February 21, 2004

Arnold Orders AG to Stop Gay Marriages

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered the state's attorney general to take legal action to put an end to San Francisco's granting of marriage licenses to gay couples.

Schwarzenegger's directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer was sparked in part by a judge's decision on Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco's weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director.

"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law," Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter to Lockyer. "The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee."

The Republican governor "feels that we've come to a point where we're starting down a dangerous path and it leads to anarchy at some point," Stutzman said. "It's time for this to end."
[...]
Mathew Staver, a lawyer representing the Campaign for California Families, said he believes the court ultimately will find that Newsom acted illegally when he began allowing gay marriages last week.

"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.

Again, thank God that somebody put a stop to this nightmare out there on the Left Coast!
(And exploiting this on Valentine's Day, too. As if the "Vagina Monologues" dealie wasn't bad enough!)
Gov. Schwartzenhegger is quite right: leaving the "OK-ness" of gay marriage aside, if US city mayor and state judges are allowed to disregard standing laws, such as that against marriage in California between anyone who is not a biological male and a female of the age of consent and not related which was voted on by referendum when Proposition 22 was passed in 2000, then what's to say that any and every law of the 50 states or federal law can't be "defied" and broken?
It's a very slippery slope and the Left knows this only too well.
It is revolting and outrageous that these marrying homosexuals claim as a justification that they are being treated as "second class citizens" because they're barred from matrimony and that they compare their situation to the racial civil rights movement.
People of color everywhere should be disgusted.
None of the gay people I know suffer in any way from being "denied" their rights as American citizens because they're not "married."
And that crap about marrying for the "economic benefits" is just that, crap.
Here in Texas (which has a reputation for not being all that progressive), gays and unmarried people of whatever sex can get a mortgage and secure insurance benefits, which includes full participation in medical treatment of a "partner."
As for "inheritance," just leave a will leaving it all to your "lover," you morons!
Gay activists and their enablers on the Left won't stop with just these civil licenses; this is a 2-pronged attack on both the church and the state.
As you're no doubt aware, the assault on Christian marriage began a few months ago with the ordination of that gay bishop in the Episcopal Church.
Clearly, the Left is working to get both civil marriage and religious marriage for homosexuals as a "right" and as a Sacrament in this country.
The end goal for them is the nullification and eventual aboliton of marriage altogether or "anything goes," if you will.
I didn't want to pay attention to this because I think all of this "gay stuff" is just too awful, but this all started with the Supreme Court knocking down that Texas sodomy law.
IOW, Justice Antonin Scalia was right in his dissenting opinion.
If the United States is to remain a good and just country, with some kind of standard of Judeao-Christian morality as its foundation--which has never failed this country yet--it must protect and retain laws like the ones in all 50 states against gay marriage (or more specifically, the ones that don't mention gay marriage because no legislator before now had envisioned such a travesty).
Because of the visibility and relentless activitism of gay marriage advocates, we all will probably have to make a Defense of Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution as President Bush has indicated to head off the "full faith and credit" tactic of gay activists (meaning, if gay marriage is allowed in one state, like Massachusetts, the other 49 states constitutionally have to recognize those marriages).
Fine by me--I'll vote for it.
I was sort of ambivalent about it before all these San Francisco ceremonies in my effort to have a "live and let live" philosophy about it.
But I can see that that's not going to be enough.
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
This problem is the same as the one we've had with abortion (not civil rights, as they claim): Roe v. Wade and it's aftermath haven't been about giving women a choice to have a legal abortion. Oh, no. Abortion advocates weren't happy until they had secured the "right" to partial birth abortion, giving woman the "choice" to abort their "foetus" right up until (and including) the moment of its birth based on nothing more than the mother's "mental state" at the time, which is nothing less than child murder.
Mercifully, President Bush has now banned this barbaric practice.
America has plenty of tolerance for its homosexual citizens--they live rich, full lives already and are able to participate fully in realizing the American dream.
When homosexuals are thrown off cliffs and executed for their "sinful" lifestyles, as they are in Muslim societies, then gay activists can carry on about "discrimination."
But not here. Not now.
Stop the Insanity and Viellen Danke, Arnold!