Not only has Oklahoma's legislature acted to put the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on November's ballot, this just in:

Signed by Governor Brad Henry specifically bans the recognition of adoptions in other countries and states by "more than one individual of the same sex".

The applicable langage is here (the last sentence is the change to this section):


Section 7502-1.4 A. The courts of this state shall recognize a decree, judgment, or final order creating the relationship of parent and child by adoption, issued by a court or other governmental authority with appropriate jurisdiction in a foreign country or in another state or territory of the United States. The rights and obligations of the parties as to matters within the jurisdiction of this state shall be determined as though the decree, judgment, or final order were issued by a court of this state. Except that, this state, any of its agencies, or any court of this state shall not recognize an adoption by more than one individual of the same sex from any other state or foreign jurisdiction.


So now what are these parents when they bring their adopted child to Oklahoma? Kidnappers?


How can they authorize medical treatment?


Can DHS take control of the kids since they are without a recognized legal guardian?


The language is unclear as to whether EITHER parent will be recognized as valid (since it won't recoginize such adoption BETWEEN the two of them...I guess the statute technically could recognize the adoption of one of them, but not the other), but it talks about the adoption not being recognized rather than the one of the individuals not being recongized as a parent, so I guess that would probably be interpreted to address both "parents" unless one was, in fact, the blood mother.


Any thought? Opinions? Are the considerations here any different than those in the "gay marriage" debate?

It seems like all of the "backlash" against the progress in California, Massachusetts, etc. is focused within the state I currently find myself stuck in. I would say "my home state", but it is being made clear I'm not a full citizen.

The Oklahoma voters get to vote on a Constitutional amendment in November banning gay marriage. I'd guess the over/under is 80% for passage.

BTW, Gov. Henry is a Democrat, and both houses of the legislature are controlled by the Democrats. Just goes to show...

Canad always has room for a hunky Okie cowboy!!

How about - a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which requires acceptance of other states' court decisions?

CPT wrote:
_________________________________________________
How about - a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which requires acceptance of other states' court decisions?
__________________________________________________


Actually, CPT, it's not quite that simple. In Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt
123 S.Ct. 1683, the Court stated:

"Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require state to apply second state's sovereign immunity statutes where such application would violate first state's own legitimate public policy." U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 4, § 1.


A legislative enactment is considered to be the legislature's expression of public policy for that jurisdiction. Thus, it would seem possible for Oklahoma to declare it's "public policy" by statute as seems to have been done here, thereby avoiding the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It's almost certain someone will challenge the statute, no doubt on FF&C grounds, but it seems to be arguably defensible. We'll see.

Good article in the NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/national...UFWwc25k4f6DqCA

Excerpts...
Ah, so they were wrong...the rank and file bible thumpers are NOT knocking down the doors of city hall to stop the heathen Gays!

It looks like they are going to go with plan B, and that is to find the images of the most-unusual-looking gay marriages to try and scare the parishioners into action (giving $$ and votes). Interesting times ahead!

After remaining fairly quiet on the subject for a few months, on the day that so many are celebrating love and commitment in Massachusetts, Bush renews call for same-sex marriage ban (CNN Article). The f*cker. Things are spiraling so out of control for the administration, they're grasping at straws to keep from losing their religious-right voters.

Can't you just smell Karl Rove's handiwork in this?

It would be nice if someone could get some dirt on Karl Rove. With him and Dumsfeld embarrassed out of office, the Republicans would know what it felt like to be the brunt of a truly ruthless campaign

Can someone tell me how the amendment is doing on the Hill? I went to an HRC party/meeting a couple of months ago and heard about the lobbying effort, but I am not well enough connected to keep in the know.

Thanks

Apparently the bill is going nowhere, but there is some concern that if the FMA is re-written to explicitly allow for civil unions, it would stand a chance of passing.

Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the FMA this morning, singing the "activist judiciary" song with the "preservation of civilization" refrain.

Former (Republican) congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who authored the federal DOMA but opposes the FMA, chastised him, saying "The Governor is pleading for this Congress and the federal government to protect him against the Massachusetts state constitution, the Massachusetts legislature, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and most ironically, the people of Massachusetts if they eventually ratify the proposed Massachusetts constitutional amendment."

Meanwhile, former (Republican) Massachusetts governor Bill Weld participated in the wedding of his old friends Mitchell Adams and Kevin Smith, both of whom had served in Weld's administration. Also in attendance were Boston mayor Tom Menino, Boston police commissioner Kathleen O'Toole, former (Republican) governor Jane Swift, senate president Bob Travaglini, state auditor Joe DeNucci and former attorney general Frank Bellotti.

About Romney's visit to Washington, Weld said "If I'd been down there I would have been testifying on the opposite side of the issue."

All together now...

[ June 22, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Sorry for the sequential post, but my friend Roy sent me the link to this GREAT statement by Ted Kennedy, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, in response to Romney's Judiciary Committee appearance and all the other shameful shenanigans surrounding the FMA.

It's about time somebody called it what it is -- homophobia, which has no place in the law, much less the US Constitution. Right on, Ted!

Love him! Tell the truth about these hatemongers, Teddy!

Kahl-ee-forn-ya to Bush: "drop dead."

Calif. Lawmakers Oppose Gay-Marriage Ban


Vay to go, Ahnuld, baby. Make my day. Oh, wait, that's the other guy.

[ June 24, 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

And it ain't just California. I was surprised to open the Washington Post today (page A4)and find a nearly full-page anti-FMA ad from the children of several recent Presidents.

The ad, credited to the Campaign to Protect the Constitution, entitled \"The Right Side of History\" has the beginning of the Constitution's preamble and states:

\"Every generation is called upon to uphold the principles of our Constitution established by our founders. We have a choice to be a better America rather than a people divided by our many differences.\"

It is signed by Ron Reagan, all four of Carter's children, both Johnson daughters and Anna Eleanor Roosevelt (who I believe is either FDR's grand-daughter or Eleanor Roosevelt's niece/grand-niece).

It is interesting that neither Chelsea Clinton, nor any of the Ford or Bush children signed (maybe the Bush family's absence is not so surprising).

According to the website of the group:

I didn't even know this group had formed.

Campaign to Protect the Constitution

Why do they hate America?

Gays Undermining America Bush Says - 365Gay.com, 7/10/04




[Post modified to comply with Fair Use policy. - Outsports moderator]

[ July 16, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]

What scares me about this issue is the strenghtening of the very conservative church to the White House and Government. When Churches are preaching government, and Government is preaching to the conservative Church Chorus (essentially for votes), that scares me.

On that note, I saw Dick Cheney's wife interviewed about the issue and she obviously didn't agree with the amendment and you would think that would mean siding with her daughter, but wouldn't do anything to criticize the amendment that her husband supports (after he said in 2000 that he thought everyone should be able to choose......talk about 'flip flopping'). I wonder what the daughter feels about all this.

Excellent question... of course, we've heard absolutely zippo from her since she took that 100K job in the re-election campaign. Hope the money makes up for the loss of any credibility she may have ever had.

I guess this is the best thread to post these excerpts from today's CNN interview with the mother of Mary Cheney, an open lesbian working for Bush's reelection.

Someone please explain to me what Wolf meant by using the word sensitive with Lynne Cheney.

What the f--- is so sensitive about denying equal marriage rights to queers, including Mary?

Wolf is a wimp for not mentioning Mary.
^^^



CNN's Late Edition
July 11, 2004


[snip]

BLITZER: We only have a few seconds left, but I want to get both of you on the record.

There's going to be a effort, beginning tomorrow, Senator Feinstein, to get a constitutional amendment passed in the U.S. Senate that would ban same-sex marriage.

I assume you're going to vote against that.

FEINSTEIN: I'm going to vote against it.

I mean, I find it really intolerable that it's coming up now. Everyone knows that it doesn't have the votes to be placed before the American people. It's there only to create, I think, a major conflict.

BLITZER: Do you support same-sex marriage?

FEINSTEIN: I don't support same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The people of my state voted on this on a ballot in the year 2000 and sustained that. Once you have a ballot measure like that, I'm clearly here to carry out the intentions of a majority of the state.

And I also believe, and Supreme Court decisions buttress this belief, family law has always been the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government.

BLITZER: Let me let Senator Snowe weigh in.

How will you vote, Senator Snowe?

SNOWE: Well, I don't support a constitutional amendment at this time. We have the Defense of Marriage Act in place. It hasn't been challenged. No suits have been filed in court. And I oppose same-sex marriage and I believe that marriage should be defined as a marriage between man and woman. But I don't think that a constitutional amendment is necessary.

Senator Snowe, thanks very much for joining us.

Senator Feinstein, thanks to you, as well.

FEINSTEIN: You're very welcome.

SNOWE: Thank you.



[snip]

BLITZER: Welcome back to "LATE EDITION."

We're continuing our conversation with Lynne Cheney. She is the wife, of course, of the vice president, Dick Cheney.

Mrs. Cheney, the White house, the Republicans now pushing an amendment in the U.S. Senate, debate starting tomorrow, that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I want you to listen to what your husband said four years ago on this sensitive subject.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one he's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.

I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Now, I interviewed the vice president a few months ago, and he revised his position to say he supports the president when it comes to this issue. As the vice president he has no choice: He has to support the president.

But is this a good idea for a constitutional amendment to come forward that would ban same-sex marriage?

CHENEY: Well, I thought that the formulation he used in 2000 was very good. And first of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states.

Of course, what's happened is we're in a situation now where the ability of the states to do that has been called into some question by the actions of the court in Massachusetts.

BLITZER: So you heard Olympia Snowe and Dianne Feinstein say it is a bad idea, even though they both said it's not a good idea to have same-sex marriage, to codify it into law, it's a bad idea to have a constitutional amendment, that's the nuance right there. That's the difference between the Kerry-Edwards position and the Bush-Cheney position.

CHENEY: I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact.

BLITZER: Well, and maybe I'm missing something.

CHENEY: No, I've answered the question twice, Wolf.

BLITZER: So your position is basically...

CHENEY: It's a good point for discussion.

BLITZER: Just leave it alone, and...

CHENEY: You bet. You bet.

BLITZER: ... and move on. This is obviously...

CHENEY: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: ... a sensitive subject that all of us appreciate, you know, your position on this matter.

[snip]

[ July 11, 2004, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: MPetrelis ]

I'd say she's thinking "f**k 'em, let them eat cake, I'm in the will".

What a BS position. Feinstein's job is not to do what the majority of her state would want her to do -- her job is to do the right thing. And she's supposedly about as liberal as they come, too. Give me a break.

That's the ultimate balancing act of the elected official. One has to know when to give up one's convictions for the will of the people and when to betray one's constituency for one's conscience. It's not an easy question to answer, particularly when faced with agonizing decisions on which one has particularly passionate opinions. I certainly don't agree with Feinstein's choice here, but I can understand why she thinks she's doing the right thing.

The "war president" used his weekly radio address to urge Congress to pass the amendment saying that to allow gays to marry would "undermine the family structure."

Gee, and Log Cabin still cant decide whether to endorse him or not, maybe one more tax cut will do the trick.

Why is it, when this g-ddamn rhetoric of "undermining the family" comes out, that no one in the LIBERAL media has the guts to say - "where's the proof?"

I mean, really, on what grounds can Bush or anyone state that recognizing gay relationships will undermine traditional ones? Where's the data (and don't give me the Scandanavian crap - their marriages were in decline long before they recognized gay marriages)? The President of the United States is declaring that an entire class of people is undermining the most basic institution of the country, he should be forced to justify those statements.

While it's probably not too popular of a choice with many on this board, Feinstein's doing what she has to do. Keep in mind if these people take radical positions on an issue such as gay marriage, that's just asking for a Republican to be voted in her seat. So ask yourself, would you rather have her or some Republican that wants this amendment passed?

As for Feinstein being the most liberal out there, that's just some more rhetoric, just like the whole Kerry - Edwards is the most liberal in history. Uh huh.

I'm beginning to think that the Lynn Cheney comments on same sex marriage and FMA are a particularly cynical attempt to reassure the Log Cabin faithful that while this president and administration find it politically necessary to stab them in the back with FMA, She's essentially saying, "We want our gay Republican brethren to still vote for us in the Fall and they should because this was an empty gesture to simply placate the unwashed masses, but -- wink wink, nudge nudge -- we have no real intention of blocking the progress of gay marriage, if you know what I mean."

I would respect what Feinstein is doing if she were from, say, South Dakota. But the simple fact is that she would almost surely not lose her Senate seat by voicing support for gay marriage. 43% of the Californians support it, and that number is only going to rise. She has been a senator for 12 years and her approval rating has got to be somewhere close to 65% or 70%.

If not her, then who? What senators are going to take the political chance? I'm as pragmatic as they come, but if someone like Dianne Feinstein is not going to support gay marriage then I don't know who will.

Well, I watched a few hours of the Senate debate on CSPAM today concerning this amendment. Very typical, the Republicans of course dominated the first rounds being the majority. Lame arguments about how it affects the children and how it violates commonly accepted moral standards.

Daschle finally came up and really only talked about how ridiculous it is to be arguing about this subject when so many soldiers are being killed in Iraq.

The Repugs are trying to reflect the Democrats as not willing to debate about this amendment to save any controversy about their re-election and not stir anything up before the convention. The Dems meanwhile are pretty confident that the vote won't pass and are wisely staying silent. Interesting watching these proceedings.

Isn't Diane Feinstein the more conservative of California's two Senators? Isn't Barbara Boxer the more liberal one? I'm not surprised by Feinstein's stand--seriously, folks, there are Democrats out there, moderate ones, who, if pushed hard enough, will protect their asses rather than vote for us. However, if they have some sort of political insulation, then they will vote in our favor. I don't trust even that Hillary Clinton would vote for gay marriage as readily as John Kerry voted AGAINST DOMA.

Outsporters, think about this: if the Democrats reclaim the Senate, which is looking ever more possible, we might have a reprieve from this kind of hateful posturing. Many of the Democrats who have an opportunity to win are moderate to liberal, and won't pull a Zell Miller (or an Olympia Snowe) when the time comes to stand up to the GOP's thuggish shenanigans.

Until listening to some of the Senate debate, I had no idea how effective my plan to destroy hetero relationships was progressing.

Yes, in maintaining a home and lots of love together with my boyfriend, arguing over what to cook for dinner, laughing at sitcoms, and all the other average things we do in a day, we are wrecking marriage!

And we are doing to straight couples in Omaha, whom we've never met, which just goes to show how powerful my plan is.

After I've obliterated marriage for breeders, I'll have to find something else to eradicate and desecrate (with the help of my queer boyfriend, of course).

My thanks go out to the Senators who used my loving relationship, as a weapon of mass destruction.

Frankly, the FMA is a losing issue for the losers who oppose us and their debate this afternoon was more obscene than even the most naked and outrageous gay pride parade could ever hope to be.

Call me sick, but I will be sorry when the FMA senatorial debate is over because giving those loonies ample time to hang themselves with their own rope, the proposal to amend the constitution, shows America how Cheney'ed up many Senators are.

Dub's take on gay equality, at a campaign stop last Friday in Kutztown PA: In other words, we can sodomize each other as long as we just keep quiet about it. That's what Dub calls "debating with the ultimate of respect." Dick calls it "Go f**k yourself." Same thing.

Feinstein, like most politicians, has no balls. She mushes around issues, saving her "leadership" for something minor like holding up an AK47 to say she wants to ban assault weapons.

It seems we've progressed to the point where the proviso "not that there's anything wrong with it" is waved like a red coat confusing the charging bull of fairness, proving they're not really homophobic, while reassuring the terribly frightened, endangered species HETEROSapiens that they will be protected from the HOMOSapiens.

Apparently terrorism, WMD's, war, trillion $ deficits, and health care no longer frighten them. As my favorite blogger Wonkette.com says, it's the butt sex that makes them uncomfortable. So to counter Family Research Council's "Marriage Sunday", she's endorsing Fleshbot's
\"Ass f**king Fridays.\"


Wonkette's comments

Who knew that Ron Reagan Jr would be one of the best spokesman against the amendment?

These gay closet-case republicans, along with the straight democrats, need to find their balls and start speaking up in clear, direct ways. Even if it is just an election side-show trick, republicans have to be told that putting the noose around OUR necks so they can incite their base to turn out and vote them back in will not be tolerated.

We [largely] stood by and watched them take us to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, using scare tactics that turned out to be lies. Letting them make a pre-emptive strike against us based on even more obvious lies, now that they're losing their other War Of Choice recalls Bush's confusion of "Fool me once...fool me twice...."

The shame is not only on us as gays, but also on these senators who just want to treat it like an impolite interruption of Business As Usual, instead of the Stuka bombing of those that pose no threat to the powerful.

The only thing that makes me proud of Feinstein now is her choice of well-taylored business suits.

I was listening to them at work, and quite frankly I was appalled. Not just at the arguments in favor of FMA, but the complete lack of any support for gay people. Not one senator had the balls(ovaries) to simply say "gay people are citizens of this country, and they and their supporters have the right to their own moral beliefs, which this amendment would limit." It is disgusting that homophobes have such continued power in this country that we cannot find a decent advocate in the Senate (I assume the House, being from more narrowly defined districts, will at least have a few real supporters).

The saddest thing, though, is that the pro-FMA types don't even realize what they're actually arguing. They basically stated:

1) there's a conspiracy among some gay lawyers to continue fighting for marriage rights at the state level, until it becomes a coast-to-coast thing (imagine! citizens appealing to the government for redress to alleged discrimination - in the United States, who'd a thunk it!)

2) DOMA is likely unconstitutional, and those evil judges who actually think gays are humans are more likely to think so, and because the judiciary comprises nothing but know-it-all traitorous liberals, they will hand the faggots anything they want

3) gay marriage destroys traditional marriage.

Basically what they are saying is that the United States of America is faced with the first complete failure of the ideals behind the Constitution. The argument that gay people are normal, healthy humans with relationships that deserve just as much respect as straight people is apparently so vicious, so horrible, so immoral that it will overwhelm the country. The "moral" religions are unable to stop the onslaught of this type of thinking, so we must put an end to it now - codify our sense of heterosexual superiority before the idea loses all power.

This country was founded on the notion that the free exchange of ideas was a positive thing, and that a republic such as ours could withstand that exchange. But this issue - gay marriage - according to people like Sessions of Alabama, is so horrible that it will use that free exchange to undermine America. There is no way for the forces of "good" to stop the inevitable and catastrophic negative effects of gay marriage, so we must not even consider the idea.

But they don't hate any gay people, no.

The Repugs. are trying to make this a political wedge issue, nothing more nothing less. What a waste of time and $$$$.

The latest is the GOP is scrambling, because they may not even get a simple majority when it comes up for a vote...

Strict Constitutionalists

I don't think the goal is to get a majority now but to get everyone down on paper as voting one way or the other for future political use.

I agree. They want people to take sides and go on the record... so that it can be used against them during election time.

The CNN Poll on Lou Dobbs tonight is: Do you believe the issue of same-sex marriage is appropriate for inclusion in the U.S. Constitution?

Current results:

Yes 7% (357 votes)
No 93% (4930 votes)

They don't even have enough to have a preliminary vote right now. And once again, the GOP is arguing between itself.

From that same link that showed the shirtless Tom Ford (not at all what I thought Outsports' TF looked like):

This is the level of ignorance and hatefulness we're dealing with, people. There is certainly a coooooold corner of hell reserved for Senator Rick Santorum, who basically articulates Smoltz's thought in different words every time he opens his vile, thin-lipped mouth.

Smoltz also is not exactly known to be the nicest guy out there.

If you want to counter him, just ask Piazza... wink

It appears the amendment has gone down to defeat. Currently the vote is 48 in favor of cloture, 50 against, so there is no way the Senate can even get to a vote on the amendment itself.

Still wish we had more real champions in the legislature, but I will take this result for now.

I agree with you cpt. One small victory for the time being, but like Frist said, "this issue isn't going away".

It may not go away, but hopefully the supporters will see that it would be a waste of time to try to push the issue again during this session of Congress. And after a sweep in the November elections by gay-friendly candidates, maybe we won't have to worry about it at all for many years....or ever....

Senate Scuttles Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

No wonder he's considered the biggest idiot in the Senate.

Here is the roll call of votes for each of the 98 Senators, grouped by state, alphabetically and by how they voted on the FMA....keep in mind that the two non-attendees were Kerry and Edwards (who BOTH made it clear that they WOULD have been present had the result been in doubt), which in essence resulted in a 52-48 majority in OUR favor....not only did the bigoted supporters of the FMA fail to get the necessary two-thirds "super majority" they weren't even able to muster a SIMPLE majority in the Republican controlled Senate.

Kudos to the HRC and everyone like myself who sent letters, e-mails and phone calls to their elected officials to make sure that our voices were heard....as others have already stated, the fight is hardly over but this first step is nothing short of a VICTORY in our ongoing battle for the FULL equality that we rightfully deserve.

~Joe

[ July 14, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I don't know, Frist was pretty eloquent in his slander of gay people:

From CNN story: Exactly how will marriage be destroyed, Sen. Frist? Since the judges' ruling in Mass does absolutely nothing to traditional marriage, it simply opens the arrangement to same-sex couples, what will be this route of destruction? Is marriage so weak, even though it has survived the move from polygamy to monogamy, from women-as-property to women-as-equal partner, from wholely religious to religious and civil to (sometimes) only civil, that it cannot survive this change? Do you really think little straight girls will stop dreaming about their perfect wedding dress?

For all their attempts to create a "crisis" in marriage, I think the majority of Americans can see right through this. We don't have a budget in place yet, for God's sake, and I believe a whole lot of people can see this vote for the political bullsh*t that it is.

And I really believe this vote, and the entire Bush/Cheney move to the right recently, will backfire on the Republicans. It certainly did in '92, and even though the Republican convention will be full of "compassionate conservatives" and not the anti-gay rabble-rousers at the '92 convention, the message is still out there.

As Cheryl Jacques noted in an interview, there are a lot of straight people out there with gay friends and relatives, and they don't like seeing their friends and relatives trashed in the halls of government.

I have argued a slghtly different stance in another thread, but judges are appointed by the people who are elected. If you don't like what the judges are doing, elect people who will choose different judges. Unfortunately, once appointed, it's very difficult to get rid of a judge who hasn't actually broken the law. I wonder if the election of John Kerry will be seen by anyone as an endorsement of the judiciary.

Cpt., usual, on point commentary. I agree with you and Puckman - a victory is a victory and I'm not so sure that this is a small victory. Once again, John McCain showed guts while Arlen Specter proved again that he is a spineless nothing.

Kudos to the HRC for being the lead on pushing this, good job to all the people who called and emailed and sent letters to their senators. While he didn't directly back up gays and lesbians, McCain's speech was pretty much a slam at Bush, and very eloquent at least in print. Good for him and northeastern republicans, shame on the dems that voted for it, actually party affiliation doesn't matter, shame on any senator that voted for this nasty, discriminatory proposed amendment. I was sorry to see that my independent republican senator, John Warner, voted for it, I guess he didn't read my email, he certainly didn't return my phonecall.

So the house will do the same, we need to start contacting each representative to let them know our feelings. Mine is a lost cause, he was one of the first cosponsors back when this was a pipedream of the radical right before the Mass. court decision.