You know what that makes me want to do? Get right up in the face of some of the people who opposed gay marriage in California, and tell them what absolutely, totally, no-good mean shits they are.
It'll be the first test of same-sex marital inheritance in California. Maybe. Here in Massachusetts, "married" is "married", so AFAIK there's never been any "test".
This "test" should be perfectly routine, as "married is married".
But the very fact of its routineness is another nail in the argument that "marriage can only be between a man and a woman". The state's role in marriage is limited, but this is one of the roles.
And just today, the polls in California are showing weak support for the "rescind gay marriage" ballot question; it's losing now, and should only lose support between now and November.
The more normal same-sex marriages are, the more routine, the less support there is for banning them.
This "test" should be perfectly routine, as "married is married".
Actually, no, there shouldn't be any "test", as why would there be? The law is clear about degrees of relationship and how they inherit if someone dies intestate, so why would there be any "test"? AFAIK there hasn't been in MA.
The more normal same-sex marriages are, the more routine, the less support there is for banning them.
Yes, we figured that one out in MA too. The sky has not fallen yet. Although, truth to tell, it wasn't the "routine" that won the battle.
All I mean is that, in California, there wasn't yet a precedent. Now there is (or will be; estate settlements take time even without anyone contesting).
"Routine" doesn't win the battle, but it shores up the walls for the next assault. According to Maureen Reddington-Wilde, that's what kept Romney from ramming anything thru the MA legislature; as time went on, the attitude shifted from "Save Marriage!!!1!" to "why are you trying to break up these nice peoples' marriage?".
And that why the bigots desperately wanted the judges to hold off on allowing same-sex marriage "until the people vote". People are much more willing to vote for a wrong-headed theory than to hurt actual people.
What won the battle in MA was the days of sturm und drang, aka the public debate when the legislature had to vote on the initiative to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. There was no "routine" at that point; what there were, were articulate speakers, people standing up and saying, "I'm a human being, do you really want to do this to me?" -- and straight folks being confronted with the question, "Do you think gays should be equal citizens with equal rights?", really thinking about that, and (overwhelmingly, gratifyingly) finding that their answer to that question was, "Well...of course." What won the battle, in sum, was the majority of the people in the Commonwealth understanding the significance of the question -- of which marriage was really the smallest part -- and coming to the right conclusion for the right reasons. May California have a similar outcome; it has many positive repercussions far beyond same-sex marriage.
the days of sturm und drang, but also, the *very* clear message sent where people who voted against marriage got voted out of office on the next election.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Goddammitall anyway.
She's Still Working
She continues to establish precedent, even in death.
Re: She's Still Working
Re: She's Still Working
This "test" should be perfectly routine, as "married is married".
But the very fact of its routineness is another nail in the argument that "marriage can only be between a man and a woman". The state's role in marriage is limited, but this is one of the roles.
And just today, the polls in California are showing weak support for the "rescind gay marriage" ballot question; it's losing now, and should only lose support between now and November.
The more normal same-sex marriages are, the more routine, the less support there is for banning them.
Re: She's Still Working
Actually, no, there shouldn't be any "test", as why would there be? The law is clear about degrees of relationship and how they inherit if someone dies intestate, so why would there be any "test"? AFAIK there hasn't been in MA.
The more normal same-sex marriages are, the more routine, the less support there is for banning them.
Yes, we figured that one out in MA too. The sky has not fallen yet. Although, truth to tell, it wasn't the "routine" that won the battle.
Re: She's Still Working
All I mean is that, in California, there wasn't yet a precedent. Now there is (or will be; estate settlements take time even without anyone contesting).
"Routine" doesn't win the battle, but it shores up the walls for the next assault. According to Maureen Reddington-Wilde, that's what kept Romney from ramming anything thru the MA legislature; as time went on, the attitude shifted from "Save Marriage!!!1!" to "why are you trying to break up these nice peoples' marriage?".
And that why the bigots desperately wanted the judges to hold off on allowing same-sex marriage "until the people vote". People are much more willing to vote for a wrong-headed theory than to hurt actual people.
Re: She's Still Working
Re: She's Still Working
no subject
no subject
Rubbing my eyes did nothing but induce pain.