« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/03/2008
Video: Sly fox takes on same
Mike Rogers was on Fox News today to take on The Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver while also keeping himself from being thrown by the obviously-hostile-to-his-side moderator, Laura Ingraham. We think he handled himself well:
But you might be asking yourself to what, exactly, Mike was referring at the 4:45 mark? Well, my pets, since time wouldn't allow Mike to elaborate during the segment, we can now show you the video that highlights Mike's allusion. One of the points to which Mike was referring was this blatant lie from last month's Family Research Council press conference, wherein Mr. Staver has the nerve/audacity/brain-fartiness to imply that a married gay Californian could expand his or her partnership options by taking on another marriage or civil union from another state:
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. This isn't some uncharted matter that's up in the air. This isn't something that's up for debate. There are numerous legalities in place to ensure that Mat's fear-mongering is less realistic than the chance that he'll ever serve as the flower girl at our gay wedding! And he either knows this and is being willfully disingenuous, or he hasn't taken the time to school himself on this simple matter. Neither possibility is all that great for an attorney!
If you rewatch the clip, you'll see that when Mike tried to refer to Mat's lying in the final minutes of the segment, Laura said to him, "You can't accuse someone of lying and get the last word." Well fortunately for us: You totally can show concrete, tangible, video proof of someone lying and pretty much end all further debate!
Video: 't'-less Mat spouts fact-less logic [G-A-Y]
**After the jump, some pertinent legal information from the ACLU. It involves Massachusetts, but all still applies to CA:
If I have a civil union from Vermont with someone else, can I get a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts?
No. Since Vermont treats a civil union as the legal equivalent of a marriage, you first have to dissolve the civil union before entering into a marriage with someone else. Otherwise you commit the crime of bigamy. Dissolving the civil union could be tricky however, because you have to live in Vermont for a year to get the civil union dissolved there. So far, there is only one state trial court decision (from Iowa) dissolving a Vermont civil union, and the judge relied on a legal ground that didn't actually require him to decide whether the civil union should be recognized as valid under Iowa law. As a result, it is unclear how other states will handle the issue when it comes up.
What about a prior domestic partnership?
If you enter into a domestic partnership in California in 2005, it would also be a crime to get married to someone else in Massachusetts without first dissolving your domestic partnership. If you have a domestic partnership from a city or county registry, check with the municipality for its rules. While you may not be subject to criminal charges if you marry without dissolving that kind of domestic partnership, it would violate some domestic partnership policies and could expose you to legal liability. Since it’s generally pretty easy to dissolve a city or county domestic partnership, you should do it before getting married.
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
