I've looked at the rulings handed down, and I realize that, while recognizing the discriminatory nature of both Prop 8 and DOMA is good, the Supreme Court did not extend it to the states
( Read more... )
Nah. This will give states which allow gay marriage a competitive advantage over states which do not allow gay marriage, because more gays will move to pro- gay marriage states than anti- ones. As gays are on the average more talented and have higher incomes than non-gays, this will disadvantage the anti-gay marriage states in subtle ways which will hurt their national influence. This is how the Federal system was designed to work.
I don't see that as being remotely practical, nor the way it works. People relocate, and their marriage status is going to be a mess of red tape and arguments.
I get it that the Supreme Court didn't want to be heavy-handed. It's just going to create a big mess.
Ironically Kennedy, while speaking for the majority in overturning DOMA. His vote on Prop 8 was actually pro-prop 8, basically saying that the popular law insertion's purpose was to circumvent the power structure to pass laws that would otherwise not be implemented at the local level. It's a giant step forward though, given that it used to be married gay couples in states where it was legal would not get any of the benefits straight married couples got. I think that was the "discrimination" they were talking about, two different marriages in states that say you can get married and should have the same rights.
Both decisions seem to show that they are more in tuned with state governments than federal government/ populous movements. So:
If a state government still says no, that's still going to be no. If a crowd of people vote to say 'no', and the state says 'yes' that means yes. If the federal government says 'no' and the state says 'yes', that means yes.
Just a random note, Disney Movie Club released the next Talespin DVD. (That and Gargoyles 2 v. 2 FINALLY). But it's only for DMC peeps. Luckily I signed up years ago. I ordered both. But knowing you were into Talespin, wanted to pass that info along.
Comments 9
Reply
I get it that the Supreme Court didn't want to be heavy-handed. It's just going to create a big mess.
Reply
Both decisions seem to show that they are more in tuned with state governments than federal government/ populous movements. So:
If a state government still says no, that's still going to be no.
If a crowd of people vote to say 'no', and the state says 'yes' that means yes.
If the federal government says 'no' and the state says 'yes', that means yes.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment