[L.N. Smithee]

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who was viciously tenacious in his enforcement of anti-assault weapon laws to the extent that he sponsored public service announcements telling owners of the weapons that they were risking immediate imprisonment, was informed that the mayor of San Francisco was going to deliberately violate California code, and wasn't available for comment when it all began.

I am not a lawyer, but there has to be some sort of statute that pertains to dereliction of duty by the state Attorney General.

[sgtbono2002]

Not being a lawyer it would seem to me that a Mayor cant just make a law on his own. It would seem that a permit granted illegally isnt worth the paper its written on. I certainly hope none of these virgin gays give up their virginity because they think they are married.

[King Black Robe]

Now there's a scandal. But don't count on the liberal presstitutes to follow-up. And don't expect leftists in power in California to be consistent in upholding the rule of law.

Drudge, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, maybe (MAYBE!) FOX. Unless they report it, it didn't happen.

[Servant of the 9]

I am not a lawyer, but there has to be some sort of statute that pertains to dereliction of duty by the state Attorney General.

There can't be any laws against dereliction of duty by a Liberal.
If there were, they would all be in jail already.

SO9

[jwalsh07]

He broke the law. There has to be a statute that prohibits officlial from issuing fraudulent licenses and recording same. I wouldn't know exactly where but I'm 100% sure there is one.

[whereasandsoforth]

This action by SF mayor Newsom and the rest of the lawbreakers means nothing. The queers that lined up go get "married" are no more married now than they were last month. It all means nothing in the legal world. They are playing games with themselves.

Queer little documents with queer little names filed in that queer little county still doesn't mean two queers are married. To ever really be married, they will have to blind God in both eyes and we know how far they will get with that plan.

Queers will forever be queer by definition unless they seek to change into someone who cannot be defined by their vile and unnatural choices.

[John Jorsett]

What I wish is that someone on the anti-gay-marriage side would get married to a same-sex partner. Then when these marriages are declared void, sue the hell out of S.F. for the emotional damage done by their illegal action. Getting stung for a big sum of money is the only thing that would get to lawless lunkheads like Newsome and his ilk.

[Bikers4Bush]

I have to believe that the penalty for issuing a marriage license to gays would be the same as the penalty for issuing a drivers license to an illegal alien.

Fraudulent documents are not to be taken lightly.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

"anarchy" is the key word -- criminal SEDITION. Open defiance of the law.

[Ohioan]

The Mayor is seriously delusional. As I posted on another thread, the other day:

The notion of "homosexual marriage" is one of the most obvious oxymorons ever to be seriously discussed as a valid proposal. Future generations will view the history of our times with raised eyebrows and snickers, for a number of reasons; but you can be certain the fact that we seriously discussed such a concept will be very prominent among them.

Marriage is not always between one man and one woman; but it always relates to a sexual union--with sexual given its ordinary meaning, in whatever the language--that is relating to the division of the species into two distinct sexes, each with a separate and distinct function. That sexual division is the basis for ongoing human life; the gravamen of continuing existence. That educated people in our society fail to appreciate anything so obvious, says much about the mentally undisciplined way so many of us raise our children. Marriage is about society sanctifying the mating of its members. And while there may be such a thing as a couple marrying without sex--that is without the union of the sexual parts of man and woman--such marriages are allowed because we give people the benefit of the doubt; we assume that people who seek to marry, intend to consummate those marriages. The fact is, in virtually every jurisdiction, as earlier under ecclesiastical law, failure to consummate a marriage could be grounds for annulment. The theory of annulment is quite different than that of divorce. It is premised upon the idea that such a marriage is simply void--that, in effect, it never existed.

Considering all of this, one can only conclude that those proposing such a mockery of marriage; of human experience and Nature's reality, as well as of the entire religious history of the West, are either (1) completely delusional on the relevant questions, or (2) simply exploiting the delusions of others to use those who are delusional for some conceived political advantage.

Of course, it is obvious, also, that none of the arguments being cited; that people are "in love," that people have perverse "attachments," "desires," "attractions" or whatever, have anything to do with the nature of the insitution of marriage. They are totally irrelevant to the question being raised.

One can feel genuine compassion for mixed up people; one can feel total disgust for certain acts; one can fear disease or scoff at all danger, even explore the darker recesses of one'e own mind--if one is one of those fighting with strange impulses, even ones they somehow imagine they were born with (however, actually unlikely); none of this has the slightest bearing on the question.

Marriage is not like a Corporation, where there may be different corporate purposes. Marriage has one role; the role it has always had, and that is to sanctify the sexual union, the mating of the sexes. Anyone who does not see that clearly, has a very serious conceptual and perceptual problem.

I will not even comment on the abject stupidity involved in anyone who seeks a greater degree of public toleration for his or her "idiosyncracy," pursuing anything so counter-productive and idiotic.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[freeangel]

Bush is at fault again according to this lewd lib mayor. So, what's new?

[timydnuc]

See, it's Bush's fault. Now let's move on people.

I'm just wondering what would happen if San Fran had about an 8.5 quake about now. I'd be the first to ask, "Anybody that doesn't believe in God, raise their hand".

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

A piece slavering over the clown/fool/criminal NON Catholic "mayor" of SF. It boils my blood how the media calls him "Catholic". Being a Catholic means (correct me if I am wrong) following the teachings of the Catholic Church, no?

Don't neglect reading the comments, there are some good ones!

Let me know if you want on/off etc!

[Dante3]

I have heard Lockyer speak a couple of times, and each time he truly sounded like he is incompetent and not quite in touch with reality.

As for Newsome, his wife is making the round of TV shows such as Larry King and some on MSNBC. She has been an anchor on Court TV where she gives analysis of criminal procedures. She is or used to be a prosecutor and looks rather masculine.

[Dante3]

I have heard Lockyer speak a couple of times, and each time he truly sounded like he is incompetent and not quite in touch with reality.

As for Newsome, his wife is making the round of TV shows such as Larry King and some on MSNBC. She has been an anchor on Court TV where she gives analysis of criminal procedures. She is or used to be a prosecutor and looks rather masculine.

[Holden Magroin]

This is anarchy. The liberals have crossed a line that has never been crossed in American politics. In the past, when one side lost, it accepted defeat, then tried again the next time. Now, liberal politicians have decided that, since they don't have the votes to repeal the voter-approved constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage, they will simply ignore it. Well, if liberal politicians are going to ignore our laws, then we are fully within our rights to ignore theirs.

[Trteamer]

When is the conservative base going to take to the streets?

FReepers all over California should be organizing some good old American right wing street protests. Picket all the TV stations. Picket the heck out of them.

Start DEMANDING recall, impeachment, prosecution. Or are we just going to sit by and whine about it. Time to get some guts and stand up for something.

[DMZFrank]

Boy oh Boy!!! Say you violate some unconstitutional San Francisco gun ordinance despite the constitution saying that your RKBA shall not be infringed. It won't matter to the powers that be there, they will come down on you (oops, Freudian slip) like a ton of bricks.

[concerned about politics]

The homosexual marriage licenses are as valuable as something found in the bottom of a box of Fruit Loops Cereal.

I want to know what the Mayor thinks of other left wing fetish groups getting married - like Foot fetish licenses, Sadomasochist licenses, bestiality licenses, voluntary cannibalism licenses. It's only fair he pass marriage licenses out to them too, unless he's just another footaphobe, beastaphobe, sadophobe, or eataphobe !
Is he a bigot? A hate filled moral right winger? A racist? Why is he leaving all the other fetish groups out? If you cut them, do they not bleed? Do they not have the same rights? Who choses what dysfunctional sex fetish gets to wed, and which does not? Are not all dysfunctional sex fetishes equal? That's blatantly unconstitutional!

(Liberals certainly are vile creature's, aren't they?)

[concerned about politics]

If you folks want to see anarchy, wait until Republicans win in a huge landslide in 2004 over this homosexual "marriage" thing.
Most Americans honor traditional values. They won't take kindly to a small handful of sexually dysfunctional people dictating the world their children are going to have to grow up in.
The academic elites are already invalidating the 2004 election. The voting machines are not good enough, they say. They need the multiple ballot butterfly machines to even get close to the numbers Bush is going to rake in.
I know, the polls say it's going to be close, but only a Democrat would be sitting around on their fat arse waiting for the phone to ring hoping to get a call for a one night stand. Republicans have jobs, technology to block calls, and normal families. The last thing they want to do is get hung up on the phone!

[weegee]

...with his partner and their two children.

Actually that's probably not how the law sees it. It certainly isn't how the laws of science see it.

The children are either the offspring of one of the men, or else one of the men adopted them. I doubt that adoption papers have 2 different men's names on them.