Nullified Marriages

[slicindicin]

I don't really know the details, the news isn't really very good at providing any of the important information, but recently, California nullified hundreds of homosexual marriages that were as far as I can tell, legal at the time they were issued.

Is this a very good precedent? I wonder how people would feel if all marriages issued to people who have been married before had their marriages nullified? What if the government decides that people who are in the miltary should focus on their job and nullify the marriages of all married military personnel?

I could sort of be okay if they reversed a law and decided to stop issuing marriage permits for homsexuals, but to take away something that was allready given?

[Iracundia]

I am strongly against indecisiveness. This just epitomizes that. If you are going to make a decision, dont renege on it a short while later, especially when Constitutional issues are involved.

[slicindicin]

I just think that when the government claims to have a legitimate claim to the right to control marriage, it threatens all marriage. If it's okay to undo gay marriages, what stops the government from undoing interracial marriages?

[Montgomery-Scott]

im not even participating. This has already degenerated into pro vs against gay marriage. can't we talk about something else? like canabalisim or something?

[Iracundia]

At 8/13/04 04:51 PM, slicindicin wrote: I just think that when the government claims to have a legitimate claim to the right to control marriage, it threatens all marriage. If it's okay to undo gay marriages, what stops the government from undoing interracial marriages?

Highly doubtful, I think any marriage between male and female has become rather solidified in society. It is wrong that the government decides who can get married and who can't, to some extent. I wouldn't want to see the ability to marry animals become legal, that is just disgusting.

[Madadder]

At 8/13/04 04:42 PM, slicindicin wrote: I don't really know the details, the news isn't really very good at providing any of the important information, but recently, California nullified hundreds of homosexual marriages that were as far as I can tell, legal at the time they were issued.

Is this a very good precedent? I wonder how people would feel if all marriages issued to people who have been married before had their marriages nullified? What if the government decides that people who are in the miltary should focus on their job and nullify the marriages of all married military personnel?

I could sort of be okay if they reversed a law and decided to stop issuing marriage permits for homsexuals, but to take away something that was allready given?

What is your logic behind that last statement. You don't want gays to be married, and yet you want the ones who's marriages were nullified, to get their marriages back?

[slicindicin]

At 8/13/04 04:56 PM, Madadder wrote:

At 8/13/04 04:42 PM, slicindicin wrote: I could sort of be okay if they reversed a law and decided to stop issuing marriage permits for homsexuals, but to take away something that was allready given?

What is your logic behind that last statement. You don't want gays to be married, and yet you want the ones who's marriages were nullified, to get their marriages back?

I do think gays should be married, but considering that the issue is an extremely hot issue for many people, it should be expected that the government might be a little indecisive.

Similarly, I think I could be sort of okay if abortion was illegalized, I'd be pissed off in the same way people were pissed off about prohibition, but I wouldn't be extremely worried that the government is being abusive. On the other hand, if abortion was illegalized, and all women who have had abortions (not to mention the doctors) were tried for murder, I would have serious problems.
Those women had broken no law, but are being punished. The gays who married were entering into a contract with the government to receive offical acknowledgement and the associated protections that come with marriage. The government has gone back on it's word and has seriously reduced it's reliability in any legal agreement.

[Camarohusky]

To answer all y'all's questions. The marriages in Cali were never legal in the first place. The mayor of SF violated Clai state law in issuing the marriages, so the court decided that the mayor had overstepped his bounds and that all of the overstepping he did must be undone.

I'll say this for the third time on the BBS. You shouldn't worry too much about Cali's decision, that was just a paperwork, technicallity thing. If Oregon's supreme court nullifies the marriage done in Multnomah county, that's when you all should get angry, because there is no law in Oregon saying that homosexuals cannot marry.

[Taxman2A]

At 8/13/04 04:42 PM, slicindicin wrote: I don't really know the details, the news isn't really very good at providing any of the important information, :

The news may not be, but the internet has tons of information. I have never heard of this case, and would like to see something that supports that this actually happened.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/13/04 05:38 PM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 8/13/04 04:42 PM, slicindicin wrote: I don't really know the details, the news isn't really very good at providing any of the important information, :

The news may not be, but the internet has tons of information. I have never heard of this case, and would like to see something that supports that this actually happened.

Look through the official gay marriage thread, and the other gay marriage threads, there's like 3 or 4 links to stories abotu this

[bumcheekcity]

At 8/13/04 04:42 PM, slicindicin wrote: I could sort of be okay if they reversed a law and decided to stop issuing marriage permits for homsexuals, but to take away something that was allready given?

Yeah. I share that view. If they reverse the law, that's one thing, but to annul the marriages... That's harsh, unnecessary and mean.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/13/04 05:47 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 8/13/04 04:42 PM, slicindicin wrote: I could sort of be okay if they reversed a law and decided to stop issuing marriage permits for homsexuals, but to take away something that was allready given?

Yeah. I share that view. If they reverse the law, that's one thing, but to annul the marriages... That's harsh, unnecessary and mean.

They never reversed any law. Before SF issued gay marriages there was a law stating that homosexuals in Cali could marry. The mayor of SF then violated that law in letting them marry. So the marriages were illegitimate. Nullifying them is just complying with the law that precedes the marriages.

I am in total support of homosexual marriages, but I'm not going to give up all reason and logic in supporting them. If it breaks the law when they get married, the marriage is illegal. I want to see homosexual marriage become legal through the use of legislation and law, then we can use the constitution (supreme court rationality abiding) to make it legal in all states.

[theburningliberal]

Iracundia -- we've already covered the slippery slope thing here. Read through the thread, then come back when you develop an original argument.

[Coop]

At 8/13/04 04:42 PM, slicindicin wrote: I don't really know the details, the news isn't really very good at providing any of the important information, but recently, California nullified hundreds of homosexual marriages that were as far as I can tell, legal at the time they were issued.

I'm stunned! California actually got something right. They understand what the word marriage means:

Marriage is the union of a MAN and a WOMAN which can be blessed with children. Somebody had better tell the rest of the world that they can't call it gay MARRIAGE. they should call it coupling or something.

Until they get over this stumbling block, they can't progress.