1) I'm glad the governor is on the right (err... correct) side of this.
2) It'll be interesting to see how the November ballot initiative plays out. I've suspected in the last couple years that prop 22 wouldn't pass now like it did 8 years ago. I guess we get to find out for certain.
We shall see. I'm curious about the implications at the national level. If memory serves, states are required to recognize each other's marriages. If so, we'll see a US supreme court case at some point.
As far as the upcoming initiative goes, I'm hoping that people will realize that "protect marriage" doesn't mean what it might seam.
Well MA already allows same-sex marriage, so a US Supreme Court case was already possible (for all I know, one could already be pending). How it is handled at the federal level would almost certainly depend on how the case is challenged. I can imagine the current court either ruling 1) states may marry same sex couples, but other states need not honor those unions; or 2) same sex marriages are invalid in all 50 states. I doubt there would be a more "liberal" ruling than that, but Kennedy may be more open-minded than I'm giving him credit for.
In practice I don't see how #2 could realistically prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages, though I'm guessing it could provide cover for organizations/businesses that don't want to recognize same-gender spouses for benefits or whatever.
Of course I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, so I may just have no idea what I'm talking about.
The US Supreme court certainly wont look at it unless there's a challenge. And given the current make up of the court, arranging a challenge right now would be a bad idea
( ... )
Comments 8
1) I'm glad the governor is on the right (err... correct) side of this.
2) It'll be interesting to see how the November ballot initiative plays out. I've suspected in the last couple years that prop 22 wouldn't pass now like it did 8 years ago. I guess we get to find out for certain.
Reply
As far as the upcoming initiative goes, I'm hoping that people will realize that "protect marriage" doesn't mean what it might seam.
Reply
In practice I don't see how #2 could realistically prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages, though I'm guessing it could provide cover for organizations/businesses that don't want to recognize same-gender spouses for benefits or whatever.
Of course I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, so I may just have no idea what I'm talking about.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment