In Maryland, battle over same-sex marriage begins

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I disagree with the Attorney General here.

He says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But when you look at the statute for Family Law, there is a clear difference between the two:

§2–201.:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In reference to the marriage to the niece (§2–202.):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law states that a marriage performed in Maryland that is prohibited in the section is void; however, if performed elsewhere, the statute does not address it, therefore, the Rhode Island marriage should legally be recognized; however, the statute gives no such qualifier in section 2-201.

He goes on to discuss Nevada v. Hall and says that the Full Faith & Credit Clause would not apply here.  And I would agree with that.
He goes and tries to debate the meaning of the word "valid", citing a law review article, but I really don't see much credibility to the argument he gives (then again, it's only a short footnote).

He again cites incestuous marriages, but as I said before, there is a difference between sections 2-201 and 2-202.

Finally, I agree with his analysis that the Governor can issue an executive order that pertains to the executive branch; however, I disagree that the executive order here is "consistent with any existing law relating to the particular subject."

I think this executive order would be overturned in a court case.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

But here you need to make a distinction between the social construct of marriage and the legal civil contract of marriage.  The social construct (the ceremony) is protected by the 1st amendment.  The civil contract (in my opinion) is not.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

Or you can perform a marriage without either element. So long as marriage remains a contract, then a mere binding agreement between two parties, without the inclusion of any external authority, ought to be sufficient to conclude it, just as it is, in most cases, with any other form of contract.

No - it cannot be without either element.  Either it is a civil/legal construct or it is a social construct (or both).  Even if 2 people go off and 'get married' on their own and nobody else knows about it or interacts with them, that is still part of the social construct of marriage.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

Or you can perform a marriage without either element. So long as marriage remains a contract, then a mere binding agreement between two parties, without the inclusion of any external authority, ought to be sufficient to conclude it, just as it is, in most cases, with any other form of contract.

No - it cannot be without either element.  Either it is a civil/legal construct or it is a social construct (or both).  Even if 2 people go off and 'get married' on their own and nobody else knows about it or interacts with them, that is still part of the social construct of marriage.

Society is a 'spook', and the only 'social construct' is society itself, constructed out of the imaginations and fears and hopes and inferiorities of the people who inhabit it. Recognizing that, and recognizing how fluid 'society' is, any individual can assume for himself the authority to dictate what role he plays in it, or if he wishes to play any role in it at all. I tend to dislike Margaret Thatcher, but her comment about the ineffability of society is as applicable here as anywhere else.

Man is not determined by the collective, but instead determines his relationship to the collective.

So are you saying that there is no society?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well then clearly my statement cannot be a false dichotomy, if one of my options doesn't even exist.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well then clearly my statement cannot be a false dichotomy, if one of my options doesn't even exist.

Your opinion exists. The "truth" upon which you ground it, however - social norms enforced via means of mechanized religion hooked into the State apparatus - is utterly false and belies the philosophical emptiness of modern "conservatism". It is entirely without grounding.

I'm not talking about social norms.  I'm simply saying that there is a social aspect of the word marriage - whether that's man/woman, man/man, woman/man, woman/multiple men, man/animal, whatever - that's some type of marriage in views of society, and that is protected by the first amendment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think impeachment is crossing the line - he issued an opinion here.  There's nothing illegal in issuing an opinion like this, in my opinion.  Nothing happens unless the Governor acts on the opinion.

However, I think a Court would disagree with Governor O'Malley's executive order, and would probably reverse it.