The gay marriage train started today in California. That gives gay couples about five months before their unions are potentially annulled in November by a vote to change the state constitution.
That sounds grim, since gays can only marry in California because of those lousy willful activist judges. Last month Slate had a good article with an optimistic spin: over the coming months, as homosexual marriage becomes mainstream, voters won't remember what all the fuss was about and it'll stay on the books. (Apparently that's basically what happened in Massachusetts.)
Also in same-sex marriage's corner, as we've discussed on this blog: the economy. Marriage is an expensive business, after all, with all those inedible cakes and whatnot.
Place your bets now. My money's on the gays. Too bad for them.
If it holds in California, does that mean your self-imposed ban on marriage is also over? Because unlike Massachusetts, which requires residency, gay marriage in California would indeed allow any couple in the country to get married.
Signed,
The Instigator
Anyone in the country could get married there -- but would their marriages be acknowledged in their home state? For most people, the answer is still "no."
This could be a great step, though. As the Slate article I linked to says, as California goes, so goes the country, soon enough.
(Incidentally, any time there's any tiny headway whatsoever re: gay marriage, someone says to me "is THIS enough for you?" The line I draw is arbitrary and vague, yes, but come on -- only two states, and in a few months maybe only one? No, that's not enough.)
That's why it's so much fun to instigate. I had dinner with Chan over the weekend and we predicted that your answer would involve the home state's lack of acknowledgment. We figure you'll eventually clarify your position to this: as soon as it's legal in all 50 states and recognized by the Catholic church and blessed by the Pope...