NEWS: Over 4000 Gay Marriages Annulled by California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court ruled that more than 4000 marriage licenses granted to gay partners was in violation of state law. "We agree with petitioners that local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions," the court wrote in their decision.



The ruling is in stride with the majority of Californians who passed a referendum citing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Related News Story
mercurynews.com
Calif. court nullifies 4,000 Frisco same-sex marriages
Gays react to marriage annulment
Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
SOCIAL: Gay Marriage

[edit on 8/12/04 by JacKatMtn]

Lets see what the boys from NYU do. Civil liberties does not equate to homosexual rights.

This is good news for the nation, but as I understand it, the court has ruled only that the mayor did not have the right to issue these marriage licenses. The court has yet to rule on whether the State Constitution excludes homosexual marriage.

I would just like to clarify my position. Homosexual marriage is an absurdity, but the current state of marriage in our culture is not the fault to the homosexuals. The homosexuals are doing only what you can expect from those who have no respect for convention. They are mocking tradition and seeking to capitalize on the benefits of marriage without making the sacrifices and contributions which are made by those who honor this most fundamental of all social institutions.

Passing laws or changing the constitution will only prevent these travesties from taking place, but they will do nothing to restore or preserve an already weakend institution.

[edit on 04/8/12 by GradyPhilpott]

No matter where you stand on the gay marriage issue, it is not a good thing when public officials disregard laws. There is no glamourous "civil disobedience" aspect to elected officials acting in such a way. They wield too much power. It is a dangerous road to start down.

Originally posted by Apoc
[I]t is not a good thing when public officials disregard laws.

Amen!

If worrying about whether gay people can marry or not is top of your agenda and rouses you to such passion I suggest some therapy.

What a total non-issue.

What is the big issue here that people wants to consolidate their love regarless of sexual preferences that is their business is their live no body here has the right to tell others what to do.

Get it people gays are here they are human and they are not going anywhere so get use to it.

No matter where you stand on the gay marriage issue, it is not a good thing when public officials disregard laws. There is no glamourous "civil disobedience" aspect to elected officials acting in such a way. They wield too much power. It is a dangerous road to start down.

I regretfully agree on with you (in regards to elected officials), although I admire the mans refusal to accept the
close-minded reallity, he went about it the wrong way.

They are mocking tradition and seeking to capitalize on the benefits of marriage without making the sacrifices and contributions which are made by those who honor this most fundamental of all social institutions.

GradyPhilpott, please elaborate. I find your statement confusing, is it not the other way around? that the "absurd homos" as you put it are fullfilling all that
is expected of a married couple in partnership, expept raising children, since they are not perrmitted by your goverment, (the question about if gays should raise children is another question wich I gladly discuss when I have more time)
yet they do not reap the benefits that marriage implies.
If it only were the question of the church then these points u people are making would make more sence, but thats not the case.
there are numerous benefits to be married and denying some citizens the rights of others is absurd.

Civil liberties does not equate to homosexual rights.

well it does since they to are sitizens no matter how u #ing slice it!
the only positive thing that can come out of right wing policy is liberalism, yet u manage to screw that up with represive religion. cant u get anything right??

[edit on 12-8-2004 by disturbence]

Originally posted by disturbence

GradyPhilpott, please elaborate. I find your statement confusing....

If my statement confuses you, your socialization and education are
so deficient that all the bandwidth in the world could not unconfuse you.

"absurd homos"

This quote is not from my post. Again, your lack of disciplined thought betrays you.

[edit on 04/8/12 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The homosexuals are doing only what you can expect from those who have no respect for convention. They are mocking tradition and seeking to capitalize on the benefits of marriage without making the sacrifices and contributions which are made by those who honor this most fundamental of all social institutions.

That's laughable. Given the choice to respect 'convention,' or a human being, I'm going to respect the human being. What's conventional ain't all it's cracked up to be. It was convention in the 1800's for many Americans to own black slaves -- was it wrong for the Abolishionists to have no respect for that tradition? It was convention for women to be relegated to nothing more than a housekeeper for much of our country's history, so was it wrong for those that fought for equal rights to defy 'convention?' Like it or not, the struggle gays face in today's world is not vastly different from the plight of various minorities in our past. Gays aren't seeking more rights than the average person, they are simply seeking equal rights. Why do you think you deserve more rights than a counterpart American citizen who just happens to be gay? Why should they be discriminated against whereas you would not be?

There's really no concrete reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry. Any of the excuses I've seen can be easily shot down, it's just some people are so stubborn about this issue that they refuse to acknowledge common sense responses.

Religion has no part in this, because this boils down to a political debate, and church and state are supposed to be separate.

The tradition debate is virtually moot as well, seeing as how we've had plenty of things we viewed as traditional in our history overturned because well, they were wrong. Tradition does not always = right.

What else? Umm. That whole thing that if gay people are allowed to marry it will somehow tear down the fundamental idea and purpose of marriage; well, you basically said it for yourself: marriage is in a sad shape in today's America, and that can only be blamed on heterosexuals.

If you fall back on that idea that marriage is simply a relationship to foster the raising of children, where is that stated? I haven't been to a marriage myself in awhile but does the priest state anything about it being the couple's duty to raise children? Not that that really matters though, seeing as how I already stated religion cannot and should not play a part in this debate, but still. Are people that are incapable of having children, are they allowed to marry? If you do get married and are able to have children, yet choose not to, do you get fined? Do you get your marriage annulled or something?

Two consenting adults that love one another should not be discriminated against when it comes to marrying, whether they be man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman. If a church doesn't want to marry them, fine, they aren't bound to the same rules as our federal/state governments. But it is the duty of our government to treat its citizens equally. Whether it's 'convention' or not, denying gay couples the right to marry is a blatant disregard to the some of the basic premises our country was founded on. And it's downright pathetic to hear so many Americans support such bigotry-driven discrimination against their fellow Americans.

[edit on 12-8-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Whether it's 'convention' or not, denying gay couples the right to marry is a blatant disregard to the some of the basic premises our country was founded on

There is no rational reason to grant the privileges of marriage to same sex couples. It is an absurdity. Those males and females who marry one another and cannot or choose not to have children are clearly in the minority and the cost to society is minimal.

Granting marriage privileges to a class of individuals who cannot procreate makes no sense societally. The reasons are not founded in religion or convention, for religion and convention are only the repositories of this truth, but to understand this, one must first understand what society is and clearly you and those who agree with you do not.

I am not going to belabor this issue with those whose educations and logical capacities render them incapable of understanding the basic tenets of civilization. Believe what you will. Truth will not be denied.

Oh, and it is you who is laughable.

Marriage is as much about civil recognition of two people to live together, share possesions, money, tax brackets and a future. If marraige was all about procreation, we'd all have like six wives n #. It boils down to civil liberties, and practical sides of human relationships being able to be recognised in the law.

Originally posted by Qoelet
Marriage is as much about civil recognition of two people to live together, share possesions, money, tax brackets and a future. If marraige was all about procreation, we'd all have like six wives n #. It boils down to civil liberties, and practical sides of human relationships being able to be recognised in the law.

Okay. This is my last input on this matter. I cannot reeducate the world, but this is as fundamental as I can get. The family is the basic unit of society, not the individual. Society sanctions marriage between a man and a woman because doing so fosters the nuclear family from which all other beneficial human associations flow and where children are socialized to function in the society. Losing sight of this is the death knell for any civilization. Evidently, enough Americans alive today have never learned this or this debate would not rage. These truths are to be found in the great religions of the world, in the traditions of enduring societies, and in the sociological literature. All you have to do is study and you too, can know what I know. It's not rocket science.

It is not my calling to save the American civilization. It is your progeny who will have to live with the fruits of your folly. I have none.

You sure didn't do too well dispelling my characterization of the anti-gay marriage types in your msg, did ya?

You do not need to be married to 'procreate.' You do not need to be married to raise children. Gay people always have, and will continue to enter into meaningful, loving, committed relationships whether they get that nice government stamp of approval or not. This has been going on for decades, and our society is chugging along just like it always has; if gay couples haven't yet brought about the 'destruction' of our society (that sounds so melodramatic, doesn't it?), acknowledging and labeling those relationships as 'marriage' will not bring about that destruction either.

Keep throwing around those insults trying to make yourself sound superior and maybe you'll start to believe them someday. If you were as educated as you try to come of as, you wouldn't be scared of debate. You wouldn't have to run away anytime someone tears your entire position apart. If you were as educated as you try to come off, you wouldn't take a unenlightened, discriminatory position that goes completely against the liberties our country was founded on.

By the way...a person advocating bigotry, incapable of accepting the inherent and unavoidable diversity in our culture is a far worse detriment to society than any 'married' gay couple could ever be.

so the legal/social/economic/political dynamic of the world hasnt changed in the last 3000 years.. huh?

Qoelet,

Thanks for that post it seems that some people do not understand the meaning of a legal union of two people.

For some it comes to social issues that most of them come from the believe of church teachings, they cannot comprehen that an union cannot be more than a man and a women in the basis of procreation.

Gay couples want the tax, medical and benefits that comes with a legal union.

If somebody contributes to society and earn the benefits that comes from that contribution he or she has the right to share these benefits with whomever it feels like it.

the anti-gay marraige dude needs to read some hobbes... Citizens and law man.. thats what its all about (well not all but its kinda important for society n stuff)

The California supreme court violated one very basic idea. Equal protection under law. Without that concept what do we have? These courts that are so against gay marriages are the first ones that will be happy to give out a divorce. They are idiots in my book. This is what happens when you have unaccountable people trying to dictate legislation from the bench.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON


Granting marriage privileges to a class of individuals who cannot procreate makes no sense societally. The reasons are not founded in religion or convention, for religion and convention are only the repositories of this truth, but to understand this, one must first understand what society is and clearly you and those who agree with you do not.

The above statement loosely translated: You didn�t agree with me, your stupid and I'm going home.

While the vocabulary and sentence structure indicate some education, the emotional content is Kindergarten.

I agree with the courts decision. It was the proper legal call in this case even if it wasn't on a grand scale in line with the 14th amendment. That of course is the whole point. You have to loose in a lower court before you can appeal to a higher one. And, you can't argue the 14th amendment in a State court, it has to be Federal.

Now for the reality show.

My sister and her partner of 29 years raised my two Nephews. They did about as well as a straight couple. Both kids have there share of problems, which can be traced to their abusive alcoholic father, not to having two mommies. My sister and sister-in-(not)law both have good jobs but pay more taxes than I do because they are not straight. That violates the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. If my sister dies her partner will not automatically get her estate. Even though she has put my sister through two Masters Degrees and manages all the finances of the household and contributes about 60% of the income.

It doesn�t matter that your Religious beliefs consider union between same sex couples an abomination, the 14th Amendment clearly grants All citizens equal protection under the law. Your church does not have to.
The 1st Amendment grants protection of the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association. It also guarantees your church the right to restrict membership.

It took many years from the passing of the 14th Amendment to the passing of the Civil Rights Act to address the rights of African-Americans; it has taken a bit longer for Gay rights to come to a boil.

All the same eloquent blather (and some that even stated a reasoned logical argument) was slung against Blacks, Native American, Irish, Jews, Hispanics, ad infinitem. Some churches scripture said that blacks were descendants of Cane and not redeemable. Jews were the executioners of Christ and not redeemable.
It wasn't right (although it may have been legal at the time) and it still is not.


[edit on 12-8-2004 by JohnJohn]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Ever since the days of Adam, it has been and will be. How dare someone change the rules of tradition and respect towards God. He did not mean for marraige between two men or two women whatsoever. NO IF's AND's or BUT's about it. End tof transmission. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming