Dragonbreathp9d
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:15 PM
Original message |
Attention Red State LGBT couples: Start getting married! |
|
With the current decision as it stands, federal law must allow you to get married! Texans, Arkansans, Alabamans, and everyone else who lives in a bigoted state - lets shove their faces in it, be proud, and get married!
|
LostinVA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:16 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It's only in California |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 03:16 PM by LostinVA
Or did something happen today I haven't heard about?
|
name not needed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:17 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Judge Walker's ruling only applies to California. |
dmallind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Not an expert here but why not 9th Circuit? |
|
Having not read the ruling, I can't quite see why it would only refer to prop 8 (even though that caused the suit) when it's based on Federal guarantees and is a decision made by a Circuit judge. I can understand why not national, but unsure why only CA. Note - this is a question not an argument.
|
name not needed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. The case was brought before the District Court for Northern California. |
|
The Prop 8 supporters would have to appeal the judge's ruling for the case to appear before the 9th Circuit.
|
dmallind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. My bad - confused it with another one. Got it thanks. NT |
racaulk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:19 PM
Response to Original message |
3. It's a Federal ruling, but it only applies to California and Prop 8. |
|
I wish the ruling did have immediate nationwide applicability, but it doesn't. Unless, of course, there is something I'm missing...
:hi:
|
MineralMan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Well, if it stands, it will serve as a good precedent everywhere. |
|
The ruling is based on Federal guarantees of equal rights. If the appellants are found not to have standing, as the judge indicates, the ruling will stand, and become a precedent that will be considered and cited in other cases.
It won't have an immediate effect, but it could have a very important effect in time.
|
zipplewrath
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
One would have to bring suit in each state. Typically, once it is deemed to be "correct" states will tend to just follow it. Desegregation was a bit like this. Once school districts started losing in large numbers, they tended to try to change without being sued. It isn't instantaneous by any stretch.
|
MineralMan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. That's true. It won't happen overnight. |
|
Personally, I wish we had a better SCOTUS, so a case could be brought using the full faith and credit issue to force all states to recognize gay marriages from any state.
It'll all happen, but not fast enough for some couples, who still may not be able to marry in their lifetimes.
|
unpossibles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:22 PM
Response to Original message |
5. although it only applies to CA |
|
I wonder if it could be fought nationally as Prop 8 was struck down due to a conflict with the US Constitution.
|
Erose999
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:34 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Will red states have to recognize the marriages granted in other states now? |
MineralMan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-12-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. Not yet, unfortunately. That case needs a different SCOTUS, |
|
I think. It should be the case, though. Eventually it will.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 11:19 PM
Response to Original message |