It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ok, show me the part of prop 22 which made it illegal to issue same sex marriage licenses.
If she had been doing something illegal why was she not arrested for it?
originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: windword
We both know that majority public opinion wins the day.
Where's the part which makes it illegal to issue a license?
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Then why did you start one?
I'm not getting into a cyclical argument.
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Phage
Another question. So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?
originally posted by: kellyjay
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Phage
Another question. So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?
clearly there was a violation of the law because the courts got involved and told him to cease issuing the liscenses, that wouldnt have happened if there was no law surrounding issuing liscenses where gay marraige was illegal
clearly there was a violation of the law because the courts got involved and told him to cease issuing the liscenses, that wouldnt have happened if there was no law surrounding issuing liscenses where gay marraige was illegal
a written authorization granted by a qualified governmental official or ecclesiastic to a named man and woman to marry
Yes, that's right. The licenses were not valid.
So, it would seem to me that the authorization is not valid, recognized, or legal by Prop 22. Maybe that's why the judge told him to quit issuing them in 2004.
What cyclical nonsense. If something illegal was being done a court order would not have been required.
You're starting this cyclical nonsense by a clear refusal to acknowledge what happened on face value.
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: kellyjay
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Phage
Another question. So you are saying that when they issued licenses to gays it wasn't against the law, it just wasn't the law?
clearly there was a violation of the law because the courts got involved and told him to cease issuing the liscenses, that wouldnt have happened if there was no law surrounding issuing liscenses where gay marraige was illegal
I'll wait on the person I asked the question of. That will be fact, not opinion.
The California supreme court yesterday declared the marriages of thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco void, after ruling that the city's mayor exceeded his authority by granting them marriage licences.
The ruling was the latest setback to efforts by the gay community to challenge laws that restrict the institution of marriage to heterosexual couples.
The court said the mayor, Gavin Newsom, and city officials violated the law when they issued the certificates, since legislation and a state voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The judges decided by a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 gay marriages performed in the city between February 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.
The court ordered officials in San Francisco to "undo" their previous "unauthorised" actions, correct official records and notify the newlyweds that their marriages were void.
If something illegal was being done a court order would not have been required.
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: kellyjay
Did you miss the point that this was from 11 years ago? Google can be your friend if you know how to use it.
originally posted by: kellyjay
originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: kellyjay
Did you miss the point that this was from 11 years ago? Google can be your friend if you know how to use it.
doesnt matter when it was from, he still broke the law like kim did based on his personal opinion thus is a double standard, nice try at trying to shift the goal posts though...no really, bravo