Exactly.
I find it hilarious that people like Newt Gingritch, who has a certain "history" with marriage, declare that same sex marriage will ruin the institution of marriage. Right.
Quite to the contrary, I believe same sex marriage will strengthen marriage, as it redeclares that marriage is an act out of love, and not out of duty. Even heterosexual marriage will gain from this.
At this stage nothing can really strengthen marriage because it isn't a real contract anymore. When anyone can dissolve a contract at any time, without cause and without penalty, then it isn't a real contract. Heterosexual marriage has been declining for decades. As I've advocated in the past, the solution isn't to say that one size must fit even more of the all. It is to try some different solutions. That is why I advocated for civil unions for heterosexual couples. It is why I support covenant marriage. It is why I would support limited term marriage contracts as well.
I'm absolutely sure the people of Oklahoma or Kentucky would vote to outlaw interracial marriage if put to a vote. Should they have that right? Please explain again why same sex marriage is any different, without reverting to the "definition of marriage" bullshit argument.
And I assume you would as vehemently oppose DOMA and other national anti-marriage measures as strongly as you would oppose a "Roe" style legalization?
You have no proof of that assertion. You're just projecting a caricature in your head. Oklahoma is 68% white and has 32% non-white population which makes it a lot more tolerant and diverse than say.....HONG KONG which is still 95% Chinese. Also Oklahoma is second in the nation in mixed marriages.
So as is usual, you're talking out your ass and projecting hate onto others while practicing stereotyping and hatred yourself.
DOMA is broken into multiple sections. I supported and continue to support the section that stipulates that because a law is passed in one state, the other state does not have to grant the same status with regard to marriage. That is known as Section 2. Section 3 is different because it defines marriage as only man and woman and I support gay marriage. I'd prefer the matter NOT be federalized because I would prefer the government experiment with and allow more relationship forms and I feel that is unlikely to happen if the matter is federalized.
Also I do not and would not support federalization of abortion prohibition. Overturning Roe v Wade would return the matter to the states. This is exactly, as an example, where you believe marijuana legislation ought to be determined. It is the appropriate level of government for all-non federal matters and that is what we should return to with regard to our Federal Government.
Big news in the coming months...
Prop 8 and DOMA are both up for USSC review.
Actually I'd bet that several pro-marriage equality groups are white knuckling this review. The various Prop 8 rulings, especially the one by the 9th are just terrible, terrible rulings. The 9th limited their decision to California exclusively so even if they were upheld, it wouldn't federalize the matter because of the absurdity of the Prop 8 ruling. The ruling is ridiculously narrow because the grounds on which it is based are absurd. That isn't to say that using DOMA, the Supreme Court couldn't render a federalized ruling though. Finally the court is also looking into these matters because both the Brown administration and Obama administration has refused to enforce their own laws or assume the role of arguing them in court.
In my ideal world, here is how it would play out.
The Supreme Court would create case law aka rule about who may have standing to defend acts when an executive branch refuses to do their job.
The Supreme Court would uphold Prop 8 declaring that it is appropriate for voters to amend their Constitutions on state related matters.
The Supreme Court would uphold Section 2 of DOMA declaring that one state cannot force another state to accept their relationship definitions.
The Supreme Court would overturn Section 3 of DOMA declaring that federal marriage definition can only recognize heterosexual marriage.
This would allow the federal government to recognize gay marriage from any state that has passed it in terms of taxes, etc. It would still allow states to try other relationship forms more easily because they are allowed to amend legislation and their constitutions without fear that they can never alter that change. (Prop 8 absurdity) It wouldn't force any state to accept in strange or errant rulings by future courts or cases (suppose some FLDS group won a case in a small court in Kansas for polygamy as an example.) It would make the executive branch do their job or let some one be appointed to do their job with regard to standing for case.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
