I'd like to know, too. My gut feeling is that repealing the odious so-called Defense of Marriage Act is a good thing in itself, but I know people have issues with this law, and I'd like to understand better.

I just want people to see, it's a half step back. I'm not against the law, I'm glad it got through, but in my estimation, it's a half step back. I'm open to being told I'm wrong about that but so far everyone just wants to say "it's good!" Without looking at the further ramifications.

Unless I'm wrong, this statement :

"One bottom line takeaway is that the states could deny equal marriage within their borders if Obergefell was overturned."

Is literal discrimination, is it not? Seriously if I'm fucked in the head like everyone seems to think, then I'll take my lumps. But damn.

It's not a cure-all, no. Not a complete relief.

The worry remains.

With this SCOTUS, Obergefell could be overturned. Believe me, I know all too well what harm this SCOTUS is capable of causing.


The protections it offers are important, however.

More from the article -

One other question I'd have is, how will this play out if Lawrence V Texas gets overturned as well.

Would the state be forced to recognize my marriage but at the same time arrest me for sodomy? Lol

Should the various laws get overturned. Because look at abortion.

Leaving human rights up to the discretion of the states can and does cause harm.

Ive used the abortion analogy because I think it's a good analogy - just in the sense of forcing you to go elsewhere for something you have the right to do right now. But no one seems to understand that having a right and then getting it yanked back and then giving you half of what you had previously isn't really a step forward. It's like getting rid of the very core of the issue and saying "well it's protections". It is protections! Those are good! What would be even better is just making states give you the license in the first place. .

And I know that is sticky, that congress can't just wave a wand and get gay marriage forced into every state. But I just can't help but see this as a step backwards.

In the first case, the new law does nothing. All states must allow interracial and same sex marriage.

In the second case, where the SC overturns that right, it does several things:
It gives the federal rights of marriage and there are many to all marriages recognized by a state.
It requires ALL states to recognize a marriage already granted in another state.

As you point out, it does NOT totally codify the current SC ruling. As you noted, it does not require a state that opts not to to grant marriage licenses.

Summary, is it as good as the current status quo ... no. However, what you ignore is that if the SC eliminates the right, it is far better to have this bill pass than to have nothing.

It's still something. But I don't understand how it isn't a step backwards (provided Obergefell gets struck down).

All laws provided right now do not require federal recognition of marriages in all states. This law changes that. It should be more, and one day we might be able to pass something better. But this is better than what is legally on the books right now. It would ensure that that if Obergfell gets struck down, we don't go TOO far backwards.

35 states have in their constitution that marriage is between one man one woman. That's 35 states that, if obergefell falls, can now deny a marriage license to SS couples.

Forcing a state to recognize another states marriage licenses is good! Removing my ability to get married in any state, especially 35 of them, is not good.

If I have to go two states over to get married, I'm not going to see this as a win. I'm going to see it as a net loss. Because now I have to go elsewhere to get married. Sure the states have to recognize my marriage from California but what good does that do me if I can't afford to go to another state?

I'm not saying rhe law is bad. It is not. I'm only pointing out that it's less of a step forward than people think. It isn't protecting gay marriage, it's protecting certain rights. And that's absolutely wonderful. I also recognize it's probably the best were going to get.

But when I have a right today that gets removed tomorrow and now I have to go somewhere else just to be recognized and given the same recognition that any straight couple would have, I can't understand why people would think I should be jumping up and down for joy.

I have personal experience in this because I got married in Iowa before it was legal in all states. If my exhus and I weren't well off, w wouldn't have made the trek from AZ to IA just to get married. That's 3 states away. And a lot of LGBT people live below the poverty line. What good is federal recognition of a marriage when I can't get to a state that allows it in the first place?

The other parts of the law is where the progress comes in.

What if I can't afford to go 1-3 states away to get married? I'm guessing the only logical answer is "you're just fuckin shit out of luck". I'm not taking a jab at you, I mean that literally. The only answer is, "go to another state. If you can't, well hope you don't mind being left out of your partners hospital room". Lol

I agree this law makes strides, the strides don't mean near as much if I can't actually take advantage of them.

It usually comes in baby steps. Not so much leaps and bounds

I thought we were good. Ive been working on this shit for a long time. Almost 40 years. I've watched us be drug through the mud during the aids crisis. I have fought since the day I came out for equality. I went on national TV at 15 to show that yes, even gay teenagers exist at a time when you didn't talk about that.

It sucks to have it and then fearing it's going to be yanked back. This isn't just a law to me, it's personal. On a multitude of levels.

That's why I can't see this as the great law everyone else thinks it is. I've fought hard. And now there's a chance it'll be gone . And there is nothing I can do about it. I am literally powerless to stop the idea that we were accepted and now we aren't.

But to your point, it's the best im gonna get. Oh well. I guess if I really hate it I could move lol

Then, it's impact will be to mitigate what the SC does. Why not wait until the SC acts? The reason is that in January, we will have a Republican Congress and will be able to do nothing on this.

I am glad the protections are there, but if I have to go 3 states away to get said protections and I can't afford that, then I'm just SOL.

It's disheartening.