10,000 marrages at risk, make that 11,000. A common queston addressed.

[johno]

Regarding last night's post by me and many others.

A common response is to ask is "where does the 10K count come from?"

I did some digging today, the base is a study from:

The Williams Institute
UCLA School of Law

http://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/publications/CASSMarriageCounts.pdf



Also, some folks have asked, in comments to my post and to other posts...

But the prop doesn't say anything about annulling the existing marriages.

True, the prop only changes a definition, but changing the definition changes the basis of the marriage. It is expected (souce unconfirmed) that the "Yes on 8" support groups would follow with a push for laws and/or lawsuits to invalidate the existing marriages.


"Are not domestic partnerships the same?"

I collected several ideas, but I think I'll just stick was a basic simple one:

"Seperate but Equal" is not was equal rights for all means.

Comments

[wldrose.livejournal.com]

The bigest thing is the repercosty (sp) from other states. if you marry in cali and move to another state your marraige must be treated as legal. And I dont know how Cali is set up but a lot of companys give bennies based on marrige not on domestic partnership.

ash

[chiefted]

bumps this link to you (since I just saw it, the link)

Apple opposes Prop 8 and gives them money too boot.

Edit: scroll down a bit since it is about half way down the page.

[wldrose.livejournal.com]

thanks for the link hope all is well

ash

[chiefted]

Things aren't too bad, hope things are well with you

[wldrose.livejournal.com]

Once I got D out of the hospital things were fine. Next hurdel is going back to school Oy that wil be a big thing.

ash

[chiefted]

Wait D as in slept on my head D was in the hospital..is she ok?

Yes school does sound like a hurdle.

I have a job that I like now (my instructor job got downsized about a year ago), spent some time work
for the "fruit company in Cupertino" other than that guess things are ok.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, the Defense of Marriage Act means that other states need not recognize the marriage laws of other states if they choose not to do so, and the federal government only recognizes opposite-sex marriages as legitimate for all federal purposes.

I think DOMA violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution (that's the reciprocity requirement to which you refer), but the Supreme Court has been as yet unwilling to rule on the matter.

This is distressingly similar to the legal wrangling in the antebellum period over slavery, which was legal in some places but not in others, and the courts got all tangled in knots over sorting out jurisdictional issues. I'd like to think a Dred Scott-type decision on marriage would not touch off another Civil War, but it's hard to tell with the massive political polarization going on in this country.

The political discourse in the USA hit a singularity in 1861. I hope we can avoid that ever again.

[elf]

I'm hoping that'll get challenged as gender discrimination--all states recognize marriages from other states that couldn't be performed in theirs due to consanguinity or age of one member of the couple; not recognizing some based on the gender of one member seems like it'd clash with the US Constitution.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it does clash, but the Court doesn't want to take a stand on it and continues to leave the lower court rulings stand.

An interesting possibility would be if the Court changed just a little bit -- maybe as little as one justice -- it might take one of those cases and rule that any of the "only my kind of marriage" laws (like Prop 8) violate the US Constitution, which trumps the state constitutions. It seems unlikely at this time, but the yes-on-8 types, if they get their way to start with, might be actually starting the ball rolling down a hill that runs right over them.