Story HERE.

(I would love to read the actual OPINION and especially DISSENT--which I think the Supreme Court will probably publish in a couple days...)

It's hard to imagine I actually started this out as a "law blog"--but the cultural and random thoughts about lifestyle stuff got a lot more feedback. To wit, jokes about midget porn generate ten times the Comments that well-thought-out posts about Scalia's opinion on something does.

Maybe if Scalia ever writes about midget porn...no, I don't think that "best of both worlds" will happen...

Anyway, a couple important points on this issue:

1) Under the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, I would assume that two California citizens who are married in California and move to a "gay hostile" state like for instance Georgia--would have to still be married whether the latter state likes it or not. In other words, Adam and Steve or whoever are GOING TO inevitably move to a "gay hostile" state, they are GOING TO assert their rights, and this will eventually be a US Supreme Court case.

Under the 14th Amendment, the gays who are "Asserting their fundamental right to interstate migration" have a profound case. (Under the 14th Amendment, it's a minor point but at least one of the gays has to be a citizen. Privileges and Immunities are only for citizens. "Equal protection" is for everyone [Plyler v. Doe.])

2) Forget the law nerd stuff for a moment: Is there a risk of, if you will, the "Cosbyfication" of gays?

I would call, "Cosbyfication": "Well, welcome to the American middle class. Now meet your ball-buster, know-it-all, smart-assed wife; who will make your life miserable in a power struggle that will last the rest of your existence. Want to put your feet up on the coffee table and watch sports? You better ask permission!"

In other words, as Kinky Friedman says, "Gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us." Or something pretty close to that effect.

3) The third point I must bring up--not speaking for myself; I have absolutely nothing against gays, but--some people are VIOLENTLY OPPOSED to gays. Most of them, thankfully, are not in California. But when two citizens (did I mention you must be a citizen to invoke "Privileges and Immunities?") excercise their right to interstate migration, which is inevitable, the proverbial ordure is going to hit the fan.

Included in the "violently opposed" coalition: The Christian Right, Closet Queens, Homophobes, Women Who Feel That Gays Usurp their Power, etc.

We are in denial if we deny that these people are out there, and sometimes there is no court baliff to protect the gays from their wrath.

4) Minor point: This forces the presidential candidates into talking about "lifestyle bullshit," and I hate to belabor the point, but I want more "nuts & bolts" out of them personally--especially Obama.

This might force McCain into a token, "I am against gay marriage--but deep in my heart, wink wink, you know I really don't give a crap"-speach, which does not move the political dialoge one inch towards the CORE ISSUES, e.g., gas prices, housing crisis, unemployment, etc.

###

Anyway, on a purely academic level, I can't wait to read the actual opinion: Those California judges--if nothing else--certainly can write...