Will The Gays Save California Real Estate?

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 10:50AM

greater fool theory at work.

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 10:53AM

Gays step in and save fringe areas all the time: chelsea, hell's kitchen, south beach, etc....when the gays move in, real estate moves up...gays turn crap into chic...its a fact.

Posted by redpandot, Jun 18, 2008 10:59AM

Well gays and the artists... don't forget the artists....

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 11:11AM

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/ovr/marriage/GeneralInfo.htm

My Google-fu turned up this little tidbit: "Welcome to the State of California, Department of Health Services web page. This web page will give you general information regarding the requirements for the issuance and registration of public and confidential marriage licenses in California, as well as answer many frequently asked questions regarding the laws pertaining to marriage licenses and ceremonies in California. For further information, please contact the County Clerk or County Recorder’s Office in the county where you will be applying for the marriage license.

General Information

You do not need to be a California resident to marry in California...."

Puts a bit of a crimp in the whole gay home buying boom.

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 11:27AM

@11:11

It also says

"Only an unmarried male and an unmarried female may marry in California."

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 1:27PM

where is TGFD ?

I kind of miss him.

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 1:33PM

ask and ye shall receive. i'm sure he will relieve you soon with a story of 90yr old woman he once seduced on san diego beach

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 1:56PM

@11:11 is correct. no residency requirement for gays to get married in CA (unlike MA).

Posted by StMarc, Jun 18, 2008 2:04PM

@11:11 and @1:56: Yeah, that was the whole reason for the big flap. I mean, all the fundies think that just *living* in CA is enough to send you to Hell anyway, but now the Ebil Homos can go to CA, get married, and then go back to Idaho or wherever and force everybody to acknowledge their perversion legally.

My own opinion on the matter is that if homosexuals want to get married, let 'em. Why shouldn't they suffer along with the rest of us?

M

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 6:09PM

@2:04. 1:56 here--and while i appreciate your support for gay marriage, you're wrong about what Idaho, or any other state, has to do. the defense of marriage act specifically exempts states from having to recognize a gay marraige licensed by another state. it was passed in anticipation of the legal argument that the full faith and credit clause compels that recognition.

doma is why paterson recently sent a directive to ny state agencies to tell them to recognize out of state gay marriages (which was itself the result of a court ruling); no such ruling or directive from the executive would be required if the full faith and credit clause applied to gay marriages as it does to straight ones.

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 9:43PM

Guest @ 6:09pm. I've been aware of that clause in the Defense of Marriage Act, and I've always wondered how a statute of Congress can nullify a Constitutional guarantee. Has there been any litigation on the issue?

I wonder whether Paterson's executive order will stand up to challenge. Thanks for the info.

Posted by guest, Jun 18, 2008 9:57PM

An interesting factoid about the Defense of Marriage Act is that it was passed under Bill Clinton, not discussed in his memoir, and never renounced.

From Wikipedia, with editing: The constitutional issues most relevant to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A right to marriage, overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia, the famous Supreme Court decision ending Virginia's ban on interracial marriages.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of this power is disputed.

Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds:

Congress overreached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause.

Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases.

Posted by guest, Jun 25, 2008 6:25AM

It seems from reading Wellsfords proposal that they are really interested in giving gay couples the same advantages as straight couples. They realize that gay couples will need residency...but in reality, they went the extra step to provide an agency to plan the wedding reception or honeymoon which seems to say they are interested in the want to have a great marriage. After all, they could have just stopped at the rebate on the sell if they were not interested in the equality.