« Rhetoric vs. Truth: Kerry’s Latest Ad Doesn’t Add Up | Home | The Blogroll For Bush Exceeds 300 Blogs! »
If You’re Going To San Francisco…
By Matt Margolis | February 26, 2004
…be sure to be as far away from this honeymoon as you can.
Rosie O’Donnell has married her longtime girlfriend in San Francisco.
O’Donnell and Kelli Carpenter flew across the country Thursday to tie the knot.
The ceremony is the latest in a long line of same-sex marriages that have taken city hall by storm and got the nation talking — if not always in agreement. More than 3,300 other same-sex couples have wed since Feb. 12.
O’Donnell and Carpenter were married in a private office at city hall by San Francisco treasurer Susan Leal — one of the city’s most prominent elected lesbians.
This is what has happened because of liberal activism in the courts and renegade city officials…
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
February 26th, 2004 at 6:06 pm
What are you so worried about, Matt?
February 26th, 2004 at 10:24 pm
Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. In fact the only other time homosexual marriage took place openly (without restriction and without public rebuke) was in a little Mid-Eastern town called Sodom. This isn’t so much political, or so much religious as it is an issue of the balance of nature. Hollywierd idiots from A-Z have produced scores of movies where horrific calamity ensued when the balance of nature was upset. Why is this any different than that?
February 26th, 2004 at 11:20 pm
In March of the year 2000, California passed Proposition 22, the Defense of Marriage Act, which recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. Prop 22 was ratified by an overwhelming 60% — 52 of California’s 58 counties voted for it with the exception of San Francisco and several other Bay Area regions. So the main issue isn’t just about recognizing same-sex marriage as a “genuine” marriage, it’s a matter of law. The San Francisco mayor obviously “broke” the law and I believe that’s why so many are up at arms. I believe in equal rights for all — gay, straight or whatever — but the law is the law. Allowing same-sex marriage has, in retrospect, made the voters of California insignificant because “activist judges” consider themselves to be above the law. If Prop 22 hadn’t passed, would we even be having this discussion?
February 27th, 2004 at 9:56 am
If changing the definition and institution of marriage is no problem, why not put it up to a vote instead of doing it by judicial or governmental fiat? If the gay activists had taken the “civil union” approach instead of doing an “end around” through the courts to redefine marriage, there wouldn’t be nearly the outcry as there is now. Most americans would not have a problem with gay couples joining in civil unions and enjoying the same government benefits as heterosexual married couples. The attempt to redefine the term marriage itself in defiance of the majority is what is causing the outrage. To defy the law and circumvent the wishes/vote of the people accomplishes nothing but to fuel anger and resentment. I’m sure our resident leftists will say “but….but..Bush didn’t get the popular vote and he became president and I’m outraged!” The difference is that Bush became president BECAUSE of the law, not by any attempts to circumvent it. If you want presidential elections to be decided by a popular vote and not the electoral college, get a movement together, try to convince a majority, and get your proposal on a ballot. For a proposal of such magnatude as redefining marriage itself, the gay activists need to have a majority concensus, win the majority vote and not resort to “back-room judicial dealing”. (Note: I only brought up the 2000 election to make a point so please do not “Gore-jack” this thread.)
February 27th, 2004 at 2:37 pm
TrollMasturBaiter… I love you how you think are some sort of legal expert. Your rambling post is nothing more than a bunch of conclusory statements which are not at all based in law. For example, Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with the electoral college. It was an equal protection case.
So no… Bush did not win because of the law, he won on an interpretation of equal protection of voting rights which, up until that case, had NEVER been embraced by the conservative justices on the court. It’s a fact. You can check it out yourself.
Now, enough of the “activist judge” bullshit. It happens all the time ON BOTH SIDES. I could refer you to plenty of environmental law cases where conservative judges have blatantly ignored settled law for the sake of politics. So act like a grown up and acknowledge reality.
February 27th, 2004 at 5:59 pm
Cole,
Bush won because he got more votes in Florida, giving him the electoral votes necessary to win the election…
Deal with it.
February 27th, 2004 at 6:12 pm
I don’t approve of gay marriage either (civil unions are okay) but if this is the main thing Bush is going to run on, then he’s in pretty bad shape. He’s pandering to a constituency–the sexually repressed–that’s he already got locked up.
February 27th, 2004 at 6:53 pm
since when was Bush going to run on this issue?
February 27th, 2004 at 10:59 pm
I’m here in California. It is a mess! We, the voters, overwhelmingly agreed in our disagreement with gay marriage. We said no, but apparently no doesn’t mean no here. We voted yes on Prop. 187 that would stop illegal aliens here from receiving social services, i.e. medical care, schooling, and welfare. The old governor (Davis) told us that we were being mean, and therefore, wouldn’t honor our wishes. Liberals here show just how much they care about what the majority has to say. They give us the finger all the time. I’d move, but the weather is great. I live in a conservative bubble up here in Sacramento and we are trying to keep it that way. As a little proof of historical precedence for the definition of marriage, the Bible says,”…a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” This is in Chapter 2 of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Chapter 1 deals with Creation. I’d say marriage was defined pretty early on. Jesus reaffirms that truth in Mark 10:19, “…at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’.'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So thet are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Pretty clear I’d say again. Anyways, that just my take on it.
February 28th, 2004 at 12:52 pm
Back in 2000 Bush said gay marriage should be left up to the states. Now he is backing an amendment to prevent gay marriage in an election year. Of course he’s running on this. Bush supporters can’t really handle a breast on TV for one second, how can they handle gays? Your average Bush supporter never saw his wife undress with the lights on.
February 28th, 2004 at 1:26 pm
Jay, Now you are just being silly. Conservatives enjoy sex just as much as liberals. I get the feeling you are saying that all conservatives are religious and therefore are embarressed about sex. Two points, not all conservatives are religious and being religious does not mean we think sex is bad or dirty. I personally, am very religious, and I have had my share of pre-marital fun. I’m repentent though. When I marry, I will probably have to marry a younger man, because an older man won’t be able to keep up with me. Another quick point, it wasn’t that I couldn’t handle a breast on TV, it was the woman’s son who saw it. He went to school the next week and was suspended for grabbing little girl’s boobs. Bad for him, and humiliating for the girls. That is the point. Incidentally, “sexually repressed” does not describe most of the people I know. Am I to infer then that all liberals are “sexually irresponsible” i.e. children out of wedlock? Of course not.
February 29th, 2004 at 5:24 am
Wow Cole, you called me “TrollMasterBaiter”, that was a real zinger. How old are you, 10? You did prove my point about Bush winning because of the law. Last I checked, the equal protection clause is part of the law, so you bolstered my point. Of course you are still so filled with rage at Gore’s failed attempt at stealing the 2000 election, that you didn’t notice this. The only other explaination is that you are either terminally obtuse or incredibly stupid. You couldn’t resist trying to Gore-jack this thread, could you? Try to stay on topic, next time. It makes you look like less of an idiot.