Which would mean that marriage equality would be re-established in California, but wouldn't establish a precedent for the rest of the country, and wouldn't commit them to saying there's an equal protection right to marriage regardless of gender.
This is consistent with what some of the Supremes have been saying about Roe v. Wade - that it was too much, too soon and should have been played out on a state by state basis. That it would have been less polarizing that way.
I don't agree with that, but it seems like they're going to let gay marriage trickle out.
it seems like they're going to let gay marriage trickle out
Which is so ridiculous. I do wonder whether any of the evidence presented in the briefs is from any of the other developed nations that have had marriage equality for years without the end of civilization as we know it. Or do they need 2 or 3 generations worth of proof?
While grand victories for human rights are very fulfilling, allowing the sea change of public opinion to shift without giving opponents a legal decision to feel martyrish about seems to be a less disruptive way to get change to stick and feel natural. More and more people are saying, "You know, objecting to gay people getting married is really kind of silly, isn't it?"
While grand victories for human rights are very fulfilling, allowing the sea change of public opinion to shift without giving opponents a legal decision to feel martyrish about seems to be a less disruptive way to get change to stick and feel natural. More and more people are saying, "You know, objecting to gay people getting married is really kind of silly, isn't it?"
Eh. After each lower court decision allowing same sex marriage and/or civil status this has been the argument from people opposed to it. Judicial fiat, what not. But they react just as angrily when it's been legislative or via voting mechanisms. They're going to feel martyish about it regardless, so I'd as soon not hold up people's rights while they take the next ten years to get over their butthurt.
The problem of course is that couples are really suffering without having equal marriage rights. A court case might be seen as those in opposition as something that they can whine about, but it can afford people equal status under the law.
Which has very real consequences.
Quick sidebar on another subject: more photos from the David Bowie exhibit at the V&A Museum.
[link]
These are pretty awesome.
The problem of course is that couples are really suffering without having equal marriage rights.
Like Edie Windsor, the official plaintiff in the "D"OMA case. "D"OMA means she has to pay over $300,000 in estate taxes from her wife's estate.
I'm 50 years old. Hubs and I have been together almost 24 years. How much longer as I supposed to be patient?
[link] this her, ita?
I'm 50 years old. Hubs and I have been together almost 24 years. How much longer as I supposed to be patient?
Exactly.
But they react just as angrily when it's been legislative or via voting mechanisms. They're going to feel martyish about it regardless, so I'd as soon not hold up people's rights while they take the next ten years to get over their butthurt.
Having had a friend die waiting, I get so very stabbity stab stab stab at the notion that anyone should have to wait for the approval, above and beyond the fact that basic human rights should not be something held up to a public fucking vote.
From what I have heard the DOMA case has a much better discrimination under the law argument than the Prop 8 case. But I have not even read up a lot, because I tend to rage.
I am wearing all red today though.
COME ON KENNEDY!!!!
