Gay Marriage Updates By State

[Kulindahr]

^That isn't worth much. It wasn't really a ruling "in favor of a gay divorce", it was a ruling on standing -- the court ruled that given the circumstances, the AG's appeal wasn't relevant.

There was no actual ruling on the case.

[metta]

Gay marriage isn't revolutionary. It's just the next step in marriage's evolution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010604911.html

[metta]

Catholic Bishop Tobin lashes out at R.I. leaders for pushing gay marriage

http://www.projo.com/news/politics/c...23.507965.html

[Kulindahr]

Gay marriage isn't revolutionary. It's just the next step in marriage's evolution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010604911.html

Excellent read!

I always hear debates about marriage in terms of structure, but never anything about the forces behind the scenes -- which turn out, in a civil sense, to be the foundations.

I will note one error: the idea of marriage for love is older than just the last two centuries; that particular revolution was begun by the troubadors with their songs of love and devotion.

[Kulindahr]

Catholic Bishop Tobin lashes out at R.I. leaders for pushing gay marriage

http://www.projo.com/news/politics/c...23.507965.html

The Roman Catholics have never gotten over the fact that no one allows them to decide who gets to be king or president or whatever. Since we took away the divine right of kings, they've replaced it with the divine right of whining.

I MUCH prefer the actions of a Lutheran pastor here the last election when there was a gay issue and something else on the ballot that the local version of the FRC had an opinion about: at a congregation meeting, a number of people asked loudly that the church put up signs on these issues. Pastor J. asked for copies of the Bible to be handed out for any who hadn't brought one, and said that if anyone could before the meeting was over find a Bible verse where Jesus or an apostle instructed that God's people were to take over the government, he'd put the sign issue to a vote -- but if not, since proclaiming God's message was his job, the only signs going up would say "Love one another", that being in his judgment the best admonition Christ had for elections.

[Ninja108]

Catholic Bishop Tobin lashes out at R.I. leaders for pushing gay marriage

http://www.projo.com/news/politics/c...23.507965.html

IMO, an originzation that covered up the rape of boys and girls and allowed more of them to be victimized rather than face scandel has no authority to lecture anyone.

[Kulindahr]

IMO, an originzation that covered up the rape of boys and girls and allowed more of them to be victimized rather than face scandel has no authority to lecture anyone.

Part and parcel of still living in the seventeenth century.


And I still say they should have used a seventeenth-century solution: any offending priest whose victim(s) was under the age of fourteen goes to a monastery to be walled in, receiving meals through a window, and spend the rest of his life in prayer; fourteen to sixteen, up to the same depending on the details, and seventeen to eighteen, put 'em in the ring with their victims and let the kids get medieval on their asses.

They say it should be handled by the church -- I agree, But they rarely did any handling, just shuffling.

Maybe if they'd repent of the evil of requiring priests to be celibate, the priests would have an outlet, and God might even provide more priests (personally, I consider most of Rome's woes to be due to their arrogance in God's eyes on the matter of married priests).

But on that note they allow priests to marry, they can just STFU about marriage.

[metta]

New Hampshire legislator files two bills that would repeal marriage equality

http://sdgln.com/causes/2011/01/10/n...riage-equality

[metta]

Catholic Lawmakers Backing Gay Marriage

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/catho...g-gay-marriage

[Ninja108]

New Hampshire legislator files two bills that would repeal marriage equality

http://sdgln.com/causes/2011/01/10/n...riage-equality

Not surprised...they announced it as one of their goals the minute they got the majority in the house. I truly don't get what damn business it is of theirs if we get married or not.

[metta]

NOM Targets Rhode Island


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N..._Rhode_Island/

[Kulindahr]

Catholic Lawmakers Backing Gay Marriage

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/catho...g-gay-marriage

On the other side of the planet, Australian Cardinal George Pell weighed in on national legislation when he told the Sunday Telegraph that it was “incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they’re as good a Catholic as the Pope, then voting against the established Christian traditions”.

Uh-huh.

Of course of Roman Catholics that's true -- they have a tradition of thinking it's the business of the Church to tell people what to do. Despite a couple of papal bulls affirming the separation of church and state, they continue.
Of course that was to be expected, with a pope who doesn't know what the Gospel is (though he's hardly alone in the line of popes on that), a throwback to the seventeenth century. A real pope would be explaining that what is God's is God's, and what is Caesar's is Caesar's, and the two are in different realms, and the Church isn't called to be telling Caesar what to do with what is Caesar's.

[metta]

Supreme Court To Conference Friday On Gay Marriage Ballot Initiative Petition

http://dcist.com/2011/01/last_stand_...y_jacksons.php

[metta]

Maryland set to expand gay rights, same-sex marriage


http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/....sex.marriage/

[Kulindahr]

Supreme Court To Conference Friday On Gay Marriage Ballot Initiative Petition

http://dcist.com/2011/01/last_stand_...y_jacksons.php

I hope they rule in a way that will just kick the Bishop in the ass. He's definitely a throwback to when bishops told rulers what to do, and he needs to be told firmly that this is the twenty-first century, not the sixteenth.

[scream4ever]

Okay, everyone take a sign of relief

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N..._Safe_For_Now/

I was sure it would fail to reach a veto proof majority, but this is even better.

As for Maryland, they have sufficient votes to bring it out of committee and from there it will easily pass with majority support.

[scream4ever]

^^^It's a no brainer that a senate with a 3/4 Democratic majority in a decently liberal state can easily reach majority support for gay marriage.

[metta]

Civil Union Talks Resume in Hawaii


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...ume_in_Hawaii/

[scream4ever]

"There could be a few changes of heart, but I don't want the equality folks to take anything for granted. I think they should be prepared to approve a civil unions bill in case they can't achieve marriage equality this session."

Agreed

[scream4ever]

Also in a sense similar to the Republicans dropping the repeal of gay marriage this year in New Hampshire as an issue, my local paper had an article about social conservative pieces of legislation Wisconsin Republicans were introducing. It listed many, yet did not mention repeal of the domestic partnership legislation.

[metta]

IA: Supreme Court Justice to Meet With Gay Equality Foe

"This court thinks they're smarter than nature," Hurley says. "...In the opinion, the justices said that they're holding the constitution up to an evolving standard and our view is that some things, like marriage, are transcendent."

Hurley says the judiciary needs to be "subordinate" to not only the other branches of government and to the people, but to the laws of nature. "Sodomy was called a crime against nature for centuries," Hurley says.

http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/01/16/...rriage-ruling/

[metta]

Gay Marriage Ban Introduced in West Virginia Senate

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx...=1&Category=26

[metta]

Tea Party Rally Focuses In Gay Marriage In Iowa

http://www.kcci.com/news/26506682/detail.html

[Kulindahr]

IA: Supreme Court Justice to Meet With Gay Equality Foe



http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/01/16/...rriage-ruling/

Moron.

Interracial marriage was considered "against nature" for centuries, too.

Dark-skin people eating at the same table as pale-skin people was considered "against nature" for centuries, too.


Branstad should appoint three justices who are virtual clones of the ones the bigots tossed.

[Kulindahr]

Gay Marriage Ban Introduced in West Virginia Senate

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx...=1&Category=26

I almost hope that passes. If the Prop 8 case dies where it is, Boies and Olson could head for W Va.

[hotatlboi]

Tea Party Rally Focuses In Gay Marriage In Iowa

http://www.kcci.com/news/26506682/detail.html

35 people?

I'm pleased by that abysmal turnout.

[arpeggi]

35 people?

I'm pleased by that abysmal turnout.

Haha, same here. Mr. Anti-gay Iowa himself, Bob Vander Plaats, is calling for the remaining justices to resign, threatening them with impeachment proceedings if they don't. I keep hearing things like, "The people of Iowa have spoken!" in regards to gay marriage, as though their anti-retention tirade was proof.
However, even many conservatives are saying that the retention vote results were enough and they don't really want to put Iowa through more anti-judge nonsense. They got their witch-hunt.

[metta]

US Supreme Court Rejects DC Anti Gay Marriage Appeal

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/g...opponents.html

[Kulindahr]

IMO...Gay Marriage is and should be a state/local issue.

I find that people asserting this argument are almost invariably trying to oppose some aspect of human rights.

Folks that don't one one state to recognize concealed carry licenses/permits from other states appeal to "states' rights". Folks who favored slavery used to claim "states' rights". And more.

"States' rights" does not apply when what's at issue is an individual right. States have no authority to restrict individual rights. The laws against interracial marriage were immoral, and laws against anything but "traditional" marriage are immoral. When the states are passing laws that are immoral, it is the duty of the federal government to kick them in the ass and get them in line.

"States' rights" might be legitimately invoked when a state is granting citizens more liberty than does the federal government, e.g. were California to totally decriminalize marijuana. But it cannot be invoked to defend less liberty, because the states have no authority to restrict rights: rights reside with the people.

[Kulindahr]

Yes...your link does explain a lot. The "Suspect Classes" section explains it very well. SCOTUS will not recognize "gay marriage" as a civil right. DOMA stands. Until the States and Congress pass an amendment. I'm not discriminating, only telling it like it is.

It has already recognized marriage as a right -- that's all that's needed.
And freedom of association is a right. DOMA violates that, and does so by invoking a religious standard -- so DOMA is twice unconstitutional right there.

[hotatlboi]

However...if 2/3 of Congress and 38 States amends The Constitution to specifically allow gay marriage

Such an action is not necessary.

TIt is completely constitutional within the enumerated rights.

[Kulindahr]

Freedom of association isn't a right. That's a presumption, not a right. And it would include all other associations as well...if someone hangs with thugs...then by association, they are a thug? I don't think so. That's not right nor a right!

Of course it's a right: I own myself, I get to decide with whom I'll associate.

If someone wants to hang with thugs, that's his choice -- he's free to associate with them. Why you think it would make him a thug I don't get -- does hanging with heterosexuals make me straight? does hanging with farmers make me a farmer?

Freedom of association is as much a right as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble.

I find it hard to correlate your "religious standard" to DOMA. Perhaps from a Creationist viewpoint it would make some sense...I guess But would be a far stretch to even do that.

DOMA is based on religion. The proponents will lie all day about it, but that's what they mean. When they use the lying term "traditional marriage", they mean "the way my preacher told me".

As a federal judge has already ruled, religious viewpoints are not a sufficient basis for a law and do not constitute a state interest. DOMA has no other foundation than religious viewpoints -- and a narrow, sectarian one at that.

If DOMA was "twice unconstitutional", don't you think it would have already been turned over and/or repealed? If DOMA is ever repealed, it doesn't automatically mean that gay marriage will be a constitutional right. It will re-open a pandora's box of monumental proportionate legal battles and will eventually wind up at SCOTUS and as it now stands....be an unrecognized suspect class.

No "suspect class" issue need be involved. It would be up to the state to show why there is a compelling state interest that requires limiting this particular form of freedom of association to one man and one woman, and how awarding privileges and benefits to a privileged class promotes any social benefit.

The burden of proof for the validity of government-imposed institutions must rest on the government which imposed them.

[Kulindahr]

Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.

By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal
government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.

And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The principle is already established that when a law like this is challenged, the government has to show a purpose behind distinguishing between people. By passing DOMA, the U.S. government officially created a disadvantaged class -- and it's up to them to defend that.
There are no grounds on which they can do so.

[metta]

Marriage Bill Comes to Maryland Next Week

I hope that JockBoy87 has a hubby ready to get married.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...and_Next_Week/

[metta]

Gay marriage legislation filed in Maryland General Assembly

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...ion_filed.html

[metta]

A first look at Maryland's 'protect marriage' team: Gays 'hate the Lord', 'defy God'



http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you...-defy-god.html

[metta]

Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief Defending Traditional Marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ffml0120.htm

[hotatlboi]

Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief Defending Traditional Marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ffml0120.htm

Ah that Roy Moore, such a religious nutcase.

You may remember he became somewhat famous in 2003 for being removed from the Alabama Supreme Court after he refused a court order to stop displaying a huge statue the 10 commandments at the courthouse.

[Kulindahr]

Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief Defending Traditional Marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ffml0120.htm

He could hardly have said better why DOMA is unconstitutional. His own words:

"Marriage was defined by God at creation as between a man and a woman and no rhetoric or judicial gymnastics can alter that. Congress simply recognized that immutable, self-evident truth when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act."

In other words, the Defense of Marriage Act is establishment of religion.

Thank you, judge Moore.

[SonOfSlobone]

He could hardly have said better why DOMA is unconstitutional. His own words:

"Marriage was defined by God at creation as between a man and a woman and no rhetoric or judicial gymnastics can alter that. Congress simply recognized that immutable, self-evident truth when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act."

In other words, the Defense of Marriage Act is establishment of religion.

Thank you, judge Moore.

Not only that, he also said it's redundant. Which it is.

[scream4ever]

The later the bill is passed the better, to give opponents the least amount of time as possible to start a petition campaign. The last day of the session (which is at some day in April I forget) would be ideal. Unfortunately the number required is quite small, something like 3% of the voters in the last election which turns out to be about 55,000. Maryland requires the signatures to be collected in two stages, the first of which is only a few weeks after the session adjourns. However NOM has clandestinely waded into and infiltrated the state and I have no doubts they have the resources and the will power to gather what they need for a referendum campaign. When the issue heats up they will come out of the woodwork and hit the ground running. Honestly I don't think Maryland is liberal enough right now, but that doesn't mean we won't keep trying until we get what we deserve. Yes, I have a partner I am serious with now and we are planning a future together. At the moment we are looking at townhouses and will have the right to a limited domestic partnership, which includes basic medical and tax rights. Hopefully we will be able to marry in our own home state when such time arrives. A consolation is the state government's favorable legal opinion regarding state recognition of such marriages. As of yet I think this is still untested in court. If necessary we are still able to go down to DC just an hour away.

Some are saying that a referendum may not even happen in Maryland. Isn't the window of time much smaller then it was in Maine?

Also, November of 2012 is a long ways away, and I expect public opinion to shift even further to our side (thanks in part to the repeal of DADT!).

[metta]

Opponents of anti-gay-marriage bill rally in Casper

"Protect our people like we protect guns"

http://trib.com/news/local/article_7...4c32ee4d1.html

Tell Wyoming State Representative Rep. Owen Petersen he is wrong [email protected] call 307-782-6378, Fax 307-782-6378

[Kulindahr]

It's an interesting argument that they need to square outside issues with state law, or the other way around. But they could do that equally well, and better in line with "less intrusion", by abolishing the state's definition of marriage, or replacing it with "a contract between consenting individuals".

[scream4ever]

I'd say when polls are solidly in the mid 50's we can be confident, which is probably less then 5 years away.

The demographic shift in Maryland is probably caused by more people moving out to the DC suburbs (which are very liberal by suburban standards).

[metta]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-1MbDR0nyM&feature=feedu[/ame]

[metta]

Please help out RI and sign this petition which goes straight to our legislators!! Regardless of where you're from you can sign this!! Thanks so much.

http://www.change.org/petitions/view...n_rhode_island

[safeluz]

The United states has still a long way to go in this matter. I hope more states alow same sex marriage in 2011!

[hotatlboi]

Seriously doubtful for NY imo.

[metta]

Marriage Opponents to Keep Fighting Against Equality in D.C.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/01/...uality-in-d-c/

I hope that the supreme court will see all of this and recognize how ridiculous this all is. It makes a mockery of marriage and commitment.

[hotatlboi]

I hope they get fined for frivolous lawsuits/filings.

Enough is enough! The legal system is already extremely strained and cluttered these days. We don't need some fringe lunatics exacerbating the problem over their outdated ideology.

Um, the article states that their legal avenues have been exhausted (Supreme Court denied them).

It says they are trying legislation now (of course that has no chance at least until the next election).