Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Dude]

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...n_ready_t.html

[Greyson]

Mexican Supreme Court rules for marriage equality
Posted on December 6, 2012 by swyatt11

In a unanimous ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Mexico has paved the way for same-sex couples to marry in every one of the country’s 31 states before the U.S. has federal marriage equality. Gay marriage has been legal in the Federal District, Mexico City, since 2010, and the Supreme Court had previously ruled that those marriages must be recognized nationwide. Wednesday’s ruling struck down a law in the southern state of Oaxaca that denied same-sex couples the right to marry there.


http://21border.com/2012/12/06/mexic...ity/#more-2838

[iamkeri1]

Wow! marriage equality, virtually with the stroke of a pen. Congratulations Mexico! Finally somewhere warm with marriage equality.

With all the cases before our own Supreme Court. I was hoping we would soon be celebrating a similar recognition of equality in the good old US of A.

Smooches,
Keri

[Soon]

Bearded Love: Larry Duncan And Randell Shepherd Apply For Marriage License In Seattle





According US News, Larry Duncan, 56, a retired psychiatric nurse, and Randell Shepherd, 48, a computer programmer, of North Bend, Wash., have been together 11 years. They wore the matching outfits as a "fashion statement."

"We were at a party and we met eyes and fell in love," Duncan said to the news source.

"He came up and asked me out, and I said yes," Shepherd added.

The bearded couple is considering getting married Sunday at a local church that will perform mass ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Although they're not religious, Duncan told NBC, “Enough people have told me, ‘God hates fags'. I want someone in a church to say, ‘God loves fags,’ to have that stamp on it.”

[Greyson]

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

The cases will be argued before the justices in March, with a decision expected by late June.


http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...issue#comments

[Sun]

Originally Posted by Greyson

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

The cases will be argued before the justices in March, with a decision expected by late June.


http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...issue#comments

This is taking way too long. I really would like to see some direct action protests happen before March so that the Justices get the message that we are not all sitting back, all homogenized and suburban, sipping on iced tea, waiting for a stamp of approval from them when the civil rights of so many have been stripped away. What about all of the aging couples that are waiting on this? Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit court of appeals, the presiding district. Thanks to Mormon and Catholic money, that has funded the "Yes on 8" hate campaign, our state is left with this legal mess. To add insult to injury, the case is a huge waste of taxpayers money. We are in a financial crisis in this nation and we are wasting money debating if it would be too offensive to some to allow same sex couples to marry.

Seriously this is embarrassing. I have run out of conversation on this topic with my friends in Canada and Europe. It is impossible for them to understand how and why so many are so sexually repressed that they woudl invest so much time, money in energy in denying marriage equality. Even our own President, who is a constitutional law scholar agrees that DOMA needs to go. There is no way that he would take that position if this had a snowballs chance in hell of making it through a Supreme Court review.

On the positive side, it is going to be one hell of a Pride season when this nonsensical hateful roadblock is eliminated and couples can have the freedom to marry once and for all, as it should be.

Thanks for this thread so that I can rant.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Greyson

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

The cases will be argued before the justices in March, with a decision expected by late June.


http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...issue#comments

Thank you for posting this Greyson.

While I am sad that there are people in my State that must continue to wait to marry the person they choose, I am equally happy that the broader issue of same-sex marriage will finally be addressed by the highest court in our land, both with the issue of DOMA and Prop (hate)8 finally being decided.

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Thank you for posting this Greyson.

While I am sad that there are people in my State that must continue to wait to marry the person they choose, I am equally happy that the broader issue of same-sex marriage will finally be addressed by the highest court in our land, both with the issue of DOMA and Prop (hate)8 finally being decided.

I too am happy that the broader issue of DOMA will be addressed. It is long over due, generations over due. Many in our country have paid a personal price.

Civil Rights, Human Rights seem to come by pain, struggle and those at the brunt of injustice refusing to give up the fight, the hope, the action and required fighting, pushing back.

[Sun]

Originally Posted by Greyson

I too am happy that the broader issue of DOMA will be addressed. It is long over due, generations over due. Many in our country have paid a personal price.

Civil Rights, Human Rights seem to come by pain, struggle and those at the brunt of injustice refusing to give up the fight, the hope, the action and required fighting, pushing back.

Greyson,

Thank you for the updates. I wish that I could say that I was happy, but this issue makes me angry. The Prop 8 campaign was downright traumatizing for many of us. At an NGLTF training in Castro last spring, the agenda was sidelined by many community leaders sharing how traumatized they still were after the No on 8 campaign. I attended as a volunteer from our legislative ministry and spent hours listening to the pain of leaders who had not really processed this information, nor did they feel that they had a right to because after all, this is a battle and we are expected to keep on fighting.

For me the internal conflict is having to "fight" or "defend" something that is inherently about love. The NGLTF training experience made me aware that our leadership needs places to go and safely process the battle fatigue.

I never doubted that the Supreme Court would hear the Prop 8 case. How could they not? It is clearly unconstitutional.

Again thank you for the update

[Greyson]

Supreme Court Review of Marriage Cases Has Enormous Impact for Same-sex Couples



Williams Institute Research Shows Far Reaching Economic, Regulatory Effects on Same-Sex Families


“Given that multiple circuit courts have found DOMA’s Section 3 unconstitutional, the Court has an important opportunity to provide nationwide answers regarding the validity or invalidity of this federal statutory provision,” said Nan Hunter, Legal Scholarship Director, Williams Institute, and Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.


http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...e-sex-couples/

[MissItalianDiva]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Thank you for posting this Greyson.

While I am sad that there are people in my State that must continue to wait to marry the person they choose, I am equally happy that the broader issue of same-sex marriage will finally be addressed by the highest court in our land, both with the issue of DOMA and Prop (hate)8 finally being decided.

I am with you on this one. While I am saddened people are still having to wait the review was necessary and this now will mean and clear up so much more assuming the review is in our favor which I am positive it will be. There are deeper issues here that this will address and the outcome will be far more grand then it would have been had they just denied review. Cmon June....Pride really is going to be crazy this year

[iamkeri1]

I can't even begin to say how much I love this picture. I am regularly overcome with delight over the diversity in our LGBTQ people. They (we) amaze me, amuse me and affirm me. I love you my peeps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Originally Posted by Soon

Bearded Love: Larry Duncan And Randell Shepherd Apply For Marriage License In Seattle





According US News, Larry Duncan, 56, a retired psychiatric nurse, and Randell Shepherd, 48, a computer programmer, of North Bend, Wash., have been together 11 years. They wore the matching outfits as a "fashion statement."

"We were at a party and we met eyes and fell in love," Duncan said to the news source.

"He came up and asked me out, and I said yes," Shepherd added.

The bearded couple is considering getting married Sunday at a local church that will perform mass ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Although they're not religious, Duncan told NBC, “Enough people have told me, ‘God hates fags'. I want someone in a church to say, ‘God loves fags,’ to have that stamp on it.”

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by Sun

This is taking way too long. I really would like to see some direct action protests happen before March so that the Justices get the message that we are not all sitting back, all homogenized and suburban, sipping on iced tea, waiting for a stamp of approval from them when the civil rights of so many have been stripped away. What about all of the aging couples that are waiting on this? Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit court of appeals, the presiding district. Thanks to Mormon and Catholic money, that has funded the "Yes on 8" hate campaign, our state is left with this legal mess. To add insult to injury, the case is a huge waste of taxpayers money. We are in a financial crisis in this nation and we are wasting money debating if it would be too offensive to some to allow same sex couples to marry.

<snip>
from another post:

The Prop 8 campaign was downright traumatizing for many of us. At an NGLTF training in Castro last spring, the agenda was sidelined by many community leaders sharing how traumatized they still were after the No on 8 campaign. I attended as a volunteer from our legislative ministry and spent hours listening to the pain of leaders who had not really processed this information, nor did they feel that they had a right to because after all, this is a battle and we are expected to keep on fighting.

For me the internal conflict is having to "fight" or "defend" something that is inherently about love. The NGLTF training experience made me aware that our leadership needs places to go and safely process the battle fatigue.

I never doubted that the Supreme Court would hear the Prop 8 case. How could they not? It is clearly unconstitutional.

Sun this is not directed at you in particular, but is about issues you raised.

Frankly, protesting in front of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is a double edged sword. I'm pretty sure the anti-marriage folks have the same feeling from their perspective and will be out there protesting. Who is SCOTUS supposed to listen to? I prefer they ignore any and all protests and decide strictly on the merits of the cases.

NO civil rights issue is a waste of taxpayers money. It is one of the things my taxes should be paying for.....to promote the general welfare of the people which includes all civil rights issues.

SCOTUS is the last Court appeal. SCOTUS should step into this mess....that is what they are for......think back to the 60's and civil rights for black folk (and other POC). Public debate is a key to democracy and the more public debate, the better off we all will be.

As to our 'poor leaders' who are having trouble processing what a huge fuck-up they presided over.........I got zero sympathy for any of them. They presided over the worst political campaign I have ever experienced in all my years in social justice. They had their collective heads up their asses and ignored what worked in other civil rights campaigns (any political campaign really) our community won....think back to the CA proposition that would have banned gay teachers. They shoud be spending their time figuring out what they did wrong, rather than crying about being traumatized.........

[Soon]

"When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally, and not like second-class citizens. While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day. The truth is, I never expected any less from my country." - DOMA litigant Edith Windsor, 83, responding to yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court.

[Greyson]

Civil Behavior

Should a Gay Uncle Boycott His Straight Niece’s Wedding?

By STEVEN PETROW
Published: December 11, 2012


My partner and I live in North Carolina, a state whose constitution now prohibits same-sex marriage. We have been together for 25 years and have been to lots of weddings in that time. I used not to mind so much going to other people’s weddings even though we couldn’t make our own union legal. But now I do. I’ve had enough. I’m tired of being polite.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/bo...=tw-share&_r=0

[Nadeest]

I just saw this link on my Facebook page, from the Huffington Post, and wanted to share this information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...?ir=Gay+Voices

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by Nadeest

I just saw this link on my Facebook page, from the Huffington Post, and wanted to share this information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...?ir=Gay+Voices

Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Argue Special DOMA Question

By JESSE J. HOLLAND 12/11/12 02:54 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.

The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.

The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.

But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.

So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."

__________________________________________________ ____________


I am unclear on this. The Supreme Court is asking Jackson to argue that the Supreme Court Justices should stay out of arguing that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples?

Then the article gones on to say because "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

What does this last paragraph mean? What is it saying? What is the agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional?


Thanks for posting the Link Nadeest.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Argue Special DOMA Question

By JESSE J. HOLLAND 12/11/12 02:54 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.

The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.

The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.

But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.

So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."

__________________________________________________ ____________


I am unclear on this. The Supreme Court is asking Jackson to argue that the Supreme Court Justices should stay out of arguing that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples?

Then the article gones on to say because "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

What does this last paragraph mean? What is it saying? What is the agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional?


Thanks for posting the Link Nadeest.

I'm not lawyer but it seems logical that if a case has been appealed up to the Supreme Court and there is a question about a law's constitutionality then this is the appropriate venue for this question to be answered..the court has the power to nullify or empower it ie obamacare ..i hope there is a lawyer among us who can answer

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

I'm not lawyer but it seems logical that if a case has been appealed up to the Supreme Court and there is a question about a law's constitutionality then this is the appropriate venue for this question to be answered..the court has the power to nullify or empower it ie obamacare ..i hope there is a lawyer among us who can answer

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..