They can't. They are amendments to their state constitutions, thus it can't be ruled unconstitutional.
That's why the props to change constitutions are so horrible. There is no way to overturn them if they pass without a ruling from the Supreme Court that those state constitutions go against the Federal Constitution, which is unlikely (and would take years from this point).
Er, my point was that the Supreme Court needs to decide that those state constitutions need to be ruled unconstitutional.
This is one area the people simply can't be trusted to be reasonable on, and it consistently means stripping civil rights from a swath of the population.
Actually, I think just giving everyone civil unions as a civil contract and leaving the silly marriage thing up to religious institutions would be the best all-around solution.
I probably should've said religious institutions and individuals. I don't know, I have never been to keen on marriage as a institution, how it's so weighed down in historical patriarchy kind of makes it poisonous to me. I just find the splitting of hairs over "marriage" and "civil unions" to be nonsense.
That distinction was just created by the a reaction to religious right pressure by activists to make the idea more appealing to the public. In a long term strategic sense we may have shot ourselves in the foot, since it gives people a chance to vote against gay marriage and still feel like they aren't denying a right or a privilege.
Okay wait a minute, I didn't specify which institution did I? Hell, I think if two get together and just want to call it "marriage" then they have the right too if they don't want a regligious ceremony involved. But the whole struggle semantics over whether to call it a civil union or marriage just seems absurd to me. It just might be best to get the government out of the marriage business across the board.
"Getting the government out of the marriage business" means abolishing the probate courts, abandoning the concept of next of kin, and removing all inheritance protocols. It's a legal contract, we have an entire branch of government for looking after legal contracts.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
That's why the props to change constitutions are so horrible. There is no way to overturn them if they pass without a ruling from the Supreme Court that those state constitutions go against the Federal Constitution, which is unlikely (and would take years from this point).
From:
no subject
This is one area the people simply can't be trusted to be reasonable on, and it consistently means stripping civil rights from a swath of the population.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Strike down 8, or strike down marriage. :)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
If we did it that way, the religious right would take it as a mandate that Christianity really does own marriage as a concept.
Also: As has been demonstrated in Oregon, even though they might say they're down with civil unions, they're opposed to those as well.
From:
no subject
That distinction was just created by the a reaction to religious right pressure by activists to make the idea more appealing to the public. In a long term strategic sense we may have shot ourselves in the foot, since it gives people a chance to vote against gay marriage and still feel like they aren't denying a right or a privilege.
From:
no subject
Oh, wait, non-Christians are already not real people.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject