Comments on: Response to NOM’s Attack Email http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/2008/09/02/response-to-noms-attack-email/ Fighting for marriage equality - Proposition 8 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:34:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Interracialmatch http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/2008/09/02/response-to-noms-attack-email/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Interracialmatch Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:56:00 +0000 http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/blog/wordpress/?p=18#comment-17 I came across an online community for individual seeking interracial love. It is ++++((((---Blackwhitemeet. C O M))))++++ All singles there are seeking interracial relationships. Interracial is not a problem here, but a great merit to cherish! I came across an online community for individual seeking interracial love. It is ++++((((—Blackwhitemeet. C O M))))++++ All singles there are seeking interracial relationships. Interracial is not a problem here, but a great merit to cherish!

]]> By: Chino Blanco http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/2008/09/02/response-to-noms-attack-email/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Chino Blanco Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:48:00 +0000 http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/blog/wordpress/?p=18#comment-13 "The California Supreme Court chose to look at it strictly as a legal contract between Party A and Party B. That is not just myopic, it's potentially devastating to families and society."<br/><br/>In a 4-3 decision issued on Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts. The court gave the state legislature until May 17, 2004 to enact legislation to allow such marriages to take place.<br/><br/>In the intervening time, the Massachusetts legislature did not enact a law codifying same-sex marriages. Before the May 17, 2004 deadline, however, then-Gov. Romney directed that the words “bride” and “groom” on Massachusetts marriage applications be changed to “Party A” and “Party B.”<br/><br/>Romney’s chief legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, told justices of the peace in Massachusetts that they should carry out the decision of the court and perform same-sex marriages or resign.<br/><br/>"My message was: 'You took an oath, and you don't have to agree or disagree with the law, you took an oath to uphold the law. Your only job is to follow the law,’” Winslow told Pete Winn of CNSNews.com in January. “We'll leave it to the courts to litigate what the law is, but once the courts have ruled, if you've taken an oath under the constitution, you have to follow your oath.”<br/><br/>Obviously, Romney and his crew didn't consider it "devastating" ... “The California Supreme Court chose to look at it strictly as a legal contract between Party A and Party B. That is not just myopic, it’s potentially devastating to families and society.”

In a 4-3 decision issued on Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts. The court gave the state legislature until May 17, 2004 to enact legislation to allow such marriages to take place.

In the intervening time, the Massachusetts legislature did not enact a law codifying same-sex marriages. Before the May 17, 2004 deadline, however, then-Gov. Romney directed that the words “bride” and “groom” on Massachusetts marriage applications be changed to “Party A” and “Party B.”

Romney’s chief legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, told justices of the peace in Massachusetts that they should carry out the decision of the court and perform same-sex marriages or resign.

“My message was: ‘You took an oath, and you don’t have to agree or disagree with the law, you took an oath to uphold the law. Your only job is to follow the law,’” Winslow told Pete Winn of CNSNews.com in January. “We’ll leave it to the courts to litigate what the law is, but once the courts have ruled, if you’ve taken an oath under the constitution, you have to follow your oath.”

Obviously, Romney and his crew didn’t consider it “devastating” …

]]>