|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If I lived in California, it just might mean something..... might...
But I don't so...............
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I grew up in California, and I'm proud of my state today. Most intriguing to me is that that court is conservative, with 6 of 7 justices being Republican appointees. Perhaps the tide is turning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Most intriguing to me is that that court is conservative, with 6 of 7 justices being Republican appointees.
Wow... you're right, brit. That is something that will rock the conservative's world. How will they ever feel safe appointing another conservative justice? Don't they know they are supposed to vote their religion and not their conscience?
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yusime
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195
|
|
|
Oh my GOD!!!!! I can't really believe it. that's amazing WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yusime
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195
|
|
|
I hope there won't be another fiasaco like after mass. legalized gay marriage that unfortunally helped get Bush relected and gave us Roberts and Alito. We can't handle another one like that!
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I guess it does chip a chink into the wall that separates "them" from "us"... but lets not forget that the wall is still standing.... it is tall the thick and it encompasses "us" all.
Until the wall is brought down and we all... everyone... us as well as them... are playing on a level field can it become something more than just what it is...
Now for justification of my feelings on this matter...
say I move to California... or Massashusetts for that matter and marry another man...
Say we leave on a whirlwind honeymoon and within the next state we are in a auto accident...
Say I am uninjured and my newly wedded husband is in critical condition...
The fact is that the federalist laws which govern interstate recognition of other states licensing such as marriage, professional, driving a vehicle... Is NOT RECOGNIZED... I would have no more legal standing in the second state then as if the marriage of gays lays didn't exist...
say as a gay couple we collectively adopt a child... One partner or the other gets bored and decides to leave the state... There is no hope to have child support inforced across state lines...
Indeed... there is not alot of progress in some sorts of progress...
I just want to keep these "advances" or "victories" in perspective...
[Updated on: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:02]
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daffey44
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2004
Messages: 23
|
|
|
Time for a reality check.
The homophobes collected about 1,120,590 signatures on initiative petitions to amend the California state constitution to prohibit not only same-gender marriages but also domestic partnerships, overturning yesterday's decision. This is significantly more than the number of signatures required (694,354). Thus, even if many signatures are found invalid, it is likely this proposition will be on the November ballot. Strangely (or not), Republican Governor Schwarzenegger (having previously vetoed gay-marriage legislation twice) declared his support for the State Supreme Court's decision and his opposition to the initiative.
Anticipating that it will indeed be on the ballot, the Human Rights Campaign and other organizations are now collecting donations to fight for a "no" vote on this proposition. If the Court's decision is to stand, donations are needed now. See [http://www.hrc.org/].
In the meantime, this opens up some interesting legal issues. Unlike Massachusetts, California has no law prohibiting out of state same-gender couples from marrying in California. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution (older than the Bill of Rights) mandates in Section 1 that each state must recognize the "the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." I'm not a lawyer, but this says that a recorded wedding publicly performed in California must be recognized in all other states. While that article does give Congress the authority to define the technical details of how the article is to be applied, it does not give Congress the authority to limit the mandate.
Further, the U.S. Constitution gives no power to Congress to define or regulate marriages; under Amendment 10, this means that only the states have that authority. This would make the "Defense of Marriage Act" unconstitutional.
Eventually, this will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. I only hope that a sequence of Democrat Presidents are able to change the attitude of that Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yusime
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195
|
|
|
I just said that to show my suprise at the entrie series of events.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Are sets of laws in place within the legislative structure of every state.
Below is a paper done which skirts the subject.
Equality and Domestic Partnerships
The very nature of life requires that for there to be social progress there must be, by definition, a pivotal event or condition that motivates a cause to action. A reason to take a stand for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.
Basic to the establishment of a healthy home environment is the right to choose with whom a person spends their life. At some point in history, there was a defining moment where attraction between two persons of the same sex was recognized as a social phenomenon. Plato described pederasty as early as the 4th century BCE. The Athenian tradition of pederastic mentoring was common place where an older, more experienced man would instruct a youth in the ways of the world. While sexual encounters were not frowned upon, more often than not, mentoring was kept to a platonic, philosophical level.
Homosexuality, being gay, is commonly viewed as the physical and psychological attraction between two members of the same sex. As such, society has a long history of religious and legal mandate which demonized gays, causing them to remain closeted. This continued until 29 June, 1969, and the several days following, when the New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, 53 Christopher Street, Greenwich Village. This event rippled across the gay community and was the cartelist from which the Gay Rights Movement began.
Since the time of Stonewall, gay culture has blossomed. Pride parades march across hundreds of cities not only in the United States, but globally. Gays have made advances in mainstream cinema, television, as well as print media. Gay support groups are becoming more prevalent in high schools across the country and community support groups such as Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) are found in every state.
With a growing presence within general community life, it is only natural that the Gay community as a cultural and social group would strive for the same rights and privileges accorded to more conventional, heterosexual community. The question has to be whether gays are entitled to the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts? As citizens in a democracy the constitution guarantees equal rights for all, but, it is clear in our country that some people are clearly more equal than others.
The Supreme Court of the State of Vermont determined in Dec. 1999 that it was unconstitutional and discriminatory to deny gay couples the benefits of marriage. In an effort to comply with the Supreme Court ruling the Vermont Legislature passed landmark legislation affording gay couples the same rights and protections accorded to married couples. Since that time, Connecticut in 2005, and New Jersey in 2006, has passed similar legislation legalizing same sex unions in their respective states. At the same time, the Massachusetts legislature, in spite of tremendous opposition from right wing politicians as well as fundamentalist religious sects throughout the country, passed the nation’s first law legalizing marriage between same sex couples.
Denmark 1989
Norway 1996
Sweden 1996
Iceland 1996
France 1999
Vermont USA 2000
Germany 2001
Finland 2002
Luxembourg 2004
Canada 2004
Massachusetts USA 2004
New Zealand 2004
Connecticut USA 2005
United Kingdom 2005
New Jersey USA 2006
South Africa 2006
New Hampshire USA 2008
Oregon USA 2008
In recent years several countries have passed legislation legalizing, same sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. Clearly there is a momentum building and in time more jurisdictions will recognize that basic human rights overrule the pressure applied by the religious fundamentalist agenda intent on promoting the sanctity of marriage and the family. In a public interview conducted by ABC News, Republican Senator Dodd of Connecticut poignantly stated that by virtue of the fact that every parent wants what is best for their children, if circumstances warranted it he would support his children as members of the gay community. Dodd confirmed that if his children had a different sexual orientation he would want for them, the same opportunities for employment, lifestyle, housing, inheritance, and so on, as their traditional counterparts. (Dodd, ABC News). Senator Dodd clearly is speaking more as a parent than a legislator, and his resolve was rightly reflected in the legislation he, among others, promoted in Connecticut and passed in 2005.
In an interview with afrol News, South African archbishop retired, Desmond Tutu declared that homophobia was likening it to apartheid, and goes further to state:
We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given.
Furthermore he continues, adding:
Yet, all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God - and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.
The clarity with which Desmond Tutu views homosexuality crystallizes the issue to a clarity that surpasses the religious, cultural, or legislative mantras which denounce gays as immoral, deviant.
The ability of all persons to form relationships, establish households, provide a livelihood for themselves and their chosen life partners, gain education, health benefits, rights of next of kin, inheritance, community property for jointly invested assets, to raise a family, should be afforded to all citizens. To allow one group to form life partnerships with these privileges and prevent another because they are in some way different is unconscionable. It is discrimination at its worse.
Same sex marriage is in no way a threat to the sanctity of conventional marriage considering the divorce rate in the United States, which, according to statistics presented by Divorce Rate U.S.A. is:
Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%
It is plain to see that sanctity and commitment is no longer associated to a great degree with the act of marriage in the conventional sense.
It has been argued that same sex couples cannot provide the stability, support and role models necessary for the proper rearing of children. In fact due to the fact that most states do not provide equal rights status to same sex domestic partners data is at best piecemeal. According to the book, The Age of Independence, by Michael J. Rosenfeld, the 1990 and 2000 census years data compiled indicates that the numbers of same sex households with minor children are growing, indicating 1/934 children per household in 1990 and 1/571 in 2000. (Rosenfeld, 173)It is also reasonable to assume, due to the fact that many couples still live in the closet that the actual numbers of same sex households with children could be much greater than the census count. Also the majority of same sex households comprise lesbian couples, due to the fact that traditionally, upon divorce, children are left in the custody of mothers.
The primary objection to same sex unions in any form, be they marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, are based on traditionally held beliefs that domestic partnerships must be recognized as that of a man and a woman. In reality there is no evidence that same sex relationships have any detrimental effect on society in any way. Under the topic Same-Sex Marriage in Light of Historical Precedent, Rosenfeld states that opponents in Massachusetts to same sex marriage declared: (Rosenfeld, 140)
Gay marriage would have disastrous and immediate consequences for the social fabric of Massachusetts.
After two years, with no extreme effects to any aspect of the social order of Massachusetts it is apparent the status quo is intact. Rosenfeld then speculated:
If same sex marriage follows the trajectory of interracial marriage, there will be slow incremental growth in the number of states granting same sex marriage licenses.
As same sex unions become more common they will collectively add credence to the fact that gender identity is not a factor when it comes to basic rights as a citizen. Eventually, the legal and religious arguments will lose credibility as did the arguments against interracial unions in the 1960’s. (Rosenfeld, 181)
In an attempt to discourage the gay community, many states have passed constitutional amendments to prevent gay marriage, also allowing them to not recognize unions duly registered in other states. This blanket nonrecognition has effects that reach much further afield than to those who reside within those states. In Same Sex Different States, author Andrew Koppelman describes the effects of various states blanket nonrecognition rules as:
• Parties to marriages could dissolve the marriages without any obligation to account for the marital assets, possible leaving a dependant spouse deprived of assets that the spouse has spent years helping to amass.
• More generally, blanket nonrecognition would mean that states following this rule would become havens for people wanting to avoid obligations of spousal property and child support that they had validly entered into.
• Travelers to a state that would not recognize marital rights and obligations would not be able to rely on those rights and obligations should the need unexpectedly arise.
• If the children of same sex relationships were brought into a state with a blanket nonrecognition rule, voluntarily or by force, their non-biological parents would have no right to get them back.
• A blanket nonrecognition rule would also be convenient for non-biological parents who want to be free from child support obligations if the couple separates.
• A same sex spouse could marry again in another state without having to dissolve the earlier marriage or even having to disclose to the new spouse the existence of the previous marriage. That previous marriage would continue in existence in the place where it was celebrated, effectively legalizing a form of polygamy.
The problem with legislation that targets specific groups for exclusion to rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority of citizens is that it is in direct conflict with the federalist system. In other words, it violates the obligation of one state to recognize the laws and rules of another. One important consideration which is directly related to the federalist system is that constitutionally afforded the right to travel at will.
As quoted from an 1868 Supreme Court decision regarding the open accessibility policy between states. We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states. (Koppelman, 75-76)
Works Cited
“Divorce Rate U.S.A.” Aboutdivorce.org, 4 Nov. 2007
Dodd, Christopher J., Senator, Dem. Conn. “Dodd on Marriage,” ABC News, 16 Aug. 2007. 4 Nov. 2007
Koppelman, Andrew. “Same Sex, Different States”. Yale University Press, New Haven Conn. 2006
Rosenfeld, Michael, J. “The Age of Independence” Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. 2007
Sexual Oneness Commitment, The. “Philosophy of Greek pederasty - Chaste pederasty”
Tutu, Desmond, “Homophobia Equals Apartheid,” afrol News. 7 July, 2007. 4 Nov. 2007.
Additional Resources
Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage fails in the Senate for a second time. 7 June, 2006
Thompson says his gay marriage position preserves the principles of federalism. 1 Oct. 2007
New Jersey is the third state to ratify a same-sex civil union law. 19 Feb. 2007
South Africa is the first African country to legalize same-sex weddings. 14 Nov. 2006
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terrific, Marc, and thank you! Some excellent research here and a great deal of food for thought. I have copied and saved this and recommend that others do the same. This is the sort of ammunition we need when replying to the homophobic right wing. They are always saying that we will destroy family values and the sanctity of marriage... yet they never have anything to site in which to prove their case. Where they are using religious rhetoric, we need to be citing logic and facts.
Hugs
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I just want to keep these "advances" or "victories" in perspective...
Point taken, Marc. And you are right. But establishing our rights is like building a brick wall. You build it one brick at a time. It isn't a wall until all the bricks are in place and I for one applaud every brick that goes into the wall. But we can't afford to be complacent until every state and the federal government recognizes our rights as citizens.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I've been called a lot of things but complacent has never been one of them.
I have been fighting for the right to be who I am since I was 14 years old...
Establishing our rights is nothing at all like building a wall.
It is more like shoveling shit into the tide. With every shovelful we manage to toss into the sea..... the previous three come back to gobsmack us....
Complacent... holy shit!!!
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daffey44
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2004
Messages: 23
|
|
|
I still believe that Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution would override state non-recognition legislation. Public weddings recorded by the County Recorder (the process used in California) -- especially if performed by a judge -- would indeed be "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings".
Of course, no similar situation ever reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The closest case was Hood v. McGeheen (237 U.S. 611), in which the Court affirmed in 1915 that the adoption of children in Louisiana by a resident of Mississippi was valid. However, the Court also held that inheritance by those children of property in Alabama was governed by Alabama inheritance law, which denied inheritance by adopted children. This seems to indicate that adoption by a gay couple in a state that allows it must be recognized in a state that prohibits it. But it also indicates that a state might legislate to disinherit same-gender spouses or their children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
It's good to walk through life believing.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I tend to think that establishing our rights is more like demolishing a wall of prejudice. Every brick in that wall that we remove and pulverise into dust is a brick that is harder to replace.
Marc's right about perspective. The perspective is that we are a minority that cannot be recognised by race colour or creed, just by our voices. We have to work hard, sometimes quietly, sometimes yelling, in order to achieve many small victories.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Well said Marc!!, but I will have to disagree on one point. Several years ago a freinds of mine, a gay couple was allowed to adopt a child. They were not married, but the papers they signed made them both legally obligated for the childs welfare. They split up and one moved out-of-state, the other sued for support and got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If the state the second of the partnership was one such with exclisionary legislation in place then he would be under no "legal" obligation to pay.
But the law doesn't account for moral responsiblity and an upstanding person.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
