Here is what is eating gilbert grape
“An inevitable result of such ‘marriage tourism’ will be a steep increase in litigation” over whether the couple’s home state must recognize their marriage, said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, author of the brief.
Funny, but when they curtailed the civil rights of their own citizens, don’t you kinda think these attys general might have expected a bit of litigation in return? But really, this is all just Henny Penny alarmist blather. We LGBT people aren’t stupid. We know that a US Supreme Court win is not in our immediate futures. Thus we have collectively taken and continue to take a careful, strategic approach to insure that no bad precedents come out of premature court challenges.
I do give these 10 AGs credit for being good GOP doobies, though. I imagine that there is no prospect more dampening to GOV-CA spirits than the specter of tens of thousands of happily married couples bouncing merrily throughout the state this summer.
The new GOP rallying cry: The Party of States Rights. Put Party before Constitution!
p.s. Do I detect a hint of economic jealousy in the “marriage tourism” jab? Why yes, I do believe that I do!
I guess this is the crap we should expect as States steadily deliver equal rights for all.
unless they find a fresh scapegoat, that is.
Only when they control the state. Federal rights only when they control the federal government. The entire Bush approach to education is predicated on obliterating states’ rights in that competence.
under the sun. The party of “small government” really wants BFG when it suits them, whether it’s the social issues that any good libertarian wouldn’t blink an eyelash at, or the cornocopia of corporate subsidies and tax credits they deliver up annually, while preaching “free market” philosophies.
No hat tip for pointing you to that BayWindows article, eh?
<
p>I think the those states are just going through some motions, they’ll still have to litigate marriage lawsuits from MA couples moving there, once the legal groups decide the time is right to sue other states. So it seems strange that they are taking the same stance as the gay groups, though they must feel they are obligated to petition the court since on the surface it would seem to be against their interests.
Marriage is an archaic concept. Half of marriages fail, many people no longer bother. If a partner wishes to walk away from a “partner” of whatever sex, they should be able to pack their bags and say—see ya—without some governmental body sticking their nose into ones personal life.
<
p>Same thing applicable to marriage licenses. When did it become the providence of a state to tell me whom I can and cannot marry?
…really need to do some history cramming. Marriage has been a civil issue here since colonial times. Purely civil marriage, separate from religious marriage, existed in 12 of the 13 colonies. You know not of what you speak.
<
p>
I mean, you couldn’t be religiously married to Betty and civilly married to Sue.
after all, the religion wouldn’t stand for such a thing.
assuming the “religious marriage” meant that they could have sex. The state only lets us have sex with the person we are civilly married to. It was only police power of the state that used to put people in stocks or fine or jail them for having sex without being married. The church didn’t have a police force, I don’t think.
some do!
<
p>;)
…for bigotry. Always has been, still is today, probably always will be.
is just a euphamism for Totalitarianism. Always has been, still is today, and probably always will be.
I like how my example of generalizations and bias is 4’d and 3’d but the one I was responding to didn’t.
the current administration’s concept of strong federal government, then you’re right.
I don’t see what someone from state X asking state Y preety please do Z has to do with states’ rights. It seems implicit that they acknowledge that they can’t force Califirnia to do anything.
<
p>Inconsistency on states’ rights is a better argument against the federal marriage amendment, and, as it turns out, Republcians with more principled libertarian leanings do indeed oppose that.
did a great write-up on this.
Well said!