|
|
|
|
have decided that same-sex marriage (and anything resembling it) is unconstitutional in their state.
As far as I know, if a couple get married legally in one country that marriage must be recognized in all other countries - by international agreement.
So, if a gay couple go to Canada or Spain or Belgium etc and marry there legally why should they not be recognized as married anywhere in the USA?
Can anyone shed any knowledegable light on this matter?
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My dear friend JFR, you proceed from a false assumption.
You seem to think (expect, even) that just because it comes out of the United States, it automatically means that logic, reason and clarity of thought are at its base. You must realize that this new constitutional amendment in Texas (a redundancy, as it turns out, since it has already been codified legislatively) is the product of the very same hypocritical false prophets that Scripture warns against.
In the wake of this, I heard on a radio talk show that the authors of this amendment should have been more careful about what they were asking for. It seems that its could legitimately be interpreted as saying that no marriage of any sort shall be recognizez by the State of Texas. If so, then that would mean that in their unbridled zeal to gain official approval of their hatred and bigotry, they have ended up shooting themselves in their collective foot with their own Colt .45's; and the only way this referendum could be undone would be for the State of Texas to hold another referendum to repeal it, and then another referendum worded the way they would really want it to be. Imagine the havoc that will wreak on wedding plans throughout the state in the interim! Would it be too much to hope that the people of Texas will come to realize that it's all just not worth the hassle, and so they'll just vote to repeal this amendment and have done with it all? One can only hope (but forgive me if I don't appear to be sufficiently enthusiastic about those prospects).
I swear, not a day goes by when some facet of the government in the United States does something that makes me all the more ashamed to be an American citizen. Now there are reports of the use of chemical weapons by U.S. forces in Fallujah? If so, then I am truly a man without a country.
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about any international agreements as far as same sex marriage is concerned, but I do know that Texas is not the first state to turn it down. If as they say 10 to 20 percent of the population is gay, that means that 80 to 90 percent is straight. If the gay movement had tried to gain equal legal rights through a civil contract I don't believe there would have been as stiff a fight, and it may have passed. After a few years when it was discovered the sky didn't fall maybe the "Marriage" thing could be tried again, but if you have equal legal rights in your pocket, you can go ahead and take any kind of vows you wish, from Vodoo to to Christian,(if you can find one)...it just wouldn't be a "Marriage".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
> As far as I know, if a couple get married legally in one country that marriage must be recognized in all other countries - by international agreement.
>
Unfortunately, this is not usually the case. In the UK, for example, the Guide to Civil Partnerships states:
"some couples may already have formed a civil union, registered partnership, domestic partnership or a same-sex marriage abroad. Couples in those kinds of relationships can automatically be recognised in the UK as civil partners without having to register again, provided that they meet the conditions set out in Sections 212 to 218 of the Civil Partnership Act.
The legislation defines an overseas relationship that casn be treated as a Civil Partnership in the UK as one that is either specified in Schedule 20 to the Civil Partnership Act or one which meet the general conditions in the Act AND which meets certain other conditions."
A full list of countries etc is given on p16 of the leaflet - available from http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/civilpartnership/cpguide2005.pdf
The Civil Partnership Act comes into force next month - the Guide is interesting reading for any UK resident. I didn't know that the brother of a civil Partner will officially be called a brother-in-law, for example, until I read the guide!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote:
As far as I know, if a couple get married legally in one country that marriage must be recognized in all other countries - by international agreement.
NW wrote:
Unfortunately, this is not usually the case. In the UK, for example, the Guide to Civil Partnerships states:
And he then quotes from the guide:
"some couples may already have formed a civil union, registered partnership, domestic partnership or a same-sex marriage abroad. Couples in those kinds of relationships can automatically be recognised in the UK as civil partners without having to register again...
There must be something here that I have misunderstood, because it seems to me that this guide is saying more or less what I said. The new law in the UK seems to be impying that 'civil union' is not marriage. That's OK, I think, provided that the status of 'civil union' grants the partners essential rights and privileges which are parrallel to those of a married couple.
(The citizens of Texas have declared unconstitutional even a union that is similar to marriage - which is what the British Act seems to be creating. I am pleased to read in an earlier post that the good citizens may have to rethink the situation.)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I think the point here is that UK law will accept as valid any overseas civil partnership which essentially conforms to the UK standard.
Taking the parallel view, Texas would accept as valid any civil partnership contracted outside Texas, provided that it conformed to Texas domestic law. It would logically follow that if Texas prohibits same-sex civil partnerships, such partnerships contracted elsewhere wouldn't be valid in Texas.
I have little experience of international law, and none at all in this area, but it does seem to me to be logical in principle that one jurisdiction should accept civil union contracts created in another jurisdiction only insofar as they conform to the criteria established for similar unions in the first jurisdiction.
You don't have to like it, but it does make sense! (I think!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ron wrote:
> I swear, not a day goes by when some facet of the government in the United States does something that makes me all the more ashamed to be an American citizen.
You're not the only one ashamed to call yourself American.. Not a day goes by i wish i lived somewhere more civilized.. Like one of the cannabolistic villages in Papau/New Guniea (Or whatever it is properly called)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds most exotic, Matthew! Who knows? Perhaps we'll meet each other there one day!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well, All it takes is a one way ticket....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes indeed, we do allow people to leave. Strange thing is though, there always seems to be more people trying to come into the U.S. from those wonderful places, than want to move out and live there, and those that threated to leave us forever, never do.  ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes indeed, we do allow people to leave. Strange thing is though, there always seems to be more people trying to come into the U.S. from those wonderful places, than want to move out and live there, and those that threated to leave us forever, never do. ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes indeed, we do allow people to leave. Strange thing is though, there always seems to be more people trying to come into the U.S. from those wonderful places, than want to move out and live there, and those that threated to leave us forever, never do. ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the multi post, I had "Submit" button problems. :-[
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jim wrote:
> Yes indeed, we do allow people to leave. Strange thing is though, there always seems to be more people trying to come into the U.S. from those wonderful places, than want to move out and live there, and those that threated to leave us forever, never do. ??
A desire to live somewhere (like the UK, or the USA) that is not currently suffering the features of post-colonial life (structural poverty, starvation, rampant AIDS, persecution and early death, for example) is understandable. It doesn't in any way imply approval of the actions of the current governments of the UK, USA etc.
If I were a street kid in Brazil, or a pavement sleeper in Delhi, or an Afghan whose home, village, livestock and entire way of life had been shattered by foreign interference, I'm damn sure I'd want to move somewhere where there was a reasonable chance that I could see where the next meal was coming from. I'd also like to think that I would then use whatever legitimate means were at my disposal to try to ensure a more equitable distribution of the world's assets ... as, indeed, I hope I try in some ways to do at present.
It's true, Americans are a bit of an oddity when it comes to awareness of other parts of the world - the proportion of US citizens who have never held a passport is staggering - but I can assure you that London, Paris, and even remote parts of Scotland do have a fair number of permanently expatriate Americans. Some people do actually leave the US ... even though Uncle Sam continues to tax them on all kinds of income wherever they may find themselves located on the globe!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well as I said, there are many more trying to (legally) come in than are trying to leave. I hope those of my countrymen that leave, find homes that fit their temperments. I believe if they gave up their citizenships and their incomes did not come from the U.S., this country would have no claim on them or their money. It is surprising how many people from all over the world visit this country just before they plan to give birth, just so their children will be U.S. citizens. I understand there are plans afoot to plug this loophole. Most people come to this country because it's a wonderful place to live. Many, do not have passports, because the U.S. is so damn big you can find just about any kind of climate and terrain you care for within it's many States and possesions. Somehow, even if most of us are home bodies, we manage to spread a lot of tourist dollars abroad. In short, I say if you are not happy here, and you don't want to convince others to change it, and you find a place you would rather live, go for it, and God's speed. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am quite perplexed by Jim's jingoistic response to some of the messages in this thread. Let me first make clear that I am not an American citizen, that I have never visited the USA and, at present, have no plans to make such a visit.
I can't help feeling sad that people born and bred in such a great country are so despondent and ashamed of their country that they want to leave it; but for me it is even more sad that Jim would happily wish them bon voyage, rather than hope to make it a place where they would be proud to stay. I also think it's rather sad that Jim sees hope in the fact that people who know nothing about life in the USA (and imagine that it is a land flowing with milk and honey and that all the streets are paved with gold) wish to come and settle there, and sees in this a sign of its greatness. Surely, the judgement of those born and bred there is more serious.
It is now nearly 40 years since I left the country of my birth, England, and settled in another land. But I did not leave out of despondency or shame of my country: I left because I felt the call to live my life elsewhere. I am still very proud of England and I am still proud to call myself an Englishman - even though I do not live there. (I am also very, very proud of the country where I do live - but that's beside the point of this thread.)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any country where decisions are made based on the whims of the majority you're going to find people who are very unhappy with those decisions. I'm sure there are many people who are just as unhappy living in England or Germany. In this country (US) they have many choices on how they can express that unhappiness:
- They can ignore the problem and hope it goes away. (only 8% of the registered voters voted in the last election where I live...lots of people just don't care.
- They can complain about the problem and hope somebody else fixes it.
- They can complain loudly to the "right" people and make THEM fix it.
- They can petition the government for change, either by direct petition (some states allow voter initiatives) or by voting the people out of office who made the bad decision.
- They can whine about the problem, do nothing to help change things and then threaten to leave the country (most of the people I know like this don't even bother voting)
What Jim said "... if you are not happy here, and you don't want to convince others to change it, and you find a place you would rather live, go for it, and God's speed" is not really as negative as you would make it. I mean IF you are not happy where you live and IF you don't want to change things and IF you find a place you like better, then you SHOULD leave. For your own good I would think.
As far as Texas goes....There will be people fighting that new amendment in court, just as they are now doing in Ohio and in Georgia. And for every Texas there is a Maine (voted down a law to take away rights from gays) or a Dover Pennsilvania (where the entire school board was voted out of office because they tried to force "inteligent design" to be taught to students in the public schools).
...enough jibberish....semi rant over....
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, EJ: for me that was a heartening read - especially towards the end.
I think that you (and Jim? and Ron?) and I probably agree with the old jingoistic saw: "My country - right or wrong." - To be proudly praised when right and to be soundly excoriated when wrong.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
"I also think it's rather sad that Jim sees hope in the fact that people who know nothing about life in the USA (and imagine that it is a land flowing with milk and honey and that all the streets are paved with gold) wish to come and settle there, and sees in this a sign of its greatness. Surely, the judgement of those born and bred there is more serious."
I would hardly think in this age of world wide television and with shows from the states running everywhere, that anyone with an ounce of sense, thinks that this is a land of milk and honey, and that our streets are paved with gold. This IS a land of great opportunity for those with the will to put in the effort. There are always those not willing to put forth this effort, and spend there life hating those that acquired great wealth through ideas and hard work, and complain endlessly about a government that would allow this to happen. There is still some old money around that was gained by bleeding the life's blood out of their laborers, but the new money, from inventive people with ideas, and the energy and drive to see them through, have pretty much taken over.
I believe that everyone should have their civil rights, and I do not believe that my government or the people are always right, but I can see no reason for the majority to bow down to the minority. If the minority is truly correct in the way they think they should be able to convince with reasonable debate and actions, enought voters that in time they will have a majority. If their arguments are convincing, they may even get the lazy ones out to vote for them. Remember though, if you anger the lazy voters, they can come out in mass, vote against you, and bite your smart ass (so to speak). Beware the lazy, sleeping and sometimes stupid. Sometimes it's better to let them sleep. :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Jim wrote:
> JFR wrote:
> I believe that everyone should have their civil rights, and I do not believe that my government or the people are always right, but I can see no reason for the majority to bow down to the minority. If the minority is truly correct in the way they think they should be able to convince with reasonable debate and actions, enought voters that in time they will have a majority. If their arguments are convincing, they may even get the lazy ones out to vote for them. Remember though, if you anger the lazy voters, they can come out in mass, vote against you, and bite your smart ass (so to speak). Beware the lazy, sleeping and sometimes stupid. Sometimes it's better to let them sleep.
Jim
are you seriously suggesting that slavery should not have been abolished? Or women given the vote? Both of these were contrary to the wishes of "the majority", at the time.
As regards letting lazy voters sleep - how on earth are we ever going to make progress if their somnolence is uninterrupted? While I can accept that it is good tactics to avoid unnecessary confrontation, there is surely a moral line (which each of us of course will draw in a different place) beyond which not upsetting others turns into compromising our own integrity.
Your arguments are the arguments of the closet. While I do really understand that for quite a few people their life circumstances are such that "coming out" may not really be possible or practicable, and *fully* support their right to remain closeted, your argument culminates in everyone remaining in the closet, or automatically giving up their seats on the bus to white people, or in slavery on the plantations, or marching into those rooms at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) that had showerheads but no water ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
NW wrote:
> Uncle Jim wrote:
> > JFR wrote:
> > I believe that everyone should have their civil rights, and I do not believe that my government or the people are always right, but I can see no reason for the majority to bow down to the minority. If the minority is truly correct in the way they think they should be able to convince with reasonable debate and actions, enought voters that in time they will have a majority. If their arguments are convincing, they may even get the lazy ones out to vote for them. Remember though, if you anger the lazy voters, they can come out in mass, vote against you, and bite your smart ass (so to speak). Beware the lazy, sleeping and sometimes stupid. Sometimes it's better to let them sleep.
>
> Jim
> are you seriously suggesting that slavery should not have been abolished? Or women given the vote? Both of these were contrary to the wishes of "the majority", at the time.
>
> As regards letting lazy voters sleep - how on earth are we ever going to make progress if their somnolence is uninterrupted? While I can accept that it is good tactics to avoid unnecessary confrontation, there is surely a moral line (which each of us of course will draw in a different place) beyond which not upsetting others turns into compromising our own integrity.
>
> Your arguments are the arguments of the closet. While I do really understand that for quite a few people their life circumstances are such that "coming out" may not really be possible or practicable, and *fully* support their right to remain closeted, your argument culminates in everyone remaining in the closet, or automatically giving up their seats on the bus to white people, or in slavery on the plantations, or marching into those rooms at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) that had showerheads but no water ...
Well, reguarding the abolition of slavery... As I recall there was a war that decided that issue....
As for Womens' right to vote..... they were in no way a minority..... In fact when you factor into the equasion that they withheld bedroom priviledges as well as cooking, washing, gardening and such the men were in no position (eventually) to do anything but give in to their demands.
To me it was a war faught brilliantly.... without a blow and right where it hurts.
As for clositing or not.... I think it is about time to wake up and smell the coffee.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"HJR No. 6 passed in Texas yesterday, supposedly to ban gay marriage. But read the text closely.
Sec. 32 a. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. b. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
Is it egg-heady coastal elitism to point out that Texas just defined marriage and then made it illegal for everybody, even heteros? I wonder if “family values” include literacy."
Appartently, gay lawyers are to take a case to a Texas Court demanding that all marriages in Texas are annulled ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This must be a joke. It cannot be serious. No state in the world could be so dumb. Could it?
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW wrote:
"are you seriously suggesting that slavery should not have been abolished? Or women given the vote? Both of these were contrary to the wishes of "the majority", at the time."
No, I am not, and you are right, at one time both of these issues were contrary to the wishes of the majority but with time and a war they were both corrected. Even after a bloody civil war it took almost another hundred years for the blacks to get their full civil rights. With present communications and ease of travel it is difficult to hide wrongs that need correcting, and changes are made much quicker than they used to be. In a perfect world, these corrections would be made instantly, but then you would have to find a perfect person to make these perfect decisions that of course would never be perfect to everyone. I would rather go with a bill of the rights for the people and letting a majority of those willing to vote, give power to a government of their choice, to change the laws of the land.
After rereading my posts, and trying to understand how I could be so completely misunderstood, I can only say that I stand behind everything I said and your right to interpret my remarks any way you wish. :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this same problem was noted in the law that passed last year (?) in Ohio. The fact that the law in Texas was worded the same way says a lot about the quality of the Texas lawmakers. I don't know if it is stupidity or arrogance.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
No Message Body
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this quote while looking around for something else:
"Matt Foreman, president of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement released Wednesday said the election results "show that it is profoundly wrong and profoundly un-American to put the rights of a small minority of Americans up for a popular vote. This is not democracy. This is tyranny of the majority."
Foreman added, "No one would tolerate this being done to any other minority, but it is still open season on gay people."'
I have to agree with him, with one correction. The U.S. is not, and was never intended to be, a democracy. The court system was put in place to protect the rights of minorities, though most courts (mostly those with elected judges) seem to have forgotten this of late.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: The good citizens of Texas... 
