In California, U.S.A, the Supreme Court held that the 4,000-something marriages performed by Mayor Gavin Newsom between gays and lesbians were not legal because California law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Despite the social implications, I have to agree with this one. Mayor Newsom cannot unilaterally rewrite the law despite his liberal intentions. Change the law first–the definition of marriage–and then perform legally valid marriages between gays and lesbians. If it were otherwise, it would be a situation where executive officials would be more powerful than both the legislative and judicial branches. Many are wondering what happens now to benefits like family insurance discounts and medical coverage received under the presumption that the gay marriages were valid. Strictly speaking, no benefits or rights accrue where the marriage is void ab initio.

In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard announced that the National Marriage Coalition forum in Canberra “would reintroduce proposed changes to the Marriage Act to confirm marriage was a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

In Texas, a mother who drowned her two daughters, aged 5 and 3, in the bathtub was declared not guilty by reason of insanity.

In the state of Washington, in yet another probable insanity defense trial, a mother who killed her two daughters with her husband’s .22 caliber rifle has started undergoing psychiatric tests. The accused, Charlene Dorcy, is said to be suffering from schizophrenia and has had multiple suicide attempts since the age of thirteen.

Makes one wonder whether, in the interests of the future generations, passing psychiatric and psychological tests should form part of the requirements for the issuance of the marriage license.