Speaking of our fair state's fine Federalist heritage, I'm sure it comes as news to no one that there are officially at least 55,736 petitioning citizens opposed to what the WaPo calls "the gay nuptials law." Uh, what is the law actually called, again? Ah yes, The Civil Marriage Protection Act. Thnx Wikipedias. And hold on now, are we for or against this bill? Because the language is mega confusing:
establish that only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid ...? parse, plz: ... not otherwise prohibited by existing law-- so not currently married, siblings, underage, non-human or dead, okay, but then there's the word "only"... take out the middle matter... only a marriage between two individuals is valid in this State. So in other words, no coming here to try to file jointly thrice with your burka wives, sheiks of Araby, and don't come here to divorce Kody and try to get alimony, Sister Wives #s two and three. And should Mitt Romney come out after the election a la Bill Hendrickson with a few extra wives up his sleeve, then try to force us all to get fundamentalist-Mormon-plural-spiritual-sealed-married, this will stop that business right at the border. So, to clarify, against the initiative that is against the bill, and for the bill, which is for civil marriage, which is pro couple marriage and against plural marriage. Good.
And also, rather quietly in Port v. Cowan in May, the Court of Appeals affirmed that MD will perform same-sex divorces, even if the petitioners married in other states. So it's nice that the right of children to have support of both parents is protected no matter what and ... hey, who assigns those case numbers? Ahem...?!
Altering a provision of law to establish that only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid in this State; prohibiting an official of a religious order or body authorized to perform a marriage ceremony from being required to solemnize or officiate a particular marriage or religious rite of a marriage in violation of the constitutional right to free exercise of religion; etc.
 |
| No four-way will for you! |
establish that only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid ...? parse, plz: ... not otherwise prohibited by existing law-- so not currently married, siblings, underage, non-human or dead, okay, but then there's the word "only"... take out the middle matter... only a marriage between two individuals is valid in this State. So in other words, no coming here to try to file jointly thrice with your burka wives, sheiks of Araby, and don't come here to divorce Kody and try to get alimony, Sister Wives #s two and three. And should Mitt Romney come out after the election a la Bill Hendrickson with a few extra wives up his sleeve, then try to force us all to get fundamentalist-Mormon-plural-spiritual-sealed-married, this will stop that business right at the border. So, to clarify, against the initiative that is against the bill, and for the bill, which is for civil marriage, which is pro couple marriage and against plural marriage. Good.
And also, rather quietly in Port v. Cowan in May, the Court of Appeals affirmed that MD will perform same-sex divorces, even if the petitioners married in other states. So it's nice that the right of children to have support of both parents is protected no matter what and ... hey, who assigns those case numbers? Ahem...?!
