Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's my take as well. So the question is, what the hell is AS doing in Sacramento? This is truly disappointing behavior, as I see it, because he's afraid of being the bad guy even if it's the right thing to do under the law.

Fill me in, because CNN reported his satement to be:

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.

Should he not let the litigation run its course? If he makes a declaration, there's still litigation.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have to assume that any ruling declaring such marriages illegal would also make all such marriages null and void. Does waiting in line for a nullity mean something? Or is it the souvenir piece of paper that comes with it? (plus photos!)

I think some were in it for the symbolic "fuck you" to the DOMA; others wanted to be part of the inevitable test cases. At this point, it's taken on a life of its own. The gay rights movement is, even more than the civil rights movement, defined by individual outbursts that are only later recognized as watershed moments (Stonewall riots, White Nights, etc.).

The Chron's D.C. bureau chief says his inside-the-beltway take was that the Washington pols are watching it on TV and are surprised to see a lot of genuinely normal people kissing each other and making life commitments. They were expecting the usual Exotic Erotic/Folsom St. Fair/ACT UP!/Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence freakshows. This may go a long way toward mainstreaming the gay rights movement. There is a silent majority of gay people who are kind of tired of the gay rights agenda being set by people wearing buttless chaps and dog collars.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fill me in, because CNN reported his satement to be:



Should he not let the litigation run its course? If he makes a declaration, there's still litigation.

My problem is (1) he waited more than a week to do anything, and (2) didn't do anything until the city filed suit. He is the top executive in the state, it is ultimately his responsibility to enforce the laws.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My problem is (1) he waited more than a week to do anything, and (2) didn't do anything until the city filed suit. He is the top executive in the state, it is ultimately his responsibility to enforce the laws.

Yes. He'll just tell the state's lawyer to . . . oh, wait.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Polygamist.

No expert, but it seems that a specific constitutional amendment specifying what marriage is (one man/one woman) would trump a general one about equality and non-discrimination, unless there's some first-in-time, first-in-right interpretative maxim.

The one man/one woman thing is in the CA Family Code. The claim is that the constitutional equal protection/due process provisions trump the statute.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
The one man/one woman thing is in the CA Family Code. The claim is that the constitutional equal protection/due process provisions trump the statute.

Okay. That's a less DOA argument.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Okay. That's a less DOA argument.

And it looks like a county clerk in New Mexico may have an even better argument:

Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap says the county plans to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

She made the decision after asking for an opinion from the county attorney, who said New Mexico law isn't clear on the issue. He also says refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples could open the county to legal action.

State law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties. It doesn't mention gender.

http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp?S=1656147

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
And it looks like a county clerk in New Mexico may have an even better argument:


State law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties. It doesn't mention gender.

Polygamists rejoice!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Polygamists rejoice!

I may have to ask all 7 of my GFs to marry me if this trend continues.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I may have to ask all 7 of my GFs to marry me if this trend continues.

Slut. Though, asking isn't certain to result in marriage, particularly if you call anyone female who speaks to you in person "girlfriend."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Slut. Though, asking isn't certain to result in marriage, particularly if you call anyone female who speaks to you in person "girlfriend."

You are right, I meant to say all 7 of my internet GFs - I guess it's 8 including you.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are right, I meant to say all 7 of my internet GFs - I guess it's 8 including you.

Christ, that is a low threshold. Threshhold. Threshhhold.

edited to mock spelling -- T.S.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What's the thinking on that? I have to assume that any ruling declaring such marriages illegal would also make all such marriages null and void. Does waiting in line for a nullity mean something? Or is it the souvenir piece of paper that comes with it? (plus photos!)

They want to get married.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
There is a silent majority of gay people who are kind of tired of the gay rights agenda being set by people wearing buttless chaps and dog collars.

But I, for one, find it titillating.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are right, I meant to say all 7 of my internet GFs - I guess it's 8 including you.

9 if you include Not Me.