Curious how this affects startups (along with overturning Prop 8), given the large population of gay people in tech. Presumably since you still need to get married in a SSM-supporting state, those states continue to win out. But federal benefits for immigration and incidental travel to non-SSM states would apply?
The biggest tech centers are now all in SSM-supporting states; TX, VA, CO, IL, and NC seem like the most important holdouts.
However, they only struck down the federal part, not the requirement that states recognize each other, so there's still a strong incentive to stay in an SSM-ok state even after marriage in an SSM state.
We'll have same-sex marriage in Illinois by next year (we have civil unions now).
Texas has a state constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. Virginia has a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
The Illinois constitution, sanely, is silent on the issue; every year we get closer to passing a same-sex marriage law; it's a foregone conclusion.
Re: Texas, the Texas constitution can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum, so the status of the SSM ban there is roughly the same as it was in California under Prop 8 (i.e. it can be overturned by 50% + 1 vote).
In general it's nearly useless as a constitution, in the sense of a stable document setting forth some general principles. It's been amended 474 times! So it's more like a giant grab-bag of legislation. That's usually bad, but in this case good (if you support SSM), since it's not set in stone.
The bigger issue isn't the structure of it being in the constitution, but the fact that supporters of SSM can't currently get within striking distance of 50% support in the state.
Virginia will probably be the last state to change. They deny any kind of protection for any kind of sexuality, identity, lifestyle or relationship other than a straight biologically-male man and a straight biologically-female woman getting married. If you want equal rights you end up moving to DC or Maryland. They're getting closer to transpeople getting protected status after a spate of individuals beaten nearly to death in public.
Well at least their history is consistent. They were also the state that most strongly resisted making interracial marriage legal. (To those who would say that several states had such laws on the books at the time, Virginia was more actively enforcing it than most. That is why it was Virginia that got sued for putting an interracial couple in jail. By, and I can't make this up, a loving couple actually named Loving.)
For one, I'm pleased - it will hopefully mean it's much easier for me to move to the states with my (male) partner, who's a citizen. In particular, it means I don't have to fret about finding a sponsor and opens up the option to work with a startup or other smaller company.
I can't imagine it'll be anything but a good thing for these companies, ultimately.
McAfee which was headquartered out of Plano, TX recognized domestic partnerships at least as far back as 5 years ago. Domestic partnership covers opposite-sex relationships, so it was a nice little benefit for everyone in committed relationships.
I assume that the exact same reasoning will eventually be used to overturn state-level laws. There's nothing in the majority's decision that persuasively argues that their reasoning should only apply at the federal level.
Comments
Curious how this affects startups (along with overturning Prop 8), given the large population of gay people in tech. Presumably since you still need to get married in a SSM-supporting state, those states continue to win out. But federal benefits for immigration and incidental travel to non-SSM states would apply?
The biggest tech centers are now all in SSM-supporting states; TX, VA, CO, IL, and NC seem like the most important holdouts.
However, they only struck down the federal part, not the requirement that states recognize each other, so there's still a strong incentive to stay in an SSM-ok state even after marriage in an SSM state.
We'll have same-sex marriage in Illinois by next year (we have civil unions now).
Texas has a state constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. Virginia has a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
The Illinois constitution, sanely, is silent on the issue; every year we get closer to passing a same-sex marriage law; it's a foregone conclusion.
Re: Texas, the Texas constitution can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum, so the status of the SSM ban there is roughly the same as it was in California under Prop 8 (i.e. it can be overturned by 50% + 1 vote).
In general it's nearly useless as a constitution, in the sense of a stable document setting forth some general principles. It's been amended 474 times! So it's more like a giant grab-bag of legislation. That's usually bad, but in this case good (if you support SSM), since it's not set in stone.
The bigger issue isn't the structure of it being in the constitution, but the fact that supporters of SSM can't currently get within striking distance of 50% support in the state.
Virginia will probably be the last state to change. They deny any kind of protection for any kind of sexuality, identity, lifestyle or relationship other than a straight biologically-male man and a straight biologically-female woman getting married. If you want equal rights you end up moving to DC or Maryland. They're getting closer to transpeople getting protected status after a spate of individuals beaten nearly to death in public.
Well at least their history is consistent. They were also the state that most strongly resisted making interracial marriage legal. (To those who would say that several states had such laws on the books at the time, Virginia was more actively enforcing it than most. That is why it was Virginia that got sued for putting an interracial couple in jail. By, and I can't make this up, a loving couple actually named Loving.)
This seems really weird, given that Virginia was extremely important back during the revolution.
...what does the revolution have to do with interracial marriage legislation?
For one, I'm pleased - it will hopefully mean it's much easier for me to move to the states with my (male) partner, who's a citizen. In particular, it means I don't have to fret about finding a sponsor and opens up the option to work with a startup or other smaller company.
I can't imagine it'll be anything but a good thing for these companies, ultimately.
McAfee which was headquartered out of Plano, TX recognized domestic partnerships at least as far back as 5 years ago. Domestic partnership covers opposite-sex relationships, so it was a nice little benefit for everyone in committed relationships.
I assume that the exact same reasoning will eventually be used to overturn state-level laws. There's nothing in the majority's decision that persuasively argues that their reasoning should only apply at the federal level.
Any citations to back this up? How did you come to this conclusion?