moominmolly: (Default)
[personal profile] moominmolly
More pictures of the SF wedding madness keep being added here. I still can't believe I'm watching this happen.

Will this have any effect on proceedings in MA, now that we look all reserved and stodgy by comparison? Will it help or hurt the cause? It's all fascinating, and I have absolutely no idea.

Date: 2004-02-17 11:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] amare.livejournal.com
It's beautiful.

Date: 2004-02-17 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aroraborealis.livejournal.com
I'm drafting a letter to the mayors of towns around Boston to the effect of: SF did it when it was illegal in CA. Our courts have specifically said that MA has to do it. Why wait around for the legislature? Take a bold step and start issuing marriage licenses today!

Re:

Date: 2004-02-17 03:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] twoeleven.livejournal.com
out of curiosity, have you heard of a man named roy s. moore? he also did the right thing, even tho it was illegal.

Judge Moore

Date: 2004-02-17 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aroraborealis.livejournal.com
Well, the difference here is that I don't think that what he did was the right thing.

Re: Judge Moore

Date: 2004-02-17 10:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pseydtonne.livejournal.com
Actually, there is something germane to it. Judge Moore wanted the Ten Commandments in the court house, which is a violation of the separation of church and state in the First Amendment. Gay marriage is about seeing the civic rights of people as a separate entity to what some religious leaders may approve.

Irrational thinking has become prevalent all around America. We're good at it, after all. When we get hung up on something, it's hard to explain to us not to go it. Manifest destiny was mostly a bad idea, but we'd gotten so good at killing the natives and sticking falgs into terrain that we didn't want to hear any arguments. The minute we filled in the turf, we hit the surf and grabbed more Spanish-speaking turf. Then we went to Moon, mostly because it was also called Luna which sounds Spanish and we figured it's another Spanish-speaking place we could trick into partial sovereignty. Oh wait...

The answer is clear: we're jealous of the Spanish language. That, or we're just born fools.

Anyway, I think the SF marriages and the coming Mass marraiges (and they are coming) are manifestations of a bubbling awakening. The swing to the right may finally be falling apart! Whoooooooooo! They yelled at the hippies for so long about settling down and once they did... oops, they settled down without Bibles.

I'm so tired of people not thinking out their consequences. Twenty-five years of complaints about moral turpitude may have been a smokescreen.

However, there are plenty more fights ahead. There are too many Americans in prison for being salesmen. They just happened to sell drugs. As a salescritter, I want to see that end.

We also need to see that yelling at smokers is condescending, too. More emergent thinking... it's like the Sixtied but without the bad hygiene!

-take a shower and shave before you picket the rednecks, Ps/d

Date: 2004-02-18 04:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fishfoo.livejournal.com
I found this post (http://volokh.com/2004_02_15_volokh_archive.html#107705524603138461) by Eugene Volokh on the topic interesting, for a perspective on the legality of the whole thing. Also the one immediately beneath it by his co-blogger Jacob Levy. (The Volokh Conspiracy is a lawblog.)

Re:

Date: 2004-02-18 09:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] twoeleven.livejournal.com
this is, unfortunately, exactly what i fear. "the rule of law is great, except when i don't like it." what that article suggests -- members of the executive can break the law when they think it's unconstitutional -- dramatically changes the balance of powers. it says that every law must be backed by a court order defending it's constitutionality before it must be enforced.

one might also point out that if the law was obviously unconstitutional, those affected by it might have asked for an injunction against it's enforcement. i don't think that happened. (but i haven't followed the issue that closely.)

Date: 2004-02-18 04:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crouchback.livejournal.com
It hurts, a lot.

Civil Unions were something that a majority of Americans were willing to see happen, and I suspect they would have turned into marriages in a few years.

Events in MA galvanized anti-gay forces, and they're pushing a Constitutional Amendment that would elminate the possibility of civil unions as well as marriages. From the poll data I've seen, it's favored by close to 2/3rds of voters. Given the way DOMA went (where you had Bill Clinton sermonizing about the sanctity of family values), and those numbers, I could see that amendment going through. (It'd be the dumbest amendment since the Volstead Act, but that's beside the point.)

I think this was a well-intentioned idea that will backfire, especially since it's happening in an election year, and it gives the Republicans something that they can rally their base on without too much poltical pain.

I wish it wasn't that way, but wishing don't make it so.

Profile

moominmolly: (Default)
moominmolly

April 2018

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 11:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
OSZAR »