August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081120/D94IF7P80.html
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.
The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.
All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
While I am not sure I agree with their last statement, I find myself abandoning some of my libertarian and conservative leanings for this, even thought is was voted on. It is for 2 reasons: a) I am not against gay marriage for many reasons and b) I think any referendum that has a Yes or No vote always passes, no matter what the subject matter and have a BIG problem with this.
The justices directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5.
Re: Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban
I was so happy when I heard this. Definetely a step in the right direction.
Just to give you some context, it's not as batty as it sounds. Basically, there's two ways to change the CA constitution - amend it or revise it. Revisions are for significant, fundamental changes, amendments are minor things. Prop 8, as it was submitted to voters, was an amendment. One of the issues raised in the lawsuits was that it was improperly submitted as an amendment - rather since it was an elimination of a fundamental right, it should have been categorized as a revision. In which case, it should have began in the legislature and put to the voters, where it would have had to pass by a 2/3 majority.
I've been a little annoyed with the reporting on this since they make it sound like the people filing these lawsuits are just a bunch of whiners. When in reality, they have very legitimate procedural grounds for their case.
That's not to say the lawsuit is a slam dunk for gay marriage supporters, but it's not frivolous like much of the reporting seems to suggest.
I'm cautiously optimistic about all this.
Ahhhhh...I get it.
I am in major procrastination mode today so I'm just looking for more ways to avoid work and stay on the Nest...