Legalizing same-sex marriage: Domino effect?

And Prop 8 is down too!

 

These are two huge decisions for marriage equality!

But huge hurdles still remain.

The DOMA case means that in the 12 states, (now 13 with Cali) where gay marriage is legal, the partners cannot be denied federal benefits given to hetero married couples. But in states where same sex marriage is banned, nothing changes. A gay married couple from Massachusetts that moves to Alabama will lose those federal benefits -- cant file taxes as married couple, cant get spousal military benefits, an immigrant spouse can still be denied a green card and deported....

The California Prop 8 just means the circuit court ruling that Sec 8 was unconstitutional stands.

The Court ducked the broader issue that a state ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Still, a big day!

 

Some happy folks outside the Supreme Court



And not so happy folks at Family Research Council

Uh No...time is on the side of those seeking marriage equality as has been the case of every historic injustice of civil rights.

 

You may love this
Steph Grant Photography SHANNON + SEEMA | Indian Lesbian Wedding | Los Angeles, CA

 

Utah... what?!

 

I see this as inevitable. No matter how hard the right wing extremists scream, it is simply not permissible under the US constitution to discriminate against a group of Americans. The arguments in favor of denying rights to same sex couples are just too weak to pass a legal challenge. If legislatures don't cooperate, the courts will inevitably open the gates.

 

Not really Utah as such. Federal court.

It's entirely to be expected that state-level prohibitions on same-sex marriage would be challenged in federal court, and struck down.

 

If there is such a thing as state sponsored marriage, I can see no basis at all for denying homosexuals and heterosexuals equal access to it, but I really don't know what business it is of the state anyway.

The religious element of marriage (for those who are religious) is the business of the church/s involved.

The legal element should in my opinion be separated out completely. I can see it is necessary for people who live in partnership to have some contractual basis that confirms their rights and liabilities in that partnership - and to me it should be implicit in two people (1) living exclusively together (2) raising children together (3) exclusively combining resources to live - and have nothing to do with romantic love.

_

If you a Christian or a Hindu or whatever else, you should have the right to be married by your church (if your church agrees)

If you follow "older gods", you should have the right to have your hand fasting ceremony, or whatever you like.

If you a humanist, have all your friends round and exchange a symbolic piece of jewellery and tell each other you love each other.

I don't have a problem with two adults doing any of these things together whatever mix of gender is involved... but for the life of me I cannot tell what business of the state it is.

 

You get full marks for philosophical and logical consistency, but that's not how politics works -- at least, not in the U.S.

It's one thing to admit same-sex couples into the marriage club. There is resistance, but that is being overcome. Most people admit that it's a matter of fairness. Hardly any heterosexuals are directly affected by it.

But I can hardly imagine how much resistance there would be if it were proposed to take away state sponsorship and recognition from every extant marriage in America. Even if you tried to explain how little difference it would make, that it isn't the state's business, etc., you would get drowned out.

I understand that in Scandanavia, legal marriage is fading as a concept. At least one of those countries stopped keeping marriage statistics at least 10 years ago, because such a small proportion of couples were getting married.

But America is a very long way from that; we don't have a European style welfare state. Take away state-enforced marriage and divorce, and many millions of non-employed spouses (mostly traditional housewives) would be left in a precarious position.

Say your spouse kicked you out of the house, and you had no money, no job history, no marketable skills, no place to go, you'd likely end up on the street or in jail. Meanwhile, the employed spouse would keep the mansion, the bank accounts, the cars, etc.

A strict Libertarian might say that the nonemployed spouses should have prepared for this possibility. But, in fact, millions have not. And it's not necessarily a good thing for (say) fathers and mothers to be busy making separate contingency plans, rather than working together to raise their children or improve their joint economic condition.

It might also be argued that such spouses would be protected by contract law. But the threshold question would always be the existence or nonexistence of a legal contract. Surely, two people living together are not necessarily committing to mutual economic support. Was something about this written down? If so, where would that piece of paper be?

Yes, religious congregations and other such institutions could step in and create private-sector marriage registries, essentially replicating what every government in the world provides now. That would mean that no one would be forced to pay (taxes) to support such a service, but other than that, I can't think of a single way it would be better than the present system.

 

This broke my heart today. pardon? IMHO an apology would be more appropriate
Computing pioneer Alan Turing gets royal pardon- The Inquirer mobile

 

The UK government did the apology a couple years ago. The pardon was demanded in addition to that, by thousands of Britons.

 

SUP MICHIGAN.



BAN DEEMED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Governor and Attorney General already are fighting it, but we can hold strong.

 

Those clowns promised to take it to the Supreme Court even before the hearing started.

 

This has been a crazy day! I have gotten dozens of calls from news media.

This evening, I arranged to open my office tomorrow (Saturday) to immediately start processing same-sex marriage licenses. Two other counties followed.

 

The scene in front of my office this morning, as many same-sex couples took advantage of their first opportunity to marry in Michigan.