included the condition that all laws referring to "marriage" were retroactively changed to mean "civil union."
Comparatively trivial nitpick: American law includes - in fact, primarily consists of - case law. What does it mean to "retroactively change" case law? Are we supposed to retroactively say that in the 1938 case of Dope v State of Ignorance, that Mr. and Mrs. Dope had a civil union, not a marrage, despite the fact that they had never heard of such a thing and in fact died before the thing was invented? If not, then how does their state of marriage impact the ultimate disposition of their case, which is has now been used as precedent for thousands of other cases, some of which have been used as precedent for thousands more cases, all of which are now part of US law?
This is far from being the biggest problem with the idea, but I think it's a very difficult one on its own.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-06 06:46 pm (UTC)Comparatively trivial nitpick: American law includes - in fact, primarily consists of - case law. What does it mean to "retroactively change" case law? Are we supposed to retroactively say that in the 1938 case of Dope v State of Ignorance, that Mr. and Mrs. Dope had a civil union, not a marrage, despite the fact that they had never heard of such a thing and in fact died before the thing was invented? If not, then how does their state of marriage impact the ultimate disposition of their case, which is has now been used as precedent for thousands of other cases, some of which have been used as precedent for thousands more cases, all of which are now part of US law?
This is far from being the biggest problem with the idea, but I think it's a very difficult one on its own.