I'm very happy about the Massachusetts decision. But, after all is said and done, there HAS to be a federal law passed in order for gays to fully enjoy the full benefits of marriage.
One case in point, my partner and I have been together over 21 years and recently registered as domestic partners here in California. That allows SOME benefits, such as the right to see each other in the hospital!
However, when one of us passes away, will the surviving partner receive the other's Social Security benefits? NO! The state domestic partnership or even a state marriage has no jurisdiction over that. The money would go to a member of the deceased partner's family. Is that a load of crap or what?
Granted, Social Security pays nowhere near what a working joe can make, but it's pretty good income in retirement, particularly in such a high cost-of-living state as California.
The push should be to move to federal legislation on the subject, and many of you have alluded that this is inevitable if some couples move from MA or VT to another state. So, the MA decision is a wonderful point from which the movement can "take off".
Full Version: Mass. Gay Marriage legal!!!
QUOTE
Skiguy:
MIB gets partial credit, but he's still wrong. This will become a federal issue when agy couple in Massachusetts moves to anotber state and attempts to force the new state to treat them as married for all purposes, relying on the full Faith and Credit Clause in the federal constititution. This will happen, both because people move a lot and because this is precisely the strategy the pro-marriage movement has devised: win in one state, then leverage it via full faith and credit to the whole country. As MIB says, this will be fun.
Where MIB errs is by saying this gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Absolutely not. It can prevent the couple's new state from being forced to recognize their marriage, but he couple could happily move back here, where under the Massachusetts Constitution, their marriage would remain binding until death or divorce rend them asunder.
Thanks for playing.
But a federal Constitutional amendment supersedes a state constitutional statute or clause, so that the 14th Amendment in effect overrode both the state constitutions that denied African-Americans citizenship because of their having been slaves OR that barred blacks outright from becoming citizens in their states (Oregon). Thus the drive by the Right both to amend the Massachusetts and U.S. constitutions. The former is more likely than the latter, I think.MIB gets partial credit, but he's still wrong. This will become a federal issue when agy couple in Massachusetts moves to anotber state and attempts to force the new state to treat them as married for all purposes, relying on the full Faith and Credit Clause in the federal constititution. This will happen, both because people move a lot and because this is precisely the strategy the pro-marriage movement has devised: win in one state, then leverage it via full faith and credit to the whole country. As MIB says, this will be fun.
Where MIB errs is by saying this gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Absolutely not. It can prevent the couple's new state from being forced to recognize their marriage, but he couple could happily move back here, where under the Massachusetts Constitution, their marriage would remain binding until death or divorce rend them asunder.
Thanks for playing.
Also, if the U.S. constitutional amendment goes through protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage, will it bar divorce (now at 50% among heteros), bar adultery (the major cause of divorce), and bar bigamy? What will heteros do then? Move to Canada, the Caribbean countries or Mexico?
I know first-hand of which Billsf speaks. My partner of 16 years died recently. I could not obtain his social security benefits, and noone else could either. If a gay man dies without children or an ex-wife of over 10 years, the money goes back to the federal government. You are right to say it isn't that much, but still, it is not fair, he paid the money in and now noone gets it. My partner was wonderful to me by planning his estate, but he could not assign something that is the right of a spouse. Even ex-spouses, if they were married for 10 years or more, get benefits, but not gay partners. That is rediculous.
Bballrob, I am so sorry for your loss! I am also irate over waht you say about the benefits you were denied. It's such a crock!
"The coming year is going to be all 'about gay marriage,' former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland told Salon Tuesday. Cleland, a war hero who lost his seat in the Senate to a Republican smear campaign that painted him soft on terrorism, predicted that Republicans will use the gay marriage issue to 'trash' the Democrats running for president. 'It'll be slime and defend, as it always is,' he said. 'And it will be the ugliest political campaign, aboveboard and below board, in the history of the country.' " - Salon.com, \"Lining up to fight 'the forces of evil' \"
I've always loved being called a "force of evil".
I've always loved being called a "force of evil".
I saw Mitt Romney interviewed on The Today Show this morning and was simply really disappointed.
He was very strict that men and women should be the definition of marriage... which is fine- then he stated that he thought same-sex couples should be given "appropriate rights" via civil unions.
When Matt Lauer tried to give him the statement of equating the rights of civil union and marriage in terms of providing the same benefits- his response was very clear in feeling that certain rights are no appropriate for GLBT... and this is the belief of many (not necessarily the majority) of Republicans.
I mean, I can understand people having certain thoughts about gays- think what you may- but when it comes down to someone actually stating that you never deserve equality- it just hurts... and that is someone who leads a state...sad.
He was very strict that men and women should be the definition of marriage... which is fine- then he stated that he thought same-sex couples should be given "appropriate rights" via civil unions.
When Matt Lauer tried to give him the statement of equating the rights of civil union and marriage in terms of providing the same benefits- his response was very clear in feeling that certain rights are no appropriate for GLBT... and this is the belief of many (not necessarily the majority) of Republicans.
I mean, I can understand people having certain thoughts about gays- think what you may- but when it comes down to someone actually stating that you never deserve equality- it just hurts... and that is someone who leads a state...sad.
But Kick, also keep in mind that Mitt Romney (whose father was the governor of your state, I think), is a devout Mormon, so he's out in front of where his religion stands on gay people. In general he's a fairly moderate Republican. MOST Republicans (and some Democrats) in the House and Senate do not even believe that gay people should have the right to civil unions; some, like Tom Delay, thought the anti-gay Texas statutes were perfect. And we know how vehemently anti-gay people like Rick Santorum are.
So, really, Romney's sort of not far from the vanguard in his party, which actually has at least one openly gay federal legislator, Jim Kolbe of Arizona. I mean, what if Kolbe wanted to marry his partner? What about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter? What about the gay staffers some of these people have? The gay children, siblings...spouses?
[ November 19, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
So, really, Romney's sort of not far from the vanguard in his party, which actually has at least one openly gay federal legislator, Jim Kolbe of Arizona. I mean, what if Kolbe wanted to marry his partner? What about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter? What about the gay staffers some of these people have? The gay children, siblings...spouses?
[ November 19, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
I feel that he has a right to religion and I wasn't surprised at all- it just sometimes catches you off-guard when you hope for the best.
(hehehe- I'm not old enough to remember Romney as our governor!!
)
(hehehe- I'm not old enough to remember Romney as our governor!!
)
While observing this recent decision, it is important for us to also follow other recent rulings. The supreme court saying that the 10 commandments had to be removed from courthouses and government builds is very important. This shows that there is a concerted effort to separate church and state, according to the constitution of the United States. This is very, very important for us in our efforts to gain equal rights. When religion is taken out of the equation, there is no reason why we don't deserve equal rights. Any time someone does oppose gay marriage, gay service in the army, gays in sports...they should be asked to take their own personal religion out of the equation and then to pose their stand. We need to stand together more and say, "Don't force your personal religeous beliefs on my life!" The courts are trying to help us, and we need to stand together now.
QUOTE
wade n atlanta:
While observing this recent decision, it is important for us to also follow other recent rulings. The supreme court saying that the 10 commandments had to be removed from courthouses and government builds is very important. This shows that there is a concerted effort to separate church and state, according to the constitution of the United States. This is very, very important for us in our efforts to gain equal rights. When religion is taken out of the equation, there is no reason why we don't deserve equal rights. Any time someone does oppose gay marriage, gay service in the army, gays in sports...they should be asked to take their own personal religion out of the equation and then to pose their stand. We need to stand together more and say, \"Don't force your personal religeous beliefs on my life!\" The courts are trying to help us, and we need to stand together now.
Very well said, Wade n ATL. *applause* *applause*While observing this recent decision, it is important for us to also follow other recent rulings. The supreme court saying that the 10 commandments had to be removed from courthouses and government builds is very important. This shows that there is a concerted effort to separate church and state, according to the constitution of the United States. This is very, very important for us in our efforts to gain equal rights. When religion is taken out of the equation, there is no reason why we don't deserve equal rights. Any time someone does oppose gay marriage, gay service in the army, gays in sports...they should be asked to take their own personal religion out of the equation and then to pose their stand. We need to stand together more and say, \"Don't force your personal religeous beliefs on my life!\" The courts are trying to help us, and we need to stand together now.
[ November 20, 2003, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
QUOTE
I saw Mitt Romney interviewed on The Today Show this morning and was simply really disappointed.
He was very strict that men and women should be the definition of marriage... which is fine- then he stated that he thought same-sex couples should be given \"appropriate rights\" via civil unions.
When Matt Lauer tried to give him the statement of equating the rights of civil union and marriage in terms of providing the same benefits- his response was very clear in feeling that certain rights are no appropriate for GLBT... and this is the belief of many (not necessarily the majority) of Republicans.
I mean, I can understand people having certain thoughts about gays- think what you may- but when it comes down to someone actually stating that you never deserve equality- it just hurts... and that is someone who leads a state...sad.
Right on! But what I also think is sad is that Matt Lauer, and many of the correspondents I have seen covering the issue, will not engage any of this anti-gay spokespeople or politicians in backing up their arguments. Romney and others talk about how marriage should be a "special arrangement" between men and women, but do not give any reasons why, or any rationale for believing why gay marriage would damage society - and the reporters never probe! I would think that a reporter's job is not just to give air to the different opinions on an issue, but to get to the basic facts as well.He was very strict that men and women should be the definition of marriage... which is fine- then he stated that he thought same-sex couples should be given \"appropriate rights\" via civil unions.
When Matt Lauer tried to give him the statement of equating the rights of civil union and marriage in terms of providing the same benefits- his response was very clear in feeling that certain rights are no appropriate for GLBT... and this is the belief of many (not necessarily the majority) of Republicans.
I mean, I can understand people having certain thoughts about gays- think what you may- but when it comes down to someone actually stating that you never deserve equality- it just hurts... and that is someone who leads a state...sad.
I was also appalled when carpet-bagger Mitt stated that there was a difference between a marriage and a "legal contract" between gays or lesbians - in other words they have relationships, and we only f**k.
Speaking of which, I heard this kook from the Hoover Institute, a certain Professor Kurtz, claim today on NPR (that supposed "liberal" bastion) that civil unions in "Scandinavia" had led to a rise in out-of-wedlock births among straight Swedes (I mean, the slippage between "Scandinavia" and the various, distinct countries was troubling enough), but then he managed to start talking about how Scandinavia did not have an underclass, which the US does, and that the out-of-wedlock births in the US would no longer just be a racial issue (???) if gays were allowed to have civil unions and marriage, because straights of all colors (as if this isn't ALREADY happening) would reject marriage and have children out of wedlock. Thus, gay marriage = rise in bastardy. HUH???
Look, some straight people decide to get married for the WRONG REASONS. They have children, they divorce. That has nothing to do with gay marriage. Some straight people decide they want to have children and do not want to or have to get married, since the laws in some jurisdictions favor common-law spouses, etc., they don't believe in the institution of marriage for social or political reasons, they have witnessed disastrous marriages in their families, whatever. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGES! I believe the anti-gay marriage fanatics need to deal realistically with the crisis of marriage among straights, rather than displacing their anxieties and problems onto homosexuals. And I WISH some of these stupid journalists or reporters would just once challenge these fanatics on their obviously spurious analogies and assertions.
Look, some straight people decide to get married for the WRONG REASONS. They have children, they divorce. That has nothing to do with gay marriage. Some straight people decide they want to have children and do not want to or have to get married, since the laws in some jurisdictions favor common-law spouses, etc., they don't believe in the institution of marriage for social or political reasons, they have witnessed disastrous marriages in their families, whatever. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGES! I believe the anti-gay marriage fanatics need to deal realistically with the crisis of marriage among straights, rather than displacing their anxieties and problems onto homosexuals. And I WISH some of these stupid journalists or reporters would just once challenge these fanatics on their obviously spurious analogies and assertions.
fan,
I heard the asme thing this morning on my way to work. Nothing like crap to get your blood boiling, doncha know.
One thing that has been overlooked -- Did any of these "studies" about the Netherlands and Scandinavia factor in that these countries have completely different social norms than the relatively puritanical U.S.? Did they survey straight people to get a baseline? NO.
Spare me your "science," Hoover "Institution."
:mad:
I heard the asme thing this morning on my way to work. Nothing like crap to get your blood boiling, doncha know.
One thing that has been overlooked -- Did any of these "studies" about the Netherlands and Scandinavia factor in that these countries have completely different social norms than the relatively puritanical U.S.? Did they survey straight people to get a baseline? NO.
Spare me your "science," Hoover "Institution."
:mad:
Hay Jamie! Have I told you lately that I love you? wink
Bob,
Back atcha, big guy. But I'm still not gonna marry you, Massachusetts be damned. That girl-boy thing is just icky.
(((((MSUBobcat)))))
Back atcha, big guy. But I'm still not gonna marry you, Massachusetts be damned. That girl-boy thing is just icky.
(((((MSUBobcat)))))
From Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091428/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091428/
Bman, read the article, and it was very wise!
Also in Slate, Steve Waldman explains \"Why religious people are against gay marriage.\" - "Many of the world's faiths do argue against homosexuality, but they don't raise it to the level of moral calamity: It's bad but not that bad. Privately, religious conservatives are appalled and grossed out by homosexuality but realize that the more common American view is modulated. So, they choose to focus on the idea that marriage in general is under threat. Read their public statements, and you'll see a surprising shortage of outrage about homosexuality itself. Perhaps they've been reading their Bibles more carefully. More likely, they've figured out that the most effective argument for religious conservatives is not, in fact, a religious one."
Which coincides with William Saletan's proposition that The B Man linked to above, "Homosexuality can be separated from marriage... Marriage is a broadly shared American value. You don't have to support homosexuality to support marriage. A politician can say, 'I'm pro-marriage. The issue isn't whether you're straight or gay. The issue is whether you support marriage.' " - And if the political middle understands that, the wing-nuts will again be marginalized.
[ November 20, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
Which coincides with William Saletan's proposition that The B Man linked to above, "Homosexuality can be separated from marriage... Marriage is a broadly shared American value. You don't have to support homosexuality to support marriage. A politician can say, 'I'm pro-marriage. The issue isn't whether you're straight or gay. The issue is whether you support marriage.' " - And if the political middle understands that, the wing-nuts will again be marginalized.
[ November 20, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
The Daily Show riffed on gay marriage beautifully tonight. Catch it if you can! Hysterical.
I have found the best argument yet on why gay marriage should be a right for gay people - it the damn Menendez brothers, who killed their parents, can be married, then we should be able to!
MSNBC coverage
QUOTE
Lyle Menendez, who was convicted with his brother for the shotgun slayings of their parents, was married Thursday in a California prison.
MENENDEZ, 35, and the bride, identified as 33-year-old Rebecca Sneed of Sacramento, exchanged vows in a ceremony at Mule Creek State Prison near Sacramento, KXTV-TV in Sacramento reported. About a dozen friends and family members bore witness in a maximum security visiting area.
Sneed and Menendez have known each other for about 10 years, a prison spokesman told the Associated Press. The newlyweds won’t get too close — prison regulations prohibit conjugal visits for inmates serving life terms.
Lyle’s younger brother Erik was married in a telephone ceremony at Folsom State Prison in 1997.
The brothers were sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for murdering their parents in 1989. The brothers claimed their parents abused them, but prosecutors said the brothers wanted to get their hands on the family fortune.
They certainly can't reproduce, what with the lack of conjugal visits. And no one can argue marriage is a "privilege" if convicted murderers serving life sentences do not lose the privilege to marry!.MENENDEZ, 35, and the bride, identified as 33-year-old Rebecca Sneed of Sacramento, exchanged vows in a ceremony at Mule Creek State Prison near Sacramento, KXTV-TV in Sacramento reported. About a dozen friends and family members bore witness in a maximum security visiting area.
Sneed and Menendez have known each other for about 10 years, a prison spokesman told the Associated Press. The newlyweds won’t get too close — prison regulations prohibit conjugal visits for inmates serving life terms.
Lyle’s younger brother Erik was married in a telephone ceremony at Folsom State Prison in 1997.
The brothers were sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for murdering their parents in 1989. The brothers claimed their parents abused them, but prosecutors said the brothers wanted to get their hands on the family fortune.
MSNBC coverage
This was a wonderful commentary on gay marriages in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Good political cartoon:
Conservative columnist David Brock made a suprisingly adamant endorsement of gay marriage on the McNeil Newshour, the only caveat being that he hasn't spoken to his 9 year old son about it yet. Not sure why he thinks he needs to. :confused:
Yup, good 'toon, Jim Allen, although the New England states are really badly drawn! It looks like P-Town, MA and Ogunquit, ME have fallen into the ocean! Or maybe that's the point.... wink
QUOTE
I have found the best argument yet on why gay marriage should be a right for gay people - it the damn Menendez brothers, who killed their parents, can be married, then we should be able to!
Word- except, in my case, substitute "Menendez Brothers" for "Richard Ramirez". A Satanist serial killer serving God-only-knows how many life sentences, who feels no shame for his crimes, can get married to some damn murder groupie, and I can't get married at all.On the plus side, a conversation my mother and I had the day after the verdict was announced:
Me: Y'know, all this can only mean one thing- Fred Phelps is gonna show up in Massachusetts by the end of the year.
Mom: Oh, come on, you know you're secretly hoping for it.
Me: I'm filling the water balloons as we speak.
Two separate polls published today show that fully half of Massachusetts residents agree with last week's SJC ruling, and over half oppose amending the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. When the word "marriage" is not used, 76 percent of voters support full legal benefits for gay couples.
Governor Romney, Archbishop O'Malley and the furious fundies flying in from the midwest, reality check: You can't win. Gay marriage is here, and it won't go away. Thank you for your support. Woo-hoo.
(Btw, excellent op-ed piece in today's NY Times, Small-Town Gay America.)
[ November 23, 2003, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
Governor Romney, Archbishop O'Malley and the furious fundies flying in from the midwest, reality check: You can't win. Gay marriage is here, and it won't go away. Thank you for your support. Woo-hoo.
(Btw, excellent op-ed piece in today's NY Times, Small-Town Gay America.)
[ November 23, 2003, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
QUOTE
sportinlife:
Conservative columnist David Brock made a suprisingly adamant endorsement of gay marriage on the McNeil Newshour, the only caveat being that he hasn't spoken to his 9 year old son about it yet. Not sure why he thinks he needs to. :confused:
David Brooks? Isn't Brock the now out, gay ex-conservative?Conservative columnist David Brock made a suprisingly adamant endorsement of gay marriage on the McNeil Newshour, the only caveat being that he hasn't spoken to his 9 year old son about it yet. Not sure why he thinks he needs to. :confused:
Brooks, in his NY TIMES piece, makes good points, though he opens with the idea that having sex with more than one person in a given year leads to "spiritual" death--huh? Perhaps according to some conservative faiths, but there are others that are very sex-positive, including Hinduism, to give one example. Also, I know his statement is geared to singles of whatever sexuality, but it ends up particularly condemning single non-celibate and partnered non-monogamous gay, straight and bi men, who are not all "spiritually" dead despite having sex with different people. I say keep the moralizing out of it, and give us what's our due: full social, political and economic equality. Any less is un-American.
England and Wales to get civil unions.
QUOTE
The changes, which apply in England and Wales, will allow a registered partner to benefit from a dead partner's pension, grant next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and give the same exemption as married couples have from inheritance tax on each other's estate.
They would also have the right to register their partner's death and be able to inherit a tenancy of a rented home.
Ministers stressed that gay couples would be expected to meet responsibilities, as well as gain rights. For example, they would be able to gain parental responsibility for each other's children and be obliged to support each other financially
Since the church doesn't have anywhere near the clout it does here, and despite some decrepit old wankers in Lords, it should be law fairly soon.
They would also have the right to register their partner's death and be able to inherit a tenancy of a rented home.
Ministers stressed that gay couples would be expected to meet responsibilities, as well as gain rights. For example, they would be able to gain parental responsibility for each other's children and be obliged to support each other financially
Opponents of Gay Marriage Divided
In a nutshell: on the one hand, you have the Alliance for Marriage. On the other, you have the "Arlington Group." They agree we're awful; they disagree on the extent of our awfulness.
[ November 30, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
In a nutshell: on the one hand, you have the Alliance for Marriage. On the other, you have the "Arlington Group." They agree we're awful; they disagree on the extent of our awfulness.
QUOTE
Opponents Of Gay Marriage Divided
At Issue Is Scope Of an Amendment
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 29, 2003; Page A01
A broad array of religious groups and conservative political activists has united behind the idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But the fledgling coalition is deeply divided about what, exactly, the amendment should say.
....
At least three versions of the amendment are circulating in Washington. The leading text, and the only one introduced in Congress, is two sentences: \"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.\"
....
Meanwhile, another powerful coalition of religious leaders is pushing for language that clearly would block Vermont-style civil unions. Known as the Arlington Group because it first met in July at an apartment complex in suburban Virginia, it unites the heads of almost every major political advocacy organization on the Christian right, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values, William J. Bennett of Empower America, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation.
At an Oct. 15 session spearheaded by Charles W. Colson, the former Nixon White House staffer who now heads Prison Fellowship Ministries, key members of the Arlington Group and several evangelical Christian leaders unanimously decided to push for adding a third sentence to the proposed amendment: \"Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights or immunities on the existence, recognition or presumption of non-marital sexual relationships.\"
....
Some conservatives question whether the Arlington Group's language would hold up in court. Dale Carpenter, a gay Republican who is an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, said the attempt to block legislatures from doling out benefits on a \"sexual\" basis would misfire, because the civil unions law in Vermont does not require gay couples to claim they are in a sexual relationship.
\"This third sentence doesn't really accomplish anything, except to expose the extent to which some religious conservatives are fixated on gay sex,\" Carpenter said.
....
At Issue Is Scope Of an Amendment
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 29, 2003; Page A01
A broad array of religious groups and conservative political activists has united behind the idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But the fledgling coalition is deeply divided about what, exactly, the amendment should say.
....
At least three versions of the amendment are circulating in Washington. The leading text, and the only one introduced in Congress, is two sentences: \"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.\"
....
Meanwhile, another powerful coalition of religious leaders is pushing for language that clearly would block Vermont-style civil unions. Known as the Arlington Group because it first met in July at an apartment complex in suburban Virginia, it unites the heads of almost every major political advocacy organization on the Christian right, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values, William J. Bennett of Empower America, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation.
At an Oct. 15 session spearheaded by Charles W. Colson, the former Nixon White House staffer who now heads Prison Fellowship Ministries, key members of the Arlington Group and several evangelical Christian leaders unanimously decided to push for adding a third sentence to the proposed amendment: \"Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights or immunities on the existence, recognition or presumption of non-marital sexual relationships.\"
....
Some conservatives question whether the Arlington Group's language would hold up in court. Dale Carpenter, a gay Republican who is an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, said the attempt to block legislatures from doling out benefits on a \"sexual\" basis would misfire, because the civil unions law in Vermont does not require gay couples to claim they are in a sexual relationship.
\"This third sentence doesn't really accomplish anything, except to expose the extent to which some religious conservatives are fixated on gay sex,\" Carpenter said.
....
[ November 30, 2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
QUOTE
\"This third sentence doesn't really accomplish anything, except to expose the extent to which some religious conservatives are fixated on gay sex,\" Carpenter said
Ya think? These sort of people creep me out.MA Catholic church \\"bewails\\" ruling
QUOTE
Gary Buseck, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the letter's language disappointed him.
\"I don't think the court villainizes anyone. The Roman Catholic Church is being very clever to try to cast themselves as the victim here,\" Buseck said. David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case that led to the ruling, said the bishops are confusing civil and religious marriage. The court ruling will not require any religion to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies
As if the Catholic church in Boston has any moral high ground to stand on after events of the last few years. \"I don't think the court villainizes anyone. The Roman Catholic Church is being very clever to try to cast themselves as the victim here,\" Buseck said. David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case that led to the ruling, said the bishops are confusing civil and religious marriage. The court ruling will not require any religion to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies
[ November 29, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
From the article posted by Jim Allen:
I just returned from my Thanksgiving trip to Western Mass (Springfield area) to visit my Dad, sister and other family members. I was amazed at the support gay marriage has, even in a heavily Catholic and relatively conservative area of the state. Not only did my father (who has been officially supportive of my being gay, but clearly uncomfortable with the issue) condemn the bishops as "f**king homophobes," very religious friends of my sister's were openly supportive of gay marriage.
Current polls put the support for the amendment at 10%, and 75% of the state's residents support gay civil unions, 50% support full-blown marriage. Those numbers are likely only to move more in our direction as time goes on. Whether the legislature tries civil unions (which the church does not support, and most scholars believe the SJC won't accept) or actual marriage, Mass. residents will have 2 - 2 1/2 years to see these relationships up close, and see that the world does not end, before they could ever vote on an amendment, and that assumes the amendment will pass the legislature in two consecutive terms.
I think there are two Massachusetts cultural forces at work here - 1.) the standing of the church has dropped dramatically, even though most folks remain members. They may like their parish priests, but they can't stand the bishops. Having the letter come from those 4 means the most of the parishoners will likely dismiss it for the PR stunt it is. I think Massachusetts Catholics may be the most hurting from the abuse scandal. The first notorious pedophile priest (Fr. Porter) came from North Adams, the western-most city, and was exposed in 1989 - 1990. For the church to have done nothing between then and 2000 to halt the hush-up and movement of priests deeply hurt many parisioners.
2.) Massachusetts residents, for all they value traditional institutions, are very big on privacy and not intruding in others' lives. I was shocked to see, when I moved to Washington DC, that strangers actually spoke to one another! that would be considered horribly rude in Mass. There is a reason Bill Cosby lives in Western Mass - none of the locals will even admit knowing where his house is, if fans or the press were to try to locate it. The amendment is seen as being a horrible intrusion on people's lives.
QUOTE
Massachusetts' Roman Catholic bishops are telling parishioners that a state court decision supporting gay marriage is a \"national tragedy\" that could \"erode even further the institution of marriage.\"
In a strongly worded letter to be read at Mass this weekend, the bishops also said the Supreme Judicial Court's mid-May deadline for the Legislature to rewrite marriage laws to provide benefits for gay couples is too rushed.
The bishops, among the leading opponents of the ruling, urged parishioners \"to contact the governor and their state legislators to urge them to find a way to give our citizens more time to deal with this issue.\"
Of course they want more time - because they know that they're screwed in Massachusetts, and think that time can help them sway support away from gay marriage. In a strongly worded letter to be read at Mass this weekend, the bishops also said the Supreme Judicial Court's mid-May deadline for the Legislature to rewrite marriage laws to provide benefits for gay couples is too rushed.
The bishops, among the leading opponents of the ruling, urged parishioners \"to contact the governor and their state legislators to urge them to find a way to give our citizens more time to deal with this issue.\"
I just returned from my Thanksgiving trip to Western Mass (Springfield area) to visit my Dad, sister and other family members. I was amazed at the support gay marriage has, even in a heavily Catholic and relatively conservative area of the state. Not only did my father (who has been officially supportive of my being gay, but clearly uncomfortable with the issue) condemn the bishops as "f**king homophobes," very religious friends of my sister's were openly supportive of gay marriage.
Current polls put the support for the amendment at 10%, and 75% of the state's residents support gay civil unions, 50% support full-blown marriage. Those numbers are likely only to move more in our direction as time goes on. Whether the legislature tries civil unions (which the church does not support, and most scholars believe the SJC won't accept) or actual marriage, Mass. residents will have 2 - 2 1/2 years to see these relationships up close, and see that the world does not end, before they could ever vote on an amendment, and that assumes the amendment will pass the legislature in two consecutive terms.
I think there are two Massachusetts cultural forces at work here - 1.) the standing of the church has dropped dramatically, even though most folks remain members. They may like their parish priests, but they can't stand the bishops. Having the letter come from those 4 means the most of the parishoners will likely dismiss it for the PR stunt it is. I think Massachusetts Catholics may be the most hurting from the abuse scandal. The first notorious pedophile priest (Fr. Porter) came from North Adams, the western-most city, and was exposed in 1989 - 1990. For the church to have done nothing between then and 2000 to halt the hush-up and movement of priests deeply hurt many parisioners.
2.) Massachusetts residents, for all they value traditional institutions, are very big on privacy and not intruding in others' lives. I was shocked to see, when I moved to Washington DC, that strangers actually spoke to one another! that would be considered horribly rude in Mass. There is a reason Bill Cosby lives in Western Mass - none of the locals will even admit knowing where his house is, if fans or the press were to try to locate it. The amendment is seen as being a horrible intrusion on people's lives.
I live in the Boston area, the most liberal area of a fairly liberal state, and I was surprised to see polls indicating that support for gay marriage (and to an even greater extent to civil unions) is fairly uniform across Mass.
The Catholic Church has very very little political power here anymore. The only people who would listen to the letter by contacting their politicians are the old ladies who are opposed to gay marriage already.
I was in church two weeks ago and overheard one of the ushers talking to a young priest about how disgusted he was with the decline of society. Given the timing of this, I suspected they were talking about gay marriage. I just shook my head. Gay marriage is more an indicator of the decline of society than a religious institution that obstructs justice by moving serial rapists and pedophiles in some hide-and-seek dioscesan shell game?! They have no authority to speak on such matters and the vast majority of Catholics up here tune them out.
[ December 13, 2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]
The Catholic Church has very very little political power here anymore. The only people who would listen to the letter by contacting their politicians are the old ladies who are opposed to gay marriage already.
I was in church two weeks ago and overheard one of the ushers talking to a young priest about how disgusted he was with the decline of society. Given the timing of this, I suspected they were talking about gay marriage. I just shook my head. Gay marriage is more an indicator of the decline of society than a religious institution that obstructs justice by moving serial rapists and pedophiles in some hide-and-seek dioscesan shell game?! They have no authority to speak on such matters and the vast majority of Catholics up here tune them out.
[ December 13, 2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey...all those Catholics yet the states just keep growing progressive on issues like gay marriage. It's sort of the same shift that's happened in Catholic Europe (France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, etc.).
Here's a bit from conservative Mona Charen, a not-so-new take, but I've been waiting for it to be unleashed. We're whorish, we can't be faithful, and our marriages will lead to polygamy (oh boy!):
Mona Charen: Gay Marriage debuts
Here's a bit from conservative Mona Charen, a not-so-new take, but I've been waiting for it to be unleashed. We're whorish, we can't be faithful, and our marriages will lead to polygamy (oh boy!):
Mona Charen: Gay Marriage debuts
QUOTE
Most of us have gay friends and no wish to cause homosexuals unhappiness. But if they insist that homosexual unions be sanctified, we have no choice but to resist.
Some conservatives have accepted the argument -- most eloquently advanced by Andrew Sullivan -- that backing gay marriage actually advances a conservative position. Marriage, he argues, is a civilizing institution, and good conservatives should welcome the fact that a new group of people would like to live within its constraints of fidelity.
But it's not that simple. We know that traditional marriage forces men to constrain their normally promiscuous sexual behavior in favor of the monogamy that women tend to prefer. We further know that men's and women's natures differ in this respect. Homosexuals and lesbians provide even more evidence of the obvious. Gay men tend to have lots (like hundreds) of sexual partners, whereas lesbians tend to be quite happy to settle down with one partner for long stretches. That's the nature of the beast.
Will marriage make gay men more monogamous? Doubtful. With no woman in the picture to insist upon it, the incentives are quite weak. To prove one's fidelity? To keep a promise? Those are far less weighty concerns than to uphold the family and respect God's law. Conversely, the lack of marriage has not made lesbians more promiscuous.
***
Partisans of same sex marriage demand to know how two gay men pledging themselves to one another can possibly hurt a \"straight\" couple. Indirectly. If marriage is to include gay men and women, by what standard can we exclude non-gay threesomes? Nothing in the Supreme Court's or other courts' rulings have provided a principled grounds upon which to forbid adult incest, polygamy or polyandry. Homosexuals bristle at this argument. But they must answer a question: How does a homosexual father convince his daughter that polygamy is out of the question?
Some conservatives have accepted the argument -- most eloquently advanced by Andrew Sullivan -- that backing gay marriage actually advances a conservative position. Marriage, he argues, is a civilizing institution, and good conservatives should welcome the fact that a new group of people would like to live within its constraints of fidelity.
But it's not that simple. We know that traditional marriage forces men to constrain their normally promiscuous sexual behavior in favor of the monogamy that women tend to prefer. We further know that men's and women's natures differ in this respect. Homosexuals and lesbians provide even more evidence of the obvious. Gay men tend to have lots (like hundreds) of sexual partners, whereas lesbians tend to be quite happy to settle down with one partner for long stretches. That's the nature of the beast.
Will marriage make gay men more monogamous? Doubtful. With no woman in the picture to insist upon it, the incentives are quite weak. To prove one's fidelity? To keep a promise? Those are far less weighty concerns than to uphold the family and respect God's law. Conversely, the lack of marriage has not made lesbians more promiscuous.
***
Partisans of same sex marriage demand to know how two gay men pledging themselves to one another can possibly hurt a \"straight\" couple. Indirectly. If marriage is to include gay men and women, by what standard can we exclude non-gay threesomes? Nothing in the Supreme Court's or other courts' rulings have provided a principled grounds upon which to forbid adult incest, polygamy or polyandry. Homosexuals bristle at this argument. But they must answer a question: How does a homosexual father convince his daughter that polygamy is out of the question?
As a gay Jew, whenever homosexuals and multiple partners or Jews and money come up I have only one response, "Where's my share?"
If you accept his arguments, lesbians should be vastly more monogamous than straight people, so where's the objection to lesbian marriage?
Mona Charen has no idea what she is saying. If someone asked her to repeat that she would have dificulty because it doesn't make sense at all! Her argument supports the legallization of Lesbian unions but not gay men's unions. much less any man that has had more than one partner or any woman that has had more than one partner. What would a woman who's been married 8 times tell her daughter about monogomy or polygamy?
Mona Charen has an argument like a sieve (sp),
it just doesn't hold water.
[ December 11, 2003, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: wade n atlanta ]
Mona Charen has an argument like a sieve (sp),
it just doesn't hold water.
[ December 11, 2003, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: wade n atlanta ]
I am enjoying the discussion on this topic. I found an article in the Village Voice that I thought provided an interesting spin on the subject. Continue to talk amongst yourseleves.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0350/baard2.php
[ December 11, 2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: blkbear ]
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0350/baard2.php
[ December 11, 2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: blkbear ]
I saw article on the SJC decision on the excellent Queer Day news roundup site. Seems as if a compromise might be in store:
I think what Log Cabin is attempting is important. But again they seem to be just lapdogs for Republican politicians:
QUOTE
Lawmakers' latest effort to avoid gay marriage by passing lesser civil unions might well meet constitutional muster with the state's sharply divided Supreme Judicial Court, a leading constitutional scholar said yesterday.
Harvard professor Laurence H. Tribe's remarks came just hours after the state Senate passed a civil union bill and voted to ask the high court whether the creation of civil unions with rights equivalent to marriage - but not the title - would satisfy the landmark Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriage
The Queer Nation radical in me thinks \"f**k that! Marriage or nothing!\" but if the civil unions have the exact, and I mean exact same legal benefits and obligations as hetero marriage, I don't care what they call it. If the civil unions have most, but not all of those things, I'm against it.Harvard professor Laurence H. Tribe's remarks came just hours after the state Senate passed a civil union bill and voted to ask the high court whether the creation of civil unions with rights equivalent to marriage - but not the title - would satisfy the landmark Nov. 18 ruling legalizing gay marriage
I think what Log Cabin is attempting is important. But again they seem to be just lapdogs for Republican politicians:
QUOTE
Gov. Mitt Romney reiterated his opposition to gay marriage yesterday - but then headed to a meeting of the gay activist group Log Cabin Republicans, where former Gov. Bill Weld received an award.
Attendees said Weld spoke strongly in favor of gay marriage, in a stark contrast to Romney - leaving Romney to remind gay Republicans they had ``decided to hold your noses and support me anyway.''
The phrase "with friends like these, who needs enemies" springs to mind.
Attendees said Weld spoke strongly in favor of gay marriage, in a stark contrast to Romney - leaving Romney to remind gay Republicans they had ``decided to hold your noses and support me anyway.''
Interesting conversation with a friend yesterday... He and his lover have been together for nine years, monogamous, totally committed to one another. Tom gets his health care benefits through John's employer, as his domestic partner.
They have no interest in being married, a word, a concept, an institution that belongs to religion and heterosexuals -- and as far as they're concerned, it can stay that way, thank you. Their relationship is not a husband-wife arrangement; it's not even a husband-husband one. They have no desire for a wedding, no urge to invoke a deity's blessing on their union.
The right to form a civil union is what they want, a way for the Commonwealth to LEGALLY recognize, respect, license and protect what they have together. That their families and friends might want to honor, even consecrate, their personal relationship is a separate matter. Even if Massachusetts legalizes same-sex marriage, they may just run off to Vermont... wink
It also occurred to us that many employers grant benefits to the partners of their gay employees as a matter of equity with married male-female couples. Once same-sex couples can be married too, will domestic partner benefits disappear? (Oh, someone's already thought of that...)
[ December 13, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
They have no interest in being married, a word, a concept, an institution that belongs to religion and heterosexuals -- and as far as they're concerned, it can stay that way, thank you. Their relationship is not a husband-wife arrangement; it's not even a husband-husband one. They have no desire for a wedding, no urge to invoke a deity's blessing on their union.
The right to form a civil union is what they want, a way for the Commonwealth to LEGALLY recognize, respect, license and protect what they have together. That their families and friends might want to honor, even consecrate, their personal relationship is a separate matter. Even if Massachusetts legalizes same-sex marriage, they may just run off to Vermont... wink
It also occurred to us that many employers grant benefits to the partners of their gay employees as a matter of equity with married male-female couples. Once same-sex couples can be married too, will domestic partner benefits disappear? (Oh, someone's already thought of that...)
[ December 13, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
QUOTE
Skiguy:
MIB gets partial credit, but he's still wrong. This will become a federal issue when agy couple in Massachusetts moves to anotber state and attempts to force the new state to treat them as married for all purposes, relying on the full Faith and Credit Clause in the federal constititution. This will happen, both because people move a lot and because this is precisely the strategy the pro-marriage movement has devised: win in one state, then leverage it via full faith and credit to the whole country. As MIB says, this will be fun.
Where MIB errs is by saying this gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Absolutely not. It can prevent the couple's new state from being forced to recognize their marriage, but he couple could happily move back here, where under the Massachusetts Constitution, their marriage would remain binding until death or divorce rend them asunder.
Thanks for playing.
I didn't not say what you are claiming. I may be wrong about many things, but I am very diligent in my posts when I discuss constitutional issues. That is why I was correct, contrary to what you believe.
MIB gets partial credit, but he's still wrong. This will become a federal issue when agy couple in Massachusetts moves to anotber state and attempts to force the new state to treat them as married for all purposes, relying on the full Faith and Credit Clause in the federal constititution. This will happen, both because people move a lot and because this is precisely the strategy the pro-marriage movement has devised: win in one state, then leverage it via full faith and credit to the whole country. As MIB says, this will be fun.
Where MIB errs is by saying this gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to overturn the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Absolutely not. It can prevent the couple's new state from being forced to recognize their marriage, but he couple could happily move back here, where under the Massachusetts Constitution, their marriage would remain binding until death or divorce rend them asunder.
Thanks for playing.
For what it's worth, it seems pro-gay legislation is on a fast track of sorts in NJ ever since the courts ruled AGAINST gay marriage.
Seems to be the new strategy: ask for marriage and get legal protections (*maybe* civil union) as a compromise.
There are actually *SEVERAL* really good Village Voice articles/commentaries: I encourage everyone to give them a read...
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0350/goldstein.php
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0350/baard2.php
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0348/fiore.php
Seems to be the new strategy: ask for marriage and get legal protections (*maybe* civil union) as a compromise.
There are actually *SEVERAL* really good Village Voice articles/commentaries: I encourage everyone to give them a read...
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0350/goldstein.php
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0350/baard2.php
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0348/fiore.php
Michelangelo Signorile has a good column about Rosie O'Donnell and gay marriage. The interesting part is this:
QUOTE
\"If you are a heterosexual talk show host and you’re sued by a major corporation, anything you have said to your husband is privileged information,\" she said in an interview on my radio program on Sirius OutQ last week. She was referring to two rights of marriage that few of us ever think about–until we’re sued for $100 million, or brought to court for something far minor. One is the spousal immunity privilege, which, if you watch enough Law & Order or The Practice, you know means that, in general, a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife and vice versa. The other is known as the privilege for marital communications, which protects confidential correspondence between spouses. These are just two of hundreds of rights granted by marriage–rights that gay couples don’t have.
\"If you are a homosexual talk show host,\" O’Donnell continued, \"and you’re sued by a corporation, anything you have ever said and/or written to your spouse/partner/wife is allowed to be entered into the record. It is totally unfair.\"
She believes that Gruner & Jahr’s lawyers were well aware of that inequity and exploited it to their advantage
Proof, again, that anything less than total, complete equality in the over 1,000 rights that straight couples are granted via marriage is not acceptable, no matter what the institution is called.
\"If you are a homosexual talk show host,\" O’Donnell continued, \"and you’re sued by a corporation, anything you have ever said and/or written to your spouse/partner/wife is allowed to be entered into the record. It is totally unfair.\"
She believes that Gruner & Jahr’s lawyers were well aware of that inequity and exploited it to their advantage
QUOTE
Saying the \"rule of law and the legitimacy of the courts\" are at stake, former governor William Weld, two former state attorneys general, and two top lawyers will deliver a letter to all 200 legislators today, urging them to enact into law the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling allowing gays to marry. The letter says that efforts by opponents of same-sex marriage to create an alternate civil union system have \"no legal justification.\" - Boston Globe, 1/5/04
Pissa![ January 05, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
Go Bill Weld!
QUOTE
Thanks for turning us on to Queer Day, JA. One of my favorite sources for gay news is the Yahoo Gay and Lesbian News page. Their editors do a great job of selecting stories and opinion. One that's linked there is about the Massachusetts State Representative who's the chief sponsor of the proposed state DOMA. 
QUOTE
\"He was our first choice, and he has been an absolute champion of the issue,\" said Ronald A. Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which is leading the fight to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts.
(Representative Philip Travis) said he has, until now, always supported legislation backing enhanced gay rights. \"I voted for every gay issue in this building over the years.\"
In fact, Travis's voting record on gay issues over the past two decades is virtually the opposite of what he describes. Throughout the 1980s, when the Legislature fought bitterly over bills to protect homosexuals against discrimination in housing and the workplace, and to allow same-sex couples to take in foster children, Travis voted against all such measures.
Asked why he said he voted for gay rights bills when the record shows he had opposed them, Travis said in a later interview: \"I was working from memory.\"
- Boston Globe, 1/4/03
The best they could come up with is on record as a bigot and a liar? Travis was censured, btw, for extorting campain contributions. And now it's about "morality". Hah!(Representative Philip Travis) said he has, until now, always supported legislation backing enhanced gay rights. \"I voted for every gay issue in this building over the years.\"
In fact, Travis's voting record on gay issues over the past two decades is virtually the opposite of what he describes. Throughout the 1980s, when the Legislature fought bitterly over bills to protect homosexuals against discrimination in housing and the workplace, and to allow same-sex couples to take in foster children, Travis voted against all such measures.
Asked why he said he voted for gay rights bills when the record shows he had opposed them, Travis said in a later interview: \"I was working from memory.\"
- Boston Globe, 1/4/03
[ January 08, 2004, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
New Jersey gets added to the list of states with same-sex partnership benefits:
QUOTE
The bill provides for hospital-visitation and decision-making rights, an inheritance-tax exemption and a state income-tax deduction for dependents.
The measure also provides partners of state employees with health insurance and pension coverage and would outlaw discrimination against domestic partners
Sorry if this was mentioned elsewhere, I didn't see it.
The measure also provides partners of state employees with health insurance and pension coverage and would outlaw discrimination against domestic partners
Jim Allen, I got the Star Ledger - the newspaper of repute in New Jersey - and was struck by the following passages:
"The Senate approved the Domestic Partnership Act in a 23-9 vote remarkable for its lack of dissent."
"The governor immediately promised to sign the measure into law."
"Only four other states offer broad rights similar to the New Jersey bill - Massachuesetts, Vermont, California and Hawaii."
"The Senate approved the Domestic Partnership Act in a 23-9 vote remarkable for its lack of dissent."
"The governor immediately promised to sign the measure into law."
"Only four other states offer broad rights similar to the New Jersey bill - Massachuesetts, Vermont, California and Hawaii."
QUOTE
MIB:
I may be wrong about many things...
Now that we can agree on! I may be wrong about many things...
From the excellent Queerday site is a good story from the Boston Globe about an aspect of gay marriage that's often overlooked: gays who are teenagers now will benefit in the future. The main guy in the story, Patrick Catoe, sounds pretty amazing.
Thanks for the link to that incredible story from the Boston Globe, Jim....it is young men like Patrick (and Ian as well) who make our fight for equality all the more worthwhile....I only hope we'll be able to read more stories like these (excluding the tales of abuse and harrassment that they are now subjected to) of courageous gay teens in the months and years ahead -- and ultimately learn that many of the dreams that Patrick aspires to, along with so many other gay youth, are able to be fulfilled and become a reality.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.