Same-Sex Marriage Update

[AtLast]

[QUOTE=betenoire;168352]Congratulations, California.

I know it feels shitty that you all are having to do this state by state, but we had to do it province by province and I promise it works. I hate that it's taking this long, believe me. But you'll all get there.

Edited to add: The funniest comment I've read on the subject so far is "Somewhere in Alaska Sarah Palin is angrily reading the wrong words off of her hand."[/QUOTE]

This is priceless!!

It sure is a great day here in CA!!! WOOT!!!

[Manul]

I have to love this headline from USAToday.

Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It's not about you

Included in the article:

You could summarize it pretty quickly, Walker seems to be saying, "'Believers, it's not about you."

The ruling says:

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

Walker also writes,

Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

He cites the California constitution that...

[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Walker examines about how several major religious groups -- Catholics, Mormons, conservative evangelicals such as the South Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod -- condemn either homosexual identity or behavior or both, citing documents from the Vatican to denominational resolutions.

But he spells out in all capital letters in the decision:

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION...

California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code."

I'm sure those with strong fundamentalist religious feelings won't see the logic of the Judge, but it's a matter of equality under the Constitution, not about religion.

[Soon]

[Soon]

[Soon]

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."


"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."



Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_671018.html

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Manul

I have to love this headline from USAToday.

Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It's not about you

Included in the article:



I'm sure those with strong fundamentalist religious feelings won't see the logic of the Judge, but it's a matter of equality under the Constitution, not about religion.

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!

[Manul]

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!

I have no doubt our government will protect those religious institutions that insist they are superior to all others.

Our current president supports a separate but equal (civil unions) for gay Americans, he does not support equal marriage. His basis for this is of course, his religious beliefs.

What does this say about those religious insitutions that do support and perform equal marriages? And more important, what does it say about a President who has sworn to uphold the US Consitution when he denies equal rights to Americans based on his religious beliefs?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Manul

I have no doubt our government will protect those religious institutions that insist they are superior to all others.

Our current president supports a separate but equal (civil unions) for gay Americans, he does not support equal marriage. His basis for this is of course, his religious beliefs.

What does this say about those religious insitutions that do support and perform equal marriages? And more important, what does it say about a President who has sworn to uphold the US Consitution when he denies equal rights to Americans based on his religious beliefs?

At one time, as Senator, Obama did explicitly support marriage equality but then flipped his position to only supporting civil unions.

I'll go see if I can find the quote.

ETA (correction): It was in his race for Senator that he voiced his support for same sex marriage.

[Soon]

According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an "unequivocal support for gay marriage."


From the WCT's press release:

President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions". [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]

This answer is among those included in this week's Windy City Times feature on Obama's evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.

During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.

Outlines summarized the results in that 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama was a supporter of same-sex marriage and that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. Just recently, the original Outlines and IMPACT surveys were found in the newspaper's archives.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_157656.html

[Manul]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

At one time, as Senator, Obama did explicitly support marriage equality but then flipped his position to only supporting civil unions.

I'll go see if I can find the quote.

ETA (correction): It was in his race for Senator that he voiced his support for same sex marriage.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an "unequivocal support for gay marriage."

And this morning on MSNBC, David Axelrod reiterated the President's support for separate but equal civil unions and not equal marriage.

I'd like to ask the President to support the US Constitution which includes the 14th amendment. His religious beliefs do not trump my consitutional rights.

[Soon]

I found this poster's comment on HuffPo and wanted to know what you think:

DCmykl 4 hours ago (6:36 AM)

Here's something to consider. Remember laughing when you heard about the Republicans wanting to repeal the 14th Amendment? Immigration, Gay marriage, womens' reproductive rights, and more all intersect at the 14th Ammendment.

The attack on the 14th Ammendment has nothing to do with immigration. That's a smoke screen designed to keep attention off the real agenda.

Section 1. of the 14th Amendment contains among other things this language: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This includes what are commonly known as the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the Constitution. These are FUNDAMENTALS.

My suspicion is the Republicans are more interested in getting rid of the "due process" and "Equal Protection" clauses than "anchor babies," and hope to do so while the public is distracted by the illegal immigration issue.

By getting rid of these cornerstones of civil rights they eliminate Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage and everything else they hate. In the past three days 90 of the 198 Republicans in the House – 45-percent – have signed on as co-sponsors of a bill to repeal the 14th Amendment. This is not something to be taken lightly. We need to prepare for a major fight.

[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

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.