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

Skip to comments.

Ten states urge Calif. court to delay marriage ruling
AP via SFGate ^ | 5/30/8

Posted on 05/30/2008 11:11:45 AM PDT by SmithL

San Francisco, CA (AP) -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

The attorneys general say they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California. They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election,

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; caglbt; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; samesexmarriage; sanfranciscovalues

1 posted on 05/30/2008 11:11:46 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Well can’t they simply say “look Cali, we’re not recognizing your gay ‘marriages’ in our state”??


2 posted on 05/30/2008 11:14:50 AM PDT by GOP_Raider (DU: Standing athwart history yelling "$#@$# you mother$#@$#er!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

See what happens. This is why the Calif. ruling could be much more far reaching than the Mass. ruling. Mass. has a law that out-of-staters can’t get married if their marriage isn’t recognized in their home state. But Calif. has no such law.

Stay tuned. If the voters don’t overturn this decision in November, it will trigger lawsuits in many states as out of state people get married and return to their home states to file lawsuits. That has been the goal of gay activits all along, to have same-sex marriage spread via the courts. And then eventually get the federal courts involved to impose 50 state same-sex marriage.

Gavin Newsom bragged that its’ coming nationwide and we can’t stop it. We’ll see if he’s right.


3 posted on 05/30/2008 11:15:24 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

It depends on the judges. Liberal judges will say that their states are obligated to recognize the gay “marriages”. That’s the whole point, the gay activists are going to drag it through the courts in many more states. If liberal judges are the ones who are going to decide, then we know what will happen.

Thank God that 27 states have passed constitutional amendments in their state constitution to prevent that from happening. The other 23 states are currently the ones at risk of their liberal judges overturning their marriage laws.


4 posted on 05/30/2008 11:17:30 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election

This is an opinion and not a quote. A statement like this makes it look like they couldn't provide a legal reaosn for asking for the delay and that they aren't committed to the principle one way or the other, just their own careers. While this may be true, AP should have produced a quote to back up the assertion.
5 posted on 05/30/2008 11:18:22 AM PDT by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
If marriage isn't one man, one woman and Homosexual Marriage becomes law, then any type of relationship can seek legal marriage.

I leave the rest to your imagination.

6 posted on 05/30/2008 11:19:39 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

What a feable gesture. Don’t these state AG’s know Cali has an agenda to push? Time’s a-wasten!


7 posted on 05/30/2008 11:22:17 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Another pending disaster of LIBERALISM. Thanks to Kalifornia’s radical liberal assembly. At least these other states have it right. We did not miss the fact that our “state” of Kalifornia did not let the VOTERS DECIDE the issue. The voters did once, voted it down (Prop 22) and the libs just ignored the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Nice to live in a state run by law-breaking socialists...


8 posted on 05/30/2008 11:26:27 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Didn’t some of these states already pass their own bans on same-sex marriages?


9 posted on 05/30/2008 11:28:10 AM PDT by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
These states' constitutions ban same sex marriage. So no - their gay residents marriages would not be valid upon returning to their home states from California.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

10 posted on 05/30/2008 11:31:10 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron.

Once again they are trying to hijack the meaning of words to give the appearance of normalcy and acceptance.

“Gay” = homosexual for example

11 posted on 05/30/2008 11:35:06 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Election '08, the year McCain defined the word "dilemma")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I think that in the long run, Gavin Newsom is going to find that rather than advance the cause of so-called gay “rights” in this country, he will have set them back completely. Had he not tried his grandstanding on this issue to garner himself some headlines, there would have been no face-off in the California Supreme Court.

Newsom and the activists cannot understand that as of this moment, no one knows if this sexual orientation is by choice or biology and, as such, have overestimated the willingness of the American public to overturn thousands of years of tradition to accommodate a single group that as of now is not even a recognized protected class under federal law. If he thought this would launch him to the national stage, he is sorely, sorely mistaken.

I believe that the voters of California will approve the Amendment on the November ballot - and I don’t care how many polls the L.A. Times and the San Francisco Chronicle push forward in an attempt to skew voters. We can say any P.C. thing we want to a pollster (are you listening, NObama?) - but when we get into the secrecy of the voting booth, we vote as we really feel.


12 posted on 05/30/2008 11:35:47 AM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal
A couple of months delay won't be the end of the world. The California Supremes created this mess and they should give California voters the opportunity to correct it. It makes no sense to allow gays to marry in June only to find out a couple of months later that voters invalidated their unions. That would be the right to do - to enter a stay til the voters have been heard.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

13 posted on 05/30/2008 11:43:31 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal

We’ll see about the Calif. vote. Calif. is socially liberal state.

I wonder about the polls too. These polls indicate it will be close. The last poll on Prop. 22 before that election showed 52% in favor but it ended up with 61% supporting it, when voted on in March of 2000.

Key question could be, has Calif. opinion gotten more liberal on the issue over the years, are enough voters frustrated that we have courts setting social policy?


14 posted on 05/30/2008 11:44:50 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Either there's a real shift in public opinion or there's the public feeling that one's vote doesn't matter, that will sooner or later be overturned by the courts. I think its more the latter sentiment that's predominant in California.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

15 posted on 05/30/2008 11:53:51 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage... Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah... [AGs] want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election...
Gosh, wouldn't have anything to do with the polling numbers of the Demwits, by any chance, would it?
16 posted on 05/30/2008 11:59:12 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______________________Profile updated Monday, April 28, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I dont think this thing will get overturned....


17 posted on 05/30/2008 12:09:10 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Gosh, wouldn't have anything to do with the polling numbers of the Demwits, by any chance, would it?

If we allow our suspicious minds to wander further, it could also have something to do with those states not wanting an anti-gay marriage initiative on their November ballots, knowing such an initiative would bring out conservatives and Republicans (I have to separate those) in droves, just as it did in the 2004 election.

18 posted on 05/30/2008 12:15:51 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

True, but what we really hate is watching the courts, using whatever judicial ju-jitsu they can, overturn votes that were decisive. Props 187, 209, 22 - all of them won handily, and yet the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and the California Supreme Court overturned all of them.

Also, this is one of the biggest states against drivers licenses for illegals and amnesty. True, we voted in the medical marijuana law because we thought we were doing something compassionate for people with disease that could be helped. I think in light of the “pot stores” and abuses that have resulted, if you put the question to the voters again, they’d reverse themselves.

I think “marriage” is just one of those issues that hit people right in the gut - blacks and hispanics and a lot of moderates are against changing the traditional definition.


19 posted on 05/30/2008 12:16:26 PM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

No, I don’t believe they can. There is a federal statute that requires states to recognize certain things that other states do, and I believe this falls under that category.

I would be happy to be wrong here, but I don’t believe I am.


20 posted on 05/30/2008 12:37:58 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Votes to Pass Leftist Policy: McCain Senators 90, House 375 / Obama Senators 58, House 275.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Finally, I will be able to marry my computer.

Well, computers.

PC and laptop.

Oh, darn plural marriages are taboo.

21 posted on 05/30/2008 12:43:42 PM PDT by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

See, I knew you supported those FLDS types!!!!

Neither of your computers are over 18 and you know it.

LOL


22 posted on 05/30/2008 12:45:57 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Votes to Pass Leftist Policy: McCain Senators 90, House 375 / Obama Senators 58, House 275.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You are wrong. The Defense of Marriage Act passed back during the Clinton years states:

1. No state need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if recognized as such by one of the states.


23 posted on 05/30/2008 2:13:59 PM PDT by Balke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Balke

Very good. Thanks for reminding me of that legislation.


24 posted on 05/30/2008 2:47:08 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Votes to Pass Leftist Policy: McCain Senators 90, House 375 / Obama Senators 58, House 275.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Thank God that 27 states have passed constitutional amendments in their state constitution to prevent that from happening.

No, no, no, no. That isn't what will happen. The gays have been telegraphing this strategy for 15 years. This is a federal constitutional attack on state laws using Article IV's Full Faith and Credit Clause to force all 49 other states to recognize at face value homosexual "marriages" (jokes) performed in a rolled 50th state.

With Massachusetts in hand, the federal suits are already in court in several states. Pace the Massachusetts law, the first thing the movement gays who got "married" that first day in Massachusetts did, was to get on the plane and fly to other states to demand that clerks of court record their Massachusetts "marriage" documents -- and promptly sue, when they were duly sent away.

Evan Wolfson drew up this strategy long ago, when he was still at Lambda Legal Defense Fund.

Google on Wolfson +Vermont and you will find a 2001 interview in which he discussed this campaign, as well as the then recently-decided Dale case, in which SCOTUS exonerated the Boy Scouts USA from having to accept pederasts as adult Scouters.

It will take amendment of Article IV to intercept and stop the homosexuals' campaign.

The Supreme Court is the homosexuals' next stop, and I've read that they've got at least one gay homer on the Court ready to help whoop them to a win similar to Roe vs. Wade and the totally outrageous Lawrence decision in 2003.

25 posted on 05/31/2008 4:42:25 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Balke
DOMA is doomed. It was vulnerable to Article IV attack in court when it was passed, and Pres. Bush and all its sponsors knew it. It's an exercise in political cynicism -- a pacifier for social conservatives, to get them out to vote for economic conservatives who're gayer than Batman.

Bush is secretly on the side of the gays and has been since 2000. He's too cool to get his shirt wrinkled over stuff that is of concern to people with wrinkled shirts. Homosexual misconduct and political cabals are below the salt as far as he's concerned, as is anyone who thinks it's an important issue.

Bush has been playing to lose on both DOMA and RKBA, I promise you.

26 posted on 05/31/2008 4:48:53 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
If marriage isn't one man, one woman and Homosexual Marriage becomes law, then any type of relationship can seek legal marriage.

Michelangelo Signorile of the Village Voice in New York and other radical gays have been quite clear in stating that the goal of homosexual "marriage" is to delegitimize marriage itself.

They want society to disestablish marriage because the existence of marriage throws a shadow on every kind of nonmarital and extramarital liaison.

Homosexual joke-"marriage" is just a waystation.

27 posted on 05/31/2008 4:53:15 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

I agree. Also see an article that appeared a few years ago in “The Village Voice” called “The Radical Case for Gay Marriage” at http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0336,goldstein,46732,1.html .


28 posted on 05/31/2008 3:43:14 PM PDT by beejaa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Capitol Resource works to defend traditional marriage. Just as people favoring same sex marriage will be supporting organizations working for their cause, so we should do the same.
Please Mail Donations to:

Capitol Resource Family Impact
660 J Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95814


29 posted on 05/31/2008 3:46:50 PM PDT by beejaa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beejaa
Looked at your link, thanx. Amazing how precious the Left's image of itself is -- holy vessels of freedom, bla bla bla, vistas of possibilities, bla bla bla, evil rightists with crippled personalities rushing to crush sprouting humaneness, bla bla, and so on and so on.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said of some communists on their farm, "they look well in June. We will see them in December." We already know what life on the Left will look like after they get through decomposing society and screwing it up. They are truly impervious to life's lessons about what works, in their solipsistic pursuit of the Eternal Me.

30 posted on 06/01/2008 12:30:32 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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