Their Skeptical Face - Things don't look good in the California Supreme Court for SF Mayor Gavin Newsom, the LATimes reports. I think the skeptical justices made some very good legal points, on such things as:

• Why didn't Newsom just file suit claiming unconstitutional discrimination in the law as applied?
• Sure lawsuits take a long time, but where was the irreparable harm that obligated him to take extrajudicial measures? Don't we want there to be an emergency before officials act without regard to law?
• How would liberals feel if conservative mayors took these decisions into their own hands by, for example, declaring gun control discriminatory and issuing licenses for handguns to felons?

Despite histrionic attempts by EQCA to whip up emotions, this case is clearly about Newsom's authority, not gay marriage, or even the validity of the licenses already issued. One of the nice things about judicial proceedings is that courts are fully capable of parsing complicated matters into discrete questions and answers, and the judges were fully cognizant of the fact that the rights of those Newsom married were not represented in the hearing.

On the other hand, I don't envy those couples who did get SF licenses for all the legal confusion they are bound to face from here on out. Even a fully-sanctioned Massachusetts marriage license is probably more trouble than its worth, when you consider the difficulties spouses will face from the Federal government and other states. California's quasi-legal marriages are only that much worse. After all, who can spend literally their entire lives (economically, socially, legally and otherwise) inside the friendly jurisdiction of the City of San Francisco? I suppose you could just get the documents nicely framed and hang them on the wall, but then I'd worry that someone (say the tax man) would later get the idea that they DID mean something, just when you least expect it.