Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

[COMMA]

The writers of the US Contitution did not have tunnel vision. They wanted to allow future Americans, as the needs of the citizens and the culture changed, the right to decide their own laws. They also wanted to keep the Contitution as simple as possible. There is only one offense that was made illegal by the Contitution at the time of it's writing. That offense is treason. All other laws were left up to the individual states. The US Contitutionn and current Federal Laws, do not cover marriage. It will take a Equal Right to Marriage amendment to change the law nation wide. The other option is to get fifty states to pass fifty differewnt laws.

In my introduction it was stated that I 100% support Gay and Lesbian rights. I would support an amendment to the US Contitution allowing same sex marriage. I also believe that, if passed, a law making same sex legal unions legal would be contitutional.

COMMA

[urnofosiris]

I know you said you support gay marriage completely. I quoted that part on purpose to make it clear to those that did not read your whole introduction post that the reason you think the constitution does not support gay marriage does not mean you do not support gay marriage yourself.
I am not from the US obviously, so I am not all that well versed in US law with it´s separate state and federal laws, let alone their historical context, and I think I misinterpreted your original explanation, but am I correct in understanding you now that, even if the US consitution does not support gay marriage in the sense that it does not specifically state that it should be allowed, it also does not specifically prohibit it either?
If so then could not one argue that this quote from the 14th amendment (long live google):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

means that not allowing gay marriage is in fact not in accordance with the constitution. Marriage obviously holds some very important privileges that same sex couples are being denied.
Perhaps I made an unfair assumption about what the founding fathers would have done had the notion of gay marriage occurred to them, maybe they were more flexible in their ideas than some of the current powers that be and they recognized that times would change and left the approriate room for it.
Anyway, looking at it now, the US constitution does appear to be quite readable. I think I shall make an effort and actually read it all one of these days, that should clear up some of my misconceptions, though I think I really should read my own country´s constitution first. I must admit I have never done that either.

[xita]

They're going to try to pass that Federal Marriage amendent again.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has promised to bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to a vote the week of June 5. find out more



signa a petition

[WebWarlock]

PLEASE,

Don't forget to call your Senators!!

US Senate switchboard 202-224-3121

I live in a state where both of my Senators have said they will not support the FMA. But I also live a state where there is a big push to view the FMA as the last line of defense to protect "families" from .... well, I am not sure, but they are running scared and have a bunch of others running scared too.

Look up your Senator and call them! Emails really don't matter. Phone calls do.

Warlock

[justin]

There's a story on the BBC website about Bush calling for the FMA to be passed. He's once again spewing rubbish about "activist judges".

"An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," Mr Bush said.

A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people

Say what now?

Then there's this bit,

They say the president is seeking to switch the spotlight onto positive issues for his party in the wake of his slumping popularity - particularly over Iraq.

Since when was descrimination a positive? So that's their campaign message, "Oh sure we're making a right proper mess of things in Iraq, but hey we're still a bunch of gay bashers, so vote for us"?

ETA: I guess a link to the article would be handy (duh) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5044428.stm

[WillowsGirlXX]

I read that this morning and my heart sank, its not been a good week for supporters of gay marriage. Here in Canada our own prime minister is seeking to have a free vote on Gay Marriage.

Feeling throughly depressed about the whole thing these days, I want to be able to marry my girlfriend, but if Stephen Harper gets his way I wont be allowed to. I just hope the vote ends in defeat for him and Bush's FMA as well.

Rachel

[Candleshoe]

US Senate blocks gay marriage ban.

BBC News item

[FineyMcFine]

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT Senators Specter and Gregg changed their votes from last time! 49-48!!! Now THAT is frackin' awesome!

http://www.hrc.org

[WebWarlock]

Excellent.

I would have rather seen a resounding defeat, but doing worse than 2004 is not bad.

Ok. What are the next steps? The Rebulicans are going to pull out this hobgoblin everytime their polls lag. What can we do to make sure it doesn't come up again.

Warlock

[Willowlover]

Yahoo news on gay marriage here

[FineyMcFine]

What can we do to make sure it doesn't come up again.

The short answer is, elect a Democratic majority in the Senate. I have no love lost for the Dems, but they won't bring up the FMA for a vote.

[watty]

via boing boing and youtube, Jon Stewart tears open Bill Bennett on gay marriage.

The same video at crooks and liars.
[br]

[Leaf]

That was brilliant.
If I wasn't a big 'ol married lesbo, I could love Jon Stewart.

[notl33t]

Whoa. Yes, I would totally make love to Jon Stewart, even though I'm with a woman.

Marriage means different things to different people. Even in Islam, followers can't agree. Even in Judaism. Even in Christianity. Even in Hinduism. Followers of one religion can't agree, and the different religions don't agree with each other. So we should separate church and state . . . civil unions maybe? There is no way to tell what specific type of religion will be practiced by the majority of America or even the world in a hundred years time. Separation is the way to go.

[Gatito Grande]

Sucks-beyond-the-telling-of-them decisions against gay marriage out of the Supreme Courts of BOTH Georgia (predictable ) AND New York.



GG The only Good Thing: polls show that a majority of New Yorkers support same-sex marriage. Maybe SOON the NY legislature will do the right thing, and pass it? Out

[skittles]

GG, Can I ignore my Georgia relatives now??

[kisstheviolets]

just another one of our 12.4 million steps back...


Washington Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Washington state's highest court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, ruling by a 5-4 majority that the state legislature had the power to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

The plaintiffs, 19 gay and lesbian couples, had challenged the constitutionality of Washington state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law passed by the state legislature in 1998 restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

The court's lead opinion stressed it was ruling on the constitutionality of the law, not on the issue of gay marriage itself. It saw no reason why the rights of marriage should not be extended for gays and lesbians through a state ballot.

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA," Justice Barbara Madsen wrote. "Our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be."



The court's ruling was the latest blow to U.S. gay marriage advocates. Earlier this month, New York's highest court ruled that the state Constitution does not guarantee same-sex couples equal access to the rights and privileges of marriage.

Georgia Supreme Court on July 6 reinstated a gay marriage ban that had been thrown out by a lower court. Voters in Alabama also approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

If the court had struck down the marriage ban, Washington would have been the second U.S. state after Massachusetts to legalize gay marriage.

In 2003, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, leading to America's first same-sex marriages the following year. The U.S. Supreme Court has not taken a case on gay marriage, leaving states to decide the issue.

Marriage between same-sex couples is currently legal in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. It will be legalized in South Africa before the end of the year.


© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

[WebWarlock]

Ban struck down.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... b01_layout

Judge strikes down Iowa's same-sex marriage law
By DAVID PITT | Associated Press Writer
4:16 PM CDT, August 30, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa - A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.

"This is kind of the American Dream," said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. "I'm still feeling kind of shaky. It's pure elation, I just cannot believe it."

Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires "full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families."

"The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone," she said.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County. The process takes three days, however.

Polk County is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

County Attorney John Sarcone said the county would immediately seek a stay from Hanson, which if granted would prevent anyone from seeking a marriage license until an appeal could be heard.

The case will be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which could refer it to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear the case.

Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson represented the six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses. He called the ruling "a moral victory for equal rights."

Johnson argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. He said the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous court rulings regarding civil rights and should be struck down.

Johnson called the Defense of Marriage law "mean spirited" and said it was designed only to prohibit gays from marrying. He said it violates the state constitution's equal protection and due-process clauses.

Lambda Legal, which spearheaded a same-sex marriage drive across the country, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the gay and lesbian couples in Polk County District Court on Dec. 13, 2005.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

Rachel Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes gay marriage, said the decision will be appealed.

"We're very disappointed and will pursue to the next level of courts," she said.

In his ruling, Hanson said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage...by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," he said.

The judge said the state law banning same-sex marriage must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books and the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage..."

State Sen. Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said he was surprised by the ruling and promised the Legislature would take another look at the issue.

"We'll look at something we can do legislatively," Wieck said.

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the judge's ruling only illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will a vote on this issue come January."

Sarcone, the Polk County attorney, said the arguments in the case were similar to those made in litigation around the country.

"I know Judge Hanson took a lot of time with it," Sarcone said. "He made his decision and we respectfully disagree."

Kate Varnum, another plaintiff, said she was elated but expected more legal battles.

"I don't expect this to be the last one," said Varnum, of Cedar Rapids.

------

Associated Press writer Henry C. Jackson in Des Moines contributed to this report.

Tim

[maudmac]

Thanks, Tim. That is great news! Yay for Iowa! And yay for Judge Hanson.

It's really ridiculous how hard the other side is fighting against the acceptance of same-sex marriage. There's no rational reason for it at all and I will go to my grave never understanding why in the world they care so much about it. It doesn't affect them. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one!

[erith]

It's interesting how these organisations that use the word family in their names have such a narrow definition of what a family actually is.

[Boschi]

Duuuuuude. (ettes if you like)

Iowa. No shit.

Three big ole gay cheers for the midwest. Doesn't happen often, so I'll get my kicks when I can. I must say, emigrating to Iowa sounds much easier than Canada.

Sadly, I predict a constitutional amendment any day now, but that's beside the point.

[EvilKittycatofdoom]

Im not married cause like im a teenager and besides i dont have anyone to marry even if i was older.
But my family has two close friends that had to apply for domestic partnership and they had to do this whole thing that basicly ment the same thing as if they where married, only it took longer which is stupid.
it shouldent be the states desision weather two people who love each other get married cause they arent the ones doing the marying