Lawsuits in defense of gay marriage can backfire, activist groups warn - Los Angeles Times

For a much better version of the same story:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story...

LOL.

If a gay couple that had their Gavin Newsome-inspired "marriage" invalidated wanted to make some EASY money, all they'd have to do is SUE GAVIN NEWSOME, because the Calif Sup Ct in the Lockyer v. Superior Court case summarily DISMISSED every argument Newsome raised for why his action in "authorizing" the "marriages" was legal in the first place.

So the gay marriage advocates have adopted a "Luck out-Hold Out" strategy -- "luck out" in judicial activist states like Calif and Massachusetts with favorable high court rulings then "hold out" by avoiding having those rulings scrutinized and undermined by other well-reasoned decisions in other courts.

The problem with the strategy is that gay marriage advocates can't keep the gay marital status issue from being raised in courts by others adverse to the gay marriage agenda.

Will wrote:

So the gay marriage advocates have adopted a "Luck out-Hold Out" strategy -- "luck out" in judicial activist states like Calif and Massachusetts with favorable high court rulings then "hold out" by avoiding having those rulings scrutinized and undermined by other well-reasoned decisions in other courts.
The problem with the strategy is that gay marriage advocates can't keep the gay marital status issue from being raised in courts by others adverse to the gay marriage agenda.

One of the inevitable results of the California ruling will be out of state couples getting married and returning to their home states and suing for recognition in state and federal courts. While in some instances this may work, in others, a bad precedent could set back the movement in some states for years. This should be looked on as more of a best case strategy, focusing available resources on cases with the best chance of being successful, rather than a piecemeal approach where limited resources could be wasted. A right recognized only for a few on the state level has less of a chance of being seen as a federal interest than one available to many but not all. In order for a best case strategy to be effective is to establish a movement behind them, have a number of states recognize the right of marriage equality with as few opposing opinions to undermine them.
As for you cases by those adverse to marriage equality, it would seem at least on the face to be difficult if not impossible to establish standing in an effort to deny rights to others. I'd really like to hear your theory on that one...

I'm telling you folks, if you need money and you don't sue Gavin Newsome for his role in causing your earlier gay marriage that the Calif Sup Ct ruled was totally without legal authority or even legal justification, then you're just passing up a golden opportunity.

Will wrote:

I'm telling you folks, if you need money and you don't sue Gavin Newsome for his role in causing your earlier gay marriage that the Calif Sup Ct ruled was totally without legal authority or even legal justification, then you're just passing up a golden opportunity.

LOL...the court simply said Gavin Newsom, as mayor, did not have the authority to decide the issue on his own. The court did not rule on whether there was legal justification to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The court made it clear that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of Prop. 22. It now has decided that issue.

There are 3 simple words when dealing with this ridiculous, blatant discrimination:

GAY TAX PROTEST
http://www.gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/