(no subject)

[frannyan]

"You don't act like everyone else does, therefor you do not have the rights everyone else does."

Basicly, that is the message that is comeing across.

Because you love someone that does not fit the profile of what is Normal, you cannot marry. And if you do marry, your marrage is invalid in the eyes of the law.

If you have a child with your partner in perfectly legal ways in one state and yourr partner takes the child and runs to another state where your union is not legel, that state will say you have no right to the child because you did not give birth to it. Never the mind that the person who too the child and ran violated a court order for custory in doing so.

California nulified marrages. In the name of saving marrage, they told over a thousand couples that they were no longer married.

Virgina is telling a woman that she has no rights to her child that she raised because her blood is not in that child and because her civil union is not recognized by that state. In Vermont, she has custory rights. In Virgina, she does not.

Because blood makes family.

Tell an adopted child that they are no longer part of the family that raised them because they share no blood with them. TEll someone who lives with a steppartent that has been there since they were born that the person they call mom is not their mother.

Because gays marrying destroys the family.

Bullshit.

The goverment is what's destorying marrage. What's distroying the family. What;s destorying love.

Becase the goverment is telling people that their love for another person is not valid.

Comments

[yukie1013.livejournal.com]

WORD.

Fran, I adore you.

This needs to be posted in KG or somerhing because dayamn.

[judysama.livejournal.com]

Actually, it was almost 4000 couples, but saying over 1000 is accurate enough, I guess.

[cow.livejournal.com]

True nuff.

By the end of 2004, Washington should have gay marriage. :D

[mostlyarmless.livejournal.com]

What is the "Sanctity of Marriage," and why is it so important that we must trample on one of the inherent beliefs that this country was founded on?

As to a clarification of the ruling in California, I can understand it, because it was a decision based on the laws currently in California. California state law currently states that marriage is between a man and a woman. The governor of San Francisco DOES NOT have the authority to marry anyone other than a man and a woman. I agree with the State Supreme Court decision to void those marriages.

However, acting acording to the laws of California in overturning the governor's power to perform gay marriages, which he expressly does not have, will also allow the State Supreme court to declare the law (once it is bought to them in a case [assuming it acts like it's big brother the Supreme Court]) un-california-state-constitutional.

SO the Califonia State COurt nullified marriages because the governor did not have that right, which I think shows that the court is protecting the populous from abuses of power by government officials. It is just the law that needs to be changed.

[edmondia.livejournal.com]

Word and amen.

[judysama.livejournal.com]

Actually, according to the editorial [and granted, it was an editorial, not an article] that I got the info from, California has a history that even if there are legal problems they often still let marriages stand if they don't hurt any of the parties involved. So while I agree with you about the fact that the governor was overstepping his bounds in deciding for himself that the law was unconstitutional [there's separation of powers for a reason], that didn't necessarily - in this case - mean that the marriages had to be annulled. A lot of gay rights activists were hoping that they wouldn't annul them even if they decided against the governor for that reason.

Umm... umm... wow.

[manwe-iluvendil.livejournal.com]

Fran, honey, you and I have hardly ever seen eye to eye -- duiscounting of course our taste in animation -- but I can say proudly, right here and now, I have never loved you more. Rock on, sistah!

[anirien.livejournal.com]

The whole thing makes me so fucking angry, and the chances of my marrying another woman are slim to none, so I can only imagine how pissed that makes you and any other gay couples out there. It's just... uch, I think I've gone beyond the point where I'm even able to articulate how pissed it makes me. On the other hand I am glad to have come from Canada.

[anirien.livejournal.com]

I think the case against Jason West is also one to reffer. Because in his case, and in the case of the Unitarian ministers, the court ruled that while what they had done could be considered illegal, that it is basically silly and pales in comparison to the constitutional rights issue that is at the heart of the matter. Of course the judges who ruled on the cases put it much more eloquently, but you get the idea.

Ah I love New Paltz. I just wish the rest of America was a little more like here.