Posted on 03/04/2008 1:42:44 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Four years after San Francisco ignited a heated national debate by briefly allowing gay marriage, California's top court hears arguments on Tuesday about whether matrimony should be limited to a man and a woman.
The hearing brings into focus the highest-profile U.S. fight over gay rights in recent years and the outcome could end up influencing legislation and litigation in other states on a matter that has been a hot-button issue in election campaigns.
"California's a bellwether state. What happens here, blows east," said Larry Bowler, a retired deputy sheriff from Sacramento, who opposes gay marriage, outside the courthouse.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom forced the issue by suddenly issuing gay marriage licenses in February 2004. More than 4,000 homosexual couples took him up on the offer, before a lower court halted the process.
California's Supreme Court ruled later that year that Newsom, mayor of a city long at the forefront of the fight for gay rights, had no authority to perform weddings for same-sex couples and voided the marriages...."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
something blows, that’s for sure.
“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom forced the issue by suddenly issuing gay marriage licenses in February 2004. More than 4,000 homosexual couples took him up on the offer, before a lower court halted the process.”
Um, didn’t he do this in DEFIANCE of the law?
Defeated everytime it’s brought to the voters. Enough already.
Where does our Conservative Liberal Republican Nominee stand on a Federal Marriage Amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman?
What happens here, blows east,”
A comedian no doubt!
ping
Hilarious!
The California Supes are going to throw away Webster’s dictionary and start redefining words in the English language.
How quaint.
“Where does our Conservative Liberal Republican Nominee stand on a Federal Marriage Amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman?”
Just like his belief that man can control the sun. He also believes man can reverse Mother Nature.
Liberal Fascism points this out: expert knowledge over democracy
“California’s top court “
“California’s top court “
Yep, now that’s funny! and ‘blows east’
‘blows east’.....wait, now that’s funnnier!
not to worry...It can ‘blow East’ to Las Vegas....but then ‘What goes down here, stays here’ takes effect, so it can’t get past Vegas!
Later the article talks about Oral arguments. The Jokes write themselves! You don’t have to hunt for a, “gag” line.
“California’s top court hears arguments on Tuesday about whether matrimony should be limited to a man and a woman.”
On Wednesday, California’s top court hears arguments on some related issues:
- Whether the alphabet should be limited to 26 letters
- Whether imaginary creatures should be limited to things that do not exist
- Whether eunuchs should be limited to men without testicles
- Whether the sun should be limited to rising in the East
- Whether members of California’s top court should be limited to either being idiots or to not being idiots
Hmmm... gay marriage.
There I pondered it. Don’t like it.
I hope they won't be marrying each other - marrying your bretherin may be incest.
The élan showed in arguing this über-issue revealed no thought for mañana.
marrying your bretherin may be incest.
Probably not in San Francisco!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Any oral arguments infected by STDs could be found defective and inadmissable in court.
If men and women are completely equal before the law, then a man marrying a woman is legally no different than a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman.
This is the legal tack that the Hawaii Supreme Court took.
This is one of the arguments that Phyllis Schlafly made against the ERA when she and others successfully blocked its ratification.
Of course she was called a lunatic at the time for suggesting that the ERA had anything to do with gay marriage.
Allowing civil unions, but denying gay marriage seems like a last desperate act in a losing battle.
We should be rolling back civil union legislation rather than fighting a rear guard action against gay marriage.
And yes, as far as "rear guard action" is concerned, the pun is intended.
Exactly. Marriage is defined by the individual states, and the citizens of California spoke LOUD and CLEAR several years ago when they voted for the definition of marriage in this state.
I hope Chief Ronald George will steer the rest of the Supremes to the right thing.
nahhh........gay marriage is like assisted suicide....ie, it’s either gay or it’s marriage, likewise it’s either assisted or it’s suicide! assisted suicide = murder; gay marriage = suicide of civilization!
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.