snarkyman: (Gamago Astro)
[personal profile] snarkyman
from [livejournal.com profile] marajade648 and [livejournal.com profile] siriel

http://www.authenti-city.com/

Best Quote:

On February 12, 2004, the first legal same-sex marriages in the United States took place when San Francisco city officials decided not to wait for bigoted uneducated morons to set the tone for the future of this country.

Date: 2004-02-17 02:21 pm (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea
I prefer:
"i think all couples should have to do this before they get married," joked one weather-worn woman in line at 3 a.m.
Amen! ;)

Date: 2004-02-17 04:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] juldea.livejournal.com
*wipes tears*

That's so awesome.

Date: 2004-02-17 08:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sapphorlando.livejournal.com
The best part so far is that despite the boiling anger of many social conservatives, the courts don't seem to be in a big hurry to do anything about it. I think that like SF City Hall, they're secretly hoping for a large class-action constituency to amass before real legal action starts. The 90-day C&D is about as weak an injunctive action as you could ask, short of actually looking the other way.

Re:

Date: 2004-02-18 09:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eirehound.livejournal.com
My guess is that the courts want to fence-sit until they are ready to rule. This is such a hot-button, politically explosive issue that they need to take some major CYA action and deny everyone a basis for saying that the courts are predisposed to one side or the other.

If they refuse to enjoin they will be drawn into the political battle on one side; if they enjoin a little too strongly they will be drawn into the political battle on the other side. In either case the judiciary loses the face it needs to rule on this issue and make the ruling stick. The courts cannot afford to be politicized.

The judiciary is so regularly accused of 'judicial activism' by the right that it dares not seem too friendly to any cause the right opposes; if they feel on firm legal ground in doing so, they must move carefully to make their legal arguments unimpeachable.

Re:

Date: 2004-02-18 03:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sapphorlando.livejournal.com
Well, the way it looks to me, I think that the courts feel that an injunction of some kind is inevitable, and they're stalling long enough for a large action class to develop. A large enough class action might move the case from simple jurisprudence to grassroots civil action, creating a kind of popular legal front outside the courts.

Then again, we are talking about California here, and San Francisco at that. Our puny Eastie powers of perception may be inadequate to see all of the funky stuff that they're seeing. For all we know, they're taking depositions from the Church of the Great High Mushroom of Feng Shui Discordance (Reformed).

Profile

snarkyman: (Default)
snarkyman

April 2011

S M T W T F S
     12
3 456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 24th, 2026 09:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios