Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

San Francisco Judge: Gay Couples Will Be Permitted To Marry Beginning This Week

August 17, 2010 by  

Gay couples will be permitted to marry beginning next week, says San Francisco judge Completing the latest stage of reversing the ban on same-sex marriage in California, a judge has ruled that ceremonies may resume in the state on August 18.

Media reports suggested that supporters outside San Francisco’s City Hall erupted in cheers when they heard about the ruling. Afterward, Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign, commented that beginning this week equal protection under the law will again be enjoyed by millions of Californians who are currently left out, according to CNN.

However, Family Research Council (FRC) criticized the decision, accusing Judge Vaughn Walker of disregarding the will of some 7 million state residents who voted in favor of Proposition 8 in November 2008.

Gay marriage opponents may have suffered a setback, but many are counting on the ruling to be overturned by higher courts.

In fact, FRC president Tony Perkins said that “even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—the most liberal appeals court in America—the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm the right of the American people to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”

Currently, five U.S. states allow gay couples to marry, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire. Same-sex marriage is also legal in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19925441-ADNFCR

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News
Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “San Francisco Judge: Gay Couples Will Be Permitted To Marry Beginning This Week”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Palin12

    Have you ever seen the Lone Ranger with a woman? Have you ever seen his partner Tonto with a woman? I think they’ve been busy back at Brokeback Mountain.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Palin12,
      when I was a kid, I remember one episode where the Ranger kissed a lady!!!! I’m not too sure about Tonto but who knows??

      • Palin12

        Haha. It was joke by Joey Bishop impersonator in Las Vegas. Part of the Rat Pack show.

  • Jim H.

    The Groom may now kiss the Groom.

    • Palin12

      Good one! LOL

      • Kinetic1

        Yes Palin12, aren’t people who are different from us funny? I assume the 12 in Palin12 reflects your age.

      • Palin12

        No idiot, the 12 is for 2012, when Obummer is gone! If not sooner!

      • viktor leben

        Sarah Palin has my vote !!! She’s HOT !!!!

      • http://?? Joe H.

        She’s sure a lot easier on the eyes than Michelle Nobama!!! I’ve seen better looking Black women on Jerry Springer!!! You sure Nobama didn’t already marry gay???

    • Kinetic1

      Your point?

      • Jim H.

        Kinetic1, You are way different than me and I find you funny too. Just a joke, lighten up you thin skinned cry baby.

  • FlexSF

    No such right exists. “right of the American people to protect marriage.” The bigots will fail in this quest, miserably! They deserve it.

    • Palin12

      FlexSF, does the SF stand for San Francisco, by any chance?

    • s c

      FlexSF, be very careful what you wish for in this life. You may get it – and then some. In case you haven’t yet done the math, the next step beyond marital ‘rights’ for homosexuals is the issue of adults marrying children and ‘exotic’ groups like NAMBLA, whose members insist that sex with kids is no big deal and groups that think kids need to be ‘broken in’ before they are 8 years old.
      After them, we have people who think beastiality is no big deal. Are you prepared to be open-minded with those groups, or are you prepared to stop where you are now? You’re dealing with progressives and social engineers of ALL types, not just the predictable ones that most people take for granted.
      Like it or not, this world is devolving. Some call it progress. I don’t. Even Darwin would be horrified to learn what happened after he died and wannabe ‘elites’ and hordes of social pariahs moved into society and demanded ‘equal rights.’

      • Palin12

        Yes, and they could also make a case for polygamy. Why not, they’d ask? It’s not hurtin’ anybody! If the homosexual community would frown on polygamy, then they’d realize there have to be barriers in the definition of marriage.

      • Kinetic1

        Oh for God’s sake, what is wrong with you people? Children and animals are considered innocents and are protected by law. We’re talking about consenting adults here. You’ll never get a judge to rule that the constitution allows for the marriage of children, nor will you convince the majority of American’s that we should condone sex with children or animals. This is another baseless argument advanced by those who feel their religious morals should be the rule of law.

        As for Polygamy, please explain why it’s a problem as long as everyone is of age, informed and consenting. Yes, divorce would be a real mess, and other laws concerning the blood lines would need to be enforced, but aside from your own religious issues, what reason do we have to prohibit Polygamy?

      • Palin12

        Thanks for proving my point. Now polygamy will be endorsed by the homosexual community. I rest my case.

      • viktor leben

        Wait, let’s think about this for awhile ….. You mean if this gay marriage thing goes thru that polygamy is the “next batter up” ?

        Let’s see, I have one wife .. she works (I’m unemployed)… does this mean I could marry like 10 more hot looking women (who work) and live happily ever after ?????

        I got to convince my wife first…. she’ll understand (?) …

      • http://?? Joe H.

        victor,
        I just read your post to my wife and she said “Well , maybe your wife will get the idea that SHE needs more than one house husband!!! Polygamy goes both ways you know!!!!

  • Palin12

    I’m not sure if this is up-to-the-minute news. I read in my newspaper it’s being reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    • Kinetic1

      Not reversed, just delayed awaiting appeal.

  • s c

    If America has come to the point where any tree-dwelling judge can bypass AND ignore the will of the people, then the Constitution is dead, and we have nothing to lose by doing whatever it takes to make judges refuse to go to work.
    A judge who legislates from the bench is anything but a judge. This judge is a frustrated ambulance chaser who thinks he is immune from the power of common sense and the right of the people to live in an orderly and law-abiding society. ‘Sic semper tyrannis’ will become this country’s motto unless this insanity is crushed, people.

    • Kinetic1

      It is a judge’s duty to protect the constitution, even when the people vote to violate it. Just because prop 8 passed in California does not mean that it can become law. I seem to recall most folks on this site cheering when the courts stopped gun control laws they deemed as unconstitutional. So is this how it works? When a judge rules against a law you like, he is an activist, and when he votes to support a law you like, he’s a constitutionalist hero? Sorry, the law doesn’t work that way.

      • s c

        Ye gods, K1. Are you smoking that #^&* today, or are you mainlining? IF we had judges in this country who gave at least HALF a royal damn about PROTECTING the Constitution, America wouldn’t be nearly so ‘effed up. Where is your head?
        A big chunk of our current woes are due to social engineering judges who legislate from the bench! Whenever a judge gets it into his or head to bypass or ‘bend’ the Constitution, it’s the same as those RETARDS in Congress who pass legislation without having read the damned thing.
        You boggle the mind, dude. Mary Poppins and Peter Pan have nothing on you. You live in your own dream world, and you have the gall to wonder why conservatives see you as people who drift into and out of reality. If you haven’t been willingly programmed, it’s one hell of an imitation.

    • http://yahoo joyce

      joe you are absoulately right if we can impeach this judge we need to it do asap wethepeople have spoken more than once about this nonsense. the bible says that man is not to sleep with man and woman is not to sleep with woman it is an abomation to him and unless they turn away from this behavior thses people will not enter the kingdom of heaven. we are still a nation built on the christain beliefs even tho a lot of people have turned away from him it hasn’t changed that part of our constitution our forefarthers would spin in their graves if they knew what we have done to the most important document ever written. god is not going to help us unless we turn back to him.

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom