# George Takei announces his engagement **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 21, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138 "2008-05-21T19:12:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/21 "2008-05-22T13:47:49Z")
I’ve heard a lot of people in the business have been screwed by their business managers. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/22 "2008-05-22T13:57:06Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] Anyone know if the proposed amendment to the California constitution would retroactively void existing same-sex marriages? [/QUOTE] If the text that I found the other day is in fact the text that was submitted to the CA AG for certification, yes: > [@](#): > > Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable. However, there are a number of “marriage amendments” floating around the net so this may not be the actual submitted text. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/23 "2008-05-22T15:08:55Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] It’s good at least until November, when there might be a constitutional amendment against gay marriage on the ballot, which might or might not pass. Otherwise, the Supreme Court of California has spoken, no one in the state can gainsay them, and the SCOTUS has no grounds to get involved. [/QUOTE] Last I heard, the ruling is not valid until 90 days after the ruling was issued. In that 30 day period, the court could grant a stay of the ruling until the November election to avoid potential problems associated with people getting married in the interim. ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/24 "2008-05-22T15:59:21Z")
Ah, California, making the right decision about basic civil rights, yet putting the power to revoke them up to a general vote. Here’s hoping California voters have grown up a bit since March 2000. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/25 "2008-05-22T17:46:38Z")
[QUOTE=Bearflag70] Last I heard, the ruling is not valid until 90 days after the ruling was issued. In that 30 day period, the court could grant a stay of the ruling [/QUOTE] 90 day … 30 day … er, what? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/26 "2008-05-22T17:49:23Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] I’ve heard a lot of people in the business have been screwed by their business managers. [/QUOTE] Win! Bravo for the grooms! And I am not even a trekkie! ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/27 "2008-05-22T19:18:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable. So, the writers of this possible amendment not only want to discriminate against homosexuals, they want to make it impossible for transsexuals to marry after reconstructive surgery. And they want to make civil unions pointless as well. Which makes the writers of this possible amendment bigoted assholes of the first water. I hope to God the voters of CA squash this evil thing. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/28 "2008-05-22T21:02:47Z")
[QUOTE=phouka] So, the writers of this possible amendment not only want to discriminate against homosexuals, they want to make it impossible for transsexuals to marry after reconstructive surgery. [/QUOTE] No, transsexuals can marry, but they are required to have gay marriages. Transmen can marry men, transwomen can marry women. The trouble with transsexuals for the anti-gay marriage types is that unless they just completely prohibit transexuals from marrying, they’re going to have to allow some marriages that could be interpreted as gay marriages. Let transwomen marry men and transmen marry women? That’s gay marriage in their eyes, since that transwoman is “really” a man–we can’t let them marry another man! Let transwomen marry women and transmen marry men? That’s gay marriage too–two people who look like women marrying each other! Two people who look like men marrying each other! ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138/29 "2008-05-22T22:05:42Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] 90 day … 30 day … er, what? 😕 [/QUOTE] oops. 30 days all around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-takei-announces-his-engagement/450138.md?page=1)