6 ms·
This is a rational argument, and this is the argument people should be having with those who oppose it rather than name calling and mudslinging. But nothing tha
by hackinthebochs 13y ago
This is a rational argument, and this is the argument people should be having with those who oppose it rather than name calling and mudslinging. But nothing that you say here justifies calling those who oppose this bigots, etc. Either way, the California legislature is probably the wrong place to have this discussion, as a marriage in California wouldn't necessarily be recognized in other states anyways.
- bluntly_said 13y agoThis is true, marriage in one state does not have to be recognized in another, or even federally. California amending it's marriage laws does not solve "dependency hell". It does however force your morals on a religious community within the state. Just like prop-8 was trying to force their morals on the gay community in that state. BOTH sides got this one wrong.
- Karunamon 13y agoI think that was part of the goal of redefining marriage legally. Which is pretty damn brilliant once you think about it. The full faith and credit clause ensures that contracts (which is what a marriage technically is) are valid in all other states in the union. This completely sidesteps any local laws that might be otherwise inferior, and also ensures that the case can be easily escalated (all the way to SCOTUS if necessary) in case of issues.