4,000 Annulments

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco on Thursday, finding that the city acted improperly in granting the marriage licenses earlier this year in defiance of state law.

Comments

[Patrick]

Um, if the government is annulling marriages, doesn't that imply that they believe they are in fact... marriages?

[Jennifer]

Patrick-
As I understand it, an annulment means that officially, you were never married in the first place.

How damnably spiteful.

[Gary Gunnels]

So much for "judicial tyranny."

[thoreau]

8,000 people no longer have the legal right to share property ownership and power of attorney with one another.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure feel as though my marriage to my wife is stronger as a result! Not to mention what this does to reinforce the rule of law!

And yes, that was sarcasm.

[What'dYouExpect?]

In other news, Pope Catholic, bear shits in woods, turmoil in Middle East.

Did anyone really not expect this?

[thoreau]

Let me rephrase before a cranky conservative poster points out that with an annullment they never really had that right in the first place:

A bunch of black-robed demigods (see, conservatives, I can bash judges too!) affirmed that 8,000 consenting adults never had the right to share ownership of their own private property and power of attorney over their own private affairs.

Score another victory for the sanctity of marriage, the rule of law, and less intrusive government.

Yay!

[zorel]

Gary,

Are you complaining of (or mocking) "judicial tyranny" because the court upheld the Law (as it is now in California), or because they failed to create new laws for a ___blank___ cause?

[jc]

Black-robed demigods? Are we talking about Iran or the US?

[Patrick]

Sorry Jennifer, my grasp of marriage is admittedly a little shaky, seeing as how I am not allowed to do it to the person I love.

[zorel]

thoreau,

now Jennifer is a 'cranky conservative poster'? 🙂

I share your feelings about the gay marriage. So, I am not one to think that this strengthens marriage and all that crap. However, when you talk about rule of law, is this how you want Laws written in this country (by a mayor or a city clerk issuing a license clearly against the State Law)? I kind of think 'revolutions' start this way ...

[Jennifer]

The only conservative thing about me is my hemlines. I'm appalled by the spitefulness of this decision.

[Jason Ligon]

I don't know what else the Supremes could have done. I don't agree with the statutory limitations that specify to whom a marriage certificate can be given in CA, but it would be an odd turn of events to grant the city the ability to create state benefits out of thin air, which is what San Fran did. I'm not really going to make an argument in support of government authority exceeding its enumerated limits.

It would be funny if some municipality started issuing CCW permits on the same basis, though, just to see everyone scream in horror.

Blame ye the legislators, not the judiciary.

[DaveInBigD]

I really do want to howl with laughter when some judge annuls every hetero marriage.

The legal reasoning is sound. Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. The US constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Marriage discriminates based on the relative sex of ones chosen partner. Therefore all marriage is unconstitutional.

It'd never survive, but it'd be a lot of fun in the meantime.

[rst]

I'm appalled by the spitefulness of this decision.

I am not, but then again I don't find it spiteful. As a straight man I could not care less whether gays can get married - I see no overwhelming social improvement or degradation either way. The gay camp has thus far failed to convince me that I should care. I welcome further attempts.

The state meanwhile has the right to set the conditions under which it will issue the marriage contract, and on a related vein for many of them, what it calls "indecent". Whether the state should be doing that at all is another matter entirely, upon which I likely agree with most if not all of you. But do any of you have delusions about marriage licensing going away?

The same San Francisco mayor who effectively told the state legislature and the state's voters to go fuck themselves will be asking for money come budget time. Interesting tho how "judicial tyranny" apparently only applies when it's you who's getting the shaft. Newsom was acting tyrannically as well, but because his tyranny was progressive, he is a hero.

If you're going to get married in violation of the law and some oddball proposition, don't act all indignant when neither the government nor society accept it. They were under no obligation to do so, and the judicial decision was a no-brainer. Don't worry though, you always have the Ninth.

[Call me snake]

It's amusing to watch the giant federalism shell game that both left and right play....Respect individual states on issue A, but don't even dare think about it on issue B.

Astonishingly transparent.

[rst]

Marriage discriminates based on the relative sex of ones chosen partner. Therefore all marriage is unconstitutional.

Um...no. Abstract nouns do not discriminate. Abstract nouns don't do anything except wait for their predicates.

[Patrick]

As a straight man I could not care less whether gays can get married

Which is exactly why you are unqualified to understand why it matters.

[virgo]

"As a straight man I could not care less whether gays can get married"

because as a straight man you have never, not for one second, during your life, ever, ever had to deal with the fact that you would be denied by the government the right to marry, share property, raise children, etc, with the person of your choice, you pompous overprivileged ass.

[Xrlq]

"Don't worry though, you always have the Ninth."

Ninth what? Amendment or Circuit? Both seem to be wild cards.

[Gary Gunnels]

zorel,

I'm mocking the religious nutbars who stated that gay marraige was brought on us by "judicial tyranny!" In the State of California a majority of the public had spoken on the (wrongly IMHO), and the court simply stated what had been the case. In Massachusetts, where no such constitutional referendum had taken place, the chief court there (which has far broader powers within its jurisidiction than many state courts, and all federal courts) made a decision. Neither was "judicial tyranny," but the proper exercise of the court's power.

[rst]

Which is exactly why you are unqualified to understand why it matters.

But you think I should vote a specific way on it anyway?

because as a straight man you have never, not for one second, during your life, ever, ever had to deal with the fact that you would be denied by the government the right to marry, share property, raise children, etc, with the person of your choice, you pompous overprivileged ass.

I'd say I'm just priveleged enough, thanks. But barring the unlikely event of states dropping the marriage contract routine, what exactly indicates an explicit right to get married to a person of the same gender? Where did this right come from? Specify.

Like I said, convince me and you have my vote.

[Gary Gunnels]

xlrg,

Unless some federal right were being violated, I doubt that it would see the light of day in a federal court. Furthermore, it wouldn't be shunted to the circuit or district courts, but to the SCOTUS.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Interestingly enough, I think this ruling may prove hard to swallow for more reasons than one. There are several towns here in California, my own (Santa Cruz) and the one down the road (Watsonville) as examples, where voters have rejected fluoridation of the city water supplies.

A few years ago, the legislature passed a law that requires water systems in sufficiently large towns and cities to add fluoride as long as they can get funding. As both of the aforementioned cities clear the legal size hurdle, they are required to add fluoride, since pro-fluoride groups have set up a "scholarship" program that pays for installation and operation for a limited initial period. Yet, the public votes contradict the State law.

Pro-fluoride groups and others sued Watsonville to fluoridate under the state law; the court recently ruled that, yes, indeed, the municipalities must obey the State law, regardless of the results of local public vote.

The CA Supreme Court indirectly supported that ruling today, basically affirming that local officials don't have the authority to go against State law, either, even when they seemingly have massive local public support for their actions.

So, on the one hand, a group of people are prevented from doing something they want to do; and on the other, different groups are forced to do something they don't want to do. In both cases, the underlying principle is the same: State law trumps everything except Federal law. That's not a bad principle, really, but it needs to be matched by a restraint and wisdom in the State capitals: to avoid making law that applies to all within the jurisdiction, unless said law is necessary and appropriately applied to all. I really have to believe that our legislators don't often ask the reasonable question: "What if a City or County wants to do something different?" If it is reasonable to think that San Francisco might want to go one way and L.A. another, or San Diego county do one thing and Santa Cruz county another, then perhaps even providing for that kind of diversity in the law isn't good enough -- perhaps it is best simply not to pass the law at the State level.

[Gary Gunnels]

rst,

Where does any "right" come from?

[ERock]

Pat and Virgo. You want us not to care. If states want to santion it we won't get our panties in a bunch about it.

To pretend that some great evil has occured when illegally issued licenses are nullified doesn't help your cause.

[Mark S.]

"A bunch of black-robed demigods..."

Thoreau: I think you mean "demagogues." Don't sweat it though. As previous threads indicate, I've had my share of grammar/spelling errors, too.

[KipEsquire]

If you're the mayor of San Francisco, or any other local executive, and you don't like a law, or think it's unconstitutional, and for reasons of conscience are unable to faithfully execute that law and are either unable or unwilling to change it through the normal legislative and judicial processes -- then resign!

Or would that be just a little too much publicity?

[Mark S.]

" I kind of think 'revolutions' start this way ..."

...and It's about gorram time we had one.

[zorel]

Mark S,

thoreau meant (and it makes sense) 'demigods' - judges think they are not accountable to any man(or woman) and act like demi-gods.

[thoreau]

Thoreau: I think you mean "demagogues." Don't sweat it though. As previous threads indicate, I've had my share of grammar/spelling errors, too.

Actually, I meant "demigods." Or, more accurately, I've seen people on this forum refer to judges as "black-robed demigods" before, so I was copying that usage.

[Jennifer]

Wasn't the SF mayor's original reasoning based on the fact that the "gays can't marry" business violated the State constitution's equal protection clause?

Among other things, denial of gay marriage means that dying gay people can't have their loved ones visit them in the hospital; gays who wish to leave their worldly possessions to their One True Love find that said OTL must pay high inheritance taxes (which married couples need not pay); et cetera.

RST-
Instead of insisting that we give you good reasons to let gays marry, I would be very interested to hear good reasons why they shouldn't. The old bit about marriage being for childraising won't wash, since infertile people or post-menopausal women are allowed to marry already.

[Chris]

I wonder how the divorce lawyers are taking it. I bet you there were already a few in process.

[Mark S.]

"Actually, I meant "demigods."

Oh... Well, whatever works, dude. 🙂 It's not the term I would use, though. To me, "demigod" implies Herculean heroism and power that theses judicial assholes clearly don't deserve.

[Mark S.]

"Actually, I meant "demigods."

Oh... Well, whatever works, dude. 🙂 It's not the term I would use, though. To me, "demigod" implies Herculean heroism and power that these judicial assholes clearly don't deserve.

[Mark S.]

Whoops! Sorry about the double post.

[Meshuganer]

First of all, I think that the gay activists have gotten it all wrong by going for the jugular in the first place. It has been an all or nothing attitude. Civil unions will guarantee gay and lesbian couples all the priviledges that straight married couple have depending how the law was drafted. Since they knew that most of the voting public would not approve "gay marriage" by referendum or a vote in state legislature, they had to go through the back door (no pun intended) by getting sympathetic judges to make decisions or sympathetic mayors like Gavin Newsome to issue licenses regardless of the law. No one really wants to look at the rationale of gay activists and the futility of their zeal. Society at large is not going to be sympathetic to their viewpoint and unfortunately alienate the gay community and whittle away whatever progress in attitudes that have been made in the last 20-30 years. OK you will always have those homo-haters out there regardless, but that isn't America as a whole (most people don't give a shit) I really would like to see some kind of compromise on this issue like civil unions which doesn't have the quasi religious aura about it that the word marriage has, but still extends certain benefits, rights and priviledges to gay couples. The judiciary should keep to interpreting the law and not being activist. Enuf said.

[Gary Gunnels]

zorel,

Having worked with a number of judges, I can't say they left the impression with me that they thought they were "demo-gods."

[Xrlq]

Gary: the fundamental non-right being asserted here does not depend on any special quirk of the California Constitution. It could just as easily be asserted in a separate case, in federal court, under the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

BTW, the meta-discussion over the meaning of "annulment" is silly. That's Reuters talking, not the court. The court itself uses the word "annul" only twice (see pp. 71, 72), both times to distinguish the process of annuling legal but voidable marriages from situations like this one, where the "marriages" in question had no basis in law from the beginning.

So contrary to Patrick's fantasy, there is no serious argument to be made that the California Supreme Court thought the 4,000 voided "marriages" were marriages in the first place. At the most, one can say that Justice Kennard and Werdegar may have considered that the "marriages" in question were marriages, but even that assumes that both Justices will eventually rule that gay marriage is a right.

[TJ]

Jennifer:

"...I would be very interested to hear good reasons why they shouldn't"

Haven't you read the Ninth Amendment? Doesn't it say: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to suggest any other rights are retained by the people, not specifically enumerated". Oh, wait.

[Mark S.]

"...I would be very interested to hear good reasons why they shouldn't"

'Cause Jesus said so, that's why. Oh wait...

[Xrlq]

What Meshuganer said. Homo-haters are not a majority, but scofflaw-haters are. Why try so hard to forge an alliance between them?

[Ira Weatheral]

From a contract standpoint, I would much prefer that gays marry and receive the same legal benefits as heteros than "partners" getting benefits. Marriage increases social stability for straights, why not for everybody?

However, your insurance rates should increase because I shacked up with an easy lay (and she'd HAVE to be easy to hook up with me!) for six months and got her on my plan? Balderdash!

[zorel]

Gary,

If you say so, I will take your word for it. I have no experience with judges other than once in a traffic court:-)

I was not saying that I believe judges think like that. was 'splaining why someone would call them 'demigods' - and as thoreau said, it has been used here before.

[Gary Gunnels]

xlrg,

Gary: the fundamental non-right being asserted here does not depend on any special quirk of the California Constitution.

Sure it does, if they are claiming that they have said right under the California Constitution; the federal courts don't arbitrate state rights unless they somehow impact federal rights, etc., and they generally have to do so negatively to boot.

It could just as easily be asserted in a separate case, in federal court, under the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

No shit, but that's beside the point.

[Gary Gunnels]

"The judiciary should keep to interpreting the law and not being activist."

What is activist depends on one's POV; its a fairly subjective term. Furthermore, common law courts (like the state courts of Massachusetts) have a long tradition of being activist and making law, so its a bit strange for someone to yelling "stop!" at this point. I think people fundamentally confuse the difference between state courts and federal courts, and variation in power both have. In many ways they are very different types of courts, and that's why what the Mass. court did isn't so troubling.

[Evan Williams]

DaveinbigD:

You said, The legal reasoning is sound. Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. The US constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Marriage discriminates based on the relative sex of ones chosen partner. Therefore all marriage is unconstitutional.

While I'm not trying to defend the stupidity of the state being involved in marriage in the first place, I do believe you're mistaken. The equal protection clause, contrary to the belief of a great many people who have obviously not read the constitution, does not provide for equal protection based on sexual orientation.

Lots of people like to throw that clause around when engaging in arguments related to homsexuality. And while, personally, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, I don't think that bringing up false facts as argumentative fodder is the best way to win an argument.

[Meshuganer]

Gary, thanks for the clarification

[hater]

"Homo-haters are not a majority, but scofflaw-haters are. "

Amen, brother. Way back when them darkies were tryin to eat in the same restaurant as me, I used to hate that.

[Xrlq]

Moron-haters are an even bigger majority.

[Jim]

While I am 100% pro gay marriage (and pro polyagmy actually) I think the court did the right thing in this case. The Mayor *must* obey the law.

If the law is wrong/bad/evil change it.

Would we really want local officals to ignore any laws they disagreed with? Well, they do in many cases, but still.

[Todd]

What is so hard to understand about this? How can anybody say this was anything but the correct decision?

Gay marriage is not recognized under state law in CA. The prohibition against gay marriage has not been decided as unconstitutional by the court. (My understanding is that that issue was not before them in this case--I could be wrong about that though).

Hence, these were void marriages. It would be the same result if the mayor was issuing marriage licenses to brothers and sisters who then got "married". Void marriages are annulled and treated as if they never existed.

"Voidable" marriages on the other hand, can be ratified by one or both of the parties. For example, if one of the parties didn't consent to the marriage because they were drunk when they got married. They could later "consent" making the marriage valid.

Oh, and by the way, I'm in favor of gay marriage. But this is just silly--this was a perfectly reasonable decision by the court. If anything, this stunt may have set back gay marriage for years.

Sorry for the long post--I just took the Missouri bar exam 2 weeks ago so I still have this crap in my head--might as well try to use it 🙂

[hater]

"Moron-haters are an even bigger majority."

Yer right xrlq, but don feel sad fer yerself. We'll prolly give ya a place ta eat at the back of the diner.

[Aleana]

"I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether"

I agree with you Evan. The word 'marriage' has always had religious connotations. The government should be in the business of issuing generic civil unions to whoever wants them. Whoever, being defined as a legal adult, other considerations aside. Then after they have obtained their license from the State, the couple can go to their church(s) of choice and be "married" in the traditions of that religion.

If that particular church refuses to marry them...well, I'm sure there are plenty of other more open-minded religions or variants there of that would be more than happy to accept and marry a couple of converts.

[Patrick]

I really would like to see some kind of compromise on this issue like civil unions which doesn't have the quasi religious aura about it that the word marriage has, but still extends certain benefits, rights and priviledges to gay couples.

Yes, because separate-but-equal policies have had great success in the past.

[TJ]

"Yes, because separate-but-equal policies have had great success in the past."

I agree with you, Patrick, but given that at least 80% of the voters care about this "religious aura", obtaining the legal rights first, and then continuing on to seek societies moral approbation may be the shortest path to success.

It's either that, or keep betting the farm on "activist judges".

[Tha Man Hator]

It's either that, or keep betting the farm on "activist judges".

Absolutely! Bush will continue to push through his idealogue judges if he gets 4 more years, and Kerry will push through his liberal choices if he gets it.

Since we're all getting fucked by the man anyway, why not let gays marry?

[Steve]

Testify, Aleana, testify! Whenever there's a legal problem like this, you should ususally follow Ayn Rand's advice and "check your premises." In this case, the presupposed premise that most people hold is that the state should be involved in marriage at all. The core problem in most legal connundrums is state involvement, yet most people's solution is more state involvement. Don't trust the state to do anything right.

[s.a.m.]

Wow, all this gay marriage talk has gotten Gov. Jim McGreevey hot enough to have an extramarital homosexual affair. So long Gov, seriously though, don't let the door hit you in the ass!

[Xrlq]

It could just as easily be asserted in a separate case, in federal court, under the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

No shit, but that's beside the point.

Then what the hell was the point? I don't think the original reference to "the Ninth" was to California's Ninth Appellate District (which doesn't exist) or to Article Nine of the California Constitution (which relates to education).

Next time, save the snark for when you have something to be snarky about.

[thoreau]

I recognize that the court's decision was legally correct, and I wouldn't have asked them to disregard the law as written.

I still don't have to be pleased with the outcome. No different from grumbling on April 15, really. The law is clear, but that doesn't mean you have to like it.

[rvman]

From what I've read of the ruling, they appear to be setting the ground for ruling that the statute does indeed violate the equal protection clause, when someone with standing to claim that reaches their bench. They fairly specifically say the ruling is agnostic on that issue, despite annulling these illegal marriages.

The issue of equal protection was not before the bench here, only administrative authority. Newsom didn't have authority to do what he did, so his order is null and void - pretty simple, and right on the law, if not on the morality.

[Fat White Guy]

The CA Supreme Court made it very clear that this was not about the issue of gay marriage. It was about some one violating the law by issueing marriage licences to gays.

The gay marriage issue will be settled separately.

The mayor new he was violating the law when he had the licenses issued and the people that lined up to get them new they were issued in violation of the law. So nobody should be shocked by the decision of the court.

All the hoopla seems to be activists whining about something that was destined to happen.

[raymond_m]

The law is clear, but that doesn't mean you have to like it.

Is it unjust?

imo, The only law which is valid is one which secures rights.

If you're the mayor of San Francisco, or any other local executive, and you don't like a law, or think it's unconstitutional, and for reasons of conscience are unable to faithfully execute that law and are either unable or unwilling to change it through the normal legislative and judicial processes -- then resign!

What was the name of that runaway-slave act which obliged northerners to return southern property, and which the Supreme Court found to be constitutional in Dred Scott?

Hypothetically... Should the mayor of NYC have resigned leaving his place to a more "faithful" executive?

[TJ]

"The core problem in most legal connundrums is state involvement, yet most people's solution is more state involvement."

I've seen this Libertarian idea advanced plenty of times. So, does anyone really believe that the shorter route to "gay marriage equality" is to remove state involvement in marriage all together?
In other words, civil unions for everyone?

I'd vote for it, but that proposition has about as much of a chance as Badnarik in an election.

[Gary Gunnels]

xlrg,

I wasn't being snarky; and I believe you completely misinterpretedmy my original remark.

[rst]

If the law is wrong/bad/evil change it.

That, Jennifer, was what I was saying. The anti-gay marriage camp has not convinced me that I'll need to vote against it when the referendum comes around. The gay marriage camp has not convinced me that it is indeed a right, especially since the state hijacked the arrangement in the first place. So until one of them does a better job, I will skip the question entirely, and just note that the court made the right call.

According to Patrick, I am not "qualified" to "understand". It's obviously a "gay thing," then, so I don't need to bother.

[Ruthless]

The purpose of "the law" is to satisfy the people's urge to not just stand there, but to DO something.
Thus "the law" has tightly secured each and every barn door after the horses have escaped.

Praise Da Law!

[Ruthless]

Jennifer,
Why is the only thing conservative about you your hemlines?
You got cellulite or something?

[Dan]

How damnably spiteful

There's nothing "spiteful" about it. It isn't as if the California Supreme Court is a hotbed of cultural right-wing sentiment, you know. It was simply obeying the law. From day one it was obvious that the SF marriages had no legal validity. I think that's unfortunate, but it's also the law.

really do want to howl with laughter when some judge annuls every hetero marriage. The legal reasoning is sound. Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. The US constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Marriage discriminates based on the relative sex of ones chosen partner. Therefore all marriage is unconstitutional. It'd never survive, but it'd be a lot of fun in the meantime

If your idea of "fun" is "wasting billions of dollars, guaranteeing the passage of a 'marriage means one man and one woman' Constitutional amendment, and dramatically increasing the political clout of the religious right by handing them the biggest propaganda coup in the history of America, and convincing most Americans that the goal of gay activists really IS the destruction of the institution of marriage"... then, yeah, I guess it would be "fun".

[Torquemada]

The California Supreme Court's evil, gay-bashing, Christian fundamentalist opinion can be found here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122923.DOC

We report, you decide. Or they decide.

[Gary Gunnels]

Fat White Guy,

Someone would have to have actually argued that the California SC was gay-bashing for your comment to be even remotely meaningful.

[JAG]

"A bunch of black-robed demigods ...affirmed that 8,000 consenting adults never had the right to share ownership of their own private property and power of attorney over their own private affairs."

Uh, ever heard of "Joint Ownership" agreements?
What laws prohibit anyone from getting a "Durable Power of Attorney" executed designating any other adult of their choice?

Exactly which hospitals have policies that prohibit gay lovers from unlimited visitation rights enjoyed by married couples? Wouldn't the easier solution to this problem be to identify and target those hospitals who have this silly policy in place and induce them to change policies?

I suppose those gays who want to pass along multimillion dollar estates to their lovers are aggrieved by the tax break given to surving spouses. I agree. All estate taxes should be abolished.

Income tax breaks? If you don't have kids, just because you're married doesn't mean you should get one either. Then again, just because you are "old" should you get a break on your property taxes? I'd say no to that as well.

Last, should homosexual couples who adopt children have all the rights and benefits of married couples? Well, again, a will and a durable power of attorney would seem to allow one homosexual to pass along legal guardianship to another person (gay or otherwise).
Is there something about using existing legal arrangements that homosexuals are, somehow, unable to manage?

[TJ]

"Most here have held from day 1 an opposition to the state having any say in this whatsoever, hetero or homo."

"All estate taxes should be abolished."
"Income tax breaks?"

The "principled" libertarian argument that existing hetro marriage rights shouldn't exist, therefore extending them to gays is incorrect, is simply disingenuous.

As I've said before, the notion that gays will achieve marriage "equality" by getting hetro's to give up existing rights is asinine.

[dhex]

"Exactly which hospitals have policies that prohibit gay lovers from unlimited visitation rights enjoyed by married couples?"

many of them, actually, even in new york city.

[JAG]

dhex,

By all means, please name one.

Then please tell me why the NY Times hasn't done a series of articles exposing the "unfairness" of the hospital's policy. I am assuming, of course that the NY Times takes this kind of injustice just as seriously as they take the injustice of the way Augusta National treats women golfers.

Seriously, why doesn't a NY Times or Boston Globe "out" the policies of some simpletons at a local hospital? No laws to overturn, simply idiot policies? If this problem is so grave (as the endless repetition of it would seem)why hasn't any homosexual activist, much less one major media outlet, tried this tact to resolve the issue?

It couldn't possibly be that the rhetorical value of the claim far exceeds the actual value of the claim, could it?

[Jennifer]

Ruthless-
No, I'm quite skinny. I just prefer long skirts, especially in the summertime--they're cooler than pants and I don't have to worry about exposing my undergarments to anyone.

Although today I am of course wearing jeans, in honor of "Casual Friday."

[david53]

what the state sanctions,the state will defend.while the state may and has acted immorally, if it protects immoral conduct by law we will have crossed the rubicon.the anti-americans will be in charge and john kerry would be a perfect first president.you folks seem to feel you're on a difficult climb up a mountain to some utopian destination.the injustice of it all ! of course when you get there you'll mark your name,eat,drink,take a dump and wonder what you're hanging around for ; must not be there yet. anyways...better to remove state blessings from marriage so as to forestall prosecution of those baring Light 🙂

[blaster]

"Exactly which hospitals have policies that prohibit gay lovers from unlimited visitation rights enjoyed by married couples?"

Actually most hospitals in certain circumstances only allow close family members to visit patients. So this would exclude a gay partner or a close friend.

There is paperwork that can be filled out to ensure your gay partner has visitation rights. So if you are smart enough to know this could be a problem tne you shoul be smart enough to take care of it.

[Fat White Guy]

Someone would have to have actually argued that the California SC was gay-bashing for your comment to be even remotely meaningful.

Comment by: Gary Gunnels

Somebody did so your comment has even less meaning.

[Show me your tits]

Ruthless-
No, I'm quite skinny. I just prefer long skirts, especially in the summertime--they're cooler than pants and I don't have to worry about exposing my undergarments to anyone.

Although today I am of course wearing jeans, in honor of "Casual Friday."

Comment by: Jennifer at August 13, 2004 06:24 AM

Pictures sweetheart. We need pictures.

[Jennifer]

Show me-
I don't even know how to do italics on this thing, and you expect me to post photographs?

[M]

JAG--

Why should my family have to put up with the legal hurdles you propose just to get something that's kind-of approaching the same protections that a "real" marriage would have? The laws in their current form artificially disadvantage my kids relative to yours. As an example--we pay into social insecurity just like you--however if I were to die tomorrow, my partner would be told to buzz off, leaving her and my kids high-and-dry. Please tell me the name of a lawyer to get us around that one.

The laws in their current form are grotesquely discriminitory. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'm sure you'd understand. It's too bad you're not insightful enough to "get it" on your own and instead take this unrealistic let-them-eat-cake attitude about the situation. Still, your attitude isn't as despicable a piece of knuckle-dragging "logic" as others'. Let's not forget the hateful legislation that recently passed in Virginia.

By the way, most kids raised by same-sex couples are not adopted. Not that it matters where the kids come from...it's just that without knowing any better, I'd think you're failing to acknowledge all the lesbians who've chosen to bear children.

[Fat White Guy]

Hypothetically... Should the mayor of NYC have resigned leaving his place to a more "faithful" executive?

Comment by: raymond_m

Hypothethetically....The Mayor of New York broke no state laws.

[Fat White Guy]

Let me see now! The Mayor of S.F breaks the law and takes advantage of a group of gay people by letting them get married unlawfully(probably for political reasons since he is a politician). The CA Supreme Court reverses the illegal marriages and states that a mayor cannot subvert the law. They go on to say that gay marriage is separete from this issue and will have to be decided in a separate court case or in some other matter.

So for this the CA Supreme Court is gay bashing. Amazing!

[blaster]

Since we're all getting fucked by the man anyway, why not let gays marry?

Comment by: Tha Man Hator

Are you a lesbian or do you just talk dirty to get me excited?

[Patrick]

It's obviously a "gay thing," then, so I don't need to bother.

By your own admission, you "could not care less" about whether gays can marry. That says to me that you cannot conceive what being gay is like, because otherwise you would question the fairness of the situation. So in that sense, yes, it is a "gay thing". I don't own guns nor am I equipped to ever have an abortion, but I certainly care about those issues. You don't have to be personally affected by an issue to care about its outcome.

[blaster]

'aa'

[rst]

That says to me that you cannot conceive what being gay is like, because otherwise you would question the fairness of the situation.

What it should say to you is that you should give me a reason to care, because without folks like me you will lose. Most here have held from day 1 an opposition to the state having any say in this whatsoever, hetero or homo. But you specifically want the state to extend the valid parties to the contract, and thus increase its participation in the marriage of two people. You want the legal benefits of marriage, such that the state - by virtue of some generic catchphrase "equal protection" - will force society, insurance companies, hospitals, courts, and juries among others to accept gay marriage as a right and an arrangement inseparable and indistinguishable in all aspects from heterosexual marriage. But there's nothing about your arguments that have thus far illustrated that it is a right, or that society should have any reason to see it that way. None of the gay marriage camp's actions been anything more than appealing to judicial activism and writing pithy diatribes against christian conservatives in Out magazine. It hasn't even scratched the surface of the support it'll need to make the kinds of changes it seeks. And until it does, your movement will languish.

You want to spend the rest of your life with the person you love? Go for it. But why is that, more than procreation, green cards, or tax benefits, a more "valid" motivation towards "marriage"? Because it's yours?

[TWC]

"especially since the state hijacked the arrangement in the first place."

Exactly.

I'm for getting the state out of the marriage business altogether...........

[Rick Barton]

California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco

This could kill the upcoming "Gay Divorce" debate.

Speaking of which, shouldn't the people who are so upset about Gay marriage welcome Gay divorce? Will the institution of marriage be resuscitated a bit with each and every Gay divorce?

[rst]

The "principled" libertarian argument that existing hetro marriage rights shouldn't exist, therefore extending them to gays is incorrect, is simply disingenuous.

I'm not a libertarian, nor am I particularly principled. Lacking any compelling reason towards change - call it an activation energy - I favor the status quo. Marriage has long been held by society to be between a man and a woman, and unless you can convince society otherwise, you're stuck. Don't expect that people will flock to your cause just because they don't have the right's fear of "diluted" families and such. Mostly, they're not onboard with the notion that it's a "right". That Man A and Man B may love each other is as wholly irelevant to the notion of marriage as whether Woman X and Man XY want to have kids.

[M]

"So what you are arguing is that someone who has children (however they have come about getting them) should rely on the government to do everything necessary to protect their children and a person shouldn't have to lift a finger."

No, JAG, that's not what I'm arguing at all. This statement actually says a lot about your mindset. I want the same treatment for my family that the vast majority of other families have. Now, whether that comes about by removing all the freebies you get, or giving us all the same protections, benefits, and responsibilities everyone else gets is beside the point. We contribute to this overly-elaborate system by mostly the same rules that your family does, but we're told to drop dead when it comes to getting things out. It's not right.

"That you want to ignore the point that it is fairly simple to engage a lawyer and accomplish, now, much of what you demand is simply intellectually dishonest."

And, of course, you fail to address the point I made about social security inequality and how a lawyer can't do a damn thing about it. Address my concern about this *one* issue--show me a way to get equality for my family here--and I'll shut up.

"What you want is society to approve of your choice"

I couldn't care less if you or society approve of me or the choices I make, JAG. Again--statements like this one are revealling of how little you really understand my situation, or the situation of millions of families like mine. We deserve a level legal playing field--that's all I expect, and eventually it's what we'll get.

[JAG]

M,

"Why should my family have to put up with the legal hurdles you propose just to get something that's kind-of approaching the same protections that a "real" marriage would have?"

It might interest you to know that I am married and have a will, trust and durable powers of attorney executed that name successor guardians for my children. Why does someone married go through all of this if the existing marriage law is so wonderously sufficient? Because it isn't, even for someone married.
So what you are arguing is that someone who has children (however they have come about getting them) should rely on the government to do everything necessary to protect their children and a person shouldn't have to lift a finger.
My point is simple; tools exist to achieve much of what homosexuals are clammoring for already. That they don't care to take advantage of them is interesting because it shows just how unserious they are about these "issues".
Call me a "knuckle dragger", fine. That you want to ignore the point that it is fairly simple to engage a lawyer and accomplish, now, much of what you demand is simply intellectually dishonest.
What you want is society to approve of your choice. Maybe society will but using phony arguments as the foundation of your case is hardly a intelligent way to make your case.