Calif.'s Top Court Blocks Gay Marriages

[jimnyc]

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco, delivering a victory to conservatives who have fought for a month to block the ceremonies.

The court did not rule on the legality of such marriages, and justices said they would hear such a case in May or June.

The dispute began Feb. 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay and lesbians from around the country have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from the Supreme Court.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20040311/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_1

 

[_dmp_]

One small victory...

 

[wonderwench]

This will move the issue to the legislature where it belongs.

 

[jon_forward]

where I hope it is settled...once and for all

 

[wonderwench]

Me too - but not in the way you wish. One of the few things upon which you and I seem to disagree, my friend.

 

[OCA]

Dammit Jimmy! I was coming to paste a link to that story! Beat me to the punch. Anyway its about time that some sort of court recognized that whats going on here isn't right. Hate to be one of the queers who has come across country and is gonna be denied tommorrow.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why on earth does this need to move to the California legislature? The Californians already voted on it, in direct elections.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by wonderwench
This will move the issue to the legislature where it belongs.

As a fellow Californian I fail to see where this is going to be decided by the legislature. Judges are going to hear the case and rule on it. Eventually if the constitutional amendment doesn't happen first its going to the voters for a 2nd time. The same voters who have already defined marriage as being between man and woman.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Me too - but not in the way you wish. One of the few things upon which you and I seem to disagree, my friend.

marriage for Hetro's.....civil unions for all others, as decided by the courts, judges, mayors, city administrator, council person...joe blow on the street....

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jon_forward
marriage for Hetro's.....civil unions for all others, as decided by the courts, judges, mayors, city administrator, council person...joe blow on the street....

I agree with that.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by OCA
As a fellow Californian I fail to see where this is going to be decided by the legislature. Judges are going to hear the case and rule on it. Eventually if the constitutional amendment doesn't happen first its going to the voters for a 2nd time. The same voters who have already defined marriage as being between man and woman.

I believe current events will result in serious consideration of legal civil unions as an option.

 

[jon_forward]

we gotta have jim find a stoner smiley so we can pass the j

 

[_dmp_]

now ...if the amendment would prevent homo couples of ANY union type from adoption...that's asking too much.

 

[Jmarie]

First of all I'm not for it and I'm not against it. I just have one question. Who has the right to tell people who they can and can not marry? Just a question so please don't jump down my throat on this one.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Jmarie
First of all I'm not for it and I'm not against it. I just have one question. Who has the right to tell people who they can and can not marry? Just a question so please don't jump down my throat on this one.

There are plenty of debate threads on the subject already - but to answer your question:

Society. The same society which says 12 year olds can't drive...can't get married...can't own a gun. The same society which frowns on beatiality...polygamy...racial hatred.

 

[Jmarie]

but some states allow marrage at that age. I'm not agruing with you all it was a question i had.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by dmp
now ...if the amendment would prevent homo couples of ANY union type from adoption...that's asking too much.

i would rather a child spend time/grow up with love in a home setting then to grow up without any love at all....reguardless of what type of couple adopts or raises them as long as its a loving home, and things are left behind closed doors...that would apply to single folks also. I know, we were adopted at birth.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Jmarie
but some states allow marrage at that age. I'm not agruing with you all it was a question i had.

jmarie...jump on in the waters fine...aint no one going to step on ya...for long!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jon_forward
marriage for Hetro's.....civil unions for all others, as decided by the courts, judges, mayors, city administrator, council person...joe blow on the street....

So what would the difference be between a "marriage" and a "civil union" besides the genders of the participants?

 

[Jmarie]

I'm going to drown for this..:teeth: