I'm really not sure
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
The pro-ssm political movement is not a same-sex marriage. They are the political force behind the issue. The issue of ssm harms me every time one of them comes on this forum and starts tossing around homophobe and other insults. To reiterate, a given same-sex marriage doesn't affect me good or bad, in any way. The pro-ssm political movement are the one's trying to infringe on my right to free religious expression.
Now as for SSM's political movement....don't all the other religions have their own "seperate" poltical movement? Doesn't yours? And I know they all condemn one another. If you think that SSM's political movement infringes your free expression of religion then don't those also?
And just to note, you didn't make the distinction between SSM and SSM's political movement before so how was I suppose to know?
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
Possibly temporally. If it warrants national action of some sort, be in legislative or through the court, you need enough states that have accepted it in order to have enough credibility for it to be solid nationally. If not nationally, it is the only way to go through the states.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963
Some states have a pathetic history of discrimination and hatred, so no.
Try to imagine having to decline a job offer because it would entail a move to a state in which you and your spouse would be "unmarried". Or plotting one, to escape the justice of a divorce.
Try to imagine having to litigate which side of a state line your spouse died on, so as to be entitled to his or her life insurance proceeds.
There's a provision in the US constitution to the effect that every state must give "full faith and credit" to the denizens or former denizens of another, when it comes to such matters. At the present, many states have common law marriage laws -- no two alike. If you are considered "married" via common law in Arkansas, then should your marriage be "dissolved" by traveling to New York?
What you propose is unworkable, would create a GLBT ghettozied area of the country and is not constitutional, IMO.
The whole point of civil rights is that you can be viewed as undesirable by a majority -- even by an overwhelming majority -- and yet continue unmolested on your merry way. As the Supremes have already ruled nothing is more fundamental to one's civil rights than sex, the home and the family, this fight over same-sex marriage is all over but the crying, and justice won.