Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
um... same sex married couples
were not
allowed
it was basically two big parted one they were not to receive the benefits
that uh... heterosexual married couples receive in terms of of
nearly abouts in federal laws that implicate marriage whether it's
taxol whether it's visitation rights whether it's uh... the so security
benefits uh... in goes on and on and on
it also will implicate the immigration bill of one of the things that late he
was going to bring up uh... was an amendment saying that same sex partners
uh... a would be eligible for green cards that that's all nullified now they
are all
under federal law if you are married in a state
that allows for uh... of same sex marriage
at this point
hop until today
you'll receive all the benefits of marriage
that would accrue to a heterosexual couple
this is going to have implications in the military it's going to it's gonna
have a incredibly broad implications
the other question is the notion of reciprocity through the full full full
faith and credit
uh...
clause of the constitution wearing prior married as a heterosexual men
or woman i guess in uh... new york state and i moved to um...
north carolina time just dump truck the
but it does matter whiskey
north carolina recognizes my marriage
however
we now have some states which have constitutional amendment saying that
there's no such thing as same sex marriage
and there is some states which
essentially have no affirmative nor negative laws
or constitutional manage regarding this
is unclear to me at this point
what the implications are if you are
uh... same sex marriage couple from
massachusetts
and you go to
uh... i don't know uh... texas
clearly
taxes
because
at this point
there
state governments tend to be
huge a holes
uh...
they would argue that you are not
if the to the extent that the state gives any benefits to the institution of
marriage
you would not receive them
this is going to open up a lot of court cases
and
which eventually will make their way to the supreme court
i do not know community it is impossible to predict with the supreme court
how they would rule
on anything at this point
uh...
depends i guess with their bosses in the republican party tell them to do
i guess we have to his in russia limbaugh desi uh... how the supreme
court will rule in that case
but uh... dollars will be the uh... the implications
in california proposition any
because the state of california
did not different
or should stay with nafta plane
in the case
that uh... was brought by private individuals
saying that uh...
the state had no right to overturn the uh... referendum
the court found that
these planets could not prove
but they were harmed by this in any material way and that the ninth circuit
which originally heard the case should not have taken a case either
the reason why
some folks in in fact uh... i think a dissenting views so to my or and um...
uh... one other
liberal justice or maybe not the reason why certain ideal at the very least
was that uh...
joined the dissent in that case
was that she wanted to actually adjudicate that case on the merits
rather than a procedural are grounds of standing
because they re is
and we're not clear yet because this is something has to be sort of figured out
with case law
in there are some implications here
to the idea that
you as a private individual
could not uh... could not establish standing in this situation
so for instance
a uh... a state says uh... that
we're going to establish a law
that says uh...
uh... you're not allowed to put the adam that you're you're not allowed to put
the
to pollute instead
the the rivers i mean uh... some of this is
is moot because of federal law but just for promoted indulge me
inot pollute the rivers
um...
and uh...
company uh... corporation a
sues the state city candidates infringes on my property rights or
or some other things and uh...
uh...
judge finds it you're correct
if they're still will be a appeal decades and the state now decides that
we're not going to uh... were not going to uh... appeal the decision
as an individual
i may not be found to have standing because of this precedent now
the thing that complicates this is that as an individual might be able to argue
that
hiking
show
demonstrable harm
because i can no longer go swimming in that river
or are used to fish in that river or
what were some other harm that befall sleep because of this pollution
then arguably i a stand
it's trickier case because
you know
short of jesus weeping
uh... and uh...
the potential uh... or trying to prove that somehow
here from
to mentor to women can get married
but somehow i'm harmed by this
uh... it is a much uh...
harder
road to hell
or relative
jojo in the event that you need to wrote uh... to hold a vote
uh... so that that's where it becomes
uh... that that becomes a question that we have yet to resolve it was going to
be resolved with cases
uh... i would imagine over the next five to ten years
or or
six months to
five years who knows what that windows gonna beat