Calif. judge allows gay 'marriage' law

Washington Times ^ | 12/20/03 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[kattracks]

A California judge has ruled that the state can begin implementing its sweeping domestic partnership law next month, despite legal protests that the new law illegally creates same-sex "marriage."

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Thomas Cecil's decision Thursday was hailed as a victory by homosexual rights groups. But traditional values groups, which are suing to block the new law, were heartened that Judge Cecil did not throw out their case altogether.

[longtermmemmory]

why unmarried heterosexuals over 62? (s) that is agism and sexual behavior-ism all rolled into one. (/s)

Do young heterosexual couples get a civil marriage or union or do they have a choice? If no choice its discrimination.

[Brad’s Gramma]

House For Sale in Orange County CA!

Sheesh....I really REALLY don't want to move, but this is MORE than horrible.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Prime Choice]

Who are these justices who think they can legislate from the bench?

Did California voters overwhelmingly pass a proposition that defined marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman or did they not? Why, lo...they DID. So who do these judges think they are to circumvent the will of The People??

This judicial tyranny has got to end. I am sick and tired of seeing the judiciary abused as some kind of trump card for special interests!

[Atchafalaya]

I feel for you but can't reach you; I only have a 10ft pole!!!

[calcowgirl]

Not justices... but our wonderful state legislators.

This is from the bill analysis of AB205...

Legislative Counsel Bureau states AB 205 does not amend Proposition 22

In an opinion dated March 24, 2003, the Legislative Counsel Bureau states that the enactment of this bill does not constitute an amendment of Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, which enacted Section 308.5 of the Family Code. Section 308.5 states that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California" and that therefore, this bill, if enacted, does not require the approval of the voters.

The opinion concludes that "nothing in the language of the initiative statute [Family Code Section 308.5], nor in the ballot arguments in support of the initiative, indicates any intent or requirement that the Legislature be limited in its authority to enact new laws regarding the rights and obligations of domestic partners. Therefore, following the enactment of AB 205, the definition of marriage under California law would be unchanged. Same-sex partners in California would not be allowed to marry but would only be authorized, as they are today, to enter into a domestic partnership. The procedures and criteria for creating and terminating the two relationships would continue to be different. [AB 205] would merely prescribe the rights and obligations that would inure to parties to a domestic partnership. At the same time, the rights and obligations of parties to a marriage would be unchanged."

Bill Analysis, History, etc.

Thank you Jackie Goldberg, et al.

[NYer]

Bump!

[Hardastarboard]

Here's what really frosts my a$$: because I work for a company based in California, they have domestic partner benefits, including benefits for a DP's child. The cost to the employe for DP benefits is HALF what it is for a married person.

This promotes a homosexual lifestyle, and punishes married folks. Between this and the $1,500 marriage penalty on Federal taxes, I'm out almost $2,500 net cash out of pocket, after taxes.

If I didn't love my wife so much, and had already made the marriage commitment, I would divorce her or never marry. Why should I? The difference is $25,000 over 10 years, not including interest.

Whatever happened to equal treatment under the law?

[philetus]

Are you going to let them get away with it?

[little jeremiah]

Another Homosexual Agenda article for your reading... Let me know if anyone wants on or off the ping list.

(Haven't read this one yet, doesn't look good in CA as usual)

[little jeremiah]

Another Homosexual Agenda article for your reading... Let me know if anyone wants on or off the ping list.

(Haven't read this one yet, doesn't look good in CA as usual)

[mrs tiggywinkle]

Please see post #7.

[longtermmemmory]

The kicker is that the "unions" are exclusionary to heterosexuals until 62. This is really bizarre.

How are judges in California selected and retained? Seems like it is time to pick one up for retention and give them the boot.

[Kevin Curry]

Don't look for leadership from the self-worshipping sodomy-exalting Governator on this issue.

[little jeremiah]

I want to move away from the west coast. Anybody have any ideas? Where it doesn't get TOO bitterly cold (not below 0) or many days above 100 although I'd rather have cold than hot, air pretty clean, and a good mix of people? Smaller city or town, or countryside. Seriously, any ideas, Freepmail me.

(PS - sorry about the duplicate post up the thread.)

[wadeintothem]

Once again the tyranny of activist legislative unaccountible judges, asserting themselves as the head system, has imposed their minority will on the majority will. It is a disgrace.

[Old Professer]

I think we should have a test for homosexuality; a way to prove that these people really are what and who they say they are.

[Old Professer]

Here's what really frosts my a$$: because I work for a company based in California, they have domestic partner benefits<P. If I were your boss I would fire you so I could end that silly nonsense.