A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Congratulations to our American friends!
Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69829] Fri, 26 June 2015 19:01 Go to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



Today's decision by SCOTUS, effectively enforcing Equal Marriage, is a major step forward. I hope it will bring happiness to many US citizens and set an example to other countries. Including, sadly, the UK: Northern Ireland has been disgracefully dragging its feet over the issue, and we're still in the ridiculous situation that the US was in until today, of it being legal to marry in one part of country and not legal in another!

http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2019&private=0
  • Attachment: 1000.jpg
    (Size: 92.01KB, Downloaded 1084 times)

[Updated on: Fri, 26 June 2015 19:03]




"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
Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69836 is a reply to message #69829] Sun, 28 June 2015 20:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



The knee jerk reactions have been as expected, of course.



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
Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69839 is a reply to message #69829] Mon, 29 June 2015 06:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Smokr is currently offline  Smokr

Likes it here
Location: the burning former USofA
Registered: July 2010
Messages: 399



Frankly, I'm torn on the decision.
While I'm glad gay men and women will be able to enjoy the benefits of being married, hopefully, if this isn't dragged through the courts over the next years and eventually reversed, I don't believe the federal government has any authority to make decisions reflecting on the everyday lives of the citizens of the individual states. I'm a federalist, as were the founding fathers. The states have the authority to make laws regarding the regulation of the citizens' lives and rights, not the federal government. The supreme court has no place in such a decision, as marriage is a religious institution to begin with, and even if you accept that it is a governmental concern, then the states are the ones to determine such things.
If the population of Georgia wants to keep marriage between men and women, that is the right of the people of the state of Georgia. If the people of Louisiana want to allow gay men and women to marry, that is their right. If you live in a state with a law you don't agree with, you work to change it, and if it means that much to you, you can move to a state who has the laws you agree with and doesn't have laws you don't agree with.
That was the entire point to forming the United States of America instead of one country called America.
The federal government is supposed to only regulate the equal trade and commerce between the states, and otherwise keep out of laws that affect the citizens of the states. Yes the federal government was given other explicitly enumerated and limited powers, but it was explicitly forbidden from interfering in the states rights to set laws regarding their citizens. That has been forgotten, to our detriment and loss.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 June 2015 07:04]




raysstories.com
Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69840 is a reply to message #69839] Mon, 29 June 2015 08:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ChrisR is currently offline  ChrisR

Likes it here
Location: Western US
Registered: October 2014
Messages: 136



Bingo, Smokr. I completely agree with you, although I've also heard it said that the American Civil War was fought over a verb:

The United States IS...
or
The United States ARE...
and IS won.

Much of the problem seems to be reciprocity, i.e. "Full Faith and Credit Clause", between states for legal reasons, as to whether a gay married couple in one state will have rights in another non-gay-marriage state to, say, file a joint state tax return. It's probably just easier this way.

But when California does away that the "only 2" limit, or okays 1 guy/1 goat, all bets will be off and it'll up to the Supremes again.
Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69841 is a reply to message #69829] Mon, 29 June 2015 10:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



For me, it's an issue that goes far deeper than the "State versus Federal" issue!

The right to a family life is a recognised "human right", alongside the right to life, freedom from torture, and so on. While there can be specific exemptions from some rights in specific, narrowly-defined circumstances (the death penalty being an example, although not one I agree with), it's arguably a breach of USA's international obligations, and certainly a breach of human rights in general, to deny equal marriage.

If one does not accept the human rights argument, where does it end? A return to Jim Crow laws if an individual State wants to? A ban on inter-racial marriage? Re-legalising slavery in Southern States? Passing laws that gays can be shot on sight?

I think that failing to see equal marriage as a basic human right shows that many of us still see ourselves as somehow "less" than straights; think that our relationships are somehow "less" than "husband, wife, and kids".

I have no desire or intention to get married to anyone, of either sex, ever. At 60, it's probably not a question that will ever crop up again! But I think that the right to get married, with all that implies in terms of social recognition and protection of financial and healthcare issues, is a fundamental equality. And, in my view, that is the implication of the SCOTUS decision, and why I expect it to have a knock-on effect internationally.




"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
Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69842 is a reply to message #69839] Mon, 29 June 2015 11:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Matthew is currently offline  Matthew

Toe is in the water

Registered: February 2015
Messages: 73



Quote:
Smokr wrote on Mon, 29 June 2015 06:58Frankly, I'm torn on the decision.
While I'm glad gay men and women will be able to enjoy the benefits of being married, hopefully, if this isn't dragged through the courts over the next years and eventually reversed, I don't believe the federal government has any authority to make decisions reflecting on the everyday lives of the citizens of the individual states. I'm a federalist, as were the founding fathers. The states have the authority to make laws regarding the regulation of the citizens' lives and rights, not the federal government. The supreme court has no place in such a decision, as marriage is a religious institution to begin with, and even if you accept that it is a governmental concern, then the states are the ones to determine such things.
If the population of Georgia wants to keep marriage between men and women, that is the right of the people of the state of Georgia. If the people of Louisiana want to allow gay men and women to marry, that is their right. If you live in a state with a law you don't agree with, you work to change it, and if it means that much to you, you can move to a state who has the laws you agree with and doesn't have laws you don't agree with.
That was the entire point to forming the United States of America instead of one country called America.
The federal government is supposed to only regulate the equal trade and commerce between the states, and otherwise keep out of laws that affect the citizens of the states. Yes the federal government was given other explicitly enumerated and limited powers, but it was explicitly forbidden from interfering in the states rights to set laws regarding their citizens. That has been forgotten, to our detriment and loss.

--

The part where you say it is up to the state and if the people want there to be only straight weddings or if they want it to be all types, is only true if the states actuallu individually vote within themselves (if this is what happens then ignore me lol) otherwise you can't say it's what the state wants one way or the other, just what the people running the state want.

Myself i think anyone should be able to get married, religion is a man made institution/belief and has been changed over generations already, from what i can gather divorce is a big no no in the bible and actually states punishments towards those who divorce and yet the church allows this now and will marry people who have been divorced multiple times, so if they can get over that (or ignore it) then they can do the same with their views on homosexuality, i mean i am no expert and i am going on things i have only herd, but this whole hate for gays is based of one line/sentence in the bible, so it's a bit stupid from my perspective.


Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69845 is a reply to message #69829] Tue, 30 June 2015 07:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dgt224 is currently offline  dgt224

Toe is in the water
Location: USA
Registered: May 2011
Messages: 81



On the whole I'm a fan of federalism, and if the state of Georgia wants to legislate as if it were still in the 19th (or 18th) century, so be it. But this battle was lost with the passage of the 16th amendment and the subsequent entry into the Federal tax code of provisions dealing with married couples differently than unmarried individuals, if not before. At that point marriage ceased to be solely the province of religious bodies and the states. (Actually, I suspect that there were earlier intrusions of Federal power into the realm of marriage, but I'm too lazy to research further. But since the GAO found over 1,000 federal statutory provisions that discriminate on the basis of marital status, I would be a little surprised if none of them predate the 16th amendment.)

So far as I can tell, the folks who are whining the most about SCOTUS overreach on same-sex marriage (most of whom appear to be the sort who complained about the decision in Loving v. Virginina back in 1967) have never objected to the provisions in the tax code that provide for married couples filing joint tax returns or permitting a surviving spouse exemption from the Federal estate tax. Sorry, y'all, but you can't have it both ways. If marriage is a sacred institution that cannot be sullied by the touch of government hands, then the government should keep itself at arm's length from all aspects of marriage. No special tax treatment for married couples. No special benefits for spouses. No Federal recognition of the existence of marriage. Or accept that the Federal government is going to set overall rules in the matter.
I suppose "Marriage" is inevitable  [message #69846 is a reply to message #69829] Tue, 30 June 2015 07:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



All I would want is equality of benefits with those who are married were I in committed partnership with someone. I have never quite understood why homosexual people wish to emulate heterosexual people im marriage when we do not emulate them in other elements of our lives. But, if marriage is the way to gain that equality of benefits then I need to support it, so I do.

To be clear, I have never supported it as the term to be used. I have always felt that the word has long been the preserve of the heterosexual. I care only about true equality. The possible paradox in my reasoning is that 'marriage' is thus seen to be true equality. I see it as a paradox, simply.

The irony is that at the age of fourteen I wanted to marry the (presumed) heterosexual boy I adored. In my mind this was a committed partnership. At that age I had never considered any other mechanism.

The state vs federal discussion amuses me. We have long had a parallel here, with our nation;s title being "The United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland" with different laws in EnglandandWales and Scotland and Norn Irn, and it has always been a mess. How ironic that the USA inherited that from its former colonial masters!

So, SCOTUS has ruled. What are the parallels with US black emancipation?



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
Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69857 is a reply to message #69829] Tue, 30 June 2015 15:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
larkin is currently offline  larkin

Toe is in the water
Location: Massachusetts
Registered: June 2015
Messages: 58



 
Please do not think that I am not a romantic, I promise you I am.
 
I am pleased that people of the same sex can marry if they like.
 
I am also pleased that homosexual men do not go to prison for having relations with the same sex like they did in the past in England and America.  This is the real step forward that is sometimes overlooked. 
 
When the American forces liberated the German concentration camps in 1945, they kept the prisoners with the pink triangle denoting homosexuality, imprisoned and released the others.
 
I am cautious and skeptical in regards to the state's interests in private sexual affairs.   
 
We could always get married. In a ceremony among friends and family on the beach at sunrise or in a supportive and accepting church.  Is a civil ceremony with an accompanying document at city hall better?
 
Why do we need the state to enforce a sworn oath between two people?  There are social reasons to be sure but they have their own costs.  
 
f you want a shared property, just form an S-chapter corporation.  It already has within it the fair terms of dissolution back-up by law.
 
With the exception of adoption of children ( a very serious consideration) there are easy ways around the other impediments.  
 
One of my Hero's, Glenn Greenwald was approached by the FBI in an effort to stop his political journalism concerning the NSA's spying.  They told him that they knew that he was queer and they knew who his lover was. 
 
Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer said, "I'm a homosexual, So what?"   That's a real step forward...  
 
Beyond this, the state has no business knowing who your loved ones are or where you go or who you see. 
 
As I said in the beginning, I think it is good that gay people can marry but is it a wise choice?  There legions of divorce attorneys rubbing their hands together.  There are state agencies and governments considering tax possibilities and applying law currently restricted to Heterosexuals.
 
Your sexual orientation is private and In short, Gay marriage is a Trojan Horse.
Re: Congratulations to our American friends!  [message #69858 is a reply to message #69857] Tue, 30 June 2015 16:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



Quote:
larkin wrote on Tue, 30 June 2015 16:24 

Your sexual orientation is private and In short, Gay marriage is a Trojan Horse.

--

I don't think I'd describe my sexual orientation as "private", exactly. I've been a fully out gay man for over 35 years now: I have absolutely no idea who "knows" and who doesn't (I just assume it's obvious to everyone).

What I *do* think is that my being gay is / should be largely irrelevant - to marriage, to what information anyone keeps on me, or anything much else - in exactly the same way as my being left-handed is.



"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
Re: I suppose "Marriage" is inevitable  [message #69860 is a reply to message #69846] Wed, 01 July 2015 08:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1558



Quote:
timmy wrote on Tue, 30 June 2015 08:23All I would want is equality of benefits with those who are married were I in committed partnership with someone. I have never quite understood why homosexual people wish to emulate heterosexual people im marriage when we do not emulate them in other elements of our lives. But, if marriage is the way to gain that equality of benefits then I need to support it, so I do.

To be clear, I have never supported it as the term to be used. I have always felt that the word has long been the preserve of the heterosexual. I care only about true equality. The possible paradox in my reasoning is that 'marriage' is thus seen to be true equality. I see it as a paradox, simply.


--

Timmy, I think what you're leaving out is that there are a fair number of people who see marriage as not only a civil, but also a sacramental or religious expression. The group to whom I consider myself closest (the Quakers) has in the UK been one of the religious organisations pushing to be allowed to conduct marriages for its members!

no one (I hope) would suggest that religious groups should be forced to marry any couple who does not meet their criteria (whether on grounds of divorce, gender, lifestyle, or anything else). But the law should not prevent equal marriage if both the couple and the Church wish to do it.

i have every hope and expectation that it will very soon be as unremarkable to hear a man talk about 'my husband' as it is to hear a woman talk about hers. Talking about 'my Civil Partner' always sounded pretentious, and just 'my partner' doesn't convey whether it's a formalised union in the way 'husband' does.



"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
Re: I suppose "Marriage" is inevitable  [message #69861 is a reply to message #69860] Wed, 01 July 2015 09:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



"NW wrote on Wed, 01 July 2015 09:25"

"Quote:"
timmy wrote on Tue, 30 June 2015 08:23All I would want is equality of benefits with those who are married were I in committed partnership with someone. I have never quite understood why homosexual people wish to emulate heterosexual people im marriage when we do not emulate them in other elements of our lives. But, if marriage is the way to gain that equality of benefits then I need to support it, so I do.

To be clear, I have never supported it as the term to be used. I have always felt that the word has long been the preserve of the heterosexual. I care only about true equality. The possible paradox in my reasoning is that 'marriage' is thus seen to be true equality. I see it as a paradox, simply.



--

Timmy, I think what you're leaving out is that there are a fair number of people who see marriage as not only a civil, but also a sacramental or religious expression. The group to whom I consider myself closest (the Quakers) has in the UK been one of the religious organisations pushing to be allowed to conduct marriages for its members!

no one (I hope) would suggest that religious groups should be forced to marry any couple who does not meet their criteria (whether on grounds of divorce, gender, lifestyle, or anything else). But the law should not prevent equal marriage if both the couple and the Church wish to do it.

i have every hope and expectation that it will very soon be as unremarkable to hear a man talk about 'my husband' as it is to hear a woman talk about hers. Talking about 'my Civil Partner' always sounded pretentious, and just 'my partner' doesn't convey whether it's a formalised union in the way 'husband' does.

--
Were I in a civil partnership with a gentleman I would refer to him as, probably, 'husband', but that is because there is no other word for it. My son's wife's parents never married. I have no idea how they refer to each other. I have only heard them use names, not titles. Son married wife for convenience. They were pregnant, buying a house and it made fiscal sense as well as hospital rights sense and child status in heredity sense. Otherwise they woudl have stayed unmarried and not partnered in any formal manner.

When I married a church wedding was chosen for us. It was the done thing, as was the baptism of our son. Today we would have done it very differently. That, however, is an aside.

Where you and I differ is over the term 'sacrament'. Religions have long owned the term 'marriage' and it is, out of ling standing religious custom and practice, between one man and at least one woman, historically more than one. That is the religion's sacrament. There is no sacrament in the marrying of those whose bodies, joined together, are not 'intended' for procreation (whether fertile or infertile).

Those who have faith should be content in their faith. A person of faith who commits to another person, whether that other person has the same faith, a different faith, or no faith at all, should be content that their faith embraces their commitment. There is no need for formalised religious flummery to somehow 'bless' it, or legitimise it, for it is already legitimised.

Why do people require a religious ceremony to somehow sanctify what religion has long deemed unsanctifiable? If one requires religion to change, it does not, though it takes on the appearance of doing so. This is by no means the same discussion as, for example, the ordination of women, something that is simple emancipation. This is a thing that goes against the basic tenets of the foundation of the control by the priesthood if what others do with their genitals. All we do by requiring religions to marry same sex couples is to play into the hands of the controlling priesthood yet again.

Watching this is like watching people invent and deploy new rules for editing Wikipedia. The human mass at large seems to enjoy controlling others and, to a great extent, to being controlled by them. I am amused by Wikipedia. I am depressed when such volunteering to be controlled by others spills into real life.

So, that term 'husband', after further thought what would I choose?

"This is Peter, my partner." And to hell with how others will interpret 'partner'. That is their issue, not mine.



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
Re: I suppose "Marriage" is inevitable  [message #69865 is a reply to message #69861] Thu, 02 July 2015 09:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Smokr is currently offline  Smokr

Likes it here
Location: the burning former USofA
Registered: July 2010
Messages: 399



Agreeing with the 'marriage' versus 'partnership' view.
Why use the same wording and phraseology? A marriage is a 'religious' based partnership. The government got into regulating it. Set up an equal partnership for gay men and women, and treat it equally to a marriage, but without the need of a religious approval.
As far as the government would be concerned either conjoining would be identical. Let the churches worry about the difference.
If a gay couple has a real 'man' and 'woman' role for each member because of their proclivities, they can call themselves husband and wife. Or they can call each other husband, or each other wife. Domestic partner. Spouse. Significant other. Whatever.
Just establish the equality and call it whatever but marriage, as marriage is the word used by religion to denote a man and wife coupling.

The whole argument is just another diversion so we don't notice what they're doing behind the curtain. Another social division. Something to keep the activist-types tied down and prevent them from taking on the more meaningful problems.






raysstories.com
Re: I suppose "Marriage" is inevitable  [message #69870 is a reply to message #69861] Fri, 03 July 2015 06:12 Go to previous message
dgt224 is currently offline  dgt224

Toe is in the water
Location: USA
Registered: May 2011
Messages: 81



I, too, would be more than happy with some sort of civil partnership, call it what you like and leave the word "marriage" for the churches. But in this country the 'phobes brought on the equal marriage result themselves to some extent by repeatedly making it clear that it was not same-sex access to "marriage" as a religious institution that they opposed but rather the whole concept of governmentally recognized same-sex relationships. For example, section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act relieved states of the obligation to recognize a "relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage" under the laws of another state. The Federal Marriage Amendment, which has been introduced repeatedly since 2002 but never made it through Congress, reserves marriage and its "legal incidents" to opposite-sex couples; it is carefully written to ensure that no look-alike under a different name could give same-sex couples the same legal standing as opposite-sex couples.

Their rhetoric makes it sound like same-sex unions being called marriages is offensive to them, but when they lay their hands on the law it becomes clear that what offends them is the whole idea of same-sex unions. As I mentioned previously, the U.S. General Accounting Office found over 1000 federal statutory provisions that discriminate on the basis of marital status. It has been made clear repeatedly that those on the front lines in the opposition to marriage equality really want to protect their privileged position. It offends them that a same-sex spouse might escape the clutches of the federal estate tax, or visit a sick spouse in the hospital, or adopt the spouse's children, or receive Social Security payments based on a deceased spouse's employment record, or automatically inherit a deceased spouse's property. They say that they do not oppose such things (well, except for the adoption thing - they really don't want gay people adopting children), but the laws they have proposed, and in some cases passed, tell us differently.

If the 'phobes had left an opening for compromise, I think something could have been worked out that would satisfy all but the most extreme. But DOMA and its kin at the state level were carefully written to exclude anything that would look to us like compromise. They insisted on having everything their way, and I don't think their carefully written laws left the Supreme Court much room for a compromise position.

So now we've got marriage, if we want it, and we can move on (or go back) to other issues that are probably much more pressing for most of us.
Previous Topic: "Shit Eating Grins"
Next Topic: This Be The Verse By Philip Larkin
Goto Forum: