Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

California Supreme court orders SF to stop

California LGBT Same Sex Marriage Supreme Court Injunction

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 05:50 PM

No link yet but heard on the news.  The court will hear the case in May or June in order to determine the legality of same sex marriages.

I can't wait to see the opinion.
Posted Image

#2 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 05:52 PM

Link: http://apnews.myway..../D818EKAO0.html
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 06:00 PM

Better article:

http://apnews.myway..../D818ERE01.html

It was unanimous, which is unsurprising, considering that the mayor was simply in blatant defiance of the law...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 06:39 PM

What good will ordering him to stop do, when he was already essentially under orders and disobeyed?

#5 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 06:59 PM

Delvo, on Mar 11 2004, 04:37 PM, said:

What good will ordering him to stop do, when he was already essentially under orders and disobeyed?
Well, at least now the order is "official" and if he defies the court, I'm guessing his ass would get tossed in jail, he wouldn't pass Go or collect his $200.

#6 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 07:03 PM

Well it's one thing to refuse to follow a law you don't agree with. But thumbing your nose at a Supreme court injunction sorta kicks it into another gear.  If I were Gavin I'd follow the order and wait for my day in court...but that's just me.
Posted Image

#7 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 08:14 PM

CNN.com has an articel up:

Quote

Newsom's spokesman, Peter Ragone, said the city would comply with the ruling as soon as officials receive the order.

So he's waiting until they get the actual piece of paper before they stop, but they will comply with the court order.  This is just the court saying "hold it! Wait until we can hear this!"

-Nick

#8 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 10:35 PM

He did not need to perform the marriages to file his objection to the law. He did it make a media splash.

#9 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 10:59 PM

HubcapDave, on Mar 11 2004, 06:57 PM, said:

Well, at least now the order is "official" and if he defies the court, I'm guessing his ass would get tossed in jail, he wouldn't pass Go or collect his $200.
He should already be in jail...But, I guess the State law just wasn't "official" enough for him.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#10 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 11:27 PM

Here's the actual order:

http://appellatecase...0&doc_id=311759
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#11 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 11 March 2004 - 11:41 PM

Okay so it's an OSC.  Here's the deal.  The party seeking the writ has to demonstrate (among other things) a likelihood of success on the merits (in this case, winning the argument that gay marriages are illegal) so the issuance of the OSC is significant in that respect.  However (and I've had this happen to me on both sides), the issuance of the OSC is by NO means a guarantee of success on the merits.  What I think is most significant in this scenario is that the Court took the opportunity to flex its muscles while the Attorney General balked.  Interesting in terms of checks and balances and the like.

We are living in interesting times indeed.  :)

Lil
Posted Image

#12 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:08 AM

^

Thanks for deciphering the legalese, Lil! :D.

And yeah, sounds fun. Can't wait to see this come to trial.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:17 AM

^  APOTS!  :)
Posted Image

#14 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:21 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 12 2004, 05:06 AM, said:

^

Thanks for deciphering the legalese, Lil! :D.

And yeah, sounds fun. Can't wait to see this come to trial.
While it's fascinating watching the legal wrangling and how fast the issue is moving, I can't help but empathize with the very real people whose lives are being affected by this.  It had to be heartbreaking for the couples who thought they could have their relationships recognized by the state to have those hopes dashed.

http://www.cnn.com/2...rnia/index.html
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#15 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:30 AM

:cool: Lil

That's true Zack... but for that, you have to point the finger squarely at the mayor. When you do things the wrong way, people inevitably get caught in the middle.

If, however, the CA court rules in the mayor's favour, then they can come and get married... and if it doesn't, then the marriage would have been nullified in any case. As such, even for those dircetly involved, I'm not sure how much it matters if they came in before or after the injunction.

<That's excepting, of course, the very act of having a ceremony in the first place, obviously>
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#16 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:32 AM

Nonsense.  They KNEW that these marriages were being carried out in direct defiance to State Law.  Any one of them who thought what they were doing was anything more than symbolic short of the appropriate authority calling the pertinent law illegal was being incredibly naive.
Posted Image

#17 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:36 AM

You mean more naive than thinking marriage is a right in the first place?

#18 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 12:44 AM

Well the legal benefits of Civil Marriage have been turned into a right (for better or worse) so to that extent, no that idea is not naive, it's simply the way it is.  Notwithstanding the continued and increasingly ridiculous and hysterical sounding denials of people who simply refuse to recognize the way things are.
Posted Image

#19 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 02:34 AM

For some reason Lil's post sent me back to a track that drives me crazy every time I get to it.  Assuming ya can't get rid of queer people (and legally ya can't) WHY wouldn't it be BETTER for society to ENCOURAGE them to settle down and raise families???

Wouldn't the logic hold?  Tame the wild sexual impulses that people seem to think that queers are all posessed by?  Get them invested in raising children and working regular jobs and fitting in and being middle class and content rather than rabble rousing on the fringes?

Why would it be BETTER FOR SOCIETY to keep queers in the cold?  If marriage (union, pairing people up two by two in stable units etc) is partly about creating a stable society....why is it BETTER for queers to be kept single?

Discontented people, people who are rabble rousing for rights, people who are denied security MAKE WAVES.  Any leader knows that you keep your people fed sheltered and warm to keep them quiet.

#20 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 March 2004 - 11:07 AM

Well said AM.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: California, LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court, Injunction

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users