I agree with a lot of what this snip says. The last few years have seen a lot of change. The Supreme Court said the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. At the federal level, marriages can be defined as not only male / female but as male / male & male / female. Right now, some states, including Iowa, already have said that. So now, in the upcoming weeks, I expect to read more and more articles and see "news" about this ruling.
An example is when left-wing / progressive / Metallica fan Rachel Maddow jumped all over this ruling when she said on her 6/26/2013 show:
|
"You're married nationally, but you're not married in the state? How does that work? That does not work.
And then this hypothetical couple arriving in Utah and realizing this ridiculous situation, they will sue, they'll say, hey, we're not looking for a fight here, this does not make sense. We cannot be legally married and not legally married at the same time. It can't be the federal government and the state we came from and the state we got married say that we're legally married but now that we're here, it doesn't count, it doesn't work.
So they will sue. And you know what? They will win because of what happened today. "
--Rachel Maddow on the groundwork laid by the majority decision in the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling
|
And anyone who says differently? They will be accused of rejecting change.
No comments:
Post a Comment