Another Disappointment Brought To You By The State Of California...

[Bionca]

While I can agree with you that from a strategic perspective a state-by-state progression could work better. However, it fully complicates things from a contractual law point of view. States honor contracts made in a different state, otherwise interstate commerce could not happen for example. So you'd have a legally wed couple in one state suddenly not wed if they move.

There is also the issue that folks simply don't get to vote on the rights of other people. That is what "Tyranny of the Majority" is all about. Talk about breaking long-standing American Traditions.

I do agree 100% that the Anti-8 groups did an amazingly bad job of doing anything more than preach to the choir, blame blacks and Latin@s, and get (understandably) angry with Mormons.

[GRH]

It's funny that you mention interstate commerce Bionca, because I was contemplating the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If (and only if) it could be shown that the diverse marital contracts in state to state somehow affected an interstate business' ability to successfully conduct commerce, I feel THAT would be a more effective way of attacking the marriage issue. The courts would be more prone to legislate on this cause than from an equal protection standpoint.

[smc]

All of those who doubt that the Supreme Court will see this as an Equal Protection and civil rights issue could well be right. I would simply point out a couple of things. One is that the Court could be a different one by the time the case gets there. Another is that to send it back to the states the Court would have to state explicitly that it is not a civil rights issue. Given how quickly public opinion seems to be shifting (Iowa being a good example, and leaving California aside, where the ballot proposition process was terribly manipulated by money), a Court ruling of this sort could help galvanize a new civil rights movement with wider appeal than we can imagine at present.

I can dream, right?