We have posted his explanation in four images below, left to right.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/288c4/288c4c1bd6634c0795b81856c1a6be352f71b04e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad931/ad93135cae5003f783e71aba69b814dbed5c2175" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75d0c/75d0c61030d260493fa07b5b4772e5914bd32544" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b415f/b415f5f9e95e65bbfb56926a6e08e1690194ab59" alt=""
I asked Brad about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Even if we win in California, as long as DOMA remains, we are still second-class citizens because we won't get federal benefits. He responded:
"I believe that DOMA's unconstitutional. Period. Full Faith and Credit can't be selectively applied (very quickly: the Constitution mandates full faith and credit but states that Congress will decide how it's implemented. Pro-DOMA people say that this lets Congress decide what gets full faith and credit; that can't be right. It's an enabling clause and it doesn't let Congress decide exceptions. This hasn't been litigated against but I think it's a huge danger to federalism if the Court comes out the wrong way.)
I also, however, agree with the point that as long as DOMA is on the books, we won't be fully equal, and there will be a host of federal benefits unavailable to us even if we get it at a state level. I just don't think it's time to go there, at least, through the courts. Obama could, however, do a lot of good for us from a legislative point of view."
Brad did offer a glimmer of hope for the judicial process, referring to an article published today in the Los Angeles Times. You can read it here
No comments:
Post a Comment