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.

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.

This.

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!!!!

SCOTUSblog and other news outlets now have the transcript and audio up from today's argument.

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.

Living in Georgia all these years has not made me a fan of states' deciding anything about fundamental rights. If it were up to the state, Dairy Queens would probably still have "colored" and "white" windows.

I am old enough to remember when only New York and, IIRC, Hawaii allowed abortion. New York was the destination of choice for people I knew, anyway. Legalizing abortion state by state meant that people with the money for the airfare and the procedure could get abortions, but people with limited means effectively could not.

It applies even less in same-sex marriage. At least if you go to another state to get an abortion, you don't get the fetus back when you cross the state line. Same-sex couples can't get married in Massachusetts and stay married in Georgia.

Also, rights are not supposed to be subject to majority rule.

Legalizing abortion state by state meant that people with the money for the airfare and the procedure could get abortions, but people with limited means effectively could not.

And of course, it's the same thing again now, as states un-legalize it.

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.

Yeah, I saw that. And the person mentioning it was like "and I'm sure racists would've preferred slavery ended in a more gradual way, but that doesn't mean it would be RIGHT...why pander to assholes who will be angry at some point no matter what?"