For those who have been saying that the SF mayor had to break the law in order to challenge it:
Am I missing something?
seems like a rather strange way of doing things…
anyway, now that i’m thinking about it…after having read many judicial threads here of late, and hearing day after day about judicial activism, and how the ma sjc decision is used as an example of “judicial activism”, and how many times the judges have been blasted by the administration running this country lately, i think i can see a reason why one might be hesitant to go the judicial route.
perhaps he hoped to stir up public support before the case was even brought, thus cutting down on the nay-sayers, or giving the judges less pressure to decide that prop. 22 is constitutionally permitted?
another interesting and probably positive (for those of us who stand in favor of same-sex marriage rights) development…
CNN reports that judge quidachay did not issue an injunction at today’s hearing, instead combining the suits against the city’s activities, without naming a presiding judge or an argument date. so the marriages will apparently continue for some time now.
another interesting development, to me, is a new sort of coverage from at least cnn. there are now quotes and pictures in the article from gay-bashing organizations, including some that reasonable people, indeed most people, could only consider ridiculous. from the article:
he started off well, with the “uphold the laws that already existed” part, but how many americans still worry about the spread of aids and homosexual sex as a cause, or stand there straightfaced when warned of “the spread of perversion”? indeed, how many americans do not fit into one of the categories on the mentioned sign? there is also a picture of a man wearing a shirt with the ‘word’ “Homo” encircled with a line through it.
to me, the more press like this, the merrier. support from such a ridiculous organization can only cast doubt on their cause, in my opinion.
And “lock the door” is just a creepy phrase to use as well, when you’re talking about the rights of other people.
While I’m personally very comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, I think gays are playing right into the Pubbies hands on this one. Ask yourself – why NOW? Why in a Presidential election year that looks to be another tight race? Why is the issue not coming up, oh, a year from now?
It’s coming up now because Karl Rove wants the Nascar dads worrying about gay marriage and not wondering what the hell we’re doing in Iraq. Or why the hell they can’t find a job. It’ll be an issue right up until November 2004, at which point Bush will be re-elected and a lot of gay people are gonna feel really stupid.
Which probably explains the rush of marriages; maybe its expected that the court will overturn Prop 22, and an amendment would follow. Im assuming any marriages performed before the amendment passed would have to be honored. Im not sure if an amendment would pass, though I was suprised that 22 passed.
Another potential issue is, if this whole scenario takes place this way, and it sinks in to Californians just how relatively easy it is to amend the constitution when it suits us, maybe a spat of constitutional amendments is in the future. We sure do love our propositions.
Just to be clear… Prop 22 was passed as a statute, not a constitutional amendment. BIG DIFFERENCE. Had it been a constitutionaly amendment, there would be no judicial issue right now, except as to how the CA constitution might be in violation of the federal constitution.
Looking back, I’m sure the proponents of prop 22 wish they had slated it as a constitutonal amendment. But there can be no doubt that plans are being put in place to “remedy” that situation as we speak.