[AnalogReigns]

Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?

[So Cal Rocket]

Flies in the face of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I think we shouldn't abuse the topics...

[Kerberos]

"Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?"

I'm not an attorney but it would just give more spotlight and air time to the issue.

[Auntie Dem]

I think that all those married under the new rogue license, along with all city officials aiding and abetting this conduct, should be arrested and imprisoned. The precedent justifying such a drastic course of action is what the U.S. govt did to the polygamous Mormons in the late 1800's. If one group can be arrested and imprisoned for violating US marriage laws, then all groups violating those laws should be treated the same.

If the "Law" refuses to arrest the current crop of criminals, then I want reparations for my ancestor's arrests in the 1880's. With 120 years of interest compounding I think I can finally retire. /sarcasm

[azhenfud]

"Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?"

I'm no lawyer, but I'm as qualified to give legal advice as Phaggots are to MARRY.

[Prime Choice]

The real litmus test in all this will be how the IRS treats these "couples." Regardless of whether one marries on January 1st or December 31st of any given year, they are required to file their taxes as "Married" on the following April 15 tax bill. This is true whether the marriage is intact or dissolved at the end of said year.

So it'll be interesting to see how the IRS handles this situation a year from now. Maybe the "marriage penalty" tax rate will be enough to dissuade the gays from this foolish course of action? It's obvious that arguments of religious and societal tradition and morality don't get anywhere with them...

[.38sw]

My husband and I certainly wouldn't appreciate having our marriage license regarded as invalid. Thanks anyway.

[kcamtx]

Reproduction should be banned California.

[TheDon]

Some have said this is a state issue, not a federal issue. However, they know that is not true, due to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only solution to prevent the judiciary from legislating in this case is a constitutional ammendment.

[Scenic Sounds]

Any lawyers out there care to comment on such a tactic?

Well, your proposal would lead to a lot of litigation. How do you think lawyers might feel about the prospect of a lot of litigation? ;-)

[tdadams]

This is political theater. I don't really understand why anyone's getting so bent out of shape about this. Really, if you live in rural Nebraska, how likely is it that someone's marriage certificate in California (which has an undetermined legal status) is going to have any bearing on you? None.

[kimoajax]

Is it true what I heard from my Utah cousin that some small town Utah officials are waiting in the proverial weeds watching closely to see if the city of S.F. officials get away with performing gay mariages? Could similar moves follow regarding Polygamous marraiges?

[Lizavetta]

Don't you love the way the left devalues everything it touches?

They want drivers licenses for illegals, thus making licenses worthless. They want marriages for gays, thus making marriage licenses worthless. They promote virulent feminism and sexual 'freedom' which in my eyes has cheapened womanhood. They've dumbed down school curriculums so everyone can be mediocre (can't have anyone better than someone else, don'tcha know), and dumbed down entrance requirements so no one will feel left out.

[expatguy]

GOD DISCRIMINATES !!!

[supercat]

Every state is required to accept any marriage from other state if the marriage meets the requirements for marriages in the former state. So if a state allows first cousins to marry, it cannot refuse to accept a couple's marriage on the basis that the people are first cousins; but if a state forbids first cousins from marrying, it need not accept as valid the marriage of any first cousins who married elsewhere.