SCOTUS rejects all SSM petitions

[Slander and/or Libel]

Though in the meantime that drip by drip approach comes at the very real expense of leaving many couples in legal limbo.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Though in the meantime that drip by drip approach comes at the very real expense of leaving many couples in legal limbo.

I have sympathy for those who got married after a court ruling in their state which was later subjected to a stay.  I have sympathy for those who got married in a state where it was recognized and then because of their job or other reasons unforeseen at the time of marriage, ended up moving to a state where it wasn't recognized.  I have no sympathy for those who live in a state where it is not recognized and got married in another jurisdiction.  They knew what they were getting into, so I see no reason to see their plight as being any worse than any other same sex couple in their state.  Indeed, since Windsor, they're better off that those who haven't gone to get married in another state.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Though in the meantime that drip by drip approach comes at the very real expense of leaving many couples in legal limbo.

I have sympathy for those who got married after a court ruling in their state which was later subjected to a stay.  I have sympathy for those who got married in a state where it was recognized and then because of their job or other reasons unforeseen at the time of marriage, ended up moving to a state where it wasn't recognized.  I have no sympathy for those who live in a state where it is not recognized and got married in another jurisdiction.  They knew what they were getting into, so I see no reason to see their plight as being any worse than any other same sex couple in their state.  Indeed, since Windsor, they're better off that those who haven't gone to get married in another state.

Sure, true. Perhaps legal limbo was the wrong term to use. But basically, we've got the Court conceding implicitly that marriage equality is coming, inexorably, but that in the meantime, it's perfectly acceptable that 40% of the states still have bans on it.

[eric82oslo]

Though in the meantime that drip by drip approach comes at the very real expense of leaving many couples in legal limbo.

I have sympathy for those who got married after a court ruling in their state which was later subjected to a stay.  I have sympathy for those who got married in a state where it was recognized and then because of their job or other reasons unforeseen at the time of marriage, ended up moving to a state where it wasn't recognized.  I have no sympathy for those who live in a state where it is not recognized and got married in another jurisdiction.  They knew what they were getting into, so I see no reason to see their plight as being any worse than any other same sex couple in their state.  Indeed, since Windsor, they're better off that those who haven't gone to get married in another state.

Sure, true. Perhaps legal limbo was the wrong term to use. But basically, we've got the Court conceding implicitly that marriage equality is coming, inexorably, but that in the meantime, it's perfectly acceptable that 40% of the states still have bans on it.

History is a slow-moving snake. Civil Rights wasn't won in the south in a day either (although the Civil Rights Act did make a hell of a change).

[Slander and/or Libel]

Though in the meantime that drip by drip approach comes at the very real expense of leaving many couples in legal limbo.

I have sympathy for those who got married after a court ruling in their state which was later subjected to a stay.  I have sympathy for those who got married in a state where it was recognized and then because of their job or other reasons unforeseen at the time of marriage, ended up moving to a state where it wasn't recognized.  I have no sympathy for those who live in a state where it is not recognized and got married in another jurisdiction.  They knew what they were getting into, so I see no reason to see their plight as being any worse than any other same sex couple in their state.  Indeed, since Windsor, they're better off that those who haven't gone to get married in another state.

Sure, true. Perhaps legal limbo was the wrong term to use. But basically, we've got the Court conceding implicitly that marriage equality is coming, inexorably, but that in the meantime, it's perfectly acceptable that 40% of the states still have bans on it.

History is a slow-moving snake. Civil Rights wasn't won in the south in a day either (although the Civil Rights Act did make a hell of a change).

Yes, agree. I'm just pushing back against the idea, just a little bit, that this slow-movingness is on its face a good thing because it placates bigots a little more.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Though in the meantime that drip by drip approach comes at the very real expense of leaving many couples in legal limbo.

I have sympathy for those who got married after a court ruling in their state which was later subjected to a stay.  I have sympathy for those who got married in a state where it was recognized and then because of their job or other reasons unforeseen at the time of marriage, ended up moving to a state where it wasn't recognized.  I have no sympathy for those who live in a state where it is not recognized and got married in another jurisdiction.  They knew what they were getting into, so I see no reason to see their plight as being any worse than any other same sex couple in their state.  Indeed, since Windsor, they're better off that those who haven't gone to get married in another state.

Sure, true. Perhaps legal limbo was the wrong term to use. But basically, we've got the Court conceding implicitly that marriage equality is coming, inexorably, but that in the meantime, it's perfectly acceptable that 40% of the states still have bans on it.

History is a slow-moving snake. Civil Rights wasn't won in the south in a day either (although the Civil Rights Act did make a hell of a change).

Yes, agree. I'm just pushing back against the idea, just a little bit, that this slow-movingness is on its face a good thing because it placates bigots a little more.

Right. And history is neither linear nor cyclical in some dumb Strauss-Howe way.

[Brittain33]

History is a slow-moving snake. Civil Rights wasn't won in the south in a day either (although the Civil Rights Act did make a hell of a change).

Yes. Even with people in some states having to wait a few more years, change has happened at lightning speed since about 2012 with no sign of a backlash. Pretty much every other group that struggled for civil rights or equality in the U.S.—including gays concerning rights other than marriage—have had a much longer and less certain path. Women's suffrage took more than 70 years!

[Flake]

The map looks so much prettier with the shades of blue.

I decided to refresh the page with the original photo like "I wonder how many states legalized ssm in the past twenty minutes" and then I see  Montana, Arizona, Alaska, and a bunch of islands turn bright blue.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Why doesn't anyone ever post what the colors mean?

[Sir Tiki]

Why doesn't anyone ever post what the colors mean?

Dark blue: Same-sex marriage legal.
Light blue: Civil unions legal.
Very light blue: Same-sex marriage in the process of being legalized.
Dark grey: Same-sex marriage recognized but not performed.
Light grey: No legal status one way or the other.
Gold: Same-sex marriage legalized, but decision has been stayed pending appeal.
Light yellow: Same-sex marriage recognition legalized, but decision has been stayed pending appeal.
Dark red: Same-sex marriage banned.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Yay, hopefully it's no longer a major partisan issue even by 2016 or 2020.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well, nothing really can be done at this point to be honest. SSM opponents are going to have to find a new hobby, unless they want to plumb for a Federal Marriage Amendment (lol).

[IceSpear]

Well, nothing really can be done at this point to be honest. SSM opponents are going to have to find a new hobby, unless they want to plumb for a Federal Marriage Amendment (lol).

I'm sure multiple GOP candidates in 2016 are going to come out for a FMA to try to find some kind of niche. In fact I'd be surprised if one or more of Santorum, Jindal, Huckabee, Cruz, etc. didn't.

[Lief 🗽]

Cruz is definitely going to run hard on opposing gay marriage. And he'll basically force the rest of the field to grudgingly oppose it as well and it will be hilarious.

[King]

It's almost like Cruz is a conniving liberal who decided to dedicate his life to destroying the GOP from within.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Well, nothing really can be done at this point to be honest. SSM opponents are going to have to find a new hobby, unless they want to plumb for a Federal Marriage Amendment (lol).

I'm sure multiple GOP candidates in 2016 are going to come out for a FMA to try to find some kind of niche. In fact I'd be surprised if one or more of Santorum, Jindal, Huckabee, Cruz, etc. didn't.

Ted Cruz is a "leave it to the states" guy. He's probably not as likely as Saintly Rick, but still, I thought I'd point this out.

[pbrower2a]

Some good things about sticking with Britain:

1. We would have abolished slavery about thirty years earlier. I think that Abraham Lincoln was contemplating use of the model of Britain in America -- buying the freedom of slaves from their owners, which would have been much less costly than the American Civil War. 

2. We would have licked the Kaiser earlier and spared the world of the Bolshevik Revolution and Stalin  -- maybe Hitler, too. Figure that the treaty ending WWI would have been less vindictive.

3. We would have sent Hitler to Hell faster if he appeared on the scene -- with the aid of our good buddy, Imperial Russia (which would have likely reformed into a very different, more liberal, just, and tolerant society). Likewise any militarist thugs in Japan.

History doesn't work like that...
[/quote]

I know. The arrow of time is one way. I just wanted some people to do some thinking out of the box.