A copy editor at heart

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:22 pm

Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Two judges delayed taking any action Tuesday to shut down San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree, rebuffing conservative groups enraged that the city's liberal politicians had already married almost 2,400 gay and lesbian couples.
The judges took part in separate hearings. The second judge told the plaintiffs that they would likely succeed on the merits eventually, but that for now, he couldn't accept their proposed court order because of a punctuation error.
It all came down to a semicolon, the judge said.
""I am not trying to be petty here, but it is a big deal. ... That semicolon is a big deal,'' said San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:45 pm

This reminds me of disputing the mark on a university political science assignment because the lecturer took issue with its punctuation. I suggested to him that I might have a nodding acquaintance with the matter. QED: higher grade given.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:23 am

I'm still looking for a story that explains how these conservative groups have standing to bring suit.

vtuss · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:26 am

The language and more: The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund had asked the judge to
issue an order commanding the city to "cease and desist issuing marriage
licenses to and/or solemnizing marriages of same-sex couples; to show cause
before this court.''
"The way you've written this it has a semicolon where it should have the word
'or,''' the judge told them. "I don't have the authority to issue it under these
circumstances.''
Until they write their proposed court order correctly, Warren indicated he
would not order an immediate halt to the marriages of gays and lesbians that
continued throughout the day across the street at City Hall.
Lawyers for both sides then spent hours arguing about punctuation and court
procedures.

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:59 am

Next thing you know, they'll have Bill Walsh on the stand as an expert witness.

KfitzR · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:44 pm

" enraged that the city's liberal politicians had already married almost 2,400 gay and lesbian couples"City politicians are allowed to perform marriages???
Or city politicians are involved in many bigamous marriages???
Or that's one heck of a big city council!!!

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:38 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I'm still looking for a story that explains how these conservative groups have standing to bring suit.<hr></blockquote>Same-sex marriage is illegal in California. San Francisco's mayor is flouting state law by ordering city officials to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples anyway.Does that help?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:55 am

What business of a state government are people's personal relationshps?

majorbabs · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:54 am

Well, it makes a difference if they have a right to file their taxes as a married couple. It makes a difference if they have a right to adopt or file for custoday of a child since married couples often have preference over non-married or other "impermanent" arrangements.. It makes a difference in terms of insurance and other legal and financial issues. If it didn't make a difference, do you think there'd be this much of a furor?

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:06 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Same-sex marriage is illegal in California. San Francisco's mayor is flouting state law by ordering city officials to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples anyway.Does that help?<hr></blockquote>That's true, but it doesn't answer M.G's question about standing. As I understand it, you don't have standing to bring a suit unless you are harmed in some way by whatever it is that prompted your suit. That said, I don't think it would be difficult for these groups to make the case that they do have standing.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:01 am

BURLINGAME, Calif. - After a judge Friday declined to put an immediate end to same-sex marriages in San Francisco, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered California's attorney general Friday to "take immediate steps" to get a court ruling to make the city stop. (AP)***The state attorney general has legal standing for such action, regardless of his position. It's uncertain whether the California attorney general, an elected official, is obligated to follow the governor's direction, but the attorney general has said that he would oppose San Francisco's actions.***

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:47 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Same-sex marriage is illegal in California. San Francisco's mayor is flouting state law by ordering city officials to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples anyway.Does that help?<hr></blockquote>No. Because standing means that the person bringing a suit must have a personal stake in the issue, or the court must dismiss it even if they are correct on the law. Being a bigot is not a personal stake and does not confer standing.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:49 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
BURLINGAME, Calif. - After a judge Friday declined to put an immediate end to same-sex marriages in San Francisco, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered California's attorney general Friday to "take immediate steps" to get a court ruling to make the city stop. (AP)***The state attorney general has legal standing for such action, regardless of his position. It's uncertain whether the California attorney general, an elected official, is obligated to follow the governor's direction, but the attorney general has said that he would oppose San Francisco's actions.***<hr></blockquote>
In most states where the attorney general is elected independent of the governor, the A.G. has independent discretion. But my question was about how the conservative groups got standing. I do not question the attorney general's standing.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:19 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
Being a bigot is not a personal stake and does not confer standing.<hr></blockquote>Thinking that gay marriage is a horrible idea does not make one a bigot, despite what you've been led (or, perhaps more accurately, brainwashed) to believe.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:14 am

Jailer!

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:23 am

A spokeswoman for [California Attorney General Bill] Lockyer said late Friday that her office had been in close contact with the governor's staff and planned to seek a judgment in the court case soon declaring San Francisco's actions in violation of state law. But she stressed that the city's experiment posed no risk to public safety and noted that the governor had no authority over the independently elected Lockyer."The governor cannot direct the attorney general," said Hallye Jordan. "He can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct 'Terminator 4.' But he can't tell the attorney general what to do. However, we are his lawyer, and we are moving as expeditiously â€” with deliberation â€” as possible." (Los Angeles Times)

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:13 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Thinking that gay marriage is a horrible idea does not make one a bigot, despite what you've been led (or, perhaps more accurately, brainwashed) to believe.<hr></blockquote>Yes, it does.Opposing a right for someone else, just because one doesn't like it, when their having it would not negatively affect others in any way, makes one a bigot. Or perhaps I should turn that around: Being a bigot makes one oppose rights for others without good reason.And all the so-called "reasons" for opposing gay marriage are themselves born of fear and ignorance, the handmaidens of bigotry.[ February 21, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Grieco ]

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:27 pm

Let me save you guys some time:DICK: But gay marriage does affect me, because their added benefits and tax breaks would burden other taxpayers, etal.JANE: No, it wouldn't. If anything, they would contribute more to the tax rolls and to society in generalDICK: No, they wouldn't.JANE: Yes, they would.SPOT: It's immoral!!JANE: No, it isn't.DICK: Yes, it is.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:40 pm

We take no public position on the merits of same-sex marriage regardless of our personal opinions. However, let's call it "same-sex marriage," rather than "gay marriage," since plenty of married couples include at least one gay partner already.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:43 pm

At the risk of extending this thread, but in the hopes of keeping it focused again on copy editing:"Gay marriage" is shorter than "same-sex marriage" -- and thus fits better in headlines -- and while you can parse it like the Onion did a week ago, it clearly implies 2 homosexuals of the same sex getting hitched and wouldn't be wrong.Rejecting some uses of the term "gay marriage" would be like refusing to call a debate back in January a "Democrats debate" because one of the candidates used to vote Republican.[ February 21, 2004: Message edited by: jjmoney62 ]

nstockdale · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:05 pm

I had a thread on my blog about this here, which included some interesting comments. This also came up on the ACES board.From what I can tell there is no consensus, but it seems as if more people are leaning toward "same-sex marriage." I don't see how you can force that into all heads though. "Same-sex marriage" is more precise, but the meaning of "gay marriage" will be lost on no one.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:
At the risk of extending this thread, but in the hopes of keeping it focused again on copy editing ....<hr></blockquote>Yes. No law -- either to permit same-sex marriage or to prohibit it -- will make any mention of homosexuality. It will refer to people of the same sex.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:36 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Yes. No law -- either to permit same-sex marriage or to prohibit it -- will make any mention of homosexuality. It will refer to people of the same sex.<hr></blockquote>So .... we need to wait until their marriages are consumated to refer to them as "gay marriages"?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2004 11:54 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:
So .... we need to wait until their marriages are consumated to refer to them as "gay marriages"?<hr></blockquote>Stop being difficult and get with the program, pal.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:08 am

WASHINGTON -- President Bush called Tuesday for a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, joining a bitter dispute that is heading through the courts, dividing the nation and shaping the presidential election. (USA Today)***coughoverstatementcough***

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:47 am

Interesting cover on the latest issue of The Economist ..... The Case for Gay Marriage. Leaving other matters aside, a brave choice newstand sales wise .

nstockdale · **Posted:** Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:18 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I'm still looking for a story that explains how these conservative groups have standing to bring suit.<hr></blockquote>Matthew, you've probably found the answer to this yourself by now, but I found this explainer interesting: In order to bring a lawsuit, don't plaintiffs have to claim that they have suffered a concrete and particularized harm that is traceable to the action of the defendant? How can conservative groups in California have standing to bring charges against the city of San Francisco for issuing same-sex marriage licenses?
Concrete particularized harm (i.e., "standing") is a prerequisite to bringing claims in federal court, not necessarily in state court. Conservative groups are filing lawsuits in California state courts, which do not have the same "standing" prerequisites. States have wide latitude to open their courts to litigants as widely or narrowly as they want. California has a very liberal standing rule that allows taxpayers to sue any government official or employee who is allegedly violating the law by misusing taxpayer dollars.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:32 pm

Thank you, Nicole! That's exactly the sort of explainer that I was looking for. I knew they wouldn't have standing in a comparable suit in federal court, and so I was wondering what California's law was. Now I know.Much appreciated.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:28 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:
Interesting cover on the latest issue of The Economist ..... The Case for Gay Marriage. Leaving other matters aside, a brave choice newstand sales wise .<hr></blockquote>From my slightly more cynical perspective, I don't see it as "brave"; it's just a way to try to pump up magazine sales.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:04 pm

Considering The Economist's readership, I'm inclined to agree with Paul here.

Testy Copy Editors

A copy editor at heart

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links