...well, this is a shift of direction away from the latest cavortings of Amy Winehouse, that's fer sure.

I find it interesting on a couple of levels:
-Though the questions were quite open-faced, there was a sort of
'...gee guys, the ruling was stated at :04,
I heard about the ruling at :06
and you're both down here with a copy of it wanting to apply for a license at :07(and a half.)

--Not to lead the witness?, but it sort of came across like
'...were you guys just waiting for this to happen
(aka) were you guys just lying in wait
(aka) is this some sort of 'deliberate thing..'
(aka)is this a movement?
...okay, last question purely a supposition... but it seemed to be headed in that direction.

I like the answers:
'...No, we just happened to have the morning free, figured, hey, lets make this official now that it CAN be...'
(Maybe, just maybe there are just regular gay folks who just might want to head to the JOP and get married on a morning off?
-sorta makes sense,
and there are plenty of situations circling the airport and looking to land, so to speak.)

Kudos to the reporter for asking:
'...so if I was living with my girlfriend and we wanted to get married, we'd not have to 'unfile,' in one sense to 'file' for another sense...'

Also interesting?
-the comments by the local pol. who felt that it was some sort of 'attack.'

It's kind of funny, but a friend of mine (who had a daughter who was gay,) and I were talking about this, some time ago (we had a similar situation back in NewPaltz, NY, when a local pol performed marriages.)
--Anyway, my friend was kind of befuddled by the remarks of 'attacking marriage,' and 'causing society to crumble,' simply in letting two people who loved each other, get married.

-it was NOT an attack on anybody elses marriage because
(they) are already married, and a separate situaiton.
-and THAT marriage is going to succeed or fail based upon (those) participants in (that) marriage
(...not the two gay folks looking to get married.)
--The success of the one is not at all dependant on the existance of the other...
(I am not aware of secret delta force squads of gay people looking to get married and then somehow filter into existing 'straight' marriages, causing them to dissolve and fail... (like they're sneaking around suburbia planting little rainbow painted devices or pods in basements and crawlspaces or some such paranoid rubbish.)

--Second?
What wild uninhibited scoundrells (and scoundrellettes) are running around 'wanting to get married?.'
--are there 'Gay Marriage Vikings,' or something I'm not aware of? ...Playing Annie Lennox at top volume at 3am, wearing too much (expensive) cologne???
--How wild IS that...?
Last time I checked, the act of getting married is pretty conservative and 'settlin' down,' sort of fare...
(I cry through most of the ceremonies, though sometimes its due to the soloists butchering of a heartfelt ballad...)

How is it that we don't socially prohibit single straight folks from conducting their courtships and relationships as they see fit,
-yet feel the need decry some reeeeeeallly conservative gays and lesbians from furthering (in a pretty honest and genuine sense)
the threads of society and civilization?
..I mean, sorry, but I know a LOT of gay folks, and some of them (no disrespect,) are kinda dull and really domestic,
who get worked up in a lather over cirque de solil, and Harry Connick Jr., heavy gardening -and that's about it...
-On the other end of the park?
I have straight couples (married and non) who are absolute hell on wheels and socially a hornets nest waiting to happen, who manage to raise kids that are even more off the hook... (in terms of 'threat to society and institutions, it really can be said that we've found weapons of mass destruction with these people.)

Final?
There is this strange dual purpose schism that gets played back and forth upon.
Is Marriage a 'civil,' issue (yes.)
Is it a 'Spiritual,' issue (yes.)
Yet both aspects will be used to condemn or defend the condemning at the convenience of those who dissapprove.

--If somebody who has completely different beliefs (spiritually,) than myself is married
---they are no less married than somebody who I agree with.
I am to respect their rights and beliefs as their choice.(with the govt. protecting that right as an unbiased 'freedom.')

How many people are (still) willing to stand around, review each others, our parents, our grandparents (etc.) actual 'courtship,' and 'domestic living situations,'
(IE: Marriages) and say 'This is acceptable, (or) this is not.'
(Well yeah, they had a civil ceremony, they had a church wedding, they had one or had neither...)
Why are all of these variables, (respected in 'straight situations,') now narrowed down to gauntlets, mazes, and cattle chutes for those who are gay?

These two guys are obviously a couple,
They are adopting, and are looking (as stated in the interview,) to abide within the fullest extent of the law and simply be considered as equals in that regard...
(Fulfilling the law and being 'right within it,'
is Something, by the way, which is a rather unusual admirable and quaint desire, -even in this conservative town.)

I see no 'attacking,' in that.

And, to be quite honest:
-When:
what somebody else chooses to do with their own relationship is such a 'threat,' to 'every other marriage (and 'marriage' in general?)

-you really have to ask yourself
'..How stable and (independant/strong) are these marriages (that are threatened) to begin with?, and what are (those) relationships based upon?

In a sense of people being afforded the rights to do what they are so led, -and mind their own business in the process?
There is no threat to anyone, (ever.)

The 'threat,' comes when a larger group finds it's cause, strength, and future hope based in the 'status quo.'
(-having to be continuously authenticated by
'everybody else being just like we are.'
Which sounds more like joining a fraternity or sorority if you ask me...)
--To 'groupthink,' Somebody doing something by their own hearts leading is a HUGE threat, (because individualism always IS a threat to peerpressure and group identity.)

It means you find who 'everybody else' thinks is good for you,
It means you put the groups 'value' on them (not their own.)
And you define your relationship with them not by what the two of you really are,
--but based upon what everybody else wants to call you...
-And That IS Pathetic.

For the record?
I'm a straight guy.
I'm also single.
--But when the time comes, and the right woman is placed in my life by my Lord --and it's cool with Him (Lord) and cool with her (yet unrevealed honey?)
--I'll probably ask her parents for her hand(out of respect,)
-be sure it's cool with her kids too (out of love for them...) in yer mid forties, you find less 'folks,' more 'kids,' -but it's cool.)

---but ultimately?
It boils down to the three of us:
God,
Her, and Me...
Then what the laws of the land say is kosher or no.

By basic design of civilization, not to mention the basic rules framed out by the country's founders, (in terms of personal beliefs,) -this is what defines us as a nation.

EVERYBODY else is cordially invited to throw rice
(at the most,)
--or if they really want to torture me?
Play 'Celebration,' by Kool and the Gang, at the reception.

-beyond that?
They can stuff it,
it's nobody elses knitting to be concerned with.
(said with a smile, of course.)

To the gentlemen of the video?

Best Wishes,
and welcome to the crucible,
(they say we're headed into the triple digits by tomorrow,,, looks like you boys may be feeling the heat a wee bit ahead of the rest of the valley... I recommend baggy shorts a good hats, and a couple of Arnold Palmers.)

I'll be praying for you, and your family, enjoy your weekend.

-Eric

wow that was fast! but then again they have been waiting for this ruling for 2 years now...

cingrats to them! :)

your video really sux in the loading.... I couldn't bring the whole thing up... stupid buffering and lost cell network...

yeah ... we're still working on the best and fastest way to bring you what's happening. i'm sure the technology will come along soon enough.

...(short one this time.)

so, like I'm wondering...
at half past twelve this afternoon it was like '...he's said he'd come back down and tell us what was going on in fifteen minutes...'

Anybody have any follow up?
I mean, that's one long fifteen minutes...

Eric, he said he'd be back down in fifteen minutes, but he stopped to read your first comment.

We expect him back in July...

...now THAT was funny...

-good to see you on top of your game today, Steph, job well done...

--and when he DOES come back down?, He'll have better answers 'cause of it, I hope...

Glad to be of service...

(...We'll drag Fresno, albiet kicking and screaming, forward into the 20th century, if it's the last thing we do, we will...)