I didn't mean that every bill was an "all or nothing" proposition, and I apologize because the contract example was a really bad analogy in retrospect. What I meant was, if a provision is found unconstitutional for ANY reason, then it is unconstitutional period. It doesn't matter if it's constitutional in certain situations, or if the unconstitutionality in a particular situation wasn't argued in the lawsuit overturning it, etc. I thought someone was arguing that the statute would remain on the books because a mere phrase in the statute had not been challenged, or it hadn't been challenged on a particular basis (namely, full faith and credit).

However, on that note I have to eat some crow here because I violated a principal rule of lawyering in my previous post, namely RTDS, which stands for "Read The Damn Statute!" I had it in my mind that DOMA was codified as one statute but it is not. The full faith and credit part (28 U.S.C. section 1738C) is a completely different code section than what was challenged (1 U.S.C. section 7). It doesn't matter than both were enacted into law under the same bill. What was challenged was not "DOMA" technically but "1 U.S.C. section 7" which would not have an effect on a completely separate statute. So the rulings will have limited effect, in the way DOMA was codified, how it is set up, etc. -- the "parts" are not interdependent as I assumed they were. The rulings themselves speak in terms of DOMA part 3. However, it always boils down to RTDS, which I should have done in the first place.

Hey, we can always move to Canada, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, or South Africa to get married. They are all lovely places, you know, and marriage is much less confusing there.

I hope that makes more sense. :p

Yep, all good.

The Perils of Lesbianity ok so this was funny and new to me, so I had to share :P

I know they have tremendous power over my attention frequently.

Purely for scientific purposes of course.

Argentina legalized gay marriage... their President was highly in support of it, and the bill passed their legislature, which she will sign into law.

Amazing how two heavily Catholic countries (Spain, 73% and Argentina, 70%) have legalized gay marriage but the US is still behind. And how the head of a mostly Catholic country (with large protests from the Church) can come out fiercely in support of gay marriage, but President Fierce Advocate cannot. He still thinks he can buy my vote by throwing the gays a cocktail party. Sorry Mr. President, I've been sober for a while now.

Coexisting with a strong sense of frustration is also an amazement at just how fast things are changing on this issue. I appreciated this chart posted to 538.com today

And now the companion piece: The Homosexual Menace