Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Manul]

RE: Opinions Requested--Could this Repeal Actually Happen?

Amending the Constitution is no easy feat, I remember ERA too well.

Republicans and conservatives will have to tread lightly on that issue as opposed to their emotional outcry about the "illegal immigration problem."

But I do think we need to keep an eye on them...as usual.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Oh I know what his unfortunate opinion is now, but I think some don't know that he, at one point, supported full marriage equality.

I think it's important for us to know that as early as 1996 he publicly stated his support.

However, it is a sad change of publicly stated opinion. (but necessary for Presidential election win perhaps).

Also, wasn't too impressed with the President's rather tepid comments yesterday regarding the Prop 8 decision.

As for your last comment, yes, as former scholar of Constitutional Law, you think he would make publicly make the connection b/w our rights and that document.

I'm waiting for the excuse that he has a full plate, too busy with other important matters to be burdened for his full support for equal rights for ALL Americans.

[naturlover_52]

Yes I believe that it is a shame that our president Obama has not supported our full support, BUT look at it this way....Clinton was the one that Started DOMA and Don't ask Don't Tell.
Sooo I feel that the flip by Obama is shame, BUT not IF but possibly When this goes to the US Supreme Court then it will HAVE to be supported by ALL parties, BOTH Republican and Democrat and Tea Party....YES I know they aren't there own party....BUT they are the conservative Fringe of the Republicans.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Fluff post: Did that one guy toward the end of the video compliment the cop on his boots? I think he did! It made me squee with delight.

I love getting delighted.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by naturlover_52

Yes I believe that it is a shame that our president Obama has not supported our full support, BUT look at it this way....Clinton was the one that Started DOMA and Don't ask Don't Tell.
Sooo I feel that the flip by Obama is shame, BUT not IF but possibly When this goes to the US Supreme Court then it will HAVE to be supported by ALL parties, BOTH Republican and Democrat and Tea Party....YES I know they aren't there own party....BUT they are the conservative Fringe of the Republicans.

A Republican (Bob Barr--Georgia) authored DOMA and it was passed in the Republican controlled Congress (majority of both sides did support it). Clinton was the one who signed it.

From what I understand, it was a (sad) compromise for Clinton--it was either DOMA or a Constitutional Amendment redefining marriage as b/w a man and a woman that would probably would have passed.

[SuperFemme]

Our family at the end of THIS video, our kid Anita was absolutely eloquent. Me in the wheelchair? So sexy.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Our family at the end of THIS video, our kid Anita was absolutely eloquent. Me in the wheelchair? So sexy.

I teared up a little. Your daughter was fantastic!

And you looked great!

And Cal was wonderful with hys little wave!

(((family))) <3

I'm all emotional.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I teared up a little. She was great. And you looked great. And Cal was wonderful with hys little wave!

(((family))) <3

I'm all emotional.

Thank you!
I must confess that I was watching them interview random people,
and was getting super irritated. I wanted them to interview some of
the families that were there, because the supporters of Prop 8 were
adamant that we can't be parents and families.

So I told the guy, you should talk to some kids with gay parents today.
He said, how about yours?

She gave a great answer when he asked her what she wanted to say to the Prop 8 supporters who don't believe her Moms can love her and raise
her well.

She said: "I feel very sad for them because they'll never know the kind of unconditional love that makes OUR family the only one I'd ever want to be in".

I cried. again.

[SuperFemme]

HERE is a link to the PDF of the ruling.
all 135 pages of delicious gooodness.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Linus

Geez. Now all you need is a clause that says that Churches won't be forced to perform the marriages if the congregation doesn't support it and y'all will sound like a bunch of Canadians!

actually, the finding of the CA Supreme Court (that prop 8 overturned) DOES spell out quite specifically that Churches do not have to marry us, and that Religious organizations cannot be sued or face action for NOT marrying us.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

actually, the finding of the CA Supreme Court (that prop 8 overturned) DOES spell out quite specifically that Churches do not have to marry us, and that Religious organizations cannot be sued or face action for NOT marrying us.

It'll probably be identical to our law, then.

[Soon]

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

A Republican (Bob Barr--Georgia) authored DOMA and it was passed in the Republican controlled Congress (majority of both sides did support it). Clinton was the one who signed it.

From what I understand, it was a (sad) compromise for Clinton--it was either DOMA or a Constitutional Amendment redefining marriage as b/w a man and a woman that would probably would have passed.

That is a very good point to remember, especially for me who likes to remember Clinton as a traitor and a sell-out to the cause...

The haters sure do like changing the constitution, don't they?

I have two bumper stickers on my car- one of which has been on there for about 20 years and the other is from the original Mass Equity campaign and states "No Discrimination In The Constitution". A hard concept for some to grasp...

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

She says (7:28)
"This is a big stretch to imagine that our founding fathers were banning gay marriage in passing our constitution".
Freudian slip baby, stick to arguing your own side....

Maggot Gallagher does bring up a good issue though: The fact that the EU does not recognize Same-Sex Marriage Discrimination as a human rights issue.
Gays in Austria appealed to the EU and the EU stated:

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...C1166DEA398649

A few weeks ago a Russian Lesbian couple also filed an appeal to the EU, that response (as far as I know) is still pending...

Lots of work left to do worldwide.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

That is a very good point to remember, especially for me who likes to remember Clinton as a traitor and a sell-out to the cause...

The haters sure do like changing the constitution, don't they?

I have two bumper stickers on my car- one of which has been on there for about 20 years and the other is from the original Mass Equity campaign and states "No Discrimination In The Constitution". A hard concept for some to grasp...

And it is really difficult for many US citizens to grasp the fact that civil & human rights cannot be voted upon. They do not grasp INALIENABLE as it stands in the US Constitution!

in·al·ien·a·ble   

–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.


—Synonyms
inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.

[Cyclopea]

Mexican court upholds capital's gay marriage law
(AP) – 2 hours ago

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican Supreme Court has voted to uphold the constitutionality of Mexico City's 6-month-old law allowing same-sex marriages.
The justices have voted 8-2 to uphold the law against challenges filed by federal prosecutors, who argued it violates the constitutional principle of protection of the family.
Hundreds of couples have been married so far under the law, the first of its kind to be enacted in Latin America.
The court ruled Thursday that the law did not violate the constitution. Justices on the majority side argued that nowhere does the constitution define what a family is.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Mexican court upholds capital's gay marriage law
(AP) – 2 hours ago

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican Supreme Court has voted to uphold the constitutionality of Mexico City's 6-month-old law allowing same-sex marriages.
The justices have voted 8-2 to uphold the law against challenges filed by federal prosecutors, who argued it violates the constitutional principle of protection of the family.
Hundreds of couples have been married so far under the law, the first of its kind to be enacted in Latin America.
The court ruled Thursday that the law did not violate the constitution. Justices on the majority side argued that nowhere does the constitution define what a family is.

Awesome news....Thank you for sharing it!!

[Manul]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

And it is really difficult for many US citizens to grasp the fact that civil & human rights cannot be voted upon. They do not grasp INALIENABLE as it stands in the US Constitution!

in·al·ien·a·ble   

–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.


—Synonyms
inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.

I just wanted to repeat your post.

[suebee]

I was posting on a discussion on a fb group page about "gay" marriage, and noticed a woman who was on the "it's always about sex with you gays" rant. I sent her a private message explaining that it wasn't about sex, and not only did she write back, but went back on the thread and apologized! She then friended me and we've been having a conversation since.

One down.....

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by suebee

I was posting on a discussion on a fb group page about "gay" marriage, and noticed a woman who was on the "it's always about sex with you gays" rant. I sent her a private message explaining that it wasn't about sex, and not only did she write back, but went back on the thread and apologized! She then friended me and we've been having a conversation since.

One down.....

KUDOS to you! Good work! Reminds me of a 3 hour conversation I once had in an RV park with a very Christian man that saw my bumper sticker for same-sex marriage and asked me if I would be willing to talk to him and his wife about this.

We have stayed in contact since 2004 and both of them began to speak-out in their church for same-sex marriage and civil rights for us! They voted against Prop 8. Yes, both were obviously trying to reconcile why not already, but, frankly, if I had been a defensive jerk to them, I doubt that our relationship would have happened and the turn around for them in confronting bigotry in their church. I also gained from this interaction and just plain like these people.

Honestly, I have found that demonstrating just how much I am not the stereotypes of lesbianism/being queer and being open to hets that can hear who I am, works wonders!

[suebee]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

KUDOS to you! Good work! Reminds me of a 3 hour conversation I once had in an RV park with a very Christian man that saw my bumper sticker for same-sex marriage and asked me if I would be willing to talk to him and his wife about this.

We have stayed in contact since 2004 and both of them began to speak-out in their church for same-sex marriage and civil rights for us! They voted against Prop 8. Yes, both were obviously trying to reconcile why not already, but, frankly, if I had been a defensive jerk to them, I doubt that our relationship would have happened and the turn around for them in confronting bigotry in their church. I also gained from this interaction and just plain like these people.

Honestly, I have found that demonstrating just how much I am not the stereotypes of lesbianism/being queer and being open to hets that can hear who I am, works wonders!

I hear you! She was flamed by several people, but I thought I'd be radical and just reach out! It doesn't always work, but it was at least worth a try! And as you saw, you never know what the ripple effect might be!