Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well interestingly, my description may be the result because of the "defense of marriage" state constitutional amendments getting tossed around. Iowa may be one of the first states to run head on into this problem. They don't have such an amendment, but the do have an appeals court ruling (currently stayed on appeal) that marriage/civil unions fall into "separate but equal" meaning unconstitutional. Forced definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman does NOT solve the issue, it eliminates marriage as a state option.

Ingrained or not, "defense of marriage" could be the one thing to kill it as a state institution.

That's a valid point. Assuming that the U.S. Constitution is not amended to define marriage, and assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't issue some screwy ruling indicating that the logic behind the Loving v. Virginia decision somehow doesn't apply to discrimination based upon sex, then you're probably right. It might take a while to play out, but it seems like a realistic conclusion.

Unfortunately, it's still politically fashionable to oppose gay marriages, just as it used to be politically fashionable to oppose interracial marriages. Too many people (including Presidential candidates) fail to see (or don't care) that such bans constitute violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

RE: Historic Congressional Hearing on Workplace Protections for Transgender Americans