Dear Mary...

"Douglas Berry" In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"[i]ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Jarg

"Jarg" writes:

"Douglas Berry" OK, you've reached delusional status now.

3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
Oregon started issuing them today.

They will soon be coming to MA.

You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
marriages are a reality. Deal with it.

I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
"because I said so."
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail


Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.

Actually this isn't at all clear. The legal definition of marriage in
most places _is_ about this little piece of paper. Now in CA there is
clearly a problem, but in Oregon (which does _not_ define marriage as
specifically between a man and a woman) it isn't clear that this piece
of paper is bogus.

I don't know about other states.

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army
[i]
"Douglas Berry" In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

But the state only records the certificates, it does not issue them.
Big difference.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

In article ,
Douglas Berry wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:16 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.

In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.


Not if they were done using unauthorized altered state forms...which is
the case in SF.


--Mike

In article ,
Douglas Berry wrote:
[i]
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

"Douglas Berry" In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
"sex"...and not sexual preference.


But the state only records the certificates, it does not issue them.
Big difference.


And it is recording altered cerificates it does not have authorization
to alter.


--Mike

In article , Michael Wise says...[i]

In article ,
Douglas Berry wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

"Douglas Berry" In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
"sex"...and not sexual preference.


Look up the full faith and credit clause in Art IV, Sec. 1 - all states must
recognize the legislative acts, public records (-i.e. Marriages legally
performed in that state), and judicial decisons in that state.

Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641 extrapolates on this.

In short, if a state allows gays to marry, ALL other sates must recognize it.

Go ahead, look it up.

-Tom

"I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down on the bottom we, too,
should have rights!" ~Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Seuss

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:16 GMT, "Jarg" wrote:

"Douglas Berry" OK, you've reached delusional status now.

3,500 marriage licenses have been issued in San Francisco. Portland,
Oregon started issuing them today.

They will soon be coming to MA.

You can pout and whine all you want, but the fact is that same-sex
marriages are a reality. Deal with it.

I'm finished with you until you actually develop an argument beyond
"because I said so."
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail


Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.

As to Steve's statements about gay marriage not being possible, I think he
has overstated his doctrinal beliefs. I am guessing that he means Christian
gay marriages are not possible. I would be curious to know if he thinks
Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, etc. marriages are possible, or if marriage is
possible between all men an all women regardless of faith since the
Christian Bible defines marriage in Christian terms only as far as I know.
In other words, how do you mesh the religious and secular ideas of marriage?

Jarg

Why use the term "gay" when talking about homosexuals? They are not "gay",
they are lesbians and homosexuals.

Marriage is not appropriate for homosexuals.

Al Minyard

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:07:05 GMT, Douglas Berry wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:18:16 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

Although I don't share Steve's ideas about gay marriage, I would agree when
he says that gay marriages are not occurring yet. Essentially, until the
courts rule otherwise or the laws are changed, all that seems to be
happening in the places you mentioned is a nice ceremony (similar to a
birthday party say) accompanied by a bogus piece of paper. This doesn't
fulfil the legal definition of marriage in the US.

In the US, marriages are handled by county registars. Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

They are not marriages, they are abominations.

Al MInyard

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 03:45:44 GMT, Douglas Berry wrote:
[i]
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:35:28 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Jarg" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army

"Douglas Berry" In the US, marriages are handled by county registars.
Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

But the state only records the certificates, it does not issue them.
Big difference.

No. it does not. Homosexuals are not recognized in the Constitution,
and no "same sex" "marriages exit.

Al Minyard

In article ,
Replacement_Tommel wrote:


"Douglas Berry" In the US, marriages are handled by county
registars.[i]
Not the states,
not the federal government. Those marriages might only be legal in a
singal county now, they are marriages.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true:

California passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between a
man and a woman are valid in California.

State law is very clear, said Randy Thomasson, executive director of
Campaign for California Families.
"ssuing invalid marriage certificates and officiating at unlawful
weddings is a misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time," the
group said.

Which violates Article 1, Section 31 of the Constitution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


I don't see anything there about sexual preference. It clearly states
"sex"...and not sexual preference.


Look up the full faith and credit clause in Art IV, Sec. 1 - all states must
recognize the legislative acts, public records (-i.e. Marriages legally
performed in that state), and judicial decisons in that state.


Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641 extrapolates on this.

In short, if a state allows gays to marry, ALL other sates must recognize it.

Go ahead, look it up.



First of all, that has nothing to do with Mr. Berry's claim and my
response to it concerning Article 1, Section 31 of the California State
Consititution.

Go ahead, look it up.


Secondly, since it is currently not legal in the state of California,
your entire point is moot. Please feel free to go ahead and look that up
as well. ; )

--Mike