Stepping into the lion’s den, let me see if I’ve got this right.
Jeeves and his/her would-be-spouse had the Mayor marry them, even though both Jeeves and his/her would-be-spouse knew that the Mayor of San Francisco in all probability lacked the legal authority to do so, and now Jeeves and his/her would-be-spouse are hurt and upset that the California Supreme Court has ruled that yes indeed the Mayor lacked the authority to marry them.
It seems to me that it is pretty foolish of Jeeves to have hurt feelings about this. It’s like deliberately standing out in the rain and being surprised about getting wet. Nobody ever said that civil disobedience was easy.
Personally, I think the Mayor ought to be impeached for deliberately wasting the City’s limited and precious financial resources - by keeping the offices open on Saturday and paying the clerks overtime - to perform deliberately illegal acts. If he’d used City’s funds on pro gay marriage TV political advertising or billboards it would be a dereliction of his duty, and it is just as big an offense to use the City’s resources to make a blatant political statement like performing deliberately illegal marriages. As I said, civil disobedience has its price, and the Mayor ought to pay it. But that’s just me, and I’m a cruel heartless skinflint meanie when it comes to gay marriage.
Funny, on Monday and Tuesday I was at a conference of State Governments in Springfield, MA, where marriage is fully legally and constitutionally nondiscriminatory; and which is a short drive from Vermont, where there exist Civil Unions. There was even one workshop meeting precisely about this, where the consensus was that time is on the side of inclusion. And that courts are friendlier to citizens complaining that their rights were witheld, than to officials making acts of civil defiance.
One interesting comment from the Vermont legislator on the presenters’ panel, was that relatively few of the legislature’s members lost their seats on the specific issue, that even those who did get into office on an opposition platform did precious little to change things back, and that after those 2 years went by, many of those elected on the single-issue vote were out of office again, once voters decided they wanted their representatives dealing with important things.
Y’know what? I say the country is doing just within what is expected from its long tradition of stumble-around-pissing-people-off-before-getting-it-right policies.
And Jeeves will, of this I am certain, eventually get around to doing it all again “officially” and throw an even bigger party over it.
Yes, this is exactly what happened. Something that I am very grateful for.
zamboniracer, even if you expect something to happen, the emotional impact may still be there. For example, the death of a sick relation. Even though you grew up knowing that everyone dies, and even that a close relative is sick, perhaps dying, when it happens, there is still an emotional impact.
Or, you could come up here to Canada where same-sex marriages are legal, and get hitched. Then, when the U.S. finally grinds it’s way to recognizing SSM (which is as inevitable as sunrise, whatever the troglodytes think), your Canadian marriage will be recognized at home, as well!
First, zamboniracer , if you will read my post, you will notice that I completely expected this decision. I even believe that they correctly decided that Newsom did not have the authority to order same-sex marriages. The main reason that I posted was becuase I was surprised that this hurt. Even though I expected it, just as I was surpised how much getting married meant to me. It was more than just " superimpose a label on an already monogamous relationship", it meant more than that. And even though they are just changed the label back, since no legal rights ever stemmed from these licenses, it still hurt. I will fully admit that logiccly that makes no sence, but this is one of those situations where pure logic doesn’t count.
Now, for lighter fare. I just found out this week that since my Grandmother was Canadian, if I go live in Canada for one year before I turn 28, I will automaticly get Canadian Citizenship. Mr. Jeeves have talked about moving to Canada before, but the immigration process is daunting. This makes it a lot easier. Depending on a lot of factors, I may be looking to move to BC this time next year. In which case, Cerowyn I will be marrying Mr. Jeeves, and planning on staying in a more civilized country. The only thing I will really miss is the SoCal weather, but I think I can live without it.
And in some ways, I am looking forward to doing it a second time, properly. This time it was just a drive up there with only the two of us, no friends or family could come on such a short notice. When we do this again, its gonna be a big ole party!
Wow, how’d you find out that thing about getting citizenship? If it’s true, GET YOUR BUTT UP HERE. What are you waiting for?
And don’t worry about the weather. Southern BC is Canada’s La-La Land; if they get more than 5 cm of snow they roll up the streets. (I kid because I love.)
Oh, and be sure to hang onto that marriage license. When I am recognized as rightful Queen of the World (should be any day now ), I will recognize your marriage as valid retroactive to when you got the license.
More power to you! As matt says, Vancouver weather is about as benign as it gets in Canada. I also wish you and your partner happiness, where ever you end up.
As much as I’d love for it to be simple for you to stay right here in the states, I think that if you can be happier there, get thee to Canada! My hubbie is in BC, I’m in PA, due to a shortage of funds for immigration paperwork. Since I royally messed up my finances we don’t know which country we’ll end up in, just that we will live together again one day. But although I don’t have much money, I would like to put it, and my time towards making this a country you could stay in. Besides writing my representatives, what would be the best way to do that? Is there a lobbying group which could put my small donation and time to good/effective use?
I’ll be blunt here. I don’t consider you married no matter what the state says. This is to do with what I believe is marriage. I think you using that term is an insult to real marriage.
[note]I don’t care to debate my views as it is in other threads if you care to search[/note]
But in the same vain, you must have a different view of what marriage means and as such I would not let the state stand in my way if I were you. Don’t let the state put you down (though it may effect your tax status). You must be true to yourself (and now to your partner as you vowed). If it is of that great an issue to you 2 perhaps you should consider a move to a location which would reconize your union or lobby the US Govt to reconize it.
Thank you for taking a gigantic shit on this thread.
In case you’re curious, I don’t consider you human no matter what the state says. This has to do with what I believe is humanity. I think you using it is an insult to real humans.
Then I will also be as blunt as this forum allows.
If you take it upon yourself to enter a forum and make a proclamation without being willing to defend it or stand behind it, then I respectfully suggest that it’s not Jeeves and his husband who should be considering leaving the United States. I will remind you that “Love It or Leave It” goes both ways.
And I also suggest that if you can look at the union of two consenting adults who have pledged their love and commitment to each other and have proven that they are willing to sacrifice anything in order to be together, and you insist on saying that that’s not a “real” marriage, that you are fundamentally incapable of understanding what a “real” marriage is.
And this is why I’m ashamed of my country. And why I think that everyone has to fight for everyone’s rights. There is no place, for “well, that doesn’t really affect me, so why should I worry about it.” And could somebody please tell me what a “real” marriage is, and how it could be in any way insulted by the loving union of two other human beings? How in the universe could dignifying anybody’s family diminish any other family? Somebody please, explain that to me, cause I’m tired of my head spinning every time I hear a line like this! My neck can’t take it any more, and the nausea really has to go!
Impeached by whom? The people of San Francisco? We fully and overwhelmingly supported the Mayor’s actions. He ran on a platform of supporting gay marriage, so we knew full well what we were getting into when we elected him. Most of the people who opposed the mayor came from outside the city, or even out of state. As a citizen of San Francisco, I have absolutely no problem with our precious financial resources being used in this act of civil disobedience, and you’d be hard pressed to find many San Franciscans who feel differently. Mayor Newsom’s approval rating has gone from 62% when he was elected to 85% now. Remember, he was the more conservative of the two mayoral candidates in the last election, and his opponent was an even stronger supporter of gay rights. You may think he should be impeached, but we don’t, and it’s our call.
Jeeves, I’m sorry that the court decision went the way it did, but this is only a temporary setback. It’s clear to me that same sex marriage is going to be legal sooner rather than later. You will always have the knowledge that you were on the frontier of this revolution – something to tell the youngsters about years from now, when people look back with horror at a time when same sex couples didn’t have the right to marry.
Is times like this that I find the English language sorely lacking. Allow me to explain.
In Spanish we have the words ‘marido’ and ‘mujer’, which are almost interchangeable with ‘esposo (husband)’ and ‘esposa (wife)’, but there is a notable difference, the first ones don’t necessarily mean that they are legally married, just living ‘as if married’. They are commonly used, by legally married people and those who aren’t, in the understanding that what really counts is that you live ‘as if married’. Actually when we got married the judge pronounced us ‘marido y mujer’.
Maybe it’s the language that allows this, or maybe we Spanish-speaking people are just weird ;). Anyways, to me in your case there is not much difference. He is your ‘marido’ even if legally he is not your ‘husband’. Which makes precious little difference to me.
I love the idea of “marido and mujer”, I think thats a great concept. I wonder if French has similar terms? Any of our resident Francophones still reading this? matt_mcl, I am looking at you
By the way, thank you kanicbird, your opinion is exactly what I want to hear. For me to poop on! Seriously, if you had read the thread, we are taking both of your suggestions for what they are worth. We are considering moving to Canada, and we are giving money to organizations that are working on same-sex marriage here in the US.
As far as you not considering us married, whatever. I’m sure there are still people in the US who consider any marriage not of their faith to not be a real marriage, or mixed race marriages to not be a real marriage, even an insult to “real marriage”, as you put it. I don’t care much about them, and I don’t care much about you.
Oddly enough, there’s little in the way of an unambiguous word for “boyfriend”… in France they say copain and in Quebec they say chum, both of which can also mean “male friend” when used by a man (tsé ton chum Stéphane? y’é con.) Context usually gives it, but if you had to be unambiguous, you could say amant, “lover,” or conjoint (already discussed). “Girlfriend” is blonde, even if she’s not.
“Common-law spouses” (who can be of the same sex anywhere in Canada) are conjoints de fait.
), I will recognize your marriage as valid retroactive to when you got the license.