|
Lifetime Washington resident, was pleasantly surprised to see how smoothly the passing of our recent marriage equality bill went. One week the governor was giving a speech about how she had abruptly decided that marriage equality was an important issue, and it seemed like only a couple weeks later the signed bill is posted on her Facebook profile without any real hullabaloo. I am pretty entertained that Section 3 (Definition of Marriage fulltext) amends a law to change some text that originally (pre-SB6239) read: quote:It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son. and was changed (by SB6239) to read: quote:It is unlawful for any person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew. all the way back to the old, long, unnecessarily-specific Bible-style text. I'm really not sure what loopholes the initiative-writers believe themselves to be plugging with that one. Ends up looking like they just want to totally erase SB6239 from existence, without regard for the actual effect of the individual pieces of the bill.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I think you're mistaken on the bit about the wording of the law, though. You linked to the old state DOMA. The bill as signed by the Governor actually removes the laundry list of relatives and replaces it with the simpler version. SB 6239 is the gay marriage law. I think we both know what's going on, but I think I wrote it out confusingly. I know which one is concise and which one reverts to the wordier version. We can, presumably, both agree that it is a pretty dumb reversion in wording regardless of ideological position.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 06:06
|
|