I projected into the future a bit - government committees do tend to work slowly (and hopefully meticulously).
that’s exactly right.
Bolding and enlarging mine, for emphasis and truth.
I apologize if that bends rules.
Marriage is very much a social and legal institution, especially with respect to the right to marry, so I don’t think that can be classed with the others.
Except for dictating that icky people can’t marry. Or skin color decides who you can marry.
NOW, and in mostly western societies. But historically, as a whole, it has not been something mandated and controlled by the government, rather by the religion of the participants and by the local culture.
The Marriage Act 1753, full title “An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage”, popularly known as Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act (citation 26 Geo. II. c. 33), was the first statutory legislation in England and Wales to require a formal ceremony of marriage. It came into force on 25 March 1754. The Act was precipitated by a dispute about the validity of a Scottish marriage, although pressure to address the problem of clandestine marriage had been growing for some time.
Before the Act, the legal requirements for a valid marriage in England and Wales had been governed by the canon law of the Church of England."
So before 1753, marriage was not a matter of the state in England, but of the officially mandated state religion.
The USA inherited its marriage laws mostly from the UK, with the first law requiring a marriage license created in 1639 in Massachusetts.
Since everybody seems to get so bent out of shape if I just post about a single stupid liberal, here’s something different: an entire state full of stupid liberals.
You gotta hand it to California - they do lead the way in the vast majority of stupid liberal stunts. This is one of the better ones.
Yeah, wanting a warrant before handing over information sure is stupid!
I dabbled a little on a forum that was rife with “T,FTFY”. We do not have that here, thank Og. Basically, if you edit a quote, you can correct typos, separate the parts you want to respond to, and/or add formatting (usually to the same effect). What you cannot do is alter a quote in a way that changes its meaning. Stupid Liberal Idea, yeah, I know, but that is how it is.
So, I think you are golden here. No bending at all.
You’re upset at the AG for telling people to follow state law? You’d prefer he instructs everyone to violate state law?
Maybe you disagree with the law itself, but if there’s a conflict about whether that law is Constitutional, that will be resolved in the courts.
Hey, at least Clothahump posted something done by an actual government official, and he included something that’s almost a cite (a link to the source would be even better, chief). By Clothahump standards, that’s a quality post!
ETA: He loses points, however, for claiming that California is full of nothing but liberals, and for then criticizing the whole state for the actions of one person. Baby steps.
But … but … but they’re immigrants! And brown! And likely illegal! Helping illegal brown immigrants is stupid!
[/sarcasm]
Yeah, that’s as stupid as claiming all of NY is liberal. NYC is very, very blue, except Staten Island, and has the bulk of the state’s population. The rest of the state is mostly purple and red. I would imagine much of the same holds true for California, especially northern California.
What likely prompted AG Becerra to issue that statement was ICE planning “a major sweep” in Northern California.
Also, despite the national-level rhetoric on immigration, it’s not an issue that easily follows the liberal/conservative or Democratic/Republican divide. Plenty of conservative, Republican-leaning business owners would like to retain access to cheap immigrant labor. And historically, left-leaning groups like labor unions have been some of the strongest supporters of tougher immigration laws.
Just a few weeks after Trump’s inauguration last year, the New York Times ran an article about farmers from California’s Central Valley who had voted for Trump, but who were worried that they were going to lose field hands under his immigration policies.
So Trump spent his whole campaign talking about how he was going to kick out illegal immigrants, and these fucking doofuses voted for him, and then start complaining when he keeps his promise.
Everyone who isn’t alt-right who voted for Shit-Gibbon voted against their own self interest, simply to spite the other side or because of crippling ignorance or both.
Sad part is that Shit-Gibbon wasn’t the worst one on the debate stage pre-election. That distinction goes to the current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Hell, when frikkin’ Chris Christie is one of the better choices, your party has lost its shit. The Democrats gave a choice Clinton and Sanders, which was at best ‘meh’, yet either were far better than any Republican candidate (except maybe Kascich, who I know next to nothing about other than he was the only R candidate who wasn’t a raving lunatic).
Actually, Kasich’s views on the major issues are just as odious as the rest, he’s just reticent to froth.
Well, I did say “maybe”. Just never had a reason to research him.
Everyone forgets ol’ Low-Energy Jeb. I wouldn’t have been happy with a third iteration of the Bush dynasty, but he would have been a reasonable choice and probably done little unrepairable damage. Certainly I think his appointments to the various Federal benches would have been more reasonable.