Fooey!

Doncha know.

Yes indeedy. I'm just feelin' the love.

This is the result of many years of paying close attention to local elections and getting their candidates in place, because most people pay no attention to these offices or to local elections. It allows the right wing to develop a deep bench of people who can later run for higher offices when places become available. The democrats have nothing remotely comparable.

It's been a concerted right-wing effort for many years. This is true even in areas that look liberal and often vote democratic in presidential elections.

To take over all positions in state, county, city/towns no matter how small of a position.

I think of it as a vermin infestation.

on these local elections for decades

in my neighborhood, there never seemed to be any outside money involved. It was a matter of 20 or 30 extremely dedicated right-wing people making sure the candidate rolls were filled, and getting their friends to the polls in every off election. They all knew each other personally. They all went to the same church.

I'm not saying the Koch's weren't in it back then, just remarking how small-scale it was, and how ultimately powerful it has become here in PA.

Local elections also allow for the building of party infrastructure on the local level. In turn, this can be used to gotv for high offices.

If the State of PA isn't going to challenge that decision, then my guess is that it would be thrown out due to her lack of standing. It's now an uphill battle for the exclusionists ... they will have to prove that the law is constitutional. It clearly isn't constitutional and other federal judges, maybe even an appeals court elsewhere has ruled this in other similar cases.

The law isn't on the side of Ms. Santai-Gaffney. In order for marriage to be ruled exclusionary again, a constitutional amendment would need to pass... and that's not going to happen anytime soon, if at all.

Needs to be proven, absolute.

If that is their angle, then each and every citizen of the stat, should have to say Yay or Nay...then we would have an answer.

I get sick and tired of the bullshit, saying that a "majority" (say in voting) wants whatever, when in most cases there is a record low amount of registered voters casting ballots...that is not the "majority".

when HER marriage gets voted on.

So the "will of the people," the majority, cannot strip away the rights of minority groups.

Try to explain that to ignorant people like this woman, though. What is that saying about a camel going through the eye of a needle from that book they like? That is more probable of happening than this woman understanding the difference between our republic and what she thinks America is.

Here's her Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Theresa-Santai-Gaffney/197419953617559

that goes for _ALL_ Republican women.

All of them. They need to choke and die.

It basically said she might "get in trouble" for not enforcing the law she was sworn to upheld, even though the law was declared invalid. She would more likely get in trouble for trying to uphold it at this point. Since the state Attorney General and the listed Register of Wills defendant are not appealing, it is entirely contrived. Judge Johns will deny the motion in all likelihood.

1,000 hours of community service in GLBTQ issues.

And she must serve every single one of these hours.

and will need go take a soaking somwhere in the Schulylkill River for a very long time.

And also as a Register of Wills, she has no present standing on marriage laws.

REC

Not sure it does, even if her office issues the licences. It is basically an administrative position. I would think the State AG, the Governor, or a member of the Legislature would be the only ones with standing to contest a law being struck down for Constitutional reasons.