There's hope, yes, but...

[aiglet]

I'm glad Obama won. I think his acceptance speech was really good. (Take a bow, Toby and Sam. Or whoever you are.)

I am, however, shocked and appalled that the same half-million voters who decided that teenage girls had a right to control their own choices also decided that for some reason, not all marriages are equalI've been skimming the

Comments

[scifantasy]

The fact of the matter is that "marriage" has not also taken on this legal/civil meaning, and I honestly think that denying the second on the basis of the first is a violation of the First Amendment, much less the Fourteeth.

Well said. And in a few years, maybe we'll have a Supreme Court who agrees. Fingers crossed.

[redaxe]

This is the classic example of why constitutions should be very very difficult to change. My sympathies to all the non-narrowminded folks and doubly so to all the people whose marriages will be annulled (as I understand it).

I do have hopes that we here in NY will see legislation permitting gender-neutral marriage soon, though. The Assembly passed it, and the Governor would like to sign on, but until this election, the Republican-controlled State Senate blocked it. Now the Democrats control the entire legislature AND the governor's chair, so maybe we can finally do the right thing here and lead, rather than follow California's lead, for once.

[tibicina]

Well, it will be a court case to annul the marriages. (Of course, it's also been pointed out that, given equal protection, if they try to annul the homosexual marriages from last year, it could be possible to argue that /all/ marriages from last year have to be annulled.)

[aiglet]

The Ex Post Facto clause of the US Constitution actually says they *can't* annul the marriages -- they're not allowed to pass any law with retroactive penalty.

[dan_ad_nauseam]

Unfortunately, the ex post facto clause is generally interpreted to apply to criminal laws only. The due process clause is more significant here.

[chiefted]

Actually searching for where I can make another donation to the No on 8 campaign for the court case.
Cause I believe, like you do, that its going to take a Supreme Court case or an Executive Order for this one.

And yes Toby, Sam, Will or whoever please take a bow, you had me almost considering going back
in the Coast Guard last night.

speaking of Loving v. Virginia

[princessmei]

We just had the 60th anniversary of Perez v. Sharp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

the Supreme Court of California recognized that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.60 years ago Stuart and I could not have legally married. There would have been public outrage over the idea

Re: speaking of Loving v. Virginia

[gdmusumeci]

the Supreme Court of California recognized that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution

And that is actually extremely interesting and potentially applicable to the situation now at hand....

[bercilakslady]

The fact of the matter is that "marriage" has not also taken on this legal/civil meaning, and I honestly think that denying the second on the basis of the first is a violation of the First Amendment, much less the Fourteeth.

I agree with you on that one. In addition to the legality, MA has had same sex marriage for a while now, and lo, the sky has not fallen.