Worst Annulment Ever......

[SilkenTofu]

Well a lot of my friends in San Fran. and Sacramento are no longer married today.

I am pretty sad and angry at how this turned out but it lasted longer than I expected. I almost thought they had gotten away with it, that in the larger picture of what is happening in the world that they could just let it go. This year at San Fran. Pride I cried pretty much the whole time the newly weds marched behind a smiling mayor and his family. It really was a moment to remember for me.

One day (soon hopefully) everyone or at least the powers that be will wake up and realize it shouldn't matter if you are hetero or homo if you want to join your lives together. Anyone feel diffrent...the same, confused?

[Stormy]

Well, I sure hope most of those couples will appeal this. Might be nice to keep the courts tied up and this issue in the media.

[KellY]

Pretty much everyone knew that Newsom would be ruled against for overreaching his powers, but there was a lot of hope that the Court would let the marriages stand until they tackled the main issue of whether it's constitutional to forbid gays from marrying. The declaration of annulment was a nasty shock to a lot of people, and doesn't bode well for the future case.

Pretty sucky. Time will tell whether Newsom hurt the cause or not by pushing too fast. Barring overthrow of the government by right-wing fundamentalists (and yes, some say that's already happened, I know), gays will eventually be allowed to marry as soon as enough old homophobes die off - every poll shows younger people are far more pro-gay rights.

[SilkenTofu]

thanks for the support Stormy and KellY...

There are still people who don't understand that it is not a choice to be gay, it is just who we are. The only choice lies in whether or not to act upon the desire.

I guess I really should be stirring sh*t up on Young Republican chat boards but they are all to busy getting their suits cleaned and nails buffed for the upcoming convention.

And they thing WE'RE prissy...sheesh

[SilkenTofu]

And they thing WE'RE prissy...sheesh

I meant to say think...but I guess subconsciously I know they don't...much

[Simply Joel]

Well a lot of my friends in San Fran. and Sacramento are no longer married today.

I am pretty sad and angry at how this turned out but it lasted longer than I expected. I almost thought they had gotten away with it, that in the larger picture of what is happening in the world that they could just let it go. This year at San Fran. Pride I cried pretty much the whole time the newly weds marched behind a smiling mayor and his family. It really was a moment to remember for me.

One day (soon hopefully) everyone or at least the powers that be will wake up and realize it shouldn't matter if you are hetero or homo if you want to join your lives together. Anyone feel diffrent...the same, confused?

You would think all parties involved saw this 7oo pound gorilla coming their way... it was only a matter of time.

[Simply Joel]

Well a lot of my friends in San Fran. and Sacramento are no longer married today.

I am pretty sad and angry at how this turned out but it lasted longer than I expected. I almost thought they had gotten away with it, that in the larger picture of what is happening in the world that they could just let it go. This year at San Fran. Pride I cried pretty much the whole time the newly weds marched behind a smiling mayor and his family. It really was a moment to remember for me.

One day (soon hopefully) everyone or at least the powers that be will wake up and realize it shouldn't matter if you are hetero or homo if you want to join your lives together. Anyone feel diffrent...the same, confused?

WHAT DID MCGREEVEY PROVE?

Sat Aug 14,12:24 AM ET
By William F. Buckley Jr.

In the matter of the resignation of New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, the impulse is to say: Let it alone -- it is a private act. But that is the thoughtless, even cowardly way of disposing of the event, because it is tied in so many ways to public questions that need thought and exploration.

Perhaps pre-eminent of the questions being raised: Would he have had to resign if his affair had been with a woman rather than with another man? What looms in memory, of course, is Bill Clinton. But the augustness of his office had the effect of sheltering him. And the people who were central in the movement to depose him concentrated not on the sexual affair, but on the means taken to conceal it.

And of course the affair was heterosexual. Moreover, Monica Lewinsky was at no time put in a high-level position in the administration. Several of the governor's critics emphasized the abuse of office in the naming of the lover to a high post in the homeland security program. Add to this that the lover, as a foreign citizen, couldn't be processed by the normal security routine, which left the state of New Jersey in the piquant situation of being the employer of a homeland security agent who was not himself permitted to be briefed on security matters.

Perhaps most would agree that the crowning difficulty was that the lover suddenly demanded $5 million. That was either blackmail or extortion, and it put the governor in the unenviable position of having to do something to emasculate the lover. The classic means of doing this to a blackmailer is to reveal yourself what the blackmailer holds over you, leaving him without any weapons at all, and as legitimate quarry of those in charge of enforcing the anti-blackmail laws. That responsibility is with the executive branch, headed up by the governor, raising the complication of a governor enforcing laws against a blackmailer whose target is the governor.

So Gov. McGreevey on several fronts was in a tight situation. But what is it that finally moved him to act?

If he is to be believed, what moved him to resign was his infidelity. The words sounded like a thunderclap over Mount Sinai. But yes, that is what he said, that he was resigning because he had violated "my bonds of matrimony." "Violating bonds of matrimony" is found, in the yellow pages of tortdom, under Crimes of Yesteryear. The governor had been divorced, and the fact that the causes of this divorce were not mentioned in copious reports on his life and retirement serves to remind us how far we have traveled from the days when infidelity was actually grounds for divorce.

In fact, it was for a long period the only grounds for divorce, if the other spouse didn't want divorce. Winthrop Rockefeller, desiring to divorce a woman who wished to stay married, had to go all the way to Arkansas to find a state that would allow him to conclude the divorce. Even then, the terms were pretty rough: You had to become a bona fide resident of Arkansas, which took two years. Mr. Rockefeller decided to put that investment in Arkansas to good use, and so ran for governor of Arkansas.

James McGreevey said about his first wife only that she decided to go back to live, with their daughter, in British Columbia. Her removal left him free to marry again, which he did, siring another daughter.

But although the governor said nothing about abandoning conjugal life with his wife, he did say that in fact he was "a gay American." As such, he was forced to impose "an acceptable reality onto myself." But at this point he left his rapt listeners in confusion, saying that he had to concede that there were perhaps realities "from which" he was "running." He went on then to acclaim America as "the greatest nation, with a tradition of civil liberties -- the greatest tradition of civil liberties in the world."

So where has he left us? How is our thinking clarified? What is it that has been, if not proved, at least hinted at? Barney Frank, the gay representative from Massachusetts, said that it's OK for a mere congressman to be gay, but not quite time for a governor to be gay, because his authority is too concentrated. Another observer said there was a single critical element in the governor's career, namely his having hired the lover, giving him $110,000 a year. There had, we learned, been rumors about the lover and his lofty salary, but that's all they were -- until the governor said that, in effect, the weight of what he had done was no longer bearable.

But his focus, not on abuse of office, not on the gender of his lover, not on the lover's extortionate demands, but on the marriage bond was electrifying. Perhaps his major legacy.

[Simply Joel]

Main Entry: an·nul·ment
Pronunciation: &-'n&l-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of annulling : the state of being annulled
2 : a judicial pronouncement declaring a marriage invalid

An annulment is usually requested by one or both of the involved parties... so, I think it is overstating the case calling same-sex marriages annulled...

actually, the marriages were defined as "void and of no legal effect from their inception."

If you are going to report it, report it correctly.

California Supreme Court Rules Gay Unions Have No Standing
By DEAN MURPHY

Published: August 13, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 12 - The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a blitz of same-sex weddings here in February and March had no standing under state law and declared the marriages "void and of no legal effect from their inception."

[Simply Joel]

August 13, 2004
California Supreme Court Rules Gay Unions Have No Standing
By DEAN MURPHY

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 12 - The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a blitz of same-sex weddings here in February and March had no standing under state law and declared the marriages "void and of no legal effect from their inception."

In a unanimous ruling, the justices said that Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco had exceeded his authority in allowing the marriages. By a 5-to-2 vote, the court also rendered the licenses, more than 4,000 in all, nothing more than a collector's item, ordering city officials to remove any record of them from the books and to offer the couples refunds of license fees.

The decision was narrow legally, applying only to the issue of executive authority and not to the constitutionality of state law limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Yet in practical terms, though previous rulings here and elsewhere in the country have placed thousands of same-sex marriages in limbo, the decision on Thursday was the biggest and most definitive reversal of gay weddings anywhere because of the nullificationof the marriages.

"Withholding or delaying a ruling on the current validity of the existing same-sex marriages might lead numerous persons to make fundamental changes in their lives or otherwise proceed on the basis of erroneous expectations, creating potentially irreparable harm," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Joyce L. Kennard said it was too early to throw out the licenses because of a separate constitutional challenge now in San Francisco Superior Court to the prohibition on gay marriage in California state law.

"It is premature and unwise to assert, as the majority essentially does, that the thousands of same-sex weddings performed in San Francisco were empty and meaningless ceremonies in the eyes of the law," Justice Kennard wrote.

In issuing the licenses between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the Supreme Court ordered a halt to them, city officials warned the same-sex couples that the marriages had uncertain legal standing. But in the general euphoria of the time, few of the couples cared much about the caveat. In the early days before an appointment system was put in place, thousands of people lined up at City Hall in the hope of getting married.

Some of the same-sex married couples said they later used the licenses to obtain benefits previously denied them, like discounts on insurance.

Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney, said Thursday that he could offer no guidance to couples who had received such benefits, suggesting only that they consult a lawyer. Molly McKay, a lawyer who is associate executive director of Marriage Equality California, a gay rights group, said her own auto insurance discount of $316 might now be in jeopardy.

"Every year we called them to determine whether we qualify for the marital discount as domestic partners," Ms. McKay said of her insurance company, "and every year they said no." But after Ms. McKay and her partner of seven years got married, she said, "We called our agent and said: Guess what? We're married. Do we get the discount? And they said sure."

Ms. McKay, who showed up outside the courthouse on Thursday and wore her wedding dress, and the leaders of other gay and lesbian groups said the ruling had unleashed a torrent of questions from scores of suddenly unmarried same-sex couples. The National Center for Lesbian Rights posted a series of "Frequently Asked Questions" on its Web site to help address some of the concerns.

"The interesting question is, what happens next?" Ms. McKay said. "Do we file a joint tax return for the six months of our marriage and then file another return for the rest of the year separately as single?"

Yet even with the many pragmatic concerns, the most prevalent reactions to the ruling among gay-marriage advocates were anger and sadness. Several gay couples gathered on the steps outside the Supreme Court here to wait for the ruling and wept as excerpts from the court's 114-page decision were read aloud.

"I feel more pain than I expected to," said Kate Kendell, a lawyer who is the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and who acted as a witness at the first gay wedding on Feb. 12. "My lawyer brain is being seeped into by my human brain."

The decision was hailed by conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage as an important repudiation of San Francisco's bid to skirt a state law, approved by voters in 2000, that defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."

Jordan Lorence, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocacy group that sued the city over the same-sex marriages, said the decision amounted to a "huge message" to Mr. Newsom and other gay-marriage advocates that they cannot break the law.

In issuing their ruling, the Supreme Court justices said Mr. Newsom, who had argued the state law on marriage was unconstitutional, had invited chaos by overstepping his bounds as mayor.

"This conclusion is consistent with the classic understanding of the separation of powers doctrine - that the legislative power is the power to enact statues, the executive power is the power to execute or enforce statutes, and the judicial power is the power to interpret statutes and to determine their constitutionality," Chief Justice George wrote.

"There are thousands of elected and appointed public officials in California's 58 counties charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing thousands of state statutes," he wrote later. "If each official were empowered to decide whether or not to carry out each ministerial act based upon the official's own personal judgment of the constitutionality of an underlying statute, the enforcement of statutes would become haphazard, leading to confusion and chaos."

Hailing the ruling, Mr. Lorence said, "Change comes by respecting regular procedures, not by defying state law."

He and others who had challenged the marriages gathered across the street from the Supreme Court building.

Another lawyer for the group, Joshua Carden, said the court had rendered the San Francisco marriages meaningless.

"It's like counterfeit money," Mr. Carden said of the licenses, "you can't spend it and you can't cash it."

Mr. Newsom, speaking at a news conference at City Hall, said he would respect the ruling, though he said he disagreed with it. He offered no apologies for his actions, except to say that his bid to bring same-sex marriage to California would take longer than he had hoped.

"I think what we did was right and appropriate and history will judge that," Mr. Newsom said.

As satisfying as the ruling was for the opponents of gay marriage, many agreed that the biggest fight was yet to come. In issuing its ruling, the Supreme Court expressly sidestepped the fundamental question of whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional. That question is the subject of a separate lawsuit that could take several years before reaching the State Supreme Court.

With that fight in mind, gay-marriage advocates organized a protest march late on Thursday, beginning in the heavily gay Castro district and ending at Civic Center Plaza near the Supreme Court.

Mr. Newsom said he was convinced that gay-marriage proponents would achieve victory in his lifetime and in the lifetimes of the first couple to be married at City Hall, Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79.

Mr. Lorence, the lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, disagreed. "People will step in," he said. "Previous political actions in various states have shown that the voters will step in when the states get it wrong."

Carolyn Marshall contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[SilkenTofu]

Joel

thanks for getting the article into the thread, I really couldn't think of the right words when I started the thread, but I guess it it could have read.

Worst Null and Void Ever.... (but that didn't seem to flow very well)

Personally I have not though of getting married or even having some type of commitment cerimony with my partner yet..but it would be nice to have the option of marriage when the time is right.

[Simply Joel]

I just hope the conservatives so vocally supportive of heterosexual marriage are also vocally supportive of fidelity among married partners, pre-natal healthcare and better education for all, as they are against same-sex marriage or civil unions....

please note, I am not going to hold my breath until this happens.

or put another way... I hope conservative put their money where their mouth is...

I am pretty weary of the hypocrisy... yet that doesn't make me a liberal.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

That's was the most fucked up thing I've seen since the Iraq war. It against the Constitution of our country and it will accepted some day.

And some people ask why are christian/islamic/ Judeo beliefs anti-humanistic and so hated!

2,000 years of dark ages under their rule!

Maybe some christian followers can explain why Homosexuals are so despied in their faith when it is supposed to be based on love and acceptance!

"Oh Socrates! Is it true what you said that even the highest of civilizations will crumble by its fear of the truth, as you had stated so long ago, as I sat on that cold marble seat early that morning!"

Apollonaris

[Simply Joel]

That's was the most fucked up thing I've seen since the Iraq war.

It is? You don't get out much do you?

It against the Constitution of our country and it will accepted some day.

One's right to sexual preference is not protected by the Consitution... and yes, it (same sex marriage, more likely civil unions) might be accepted some day

And some people ask why are christian/islamic/ Judeo beliefs anti-humanistic and so hated!

From my perspective, the hatred and "anti-humanistic" beliefs you identify is only a small percentile of all believers... they just happen to be most vocal. And what if those believers see homosexuality and same sex marriage as "anti-"insert your own belief system here)" behavior. What if they saw same-sex marriage as a threat... don't they have rights to their lifestyle without threat?

2,000 years of dark ages under their rule!/quote]

This statement is way over the top.... so, I'll let it slide.

Maybe some christian followers can explain why Homosexuals are so despied in their faith when it is supposed to be based on love and acceptance!

I'll let a christian field this question.

"Oh Socrates! Is it true what you said that even the highest of civilizations will crumble by its fear of the truth, as you had stated so long ago, as I sat on that cold marble seat early that morning!"

Apollonaris

Which truth are we referring to? Homophobia? I sincerely doubt the quote above was referring to homosexuality.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

That's was the most fucked up thing I've seen since the Iraq war.

It is? You don't get out much do you?

It against the Constitution of our country and it will accepted some day.

One's right to sexual preference is not protected by the Consitution... and yes, it (same sex marriage, more likely civil unions) might be accepted some day

And some people ask why are christian/islamic/ Judeo beliefs anti-humanistic and so hated!

From my perspective, the hatred and "anti-humanistic" beliefs you identify is only a small percentile of all believers... they just happen to be most vocal. And what if those believers see homosexuality and same sex marriage as "anti-"insert your own belief system here)" behavior. What if they saw same-sex marriage as a threat... don't they have rights to their lifestyle without threat?

2,000 years of dark ages under their rule!/quote]

This statement is way over the top.... so, I'll let it slide.

Maybe some christian followers can explain why Homosexuals are so despied in their faith when it is supposed to be based on love and acceptance!

I'll let a christian field this question.

"Oh Socrates! Is it true what you said that even the highest of civilizations will crumble by its fear of the truth, as you had stated so long ago, as I sat on that cold marble seat early that morning!"

Apollonaris

Which truth are we referring to? Homophobia? I sincerely doubt the quote
above was referring to homosexuality. :roll:

All people are guarenteed that same rights under the constitution. You can make it illegal for a black to marry a white women.

Homosexuality is forbidden in the Tora/bible and those that teach or lead their sermons by it eventually follow it or they will be doomed to Hell!

The Dark Ages are their fault beginning with the burning of rome, libraries and the eventual destruction of the Empire. Even today they burn their books! Perhaps they have calmed down a bit, they will eventually flare up with the darkness once again.

The whole crumbling of all societal freedoms.

And yes, you should have had a christian answer these questions, but don't let me stop you from having your fun too.

I doubt that a christian will speak up and defend any of these questions. Maybe on brave soul will do so.

A II Z

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Make that "can't marry a white women"!

But the bible has its interpretation contrary to intermiggling of the races which was part of the basis for laws against it.

A II Z

[Simply Joel]

All people are guarenteed that same rights under the constitution.

Yes, however, marriage is governed by state law, not federal law.
How effectively they exercise their rights is everyone's guess.

You can make it illegal for a black to marry a white women.

Which century are you referring to?

Homosexuality is forbidden in the Tora/bible and those that teach or lead their sermons by it eventually follow it or they will be doomed to Hell!

So?

The Dark Ages are their fault beginning with the burning of rome, libraries and the eventual destruction of the Empire. Even today they burn their books! Perhaps they have calmed down a bit, they will eventually flare up with the darkness once again.

optimist.

The whole crumbling of all societal freedoms.

And yes, you should have had a christian answer these questions, but don't let me stop you from having your fun too.

I doubt that a christian will speak up and defend any of these questions. Maybe on brave soul will do so.

A II Z

And some conservatives might say Burning Man is the crumbling of societal norms.

Take a breath...

[Apollonaris Zeus]

And some conservatives might say Burning Man is the crumbling of societal norms.

It is and is highly encouraged.

A II Z

[Apollonaris Zeus]

So Joel, I stand by all my observations.

Now what do you think on Gay Rights and Marriage?

A II Z

[Simply Joel]

So Joel, I stand by all my observations.

Now what do you think on Gay Rights and Marriage?

A II Z

I think the need to make new laws is overstated.

[theCryptofishist]

This year at San Fran. Pride I cried pretty much the whole time the newly weds marched behind a smiling mayor and his family. It really was a moment to remember for me.

Truly a great moment. All those liscences blown up into posters too. Newsom can be a twit sometimes, but I think it was a great thing he did.

[theCryptofishist]

Time will tell whether Newsom hurt the cause or not by pushing too fast.

I think that's irrelivent. From my observations the inclimental approach would never have gotten anywhere. Activism is wierd.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

So Joel, I stand by all my observations.

Now what do you think on Gay Rights and Marriage?

A II Z

I think the need to make new laws is overstated.

No new laws is one thing, but where do you stand on Gay Rights?

Do you think that gays should have the same rights as straight people?

I am not interested in reading you PM on your stance because I want this to be an open forum.

Can you post that PM here for others to read.

A II Z

[Simply Joel]

So Joel, I stand by all my observations.

Now what do you think on Gay Rights and Marriage?

A II Z

I think the need to make new laws is overstated.

No new laws is one thing, but where do you stand on Gay Rights?.

No new laws is my stand.

Do you think that gays should have the same rights as straight people?

I think gays do have the same rights as straights.
I don't see marriage as a right.

I am not interested in reading you PM on your stance because I want this to be an open forum.

Can you post that PM here for others to read.

A II Z

Nope, it was deleted long ago...

and.... want in one hand, take a shit in the other... see which hand gets full first.

[Rian Jackson]

I was surprised how much it shocked me... i guess i saw it coming, the decision, but there's a certain amount of denial.

Hopefully, the legalization of queer marriages is something that's more or less inevitable. It stuck around in CA for a while, and with the recent victories i imagine that people will continue to push the issue legally and socially until it's written into law - or, in some cases, not written out of the law. Here is Seattle it seems like the issue is moving slowly forward. It's not as dramatic as SF but it might get there.

[Simply Joel]

I believe same sex "civil unions" are more likely accepted, approved, tolerated by society than same sex "marriage" in the near or distant future.

[SilkenTofu]

Newsom can be a twit sometimes, but I think it was a great thing he did.

Well he is still a politician after all, but he sure knows who butters his bread.

It makes me wonder how much research he did into the legality of the matter before authorizing it. He also had to know that it couldn't last.

On the matter of the difference between a civil union and an actual marriage I couldn't see the difference except that marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples only at this time. The idea that equality in all things comes out into play.

Some might think that to give the homosexual community the right to a civil union but reserve the right to marry as not really being equal. Kind of like in karate the difference between a brown belt and black belt, they can both kick ass but the black belt will always feel slightly superior. At least this is the gist I am getting from the gay community.

and where the karate reference came from....I apparently haven't had enough caffeine today.

[SilkenTofu]

Newsom can be a twit sometimes, but I think it was a great thing he did.

Well he is still a politician after all, but he sure knows who butters his bread.

It makes me wonder how much research he did into the legality of the matter before authorizing it. He also had to know that it couldn't last.

On the matter of the difference between a civil union and an actual marriage I couldn't see the difference except that marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples only at this time. The idea that equality in all things comes out into play.

Some might think that to give the homosexual community the right to a civil union but reserve the right to marry as not really being equal. Kind of like in karate the difference between a brown belt and black belt, they can both kick ass but the black belt will always feel slightly superior. At least this is the gist I am getting from the gay community.

and where the karate reference came from....I apparently haven't had enough caffeine today.

[Simply Joel]

I believe same sex "civil unions" are more likely accepted, approved, tolerated by society than same sex "marriage" in the near or distant future.

[theCryptofishist]

Newsom can be a twit sometimes, but I think it was a great thing he did.

Well he is still a politician after all, but he sure knows who butters his bread.

I don't think anyone here expected it of him, and most of the San Francisco progressives voted for the Green candidate. And he's possibly compromised his status as a rising Democratic Star. On the other hand, he's now getting a lot of heat locally by appearing in Vanity Fair.

[Simply Joel]

Newsom can be a twit sometimes, but I think it was a great thing he did.

Well he is still a politician after all, but he sure knows who butters his bread.

I don't think anyone here expected it of him, and most of the San Francisco progressives voted for the Green candidate. And he's possibly compromised his status as a rising Democratic Star. On the other hand, he's now getting a lot of heat locally by appearing in Vanity Fair.

Could you elaborate as to why and/or what kind of heat he is getting?