What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn't have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time."marriage is in the province of the state"
Oh Really?
Is it the STATE of Massachusetts the allows me to my file 1040 form jointly with my wife?
Is it the STATE of Massachusetts that will pay my wife my Social Security benefits?
Is it the STATE of Massachusetts that grants the 1000 or so benefits of marriage?
Just asking.
1 comment:
No John, it's the federal government that still thumbs it's nose at the accusation of governmental discrimination. It is the federal government that sent back a passport application as denied because a man dared use his legally recognized married name.
If we are to take Hillary's action plan we can be sure to have our equality within the next 150 years.
Post a Comment