That's debatable LG, and I would be that you know it.
btw, back on the subject of same sex marriage, I saw this news item a few minutes ago:
N.M. county begins issuing marriage licenses to gay couples
Associated Press
Feb. 20, 2004 03:45 PM
BERNALILLO, N.M. - A county clerk issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.
A sign-up list at Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Dunlap said she made the decision after county attorney David Mathews said New Mexico law is unclear: New Mexico law defines marriage as a contract between contracting parties but does not mention gender.
"This has nothing to do with politics or morals," she said. "If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it. This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."
Outside the courthouse, two preachers conducted marriage ceremonies.
"When we heard the news this morning, we knew we couldn't wait. We had to come down here," said Jenifer Albright of Albuquerque, who exchanged vows with partner Anne Shultz.
The move came just over a week after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to thousands of gay couples in a direct challenge to California law.
A spokeswoman said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson was opposed to same-sex marriage.
"The governor has always been a champion for human rights. He supports equal rights and opposes all forms of discrimination. However, he is opposed to same sex marriage," said Marsha Catron.
Two New Mexico state senators - one Democrat and one Republican - asked Friday for an opinion from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. A spokeswoman for Madrid said an opinion could be issued next week.
Republican state Sen. Steve Komadina criticized the county clerk and called for a prompt opinion from the attorney general.
"I feel badly that action was taken before an answer was obtained," Komadina said. "That was very irresponsible and will cause heartache to people on all sides of the question."
Bernalillo is a few miles north of Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city.
I'm using Robert's Rules here...I think they apply:
Do I remember it wrong??? or is it correct that the States can make any rules they like so long as what they legislate is not "forbidden" by the Fed. Gov?
Frankly some of this stuff fries my brain so I could be totally wrong, so correct me if I am.
But if that is correct....the marriages would be valid in NM.
MJ I'mnot sure that's the question I asked. I'm unclear in my own mind, so I will think about it some more and try again. I was thinking in general terms...all the states.
By the way, the President is gonna need a whole lotta help in ammending the Constitution! That's going to take a whole lot of states ratifying it. My memory isn't what it used to be anymore...is it 2/3??? or 3/4???.
The PRESIDENT never will be able to amend the Constitution, nor, frankly, make laws.
And to your point, Krys, it's not Robert's Rules, which are used when conducting official business/decision making meetings of official bodies, which can be political in nature (state legislatures, city councils, committees, or other kinds of organizations (corporate boards of directors meetings, for example).
However, one of the functions of courts in America is to determine what really matters/applies when laws conflict.
And laws often conflict.
State laws cannot violate, technically speaking, the highest law of the land, which is the US Constitution.
However, state laws OFTEN violate the Constitution.
A government agency charged with fulfilling a governmental function has certain authority delegated to it. In the federal government, the chief executive is the President. In state governments, the chief executive is the Governor.
I heard tonight, for example, that the Governator (Ahnold), ordered the California Atty General to force the San Francisco city clerk to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.
I haven't verified this on any online news source yet, but in Arizona, the Atty General is elected, not appointed (the federal atty gen is appointed and reports to the Pres), so in AZ, the governor would not have such authority to order the Atty Gen.
But the main legal issue in San Francisco is that unless there is a clear and specific applicable law to forbid the action, if the executive (mayor) interprets the law such that it is ok to proceed, as has been done there this week, then it proceeds until a court orders it stopped. then, depending on how important the issue is to either or both sides, it will continue to higher courts on appeal, until the highest court in the land, the US Supremes.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered California's attorney general Friday to take legal action to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.
In a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Schwarzenegger directed the state's top lawyer "to take immediate steps" to get a definitive court ruling declaring what the city is doing to be illegal.
"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee," Schwarzenegger wrote. "As Attorney General, you have the authority to take legal action to require the City and County of San Francisco to comply with the laws of the State."
Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general was prompted in part by a Superior Court judge's decision Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city that would have halted the weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings.
At the state Republican Party convention Friday evening, Schwarzenegger personally announced the directive to a cheering crowd of activists.
"We rely on our courts to enforce the rule of law. But you see, in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball," Schwarzenegger said. "It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco."
The crowd gave a lengthy standing ovation.
"You have, at this point, nearly two weeks of flouting of state law. The governor feels that we've come to a point where we're starting down a dangerous path and it leads to anarchy at some point," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman on the governor's decision to issue the directive. "It's time for this to end."
Lockyer, an elected Democrat who is a potential candidate in the 2006 governor's race, already has said that he plans to vigorously defend the state in the lawsuit San Francisco's city attorney brought Thursday that challenged California's marriage laws on constitutional grounds.
"By virtue of the city and county of San Francisco having sued the state of California, we need to respond to that lawsuit in the next 30 days," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer said Friday. "It will be squarely before the courts."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples last week, has defended his actions by saying California's Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The mayor's spokesman, Peter Ragone, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general, noting that two judges have already declined to grant emergency orders sought by two conservative opponents of marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
"The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving."
proposal stage: two-thirds vote of members present in both houses of congress (33amendments proposed) OR national convention convened by Congress at request of two-thirds of state legislaters(no ammendments proposed).
Ratification Stage Three fourths fo state legislatures (25 amendments ratified) OR Convention in three-fourths fo the states (one amendment the 21 ratified)
this is my concern :
SECTION 10 prohibits ex post facto laws. Such a law would make illegal an act that was legal when it was performed. this is included in the bill of rights . (this only applies to those states that have not yet made it illegal)
The president can veto the bill and the house and Senate may overide by a two-thirds majority of the members present in each house and then the bill becomes law.
Rocky - I was using "Robert's Rules" - - for debate/meetings [kind of a loose definition for this thread] in asking for the clarification of the question! I was just being goofy at this hour on a Friday nite!
Just what CA. needs right now...taxpayers money going THERE!
Talk about taking from Peter to pay Paul (oh...that's what I'm doing, making this connection ~ sorry if I'm DERAILING ~ screeeeech)...this CA 'terminator' is attempting (which won't work, I'm hoping in the outcome) to demolish (as in cease) certain programs that aid in the care of disabled children by their stay-at-home parent care-giver, and the like in similar situations...particularly families who take care of the sick and elderly AT HOME!
Yup...penny wise and nickel foolish!
To address the gap in the problematic state financial crisis, this TOTALLY phouquing stupid direction will cost MORE financially in the long run because the disabled vulnerable minority will end up in nursing facilities or other types of medical care facilities... ..but it will scrap enough chump change temporarily, this and 'other' cuts in programs and aide to the less fortunate and vulnerable people of the state ~ to make it LOOK like the budget problems are terminated ~ temporarily!
How?
The state has been paying, in my county alone, for some 400 families to have care-givers assist the elderly and disabled children about $9.00 + an hour for a small number of hours a week ~ and for some, there is a little insuance supplied and a union also.
By having this aide, a Mom can stay home instead of work outside the house full-time to care for her disabled child...which she does anyway...but she can be supplemented for a limited amount of hours a week presently.
Isn't that a decent program?
After all, SOMEONE has to help her child, right?
Why not the parent?
If she works outside the house, she has to support someone IN THE HOUSE to stay with her child, doesn't she?
In these situations, private care can cost up to and above $20.00 an hour anyway...what a tuff nut to crack if the Mom is not a professional, huh?
Add...how humane it is to have someone that isn't a stranger 'caring' for the sick...the vulnerable...where anything can and sometimes will happen that is utterly awful.
So, cuts are being made in the State, and why am I not surprised (reeping, look-good now & dump the poor replublicans ~ anyone?) that the small and "nearly" defenseless groups are the target of such a money-scrapping endeavor (oh, what a waste of such a good word!).
So...sue S.F. for this-n-that ???
Doesn't it reek of stupidity at a time like this anyway ~ when we need to curtail spending?
Doesn't it stink that the poor are being targeted...
beneficial programs are at risk this year of being terminated...
possibly discarding the abilities of some FAMILIES to be able to function...(and I don't mean in any luxurious manner either)
...doesn't it seem STUPID to fight this battle now?
For those of you who do not know ~ California CANNOT AFFORD the luxury of these legal propositions BECAUSE...
...it has enough problems right now.
In a way, maybe that's why the gay marriages are taking place.
Timing is everything...or at least one of the 'keys' for success.
In a weak economy, like any other situation (try here for example, with people), you can try and slip something by...especially if people are distracted.
It doesn't necessarily mean it's a good or bad...but it's definately taking advantage of the situation.
What's it got to do with the legitimacy of gay marriages?
I'm not sure but isn't it ironic?
Family values or the perceived sanctity of them are on the table...
in a state where there isn't enough money to care for the sick...
SO, the disabled cay be sacrificed ~ let's smile for the camera and all the controversy ~
after all
...the strong will survive and we can gloat over the victory at every turn ~
Stay glued to all the news and the media long enough and you might forget about your own life!
Mind erasers anyone?
Stay totally true to some absolute (ones own decision to limit) moral judgement and you just might end up supporting something inhumane and unbalanced, which could also be immoral by ones own standards ~ which is in the outcome ~ or translate as refusal ~ to take care of priorities.
To fight the current gay marriage issue may indeed hurt families ~ BUT not like you think! Get off the high horse.
Anyway, you can't hold back the dawn.
Oh, I forgot, you can if you just close your eyes...there's no place like home, there's no place home.
Rocky -- you have given us a lot of info tonight. thanks! :)--> :)--> :)-->
It will be a sad day in America, albeit a neccesary one, that the Constitution has to be amended, as to the defintion of marriage. Never thought I would see this day come to pass, but with the way we are going, BRING IT ON!!
If they are going by "lawful" standards, let us give them "lawful" standards to live by, and uphold.
If the Constitution is amended in this way it will be only the second time after Prohibition, that it has been done to remove freedoms and civil rights. There are plenty of people who see the dangers in this even if they do not support gay marriage.
And Long Gone where you get the idea that US domestic law is being applied in Guantanamo Bay I have no idea. Nobody could be detained for this length of time without charge. It is being done under martial law and it is being criticised by many governments, including ours, who are allies and friends of the United States.
They have not even been granted the status of POWs. Strange that a much nastier piece of work, one Saddam Hussein, has been...
I read the first two pages and the last two...the postw were very interesting and thoughtful.
"homosexual marriage" IS an oxymoron. Let's not change change the meaning of words.
Using Peter to pay Paul....pun intended?
Homosexual acts hurt society! Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because of homosexuality. The lowest point on the face of the Earth is the Dead Sea, where Sodom and Gommorah used to be. Homosexuality could cause California to fall into the ocean. Want some ocean front property in Arizona?
www.dictionary.com (even the rules in card games have OPPOSITE sex MARRIAGE)
mar·riage
n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Games: The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Mar"riage, n. In b['e]zique, penuchle, and similar games at cards, the combination of a king and queen of the same suit. If of the trump suit, it is called a royal marriage.
Mar"riage, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.] 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
marriage
n 1: state of being husband and wife; "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union, wedlock] 2: two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife] 3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage ceremony]
Marriage was instituted in Paradise when man and woman were in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord Jesus, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.4:19; 6:2).
Our Lord Jesus corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable"(Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).
quote:Homosexual acts hurt society! Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because of homosexuality. The lowest point on the face of the Earth is the Dead Sea, where Sodom and Gommorah used to be. Homosexuality could cause California to fall into the ocean. Want some ocean front property in Arizona?
The Sin of Sodom was pride inhospitality, not homosexuality. Of course if you want to do the Robertson thing and ascribe every natural disaster to it then Iran must be rife with it. Have you never heard of a little thing called the San Andreas fault? There were no major instances of homosexuality in SF in 1906 ro was it just a case that God's timing for his wrath was off?
If you site a town or city in areas that are known to be unstable then don't blame God when it goes wrong.
This is the same crap that was touted by TWI and that is touted by some modern day TV evangelists. It's illogical, irrational and unscientific.
If want to make an argument about what is happening then a dictionary and a King James bible does not really get you very far.
Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not.
Consider:
* Couples eligible to marry may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world.
* Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont (the only state that offers civil unions) have no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to neighboring New York or New Hampshire let alone California or any other state.
Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage.
In short, civil unions are not separate but equal they are separate and unequal. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn¹t work.
Marriage: Civil Unions:
* State grants marriage licenses to couples.
* State would grant civil union licenses to couples.
* Couples receive legal protections and rights under state and federal law.
* Couples receive legal protections and rights under state law only.
* Couples are recognized as being married by the federal government and all state governments.
* Civil unions are not recognized by other states or federal government.
* Religious institutions are not required to recognize marriages or perform marriage ceremonies.
* Religious institutions are not required to recognize civil unions or perform civil union ceremonies.
Cheryl Jacques is executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group.
Since I started at the Human Rights Campaign, I have had the opportunity to talk with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people nationwide about the path to equality. Foremost in the minds of many I have been honored to meet is this question: why is marriage so important?
If you¹re wondering this, you¹re not alone. According to a Harris Interactive poll we recently commissioned, half of all GLBT adults think civil unions are the same as marriage. Unfortunately, that¹s just not true.
Simply put, civil unions do not provide any of the more than 1,000 protections or securities afforded under federal law through a marriage license. They are recognized today in only one state Vermont and provide only the state benefits of marriage. If two men in a civil union travel across state lines, they carry with them none of the rights or protections that they have in Vermont.
These critical distinctions boil down to unfairness. With every paycheck, GLBT employees pay into the Social Security system allowing spouses and children to access Social Security survivor benefits when a loved one passes away. These benefits can easily total more than $1,800 a month. (See www.hrc.org/familynet for examples.) But couples in a civil union have no access to these benefits. Even if you have no desire to marry, you¹re still paying into a system that discriminates against same-sex couples.
Couples in a civil union have no access to the federal laws like Family and Medical Leave Act, to equal immigration rights, to continued health care coverage. Under federal law, same-sex couples are strangers.
Some also feel that civil unions are a necessary compromise, given the public¹s struggle with marriage. But civil unions are not the solution. Even if civil unions provided all the same legal protections of marriage which they don¹t they would still be a separate and unequal system.
Ten years ago, many said that domestic partnerships were unrealistic. Five years ago, civil unions were cutting-edge. We are at a moment in history where marriage is a reality. We must not cede that right just because people are uncomfortable.
Sure, there are many of us who may not be ready to settle down now. However, our poll reflects that 78 percent of our community wants to be able to marry. For the 22 percent who don¹t, this should still be their personal choice to make, not the government¹s.
Speaking of the government, President Bush is prepared to enshrine this unequal treatment in our nation¹s Constitution. And the press is reporting that he will endorse the Musgrave anti-family amendment to our Constitution. This would not only forever ban any state from allowing same-sex couples to marry but could strike at the heart of a state¹s ability to provide even limited legal protections or civil unions to same-sex couples.
Officials said Bush was planning to announce this as a way to "to start the general election campaign on a fresh issue." Make no mistake, President Bush is trying to win this election on our backs. He is playing politics with our lives and our families. It¹s intolerable, it¹s shameful and it¹s an ugly way to run a campaign.
It¹s time for us to speak up. That same Harris poll showed that the majority of us don¹t talk to family, friends and colleagues about the impact of discrimination on our lives. We are depriving the people who love us most of the opportunity to fight for us, to vote for us and to end the discrimination against us.
This silence is a barrier to our equality. I personally know the difficulties of coming out. But being out and being able to discuss these issues with your friends and family is so important.
Generally, our friends, families and colleagues don¹t know that we can¹t get married. They don¹t think we can be fired in 36 states for being gay or in 46 states for being transgender. They don¹t know that we could be blocked at the hospital room door. Or that we can¹t get Social Security benefits. We need to tell them.
Poll after poll shows that people who know openly GLBT people are far more likely to support our equal rights in the workplace, in marriage rights and in all the areas we lack critical protection.
Some may say that our greatest enemies are extremist groups like Focus on the Family who are dangerous, loud and well-funded. But at this moment, our greatest challenges are silence, ignorance and apathy.
The majority of Americans care about equality. Most just don¹t know we lack it. It¹s time for us to do some talking.
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Rocky, it is not debatable that “unlawful enemy combatant" has long been recognized by U.S. law as a separate class from POWs, not entitled to the rights of either POWs or those accused of violating domestic criminal laws. That is a fact.
Whether or not all those detained at Guantanamo Bay rightfully belong to that class is debatable, but debating that would entail actually presenting an argument, not a false assertion.
Trefor,
Slick little change there. You originally said, “US national laws.” Then you changed to “US domestic law.” Those are two different things.
Now, if you'll stick to the subject of the thread, I will too.
quote: Why even have Laws? Apparently the Mayor of San Francisco has no need for them. The People of California voted a Law into being, only to have it trampled upon but a criminal mayor. Why vote?
You say homosexual marriage doesn't hurt our society? Well, these 3,000 California gay marriages have hurt society right off the bat! They have flaunted the Law, broken the Law and no one jumped in and shut the circus down out of fear of not appearing PC. How many more of America's fair cities will follow suit?
Yeah, I say ammend the Constitution on this one.
As in the state of Alaska, a marriage should be between one man ond one woman.
quote: Why even have Laws? Apparently the Mayor of San Francisco has no need for them. The People of California voted a Law into being, only to have it trampled upon but a criminal mayor. Why vote?
You say homosexual marriage doesn't hurt our society? Well, these 3,000 California gay marriages have hurt society right off the bat! They have flaunted the Law, broken the Law and no one jumped in and shut the circus down out of fear of not appearing PC. How many more of America's fair cities will follow suit?
Yeah, I say ammend the Constitution on this one.
As in the state of Alaska, a marriage should be between one man ond one woman. But I guess it doesn't matter that we Citizens in Alaska voted that Law into being. If our City mayors decide that they want to break it, they can just follow San Francisco's example. I wonder how many more cities will follow suit? A small town in New Mexico has just yesterday..So, why bother to vote? Isn't voting one of the most sacred aspects of our way of freedom here in America? So who says that homosexuals won't and do not hurt our society? It's right here in front of our faces to day! It's like "we lost that election. but we're gonna do it our way anyway"..
I gather that SF is making the case that proposition 22 actually violates the California State Constitution, apparently a weighty and many paged document.
If this is the case then the State Constitution, unless amended, has precedence over any propositions that have been voted upon.
If I were you I would check out the State Constitution of Alaska just in case there is a similar possible loophole. I am not saying there is, but if there is it is possible for legal challenges to follow.
And you appear to be wanting your definition of marriage to be the only true one in every other state besides Alaska, without debate discussion or agument. Somehow I think that with Yukon to the east and BC to the south (ie Canada) that things even in Alaska are going to be as easy as that from now on.
Can you also not see that going for the amend the Constitution route is the same as "we lost the legal argument, but we're gonna do it our way anyway."?
I see no hurt to society - I see happy fulfilled gay couples, many of whom have been together for considerably longer than many heterosexual marriages, being given a legal recognition they have been long denied. It may hurt parts of society who have an ingrained dog in the manger attitude towards denying minorities their rights.
As Ghandi said, "there are unjust laws and there are unjust men." Sometimes it is such acts of civil disobedience that bring things to public notice and challenges those who have the power to either justify a form of oppression and discrimination or to concede the need for change.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
[This message was edited by Trefor Heywood on February 21, 2004 at 19:39.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Rocky
That's debatable LG, and I would be that you know it.
btw, back on the subject of same sex marriage, I saw this news item a few minutes ago:
N.M. county begins issuing marriage licenses to gay couples
Associated Press
Feb. 20, 2004 03:45 PM
BERNALILLO, N.M. - A county clerk issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.
A sign-up list at Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Dunlap said she made the decision after county attorney David Mathews said New Mexico law is unclear: New Mexico law defines marriage as a contract between contracting parties but does not mention gender.
"This has nothing to do with politics or morals," she said. "If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it. This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."
Outside the courthouse, two preachers conducted marriage ceremonies.
"When we heard the news this morning, we knew we couldn't wait. We had to come down here," said Jenifer Albright of Albuquerque, who exchanged vows with partner Anne Shultz.
The move came just over a week after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to thousands of gay couples in a direct challenge to California law.
A spokeswoman said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson was opposed to same-sex marriage.
"The governor has always been a champion for human rights. He supports equal rights and opposes all forms of discrimination. However, he is opposed to same sex marriage," said Marsha Catron.
Two New Mexico state senators - one Democrat and one Republican - asked Friday for an opinion from New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. A spokeswoman for Madrid said an opinion could be issued next week.
Republican state Sen. Steve Komadina criticized the county clerk and called for a prompt opinion from the attorney general.
"I feel badly that action was taken before an answer was obtained," Komadina said. "That was very irresponsible and will cause heartache to people on all sides of the question."
Bernalillo is a few miles north of Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Rocky -- now that there is sad
:(-->
Guess every state in the union has to have it now. Maybe we should be called the U.S. of L. (United States of Lemmings).
Seems like every somebody, is willing to put whatever county, whatever state, whatever district, on a course headed straight for destruction.
-->
Shoot low. They are riding Shetlands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
well, some states have laws against it... AZ being one of them.
but, as someone referenced earlier, NM was NOT one of those states.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I'm using Robert's Rules here...I think they apply:
Do I remember it wrong??? or is it correct that the States can make any rules they like so long as what they legislate is not "forbidden" by the Fed. Gov?
Frankly some of this stuff fries my brain so I could be totally wrong, so correct me if I am.
But if that is correct....the marriages would be valid in NM.
[oh please prove me wrong]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
NM does not have a law that forbids same sex marriage.
nor does it recognize same sex civil marriages.
They can get married and go through what the process of deciding for the state deciding if it is illegal or not.
If the president amends the constitution then it is executive .
not until .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
MJ I'mnot sure that's the question I asked. I'm unclear in my own mind, so I will think about it some more and try again. I was thinking in general terms...all the states.
By the way, the President is gonna need a whole lotta help in ammending the Constitution! That's going to take a whole lot of states ratifying it. My memory isn't what it used to be anymore...is it 2/3??? or 3/4???.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The PRESIDENT never will be able to amend the Constitution, nor, frankly, make laws.
And to your point, Krys, it's not Robert's Rules, which are used when conducting official business/decision making meetings of official bodies, which can be political in nature (state legislatures, city councils, committees, or other kinds of organizations (corporate boards of directors meetings, for example).
However, one of the functions of courts in America is to determine what really matters/applies when laws conflict.
And laws often conflict.
State laws cannot violate, technically speaking, the highest law of the land, which is the US Constitution.
However, state laws OFTEN violate the Constitution.
A government agency charged with fulfilling a governmental function has certain authority delegated to it. In the federal government, the chief executive is the President. In state governments, the chief executive is the Governor.
I heard tonight, for example, that the Governator (Ahnold), ordered the California Atty General to force the San Francisco city clerk to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.
I haven't verified this on any online news source yet, but in Arizona, the Atty General is elected, not appointed (the federal atty gen is appointed and reports to the Pres), so in AZ, the governor would not have such authority to order the Atty Gen.
But the main legal issue in San Francisco is that unless there is a clear and specific applicable law to forbid the action, if the executive (mayor) interprets the law such that it is ok to proceed, as has been done there this week, then it proceeds until a court orders it stopped. then, depending on how important the issue is to either or both sides, it will continue to higher courts on appeal, until the highest court in the land, the US Supremes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Congress CAN amend the Constitution, or states can amend the constitution. I don't remember the percentages/votes, but it ain't easy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Schwarzenegger orders attorney general to halt gay marriages
BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
Friday, February 20, 2004
©2004 Associated Press
URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/20/state2325EST0245.DTL
(02-20) 21:52 PST BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) --
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered California's attorney general Friday to take legal action to stop San Francisco from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.
In a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Schwarzenegger directed the state's top lawyer "to take immediate steps" to get a definitive court ruling declaring what the city is doing to be illegal.
"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee," Schwarzenegger wrote. "As Attorney General, you have the authority to take legal action to require the City and County of San Francisco to comply with the laws of the State."
Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general was prompted in part by a Superior Court judge's decision Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city that would have halted the weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings.
At the state Republican Party convention Friday evening, Schwarzenegger personally announced the directive to a cheering crowd of activists.
"We rely on our courts to enforce the rule of law. But you see, in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball," Schwarzenegger said. "It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco."
The crowd gave a lengthy standing ovation.
"You have, at this point, nearly two weeks of flouting of state law. The governor feels that we've come to a point where we're starting down a dangerous path and it leads to anarchy at some point," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman on the governor's decision to issue the directive. "It's time for this to end."
Lockyer, an elected Democrat who is a potential candidate in the 2006 governor's race, already has said that he plans to vigorously defend the state in the lawsuit San Francisco's city attorney brought Thursday that challenged California's marriage laws on constitutional grounds.
"By virtue of the city and county of San Francisco having sued the state of California, we need to respond to that lawsuit in the next 30 days," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer said Friday. "It will be squarely before the courts."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples last week, has defended his actions by saying California's Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The mayor's spokesman, Peter Ragone, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive to the attorney general, noting that two judges have already declined to grant emergency orders sought by two conservative opponents of marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
"The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving."
©2004 Associated Press
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
proposal stage: two-thirds vote of members present in both houses of congress (33amendments proposed) OR national convention convened by Congress at request of two-thirds of state legislaters(no ammendments proposed).
Ratification Stage Three fourths fo state legislatures (25 amendments ratified) OR Convention in three-fourths fo the states (one amendment the 21 ratified)
this is my concern :
SECTION 10 prohibits ex post facto laws. Such a law would make illegal an act that was legal when it was performed. this is included in the bill of rights . (this only applies to those states that have not yet made it illegal)
The president can veto the bill and the house and Senate may overide by a two-thirds majority of the members present in each house and then the bill becomes law.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Thanks mj.............
Rocky - I was using "Robert's Rules" - - for debate/meetings [kind of a loose definition for this thread] in asking for the clarification of the question! I was just being goofy at this hour on a Friday nite!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ginger Tea
Just what CA. needs right now...taxpayers money going THERE!
Talk about taking from Peter to pay Paul (oh...that's what I'm doing, making this connection ~ sorry if I'm DERAILING ~ screeeeech)...this CA 'terminator' is attempting (which won't work, I'm hoping in the outcome) to demolish (as in cease) certain programs that aid in the care of disabled children by their stay-at-home parent care-giver, and the like in similar situations...particularly families who take care of the sick and elderly AT HOME!
Yup...penny wise and nickel foolish!
To address the gap in the problematic state financial crisis, this TOTALLY phouquing stupid direction will cost MORE financially in the long run because the disabled vulnerable minority will end up in nursing facilities or other types of medical care facilities... ..but it will scrap enough chump change temporarily, this and 'other' cuts in programs and aide to the less fortunate and vulnerable people of the state ~ to make it LOOK like the budget problems are terminated ~ temporarily!
How?
The state has been paying, in my county alone, for some 400 families to have care-givers assist the elderly and disabled children about $9.00 + an hour for a small number of hours a week ~ and for some, there is a little insuance supplied and a union also.
By having this aide, a Mom can stay home instead of work outside the house full-time to care for her disabled child...which she does anyway...but she can be supplemented for a limited amount of hours a week presently.
Isn't that a decent program?
After all, SOMEONE has to help her child, right?
Why not the parent?
If she works outside the house, she has to support someone IN THE HOUSE to stay with her child, doesn't she?
In these situations, private care can cost up to and above $20.00 an hour anyway...what a tuff nut to crack if the Mom is not a professional, huh?
Add...how humane it is to have someone that isn't a stranger 'caring' for the sick...the vulnerable...where anything can and sometimes will happen that is utterly awful.
So, cuts are being made in the State, and why am I not surprised (reeping, look-good now & dump the poor replublicans ~ anyone?) that the small and "nearly" defenseless groups are the target of such a money-scrapping endeavor (oh, what a waste of such a good word!).
So...sue S.F. for this-n-that ???
Doesn't it reek of stupidity at a time like this anyway ~ when we need to curtail spending?
Doesn't it stink that the poor are being targeted...
beneficial programs are at risk this year of being terminated...
possibly discarding the abilities of some FAMILIES to be able to function...(and I don't mean in any luxurious manner either)
...doesn't it seem STUPID to fight this battle now?
For those of you who do not know ~ California CANNOT AFFORD the luxury of these legal propositions BECAUSE...
...it has enough problems right now.
In a way, maybe that's why the gay marriages are taking place.
Timing is everything...or at least one of the 'keys' for success.
In a weak economy, like any other situation (try here for example, with people), you can try and slip something by...especially if people are distracted.
It doesn't necessarily mean it's a good or bad...but it's definately taking advantage of the situation.
What's it got to do with the legitimacy of gay marriages?
I'm not sure but isn't it ironic?
Family values or the perceived sanctity of them are on the table...
in a state where there isn't enough money to care for the sick...
SO, the disabled cay be sacrificed ~ let's smile for the camera and all the controversy ~
after all
...the strong will survive and we can gloat over the victory at every turn ~
Stay glued to all the news and the media long enough and you might forget about your own life!
Mind erasers anyone?
Stay totally true to some absolute (ones own decision to limit) moral judgement and you just might end up supporting something inhumane and unbalanced, which could also be immoral by ones own standards ~ which is in the outcome ~ or translate as refusal ~ to take care of priorities.
To fight the current gay marriage issue may indeed hurt families ~ BUT not like you think! Get off the high horse.
Anyway, you can't hold back the dawn.
Oh, I forgot, you can if you just close your eyes...there's no place like home, there's no place home.
(except for the poor and the vulnerable!)
Peter, if you can't pay Paul...don't posture!!!
AND about CA ~ it needs to 'wake the phouque up!'
Take care of it's own ~
and forget about the media,
it's very fickle anyway...you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ginger Tea
double posts
and all that jazz...
(Don't judge me because I'm beautiful!)
LOL
[This message was edited by Ginger Tea on February 21, 2004 at 3:11.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Rocky -- you have given us a lot of info tonight. thanks!
:)--> 
:)--> 
:)-->
It will be a sad day in America, albeit a neccesary one, that the Constitution has to be amended, as to the defintion of marriage. Never thought I would see this day come to pass, but with the way we are going, BRING IT ON!!
If they are going by "lawful" standards, let us give them "lawful" standards to live by, and uphold.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
If the Constitution is amended in this way it will be only the second time after Prohibition, that it has been done to remove freedoms and civil rights. There are plenty of people who see the dangers in this even if they do not support gay marriage.
And Long Gone where you get the idea that US domestic law is being applied in Guantanamo Bay I have no idea. Nobody could be detained for this length of time without charge. It is being done under martial law and it is being criticised by many governments, including ours, who are allies and friends of the United States.
They have not even been granted the status of POWs. Strange that a much nastier piece of work, one Saddam Hussein, has been...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golfie
I read the first two pages and the last two...the postw were very interesting and thoughtful.
"homosexual marriage" IS an oxymoron. Let's not change change the meaning of words.
Using Peter to pay Paul....pun intended?
Homosexual acts hurt society! Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because of homosexuality. The lowest point on the face of the Earth is the Dead Sea, where Sodom and Gommorah used to be. Homosexuality could cause California to fall into the ocean. Want some ocean front property in Arizona?
www.dictionary.com (even the rules in card games have OPPOSITE sex MARRIAGE)
mar·riage
n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Games: The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Mar"riage, n. In b['e]zique, penuchle, and similar games at cards, the combination of a king and queen of the same suit. If of the trump suit, it is called a royal marriage.
Mar"riage, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.] 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
marriage
n 1: state of being husband and wife; "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union, wedlock] 2: two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife] 3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage ceremony]
Marriage was instituted in Paradise when man and woman were in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord Jesus, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.4:19; 6:2).
Our Lord Jesus corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable"(Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Golfie:
The Sin of Sodom was pride inhospitality, not homosexuality. Of course if you want to do the Robertson thing and ascribe every natural disaster to it then Iran must be rife with it. Have you never heard of a little thing called the San Andreas fault? There were no major instances of homosexuality in SF in 1906 ro was it just a case that God's timing for his wrath was off?
If you site a town or city in areas that are known to be unstable then don't blame God when it goes wrong.
This is the same crap that was touted by TWI and that is touted by some modern day TV evangelists. It's illogical, irrational and unscientific.
If want to make an argument about what is happening then a dictionary and a King James bible does not really get you very far.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Just some arguements I have come across regarding the issue of marriages and civil unions in the US:
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Rocky, it is not debatable that “unlawful enemy combatant" has long been recognized by U.S. law as a separate class from POWs, not entitled to the rights of either POWs or those accused of violating domestic criminal laws. That is a fact.
EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
Whether or not all those detained at Guantanamo Bay rightfully belong to that class is debatable, but debating that would entail actually presenting an argument, not a false assertion.
Trefor,
Slick little change there. You originally said, “US national laws.” Then you changed to “US domestic law.” Those are two different things.
Now, if you'll stick to the subject of the thread, I will too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Jonny Longo said:
As in the state of Alaska, a marriage should be between one man ond one woman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Jonny:
I gather that SF is making the case that proposition 22 actually violates the California State Constitution, apparently a weighty and many paged document.
If this is the case then the State Constitution, unless amended, has precedence over any propositions that have been voted upon.
If I were you I would check out the State Constitution of Alaska just in case there is a similar possible loophole. I am not saying there is, but if there is it is possible for legal challenges to follow.
And you appear to be wanting your definition of marriage to be the only true one in every other state besides Alaska, without debate discussion or agument. Somehow I think that with Yukon to the east and BC to the south (ie Canada) that things even in Alaska are going to be as easy as that from now on.
Can you also not see that going for the amend the Constitution route is the same as "we lost the legal argument, but we're gonna do it our way anyway."?
I see no hurt to society - I see happy fulfilled gay couples, many of whom have been together for considerably longer than many heterosexual marriages, being given a legal recognition they have been long denied. It may hurt parts of society who have an ingrained dog in the manger attitude towards denying minorities their rights.
As Ghandi said, "there are unjust laws and there are unjust men." Sometimes it is such acts of civil disobedience that bring things to public notice and challenges those who have the power to either justify a form of oppression and discrimination or to concede the need for change.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
[This message was edited by Trefor Heywood on February 21, 2004 at 19:39.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Long Gone:
I wasn't being slick honest, I used the words interchangeably as they could be over here.
Sorry however if this led to any misunderstanding.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.