DAVIS, Calif. -- The marriage licenses issued to 4,037 same-sex couples at San Francisco's city hall no longer hold legal weight.
The California State Supreme Court announced in a report on Aug. 12 that the city office had no authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the first place.
Posted on the state's Web site, the court's report states, "We agree with petitioners that local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions."
"All affected same-sex couples that the same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect," the report stated.
Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, Davis residents and the 45th couple to be married, were there on the first day that licenses were issued.
On Friday, the pair attended a rally with other same-sex couples at the Yolo County recorder"s office. Bailes and Pontac coordinated the event as co-chairs of Marriage Equality California, Yolo Chapter. MECA is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to win marriage rights for same-sex couples.
The protesting couples offered their marriage licenses to the county recorder who invalidated the licenses with the official seal, Bailes said. She explained that the action was a statement to show that they had once been given an official marriage license and were really married for a period of time.
"It's not just a piece of paper," she said.
Bailes and Pontac said that all the couples they had spoken to would not consider taking back the $62 offered for their voided licenses, but will allow the city of San Francisco to use it to for "the fight" for same-sex marriages.
San Francisco stopped issuing licenses to same-sex couples when civil suits were brought by groups against the city's actions, according to California Supreme Court report.
According to a news release from Campaign for California Families a state group opposed to same-sex marriages -- the mayor had violated the California Family Code 300, which defines marriage as "a contract between man and woman."
CCF Executive Director Randy Thomasson said that "marriage is a beautiful and sacred relationship that is exclusively for a man and a woman." The court had no choice but to follow the "clear reading of the law," he said.
Mayor Newsom said he would uphold the Supreme Court's decision, but he added in a release on Aug. 12 that in allowing the marriages he believed he was following California's Constitution.
That is disgusting. I would be organising the biggest protest America has ever seen!!! Those people were told their marriages were legal, they've probably made all sorts of changes in their lives now that they thought they were considered to be legally marrried.
Why does that make you happy? What reason have you to be personally, positively affected by this negative impact on these people's lives? I don't agree with homosexuality one bit, and I'm quite clear on that point in many discussions here on the forum, but I believe whole-heartedly in a "live and let live" policy that says what makes someone happy and doesn't negatively impact others is permissable by me. Being offended because of a difference in beliefs doesn't count as negative impact - it just doesn't.
Some people find happiness, Sean, in seeing others with nothing. But that's okay... because, it will happen, eventually, and people like sowhatsthetruth will just have to live with it, or die an angry, bitter person.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
They broke the law and the ... law won.
They broke the law and the ...law won.
So Sodomy is no longer illegal. Ok.
Don't ask don't tell. Ok. Take that shiit home, cuz the majority of Americans don't want to know about it.
Pushing the marriage thing on America...ain't gonna work.
Witness the votes so far in Missouri and (liberal) California. And in 1992 in Colorado.
I don't condone their actions...I don't want to stop them from engaging in homosexual sex. I just don't believe it should be sanctioned by the states...because the majority of people in these states don't want homosexual marriage forced in to society.
.. and therefore you believe it is okay for the law to determine what people should and should not believe.
I don't have a problem with the feds catching up with the state and putting the state in it's place. I have a problem with the feds not recognizing that there's something wrong when they can say "we don't like that and we don't think most people will like that and so it's hereby illegal." It's discrimination, hands down.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile. By endorsing this, you condone the government's self-assigned power of telling people how they should live and that only those who abide by what they decide is according to their model will receive their blessings and the benefits that go along with it.
It's wrong. This is the effect of who I like to call conservative religious whacks.
If you could pull your head out of your Bible for one moment you'd see it's true.
sowhatsthetruth... I'm a 34 year old woman, who's a lesbian, and been in the same relationship for over five years... and I'm VERY committed to my partner. I don't know what games and drama that you were involved in... but, maybe it had something to do with the people you chose to associate with.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
Hmmmm... what would be great if, all gays and lesbians could stop paying taxes.
You see... I pay the same damn taxes that you do. I don't care WHO you marry.
Straight couples being married is no different than gay marriages.
Marriage isn't about who you screw... if it were, there were be MANY illegal marriages, multiple marriages for one person, underage, etc...
Marriage is about making a committment to ONE person, and spending your life with them.
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #10 :
I am not talking about beliefs (...) none of the above should be legalized. Like I said, what they (homosexuals) do in the privacy of their own home...is their own business.
Full of contradictions.
The statement "none of the above should be ________" is a belief. That is your belief, your opinion. That is why you agree with them and not us on this. You can't logically say you're not talking about beliefs when that is the foundation of your every word.
And at the same time your own beliefs have limits. What's the difference between what they (homosexuals) do in their own home and what they (child molesters) do in their own home? At some point in your belief system the sanctity of what goes on in someone's home breaks down and in come marching your beliefs.
For this reason, in some fashion or other beliefs MUST come into play in law. But my belief is that such belief-based laws should be limited to those circumstances which cause harm to others such as in the case of child molestaiton. Outside of laws catering to harmful acts, belief-based laws should be applied to all or none - not some - indiscriminantly.
I wonder if these words even register to you because your responses seem like those of someone with fingers in their ears screaming, "BLAH BLAH BLAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Doesn't it strike you as at all peculiar that KJ and I argue the same side here despite my aversion to her lifestyle?
Beliefs and opinions? Yeah so what! That is what this forum is all about if you want to get down to brass tacks.
My opinion on this subject may not please the liberals or the homosexuals.
And you know what? I don't care.
Going by the votes in Calif, Colo (92), and Missouri, I am speaking for a great deal of the population. I'd like to see every state vote on this subject...and you'll find there are ALOT of us out there. Call us narrow minded, bash us as Christians all you want....but America ain't buying into homosexual marriage plain and simple.
As far as:
And at the same time your own beliefs have limits. What's the difference between what they (homosexuals) do in their own home and what they (child molesters) do in their own home? At some point in your belief system the sanctity of what goes on in someone's home breaks down and in come marching your beliefs.
For this reason, in some fashion or other beliefs MUST come into play in law. But my belief is that such belief-based laws should be limited to those circumstances which cause harm to others such as in the case of child molestaiton. Outside of laws catering to harmful acts, belief-based laws should be applied to all or none - not some - indiscriminantly."
This arguement has NOTHING to do with this subject.
Illegal sexual acts like pedophilia have nothing to do with this subject. We're talking about consenting adults.
In the case of:
Polygamy: This would be two or more consenting adults. Two of which being a man and a woman.
Now, a man can be married and have as many sexual partners as he wants. This is legal. And like I said, if that's what they choose I may not condone it, but legally there is nothing to stop this.
But, again, legally they cannot marry.
Incest: This would be two consenting adults. A brother and a sister. An aunt and a nephew (of age). 1st cousins...capiche?
Now, there are no laws against a brother and a sister having sex, BUT, again, they cannot marry.
Homosexuality....I am sure you can figure this one out. Two consenting adults, having sex...no laws any longer against this. But, in California (since this is the topic ) they cannot marry.
Like I said, the behavior is legal. The marriage is illegal.
Remember, I am a stickler for crime. If it's illegal. It's illegal. If you want the laws changed, then go about it through constitutional means. Don't just break the law and expect everyone to accept it.
08-27-2004 09:02 AM
