please, of how most homosexuals are just peaceful, monogamous, conservative, beige-wearing, buttoned down, uncle and auntie type, Republican voting, "gay" agenda loathers?) do NOT want to destroy the moral foundation of human society, please raise your hands!
(If any hands are raised, I'll bring out the "In their own words" quoting noted homosexual spokespersons' own viewpoint on "gay" marriage.)
You said it brilliantly....too bad the cowards in congress decided to duck and run
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.