(no subject)

California Supreme Court voids San Francisco marriages

Dammit. ::kicks things::

Okay, I kinda knew that would happen. It's why I initially couldn't get too excited about the SF marriages. And actually, legally, I don't see much else the court could have done without becoming in fact the activist judges the right is freaking about. In CA, unlike in many other places, the law is clear. And I knew, if I'd thought about it, that they'd said they were willing to entertain a separate challenge to the constutionality of those laws.

I knew they had to rebuke the mayor, but I was hoping they wouldn't nullify the marriages too. I guess I'd had some hope that the court would be able and willing to consider *this* case as the occasion to consider the constitutionality of those laws, or at least defer a decision until that case comes before it, instead of voiding the marriages pending those other cases.

But in terms of precedent, they're probably wise. Keeping it a separate issue, though disappointing in the short term, will probably make it cleaner, more useful, and less challengeable in the long term.

None of that keeps me from being sad for the couples, though.

(no subject)

Governor Jim McGreavey of NJ just came out and resigned because of it. (My boss just came to tell us about it. I like my office.)

That's a shame. Regardless of his performance as governor, which I really don't know enough about to comment, I am sick to death of people's private sex lives torpedoing their public careers. Especially when, to my knowledge, it's not even hypocrisy, because he's never advocated any gay- or sex-negative legislation.

I kinda want to send the poor guy a fruitbasket, but I'm thinking he might take it the wrong way.