NOM's latest red herring completely sidesteps most pertinent legal point
Check out this duplicitous framing:
What NOM neglects to tell you is that the reason—the only reason, I might add—that the man does not have to divorce his same-sex spouse before entering into an opposite-sex marriage in North Dakota is because that state does not recognize same-sex marriages as valid. North Dakota does not grant same-sex marriage or same-sex divorce. In terms of North Dakota state law, which is the only area in which the Attorney General was speaking, it's as if the same-sex marriage never happened.
If talking about two marriage equality states, a married person would absolutely have to divorce his or her husband or wife before he or she could ever marry anyone else of either gender. But apparently NOM doesn't think that's important. Which actually makes sense, in a way, since NOM seems to think that the civil component of marriage (i.e. the very thing the marriage equality movement is seeking) is the least important part of the whole conversation.
And of course what this really speaks to is the lack of sustainability within our current patchwork of laws, which vary from state to state and yet again federally. But NOM doesn't want you to think that way either. They want you to believe that one state's refusal to come around is reason to invalidate the sixteen marriage equality states' peaceful progress. That's because NOM is a truly terrible special interest group.
**MORE: Zack Ford has a nice writeup on what the AG's opinion does and does not say: North Dakota Attorney General: Same-Sex Marriages From Other States Don’t Count [TP]
comments powered by Disqus