Breaking news: Judge Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court has ruled that laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals violate the California constitution. We're still looking for links to the order, and reporting about reactions, but it's safe to say right now that the order's probably going to be appealed.
Update: Copy of the order here, though it's taking forever to load. And you thought our Sarah Low Daly comment fight was bad! Check out sfgate.com's same-sex marriage comment forum.
Picture off the AP
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
YAY, SF! Here's hoping you are only one of at least 50 dominos.
Awesome news! Love reigns over hate.
Or it does until the Supreme Court overturns it or one of the anti-equality propositions gets passed this fall.
Until then are the weddings starting up again?
In my reading of the order (for what it's worth), it looks like they're going to discuss what to do with the injunctions barring same-sex marriage, along with a lot of other procedural stuff, at a meeting with the judge on March 30. My totally not-based-on-anything guess, though, is that the ban on same sex marriages will continue until the Supreme Court rules.
And incidentally, while the order's labeled "tentative," it also looks like the ruling on the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage laws is final (the only stuff they still need to figure out is what happens next to all the cases)
People who are more in the loop than me, though, please feel free to chime in!
Great, now the handfull of gay people who actually want to marry will be able to marry.
News Flash!
Gay Men Don't Want to be Married.
Hell, No Man Wants to be married. Heterosexual men would give up a testicle to have endless sex without child support and alimony.
"Gay Marriage" is the last dying breath of a "Portal To Faggitry Agenda" that died when American Express stopped throwing money at every gay rag around.
ha ha! peter everhard is ever-correct; none of us REALLY want to get married. this whole gay-marriage-thing was just a ruse; now we're one step closer to our actual secret goal of legalizing bestiality.
srsly, though, i'm a little freaked out by this pro-gay-marriage thing. i'm not looking forward to the inevitable "so now it's legal, when are you going to get married" from my mom. i am, however, looking forward to getting some of those sweet heterosex tax breaks.
No kidding! I've been using the "I have a political issue with the bigotry with current marriage laws, so I myself cannot marry" argument all my adult life, and am quaking in my stylish yet affordable boots that I might not have that excuse to fall back on.
You can get a better "tax position" with an LLC than with a marriage license; this is why very wealthy married couples (who were secretly gay) formed "family limited partnerhips" with their spouses and children.
Again, the "they have it must be good" logic should be smacking some folks right upside the head right now in CA. In California at the first of the year, some guys who formed "domestic partnerhips" with guys they just wanted to have sex with found out that HALF of everything they owned is now partly owned by those guys whose names they can't even remember (and who weren't even all that hot in bed).
And in addition, if you walk around in California with some hot guy as arm candy, you could end up with a palimony suit as a nice little Co*k Ring
Ditto, the "Gay Marriage Movement" will effectively destroy homosexuality in California. You have to be an asset protection specialist and an expert in palimony case law just to engage in plain ole anal sex in CA.
Tax breaks? Tax breaks?! Let's not go crazy here --- I think there's a marriage PENALTY for taxes, at least until you have kids. I've paid up the wazoo (to use a technical term) since tying the knot. Or, I guess I could be doing something wrong.
Everything else -- well, most other aspects -- of marriage are incredible though. Companionship, etc. Of course, a marriage is what you make of it. If people really want to get pissy about people ruining the institution itself, they can look to role models such as B. Spears, J. Lo, and other high-profile hijinx like those perpetrated by their ilk.
That whole LLC trick isn't all it's cracked up to be -- besides, there's less of a romantic ring to "I now pronounce you limited liability partners."
But none of this marriage stuff matters anyway -- we gays can't stop from hooking up with each other long enough to sit through a whole wedding ceremony. We tried, once, but wound up inventing a new sex act involving two ice sculptures and a church organ.
Seriously now. Since we came up with the "Relationship LLC ®" concept back in 1996, I am constantly amazed by the reaction some people have to the idea.
State Sanctioned Marriages are the only contracts under English/US law that allow SEX to be a component of the contract. All other contracts for sex under English/US law are illegal.
Ultimately, the one thing that makes "litigating" to get gay marriage "foolish" is the fact that state sanctioned marriages can't legally be proven to be valid. State sanctioned marriages are society's little exceptions to what would otherwise be labeled "prostitution".
If you eliminate "Sex" as a component of state stationed marriages, more or less you have a "partnership agreement". And, when you make that "partnership agreement" useful, so that the parties can engage in business and support each other with liability protection, more or less you have a Relationship LLC ®.
eh... that advertisement-comment for Relationship LLC ® doesn't totally convince me. i get the impression that some gayfolks think their LLC is good enough that they don't have to keep fighting for marriage anymore, which isn't true -- an LLC isn't nearly sufficient. for one thing, LLCs are expensive to start, and you have to keep renewing them. then there's social security and insurance benefits and inheritance rights, which don't transfer in an LLC the same way they do in marriage, if at all. not to mention, it's cheating.
and i'm pretty sure state sanctioned marriages are going to be considered valid for the forseeable future. the state makes the rules, the state gets to decide what's valid; no matter how much sex goes into the contract.
MOST of the working people in the US are at-will employees who have no right to continued employment.
Most people working int he US can (more or less) be fired at any time for any reason. The US is the only major industrialized country in which most of the people working are "at-will employees".
Healthcare for most people in the US is employer-dependent (if they have it at all).
Corporate America can now totally eliminate healthcare costs and retirement costs from their budgets by not having any emloyees (i.e. by outsourcing functions instead of hiring people). Reportedly, the single biggest fixed cost faced by Automobile manufacturers in the US is paying retirement and healthcare benefits to retired autoworkers.
These are just a few things to think about while complaining about the hassle associated with being self-employed.
Hey, why don't you do a legit blog entry on this instead of hiding it on this back page? Are you afraid people will go for me because I'm hotter than you (and oh so more seriously fuckable)?
And, I have a question. I know Gawker Media is a LLC (which sorta kinda puts Lock and Denton in like a - relationship), but what is Gothamist?
Instead of Gothamist being or becoming a LLC with lawsuit protection, why don't you and Jake just register at domestic partners in CA? Ha Ha Ha. I'm prettier than you. Ha Ha Ha.