Marvelous."
That's not what I'm saying, it's what the feds have said and will likely continue to say.
If a state issues a marriage license, the feds will continue to do what they currently do. Doesn't mean that I agree with all the licences that they issue (or that they issue them to begin with). They simply will continue to do what they currently do.
I can't see how this current ruling would change how the feds act with regards to spousal visas...which was your question.
The problem is that you’re argument that ‘marriage isn’t a federal issue’ is wrong. Marriage is a federal issue. Reynolds vs the United States makes it clear that the federal government has an obligation to preserve the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
It’s a part of the common law, no different from, say, Habeaus Corpus.
“I can’t see how this current ruling would change how the feds act with regards to spousal visas...which was your question.”
The feds decide which marraiges count wrt spousal visas. This ruling changes things. Now, it will permit gay couples to bring in their lovers from abroad. Isn’t that just wonderful!
And, because it grants them a visa applicable anywhere in the US - they can choose to live in a state that does not permit gay marriage and try to overturn the laws there.
So what was that about marriage not being a federal issue. Reynolds makes it really clear. The US as a jurisdiction has to have one definition of marriage, not two, and having 2 definitions of marriage is deletorious to social harmony.
But, you’re a liberaltarian. You don’t care about social harmony. You don’t care about tradition. You care a lot about sex though. And laws barring sex = bad.