12.8.04
California Supreme Court Strikes Down SF Marriages
Bummer. What's interesting - to me, being a totally paranoid anti-mainstream-media dork - is that the WaPo story (which I read first, and found wanting for this reason) doesn't mention, at all, the fuller legal context. Which the SF Chronicle does:
Or maybe, as the WaPo does, you can just throw in some stuff about Preznit Bush:
Now wouldn't you think that this is a little, you know, important (i.e., providing the legal context for a story that is entirely about a court decision)? Maybe.Suits by gay and lesbian couples and the city are pending in San Francisco Superior Court claiming - as Newsom did when he authorized the weddings - that California's opposite-sex-only marriage law violates the state Constitution by discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
As promised, the Supreme Court in Thursday's ruling steered clear of the constitutional issue. The justices will probably have to deal with that issue in a year or two when the Superior Court cases work their way up to them on appeal.
Or maybe, as the WaPo does, you can just throw in some stuff about Preznit Bush:
Reacting against what he asserted was the rewriting of marriage laws through judicial activism, President Bush announced earlier this year that he would push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage, effectively banning same-sex marriages nationwide.Yeah. Like that.
perma-linky posted by jkd : 15:35
Comments:
<< Home
The problem is, the court made the right decision, legally. The mayor did violate state laws. This was a procedural case, and the constitutional issues were not relevant, sad as that may be.
Yes. I agree. What I was commenting on was the WaPo's incompetence in covering the actual issues of the story.
Post a Comment
<< Home
