Queerty is better as a member

Login | Register
 

Time Buying.

“The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage. The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California. They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.” [SOVO]

What do you think of this post?
LOL (0) WTF (0) Hot (0) More Please (0)
By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           May 30, 2008
Tagged: , , , ,
15 Comments

No. 1 · fredo777 · Member · 3010 comments

The AG’s in those 10 other states should stfu + worry about their respective states.

I’m biased, but idrc.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 2 · foofyjim · Member · 155 comments

I still don’t know why the Contracts Clause in the US constitution doesn’t simply settle this. A contract that is valid in one state is valid in all other states. The three tests are as follows:

1 – Does state legislation substantially impair a party’s rights under an existing contract? If not, then it must:

2 – Serve an important and legitimate public interest; and

3 – Be a reasonable and narrowly tailored means of promoting that public interest.

I assume at some point some queer couple who got married in California will have problems like visiting each other in the hospital or making medical decisions because the state in which they now live won’t recognize their marriage. Then we’ve got a real legal battle on our hands.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 3 · George

What idiots. One state already has gay marriage so their request makes no sense. They have to decide whether to recognize a marriage from MA already. What difference does it make if they have 1 state or 2 to deal with?

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 4 · fredo777 · Member · 3010 comments

I’m so disgusted to find out that my own state’s (Michigan) attorney general was among the meddlers.

I just sent off more than a few carefully chosen words in care of said Attorney General, Mike Cox.

The last name is certainly fitting. What a d*ck.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 5 · Timothy

My family has been in California since before it was a state. Those interlopers and outsiders can take their meddlesome attitudes and leave my state alone.

The California Supreme Court, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Senate, House, and citizens are all in support of gay marriage. If Utah’s AG doesn’t like it then he should stay out of California.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 6 · Conde Nasty

It is getting to the to the point that we should riot if the AG’s fuck this up.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 6:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 7 · Bitch Republic

“They have to decide whether to recognize a marriage from MA already.”

Actually, they don’t have to decide whether to recognize a marriage from MA already. Only gay people who reside in MA can get married there. Sure some people from MA may move elsewhere, but CA is going to be a free for all with thousands of people from all over coming there to get married as there is no residency requirement for marriage in CA.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 8 · Tom

Let me guess, all the AG asking for the stay are Republicans.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 9 · Miss Understood · Member · 65 comments

There is a big difference because Massachusetts marriages are for state residents only The amount of gay married MA residents moving to other states is tiny compared to the amount who would travel to California to get married.

Posted: May 30, 2008 at 8:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 10 · John K.

A single gay married couple moving from Massachusetts would cause these states to deal with the issue. The larger possible number coming in from California is irrelevant.

Posted: May 31, 2008 at 1:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 11 · dfrw

What would have been surprising is if Florida weren’t on the list.

Posted: May 31, 2008 at 4:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 12 · Charley

Good point FOOFYJIM. The public interests in states not to recognize California contracts is not legitimate. Those states public interests are based on conventional religious concepts about marriage.

Posted: May 31, 2008 at 6:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 13 · M Shane

I havn’t even , untill recently thought that marriage as such was an especially ideal solution to our dilemnas. I have gotten really pissed off though about the absurdly erratic response to this matter and would love to shove the issue down as many bigoted throats as posssible. As Foofyjim states , the contracts clause would take care of issues. It seems that that’s what these states are trying to get the jump on befor they have too many cases to determine in courts which they are afraid might be sympathetic on the grounds given in the Clause. i Don’t think that california will do anything to accomodate their asshole ways.

Posted: Jun 1, 2008 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 14 · M Shane

It’s an insult to the CA court to expect them to make a secondary ruling that almost says” well and just in case we’re wrong”.

Posted: Jun 1, 2008 at 6:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 15 · fredo777 · Member · 3010 comments

What’s most disgusting, imo, is the nerve of gay marriage opponents spending up to 25 million dollars to campaign against “the homos” getting married in Cali. That same 25 million dollars could feed starving children, help find a cure for a major illness, improve shitty schools, etc., etc. WWJD?

I’m sure he would tell these “morally superior” busy-bodies to put that money to much better use.

Posted: Jun 1, 2008 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]

Add your Comment




It's easier to add your comments when you are a member. Register or log in!


Post comments that are relevant to the article, written in clear language and that avoid personal attacks on bloggers and your fellow commenters. And take a moment to read the Queerty Comment Policy.



POPULAR ON QUEERTY

Copyright 2012 Queerty, Inc.
Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.