4 ms·

> same-sex marriage prop (which I believe is purely symbolic... Same-sex marriage is currently outlawed by the California constitution as a result of Prop 8 fr

> same-sex marriage prop (which I believe is purely symbolic... Same-sex marriage is currently outlawed by the California constitution as a result of Prop 8 from 2008. That clause is void as a result of the Hollingsworth and Obergefell decisions, but there are multiple members of the Supreme Court who have explicitly said that they would like to overturn Obergefell, so it's a good idea to get ahead of the potential catastrophe by taking the bad law fully off the books, rather than relying on a capricious and extremist court to stick to a rights-defending decision for any amount of time.

triceratops 2y ago
Doesn't the Respect for Marriage Act [1] ensure they can't roll back same-sex marriage like they did abortion? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Doesn't the Respect for Marriage Act [1] ensure they can't roll back same-sex marriage like they did abortion? No. RMA lets states ban gay marriage. It just requires them to honour other states' gay marriages.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder if it matters all that much. You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom, and it's a non-issue in practical terms. States banning same-sex marriage within their borders takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful. But they can't actively prosecute people for crossing state lines to marry. They have to provide them the same rights as hetero-married couples, even for things like state benefits and taxes.
    - troad 2y ago
      > I still wonder if it matters all that much. It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal. Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere. It's spit on your face on one of the most important days of your life.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere What I said: > You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please. I also said: > banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful That's why it's important to read a whole comment. I wish the Respect for Marriage Act actually forced states to legalize same-sex marriage. But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. That's quite a difference compared to abortion.
        troad 2y ago
        So your solution for a prejudiced law is the hypothetical possibility that some other state passes some other law, for which you have absolutely no evidence. Also, even if it did - your solution takes absolutely no account of how federalism works. You're proposing that RfMA requires a state to recognise a marriage undertaken in their own jurisdiction, done with the express purpose of sidestepping local law. Is that really how RfMA will shake out? Was that the intent of RfMA? Is that how Mississippi will interpret it? Is that how SCOTUS - now or future - will interpret it? And when they don't? What about a state extending civil or criminal penalties to participating in what it considers a sham marriage, much as states now do for abortion? > But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. No, they can prevent same-sex marriages from taking place. That's identical to abortion. Even more effective, as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding. Same-sex marriage, post-RfMA, is in the same position as abortion post-Dobbs. I'm meant to be upset about one but 'give thanks' for the other? Even setting all of the above aside, you're acting like being insulted is just fine. That a person can go through their lives having their own government - a government of the people, supposedly - insult and denigrate their family. And that they should be thankful it's not worse. That is one helluva take.

triceratops 2y ago

Doesn't the Respect for Marriage Act [1] ensure they can't roll back same-sex marriage like they did abortion? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Doesn't the Respect for Marriage Act [1] ensure they can't roll back same-sex marriage like they did abortion? No. RMA lets states ban gay marriage. It just requires them to honour other states' gay marriages.
- triceratops 2y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder if it matters all that much. You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom, and it's a non-issue in practical terms. States banning same-sex marriage within their borders takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful. But they can't actively prosecute people for crossing state lines to marry. They have to provide them the same rights as hetero-married couples, even for things like state benefits and taxes.
  - troad 2y ago
    > I still wonder if it matters all that much. It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal. Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere. It's spit on your face on one of the most important days of your life.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere What I said: > You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please. I also said: > banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful That's why it's important to read a whole comment. I wish the Respect for Marriage Act actually forced states to legalize same-sex marriage. But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. That's quite a difference compared to abortion.
      - troad 2y ago
        So your solution for a prejudiced law is the hypothetical possibility that some other state passes some other law, for which you have absolutely no evidence. Also, even if it did - your solution takes absolutely no account of how federalism works. You're proposing that RfMA requires a state to recognise a marriage undertaken in their own jurisdiction, done with the express purpose of sidestepping local law. Is that really how RfMA will shake out? Was that the intent of RfMA? Is that how Mississippi will interpret it? Is that how SCOTUS - now or future - will interpret it? And when they don't? What about a state extending civil or criminal penalties to participating in what it considers a sham marriage, much as states now do for abortion? > But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. No, they can prevent same-sex marriages from taking place. That's identical to abortion. Even more effective, as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding. Same-sex marriage, post-RfMA, is in the same position as abortion post-Dobbs. I'm meant to be upset about one but 'give thanks' for the other? Even setting all of the above aside, you're acting like being insulted is just fine. That a person can go through their lives having their own government - a government of the people, supposedly - insult and denigrate their family. And that they should be thankful it's not worse. That is one helluva take.