I analyze the opinions of the Los Angeles Times letter-writers and the editorial board in two postings over at The Opine Editorials.
Marriage neutering advocates hate DOMA first and foremost because it prevented them from being able to immediately force the neutering of marriage on every state and territory by getting activist judges in a single state to neuter marriage. Without DOMA, immediately after a brideless or groomless couple got a neutered marriage license in that one state, they would have gone to another state and demanded recognition, and that state would have either rolled over (and this would have been repeated in every other state) or quickly lost in court (which would have expressly or effectively impacted every other state). Having DOMA has, at the very least, given more time to the discussion, preventing wacky judges in one state from instantly neutering marriage for every other state. DOMA shouldn't have been needed in the first place.
Marriage neutering advocates hate DOMA first and foremost because it prevented them from being able to immediately force the neutering of marriage on every state and territory by getting activist judges in a single state to neuter marriage. Without DOMA, immediately after a brideless or groomless couple got a neutered marriage license in that one state, they would have gone to another state and demanded recognition, and that state would have either rolled over (and this would have been repeated in every other state) or quickly lost in court (which would have expressly or effectively impacted every other state). Having DOMA has, at the very least, given more time to the discussion, preventing wacky judges in one state from instantly neutering marriage for every other state. DOMA shouldn't have been needed in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.