I'm kind of confused why River mentioned Moi at all at the point he did since Moi had not chimed in on the thread at that point. *shrugs*

--LT

read the post right before RIVER's post.

It's from MOI and addresses River directly.

Notice there were both #'s 16 and 18 both by happenstance mentioning,

MOI

before Moi chiming in on #19.

Perhaps that is what LT notices, or not.

Never be influenced by facts, this is EA.

Here here, its never stopped anybody.

River

I have been unable to imagine any achievable outcome of the DOMA and Prop8 SCOTUS decisions other than the eventual ending of government regulation of marriage. At its core, marriage is tantamount to a contract made by those who marry; any restriction on who can marry whom has to be the work of religious establishment, so my understanding of biology informs me.

However, absent a constitutional amendment that obliterates Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In the DOMA decision, on reading the decisions with some care, I find that an underlying principle that may have contributed to the demise of DOMA is its not being a general Law, but rather one that singled out a specific group for exclusion from Full Faith and Credit.

The making of allegedly general laws that are not at all general is sometimes referred to as the method of "member's bills." Such bills are intended for a tiny group, often exactly one person, but are written as though they were general laws as a way to hide their purpose from those for whom the law was not intended. Member's bills commonly grant some very special privilege to someone deemed to be of sufficient merit as to be worthy of being an exception to one or more laws which apply to everyone else.

Or, in the manner of the Jeopardy TV show, "What is corruption?"

At the legislative level, corruption is sometimes making some people more equal than others, so that all people are equal?

Orwell?

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:21 pm This brings about some strange ideas. If a couple goes to lets say California and gets married, then goes back to lets say Texas, and then files a joint return on their federal tax which a copy goes to the state with their state tax and the state decides that they are not in fact married and tries to put a penalty on them would that cause that couple to then file for discrimination causing this to go back to the Supreme Court where they would then need to rule on marriage equality for the whole country?

They could then drag it out saying that states must reconize marriages from other states, in which case every LGBT couple would be heading for the dozen or so states to get married then flaunt it in the face of their home state.

OR

Is as the lawyer for prop 8 stated after the ruling that prop 8 is still in effect as it is the law in California and therefore the only legal marriage is between a man and a woman?

Yea, I thought so too.

River

Texas, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, and Alaska (also Washington) do not have a state income tax. So as long as a couple were to live in one of those states but not have a whole lot of money or property there then a "same-sex" marriage may actually work in these states too.

The part of the Proposition 8 story that I find problematic

is the Government of the State of California unwilling to step up to the plate.

Rose Bird was a Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.

The people of California approved a capitol punishment law.

Rose Bird judiciously did not enforce and practiced obstructionism.

No capitol punishment was executed on her watch.

My mother supported her. And we discussed.

The people of California eventually "recalled" Rose Bird.

The people did not have the same energy over the State's refusal to defend Prop. 8.

Yes an individual may be against capitol punishment or against Proposition 8.

If that individual is operating as an agent for the State of California, I do believe they owe it to the people to put their individuality aside except under more "extreme" circumstances.

And the Supreme Court did not nullify Prop 8 as I understand but rather ruled those representing the cause had no legal standing. It the State abdicates this responsibility and no one else steps up to the plate, I do believe a voluntary organization of people should have been heard by their Supreme Court.

Let the beatings begin.

Moi

Californian and a people too.

Much quicker than I expected....

Court says same-sex marriage can resume in Calif.

Michael Winter

USA Today

28 June 2013

U.S. appeals court action comes two days after Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8.

A federal appeals court on Friday approved the resumption of same-sex marriage in California, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of Proposition 8.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... 844%29.pdf) of an injunction that ordered state officials to stop enforcing the voter-passed initiative, which a lower court declared unconstitutional.

After Wednesday's Supreme Court decision, the court initially said it had up to 25 days to act. Gov. Jerry Brown immediately directed that the state's 58 counties should resume issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples as soon as the 9th Circuit acted.

In San Francisco, where the appellate court is located, the first same-sex marriage following the action was scheduled Friday for 4:15 p.m. PT (7:15 p.m. ET), local media reported. One of the two couples who challenged Prop. 8, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, are first on the list to receive a license.

Attorney General Kamala Harris tweeted that she was on her way to City Hall to perform the nuptials.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... e/2474109/

Jesus beat me...

MSNBC's 8pm show just said that same sex marriage has resumed in California tonight.

And you both beat me, I just watched the second marriage in San Francisco on the Rachel Maddow show LIVE.

Yes California did not take long to get the marriage licenses going again.

Prop is just a bad memory that ultimately failed, it failed because it denied equality.

And what do you have to say about this MOI?

River