When Elizabeth rose to the throne and became no longer “Princess Elizabeth”, there was a slight problem. Her Majesty’s mother was ALSO “Queen Elizabeth” (although she was not queen regnant) so she was referred to after her daughter’s coronation as the Queen Mother, which got shortened into “Queen Mum” in casual conversation.
Assuming “the voters” means the elected legislature, they already passed a law legalizing gay marriage. It stayed illegal because it was vetoed by … Chris Cristie. That despite the fact that the law was supported by the public by 20-30 points.
So whatever his motivation, I don’t think letting the people decide really enters into it.
He didn’t set aside his views. Because of the previous ruling his challenge would not even have delayed the start of the marriages. He dropped a meaningless challenge that he was already guaranteed to lose. It’s not a bad thing, but it doesn’t help anyone except (perhaps) Christie himself and he doesn’t deserve commendation for it.
Well, yeah. My only point was, “Hey look, a conservative who isn’t crying and subverting the system because he didn’t get his way!” Sad when that alone sets you apart.
Who knows what he really thinks, but he clearly wants to keep his tea party credentials intact. But an appeal was pointless once the court declined to allow SSMs banned during appeal and said the appeal was already lost.
I really don’t understand how the California decision could fail to apply to every state.
Where are you getting that a same-sex couple could be arrested? That language applies to marriages which are void under this section:
Nothing in the statute provides that same-sex couples can’t marry. The legislature spells out who those people are in another section, and does not include SSM:
The only prohibition on same sex marriage appears to be the “husband and wife” requirement in the legislative intent section.
Ah, I see. Has to be read with reference to the Wisconsin Constitution. You may be surprised to hear this, but that’s arguably a good thing. SCOTUS doesn’t seem to be interested in deciding the SSM issue as a matter of constitutional right, but it will have no choice but to act if somebody is actually prosecuted under this statute. That’s how Loving v. Virginia made it to the top - the state wasn’t just refusing to recognize an interracial marriage, it enforced a criminal penalty.
The first part is what I was referring to but I think it might make a difference if a popular republican goes on record being accepting of gay marriage without backlash. It might help the effort and the party.
Except this is not what you’re saying. Christie still disagrees with marriage equality. He just knows that it’s going down by the Court not granting the stay, so he withdrew the appeal because it was futile, not because it was the right thing to do.
And rather than the move being politically good for him, he just screwed himself going both ways. The Tea Party morons who control the primaries now consider him a quitter and possibly a mole for the Libr’ul Conspiracy. This might make moderates and a lot of liberals more happy with him, but moderates and liberals don’t vote in Republican primaries. He bought himself another gubernatorial term while stomping all over his Presidential ambitions.