Should Gay Marriage Remain A State Issue?

[Vortex]

http://www.365gay.com/news/should-gay-marriage-remain-a-states-issue/

At this point in time, I am inclined to say YES. I have said in the past that, at this point in time, if half our states agreed to it then we would be making progress. I feel I am being realistic with that statement however some disagree with me.

But a bigger question is - why are some of us so disappointed in CA? Is it because of Hollywood and the sexuality within the film industry? One would think with it's population and culture, gay marriage would pass without a hitch. Is Hollywood only prepared to represent straight sex in films due to money and politics? CA seems so liberal to most of the world - why do you think gay marriage is in such turmoil there? JMO

[Brentwood]

I think that there should be marriage equality on the federal level. IMO, it wont be fair until that happens...and I hope it will be sooner rather than later.

The reason I think that prop 8 passed is because the airwaves (tv & radio) were flooded with non-stop misleading/lying/hate ads. And believe me...I live in Cali and the ads were played over and over and over and over again, day after day. It was just unbelievable. IMO, the passage of prop 8 was bought.

O/T (sort of) I read yesterday that the actor (forgot his name) who played Frasier's brother Niles on the Frasier sitcom, got married in Cali just before the ban. I didn't know he was gay...which doesn't matter of course. But good for him and his husband. I really loved him on the Frasier show and still watch the reruns.

[Brentwood]

There was a Gay march today in a conservative part of Cali. Hundreds of ss couples participated. Prop 8 received 69% in this rural area.

The march paid homage to the 1965 marches in Selma, Ala., that marked the peak of the civil rights movement.

http://cbs5.com/national/gay.marriage.california.2.1024849.html

[Vortex]

I think that there should be marriage equality on the federal level. IMO, it wont be fair until that happens...and I hope it will be sooner rather than later.

The reason I think that prop 8 passed is because the airwaves (tv & radio) were flooded with non-stop misleading/lying/hate ads. And believe me...I live in Cali and the ads were played over and over and over and over again, day after day. It was just unbelievable. IMO, the passage of prop 8 was bought.

O/T (sort of) I read yesterday that the actor (forgot his name) who played Frasier's brother Niles on the Frasier sitcom, got married in Cali just before the ban. I didn't know he was gay...which doesn't matter of course. But good for him and his husband. I really loved him on the Frasier show and still watch the reruns.

I just commented this evening on the Entertainment thread about David Hyde Pierce. I knew he was gay but didnt know he married in October of last year.

I do think we as gay Americans are evolving. Back in the mid to late 1990s, I think Ellen committed TV suicide by coming out and constantly commenting on her sexuality. Funny how 10 years later she is flourishing with her talk show and (IMO) is more accepted. You may not like that she has a wife, but you can see her for the comedienne and talk-show host that she is. Witty and funny - and, oh yeah - she happens to be a lesbian. JMO

[Vortex]

Actually I saw Porche do a cameo recording on her show, ( I believe ), It apologised about the entire gay marriage issue. Was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. What a sense of humor both of them have.

I'm torn on the issue of states vs govt. involvement at this point. The govt. may have to get involved before gay couples get a fair shake out of the deal. I know some states have done the right thing but many more probably won't. I doubt you would get a 50 - 50 split on it.

I'm surprised California has such a problem with the issue. With Hollywood and San Francisco it should have passed with ease. I tend agree with Brent on a lot of it though.

There seemed to be quite a bit of out of state involvement with prop 8. I couldn't believe the Mormons and so many others got involved in it. Not really their place as Utah is home to them. Eventually the right thing will be done though and gay couples will have the same rights as others. It's just going to take more time.

My opinion.

You bring up an interesting issue about the Mormans, Utah and California. I too felt Utah should keep their Morman nose out of California. Let each state decide for itself without monetary intervention from another state. Money talks, and in this case it is speaking about something that is none of it's business. JMO

[MercedesV]

I don't see how equal rights is a state's issue. To me, it is a federal issue, like all other civil rights issues are. A couple can be married in Mass. but not have that marriage recognized in the majority of the nation. If they are a gay couple. A hetero couple doesn't have that issue. I just don't see the logic or reasoning behind thinking it is a state's rights issue. Equal rights should mean equal rights throughout the nation.

[Vortex]

I don't see how equal rights is a state's issue. To me, it is a federal issue, like all other civil rights issues are. A couple can be married in Mass. but not have that marriage recognized in the majority of the nation. If they are a gay couple. A hetero couple doesn't have that issue. I just don't see the logic or reasoning behind thinking it is a state's rights issue. Equal rights should mean equal rights throughout the nation.

ITA with you. But in the immediate future I dont see an a across-the-board approval. So we must baby-step state by state.

I wish others could see that the positives of gay marriage so outweigh the negatives when you take religion out of the equation. So many children here in the U.S. need adopted. And there are many gay men and women just waiting for their opportunity to give love and stability to children in need. JMO

[Susan43]

I don't see how equal rights is a state's issue. To me, it is a federal issue, like all other civil rights issues are. A couple can be married in Mass. but not have that marriage recognized in the majority of the nation. If they are a gay couple. A hetero couple doesn't have that issue. I just don't see the logic or reasoning behind thinking it is a state's rights issue. Equal rights should mean equal rights throughout the nation.

I honestly can't see how it can stay a state issue. How about income taxes, federal inheritance taxes, social security, immigration? There are many federal rights and privileges that married couples have that other couples don't.

Plus, why should our country have separate but equal anywhere? Aren't we the United States of America?

[MercedesV]

I honestly can't see how it can stay a state issue. How about income taxes, federal inheritance taxes, social security, immigration? There are many federal rights and privileges that married couples have that other couples don't.

Plus, why should our country have separate but equal anywhere? Aren't we the United States of America?

I agree. And what if a gay couple wish to move. All of a sudden they aren't married anymore? What about health insurance, and rights to take care of each other and all the rest? It just isn't a state's rights issue. I'm glad to see the state's recognizing ss marriage but it should be granted nationally, not state by state.

[Susan43]

I agree. And what if a gay couple wish to move. All of a sudden they aren't married anymore? What about health insurance, and rights to take care of each other and all the rest? It just isn't a state's rights issue. I'm glad to see the state's recognizing ss marriage but it should be granted nationally, not state by state.

I couldn't agree more. But I've been surprised at how much the issue has changed in just the last few years. A ton of people have actually taken the time to think it over and realize that all the BS the churches have been spewing is wrong and have changed their minds and now agree with it. It's been very uplifting.

[MercedesV]

Well talk about timing, I have the local news on right now. I'm listening rather than just watching. And they gave a blurb about Maryland will be looking into recognizing ss marriages from other states. That would certainly would be a step in the right direction. Will have to keep an eye on that and see what happens.

[Vortex]

Well talk about timing, I have the local news on right now. I'm listening rather than just watching. And they gave a blurb about Maryland will be looking into recognizing ss marriages from other states. That would certainly would be a step in the right direction. Will have to keep an eye on that and see what happens.

Ooooh, that is encouraging. Even if some states dont offer SS marriage, honoring it would definitely be a step in the right direction. JMO

[MercedesV]

Ooooh, that is encouraging. Even if some states dont offer SS marriage, honoring it would definitely be a step in the right direction. JMO

Yes indeed. I was surprised to hear that, and it was just a quick segment. I will keep my eyes and ears open to learn further what is going on. They really didn't give a lot of information.

[Vortex]

Yes indeed. I was surprised to hear that, and it was just a quick segment. I will keep my eyes and ears open to learn further what is going on. They really didn't give a lot of information.

And this could very well be the baby steps I spoke about.

Maybe not all states will SS marry - but if many begin to recognize them that is definitely a step forward.

[MercedesV]

After a quick search I found this article which says in part:

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is exploring whether same-sex marriages performed in other states can be recognized in Maryland, a move that could open an avenue for legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples who have been rebuffed by the courts and legislature here.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/05/30/11754

I'd say this has the possibility to make some new changes for the better.

[theal3]

Yes, one state at a time: that's how it happened for Women voting, some states did, some didn't then it became a National issue; same with blacks, free states, non free states etc.; same with public education; some had it some didn't..... in time; same for abortion, too; some states legal some not, until Supreme court. Society changes, time marches on.

[Lady_Jean_La]

SoS Hillary Clinton is giving benefits to same gender couples in her department. I think perhaps it is a test and could lead to other departments and eventually all federal employees. While some demand the word marriage, I think civil unions, domestic partnerships or certificates of devotion may have to do in the short term.

With most states getting most of their income from the federal government, it shouldn't be difficult to tie that to recognition of same gender commitments in all states.

The only problem I see is making it permanent so that it can not easily be undone as in California. That would probably require an amendment to the Constitution far in the future.

If the military were to get rid of DADT and recognize same gender couples that could really help as with integration in the military.


jmo

[emdragon]

Sigh. It's not the 'same with blacks' no comparision.
If that's what the same sex marriage proponents are using as a basis for their fight, they will continue to lose.
The majority of Black people are offended by this comparison and rightfully so.

Why would they be offended? It's the truth.

My brother didn't choice his sexual orientation anymore than people of color did.


Why should states like Utah get to decide he doesn't deserve the same rights as everyone else.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Why would they be offended? It's the truth.

My brother didn't choice his sexual orientation anymore than people of color did.


Why should states like Utah get to decide he doesn't deserve the same rights as everyone else.The more people insist it is the truth, the more offensive it is. People who have been there done that are saying it is not the same. Why would they lie? And why would anyone tell them they are wrong? jmo

[Lady_Jean_La]

Suzzanna, I can understand your point. You're absolutely right. There is no reason to compare the issues to one another. They are totally separate and very different.

IMOWell said. Some people try to explain it with logic but it is more about feelings. People can not just say someone is wrong and change their feelings.

:thumbup:

[Carol25]

If it is something that should be accepted throughout the nation, should there be an amendment to the constitution to define a marriage? This would define homosexual marriages (between 2 people) as acceptable and polygamist marriages as not?

[ortiga]

I don't see how equal rights is a state's issue. To me, it is a federal issue, like all other civil rights issues are. A couple can be married in Mass. but not have that marriage recognized in the majority of the nation. If they are a gay couple. A hetero couple doesn't have that issue. I just don't see the logic or reasoning behind thinking it is a state's rights issue. Equal rights should mean equal rights throughout the nation.

Of course. It isn't a state issue at all. In the end.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

There is already the D.O.M.A that defines marriage as between a man and a woman and any s/s marriage doesnt NOT have to be recognized by any state other then the one it was performed in

thank Mr bill Clinton for that one .




he Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

This may be abit off topic..but isnt Hillary Clinton now working to get equal rights for SS couples..as we speak. I heard and read that somewhere..Please correct me if I am wrong on that one...

Now, if that is true, doesnt that then fly in the face of this legislation you just cited..from 1996?..Humming, I guess it's true, even people in high places can change their minds...

LMS:thumbup:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Just found this....It seems Hillary is not thrilled or accepts Gay Marriage, she does however propose their rights, to all the same things that marriage would bring to that relationship...

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/hillary-clinton/1/gay-rights/15/

Seems she is"|Splitting the Baby" so to speak..

Oh here it is:
http://www.towleroad.com/hillary_clinton/index.html

snippet~~~
Gay and lesbian State Department employees and their partners will soon receive benefits equal to those of their heterosexual counterparts, according to a draft memo written by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

"In a notice to be sent soon to State Department employees, Clinton says regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges that straight diplomats enjoyed are 'unfair and must end,' as they harm U.S. diplomacy. 'Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad,' she says in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. 'It will also help the department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers,' she says. 'At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do,' Clinton says."
....As mentioned above..movement in "Baby Steps" will get you there eventually..
LMS:tongue:

[Lady_Jean_La]

There is already the D.O.M.A that defines marriage as between a man and a woman and any s/s marriage doesnt NOT have to be recognized by any state other then the one it was performed in

thank Mr bill Clinton for that one .




he Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

I wonder if a case could be made that the second provision prohibits SoS Hillary Clinton from giving State Department employees benefits for same gender couples? I doubt President Obama or the Justice Department would challenge her but a tax reform group might. jmo :confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Just found this....It seems Hillary is not thrilled or accepts Gay Marriage, she does however propose their rights, to all the same things that marriage would bring to that relationship...

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/hillary-clinton/1/gay-rights/15/

Seems she is"|Splitting the Baby" so to speak..

Oh here it is:
http://www.towleroad.com/hillary_clinton/index.html

snippet~~~
Gay and lesbian State Department employees and their partners will soon receive benefits equal to those of their heterosexual counterparts, according to a draft memo written by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

"In a notice to be sent soon to State Department employees, Clinton says regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges that straight diplomats enjoyed are 'unfair and must end,' as they harm U.S. diplomacy. 'Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad,' she says in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. 'It will also help the department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers,' she says. 'At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do,' Clinton says."
....As mentioned above..movement in "Baby Steps" will get you there eventually..
LMS:tongue:


Very interesting. If a civil uniion has all the benefits of marriage is there any difference? It seems the law says it can't be recognized if they are the same. In the case of California, the benefits are the same but a man and a woman can form a domestic partnership, so does that make it different in the eyes of the federal government? Something Sonia Sotomayor may have to be grilled on... jmo

[ortiga]

Very interesting. If a civil uniion has all the benefits of marriage is there any difference? It seems the law says it can't be recognized if they are the same. In the case of California, the benefits are the same but a man and a woman can form a domestic partnership, so does that make it different in the eyes of the federal government? Something Sonia Sotomayor may have to be grilled on... jmo

So, civil unions and marriage are "different" in California? So, this means a person can marry, and then have a civil union with a different party? Is there wording in either the marriage paperwork or the civil union paperwork that specifies that none of the concerned parties can form "different" unions with other people? If someone forms a civil union with a person of the same sex, why should they sign away their rights to marry someone of the opposite sex?

So how does that work at withholding time? Will all the bennies be available for both the union and the marriage?

Some guy on MSNBC Friday night said that really only the civil unions should be sponsored or recognized by the state (read federal gov.), and then if people want to confirm their vows and "marry" in some religious forum, fine for them.

LOL that's just what already happens throughout Latin America, except I think only "opposite" marriage is allowed so far.

[Lady_Jean_La]

So, civil unions and marriage are "different" in California? So, this means a person can marry, and then have a civil union with a different party? Is there wording in either the marriage paperwork or the civil union paperwork that specifies that none of the concerned parties can form "different" unions with other people? If someone forms a civil union with a person of the same sex, why should they sign away their rights to marry someone of the opposite sex?

So how does that work at withholding time? Will all the bennies be available for both the union and the marriage?

Some guy on MSNBC Friday night said that really only the civil unions should be sponsored or recognized by the state (read federal gov.), and then if people want to confirm their vows and "marry" in some religious forum, fine for them.

LOL that's just what already happens throughout Latin America, except I think only "opposite" marriage is allowed so far.

Maybe this will help you.

Eligibility
Currently, a couple that wishes to register must meet the following requirements:

Both persons have a common residence.
Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in California.
Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
Either of the following:
Both persons are members of the same sex.
The partners are of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is above the age of 62, and one or both of whom meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Eligibility

In many cases, the bennies are better in the domestic partnership. Many countries have a civil ceremony required and a religious ceremony optional.

As far as federal or state issue, I'm not sure how that is decided. The Death Penalty seems to be a federal issue but it isn't. The age to drink alcohol would seem a state issue but it isn't. What makes prostitution a state issue and drug enforcement a federal issue?

This may be a little off topic but I can't see the reasoning of why some issues are state and others federal. So, I think gay marriage will remain a state issue until there is a reason to make it a federal issue. jmo

[ortiga]

Maybe this will help you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Eligibility

In many cases, the bennies are better in the domestic partnership. Many countries have a civil ceremony required and a religious ceremony optional.

As far as federal or state issue, I'm not sure how that is decided. The Death Penalty seems to be a federal issue but it isn't. The age to drink alcohol would seem a state issue but it isn't. What makes prostitution a state issue and drug enforcement a federal issue?

This may be a little off topic but I can't see the reasoning of why some issues are state and others federal. So, I think gay marriage will remain a state issue until there is a reason to make it a federal issue. jmo


Not a lawyer here, but this thing seems full of holes. People in civil unions must live together, but married people no? Who enforces that rule? People that form civil unions must obey the laws concerning marriage of related people, etc?

The main reason gay marriage is going to be a federal issue is because of the extreme mobility of our society. Few people stay in the same place for many years. Civil unions not recognized in other states, gay marriage not recognized in other states.

And, they've got the cart and horse all switched around. In a country where church and state are separate, civil unions should be the rule. Then marriage, if desired but not required, in some religious forum.

[Brentwood]

If it is something that should be accepted throughout the nation, should there be an amendment to the constitution to define a marriage? This would define homosexual marriages (between 2 people) as acceptable and polygamist marriages as not?

People are not born with a polygmist sexual orientation.

[Brentwood]

IMO, this is a Civil Rights matter.

We have a long history of discrimination against many groups of Americans.

Just as the following groups, who gained rights in some states only, then eventually at the federal level.

- Interracial couples denied right to marry.
- Women denied the right to vote
- AA’s denied the right to vote
- Segregation, not allowed to eat at a restaurant or drink from a water fountain designated for whites.
- Women not allowed to own property*

* A man could sell the family farm, take the money for himself, and leave his wife & children w/nothing.

I add this to that list

- Americans born gay denied the right to marry

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/1/737448/-EDITORIAL:-Federal-Lawsuits-Against-Gay-Marriage-Ban-Were-Long-Overdue

I can't believe that supporters of same-gender marriage have forgotten the high court's 1996 Romer v. Evans decision, which struck down Colorado's voter-approved Amendment 2, and its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which struck down the last remaining anti-sodomy laws in 16 states, most of which were enforced exclusively against same-gender couples -- even in the privacy of their own homes -- but not against opposite-gender couples performing the same sexual practices.

And both decisions were written by conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy to boot.

[Lady_Jean_La]

BOSTON — The New Hampshire Legislature approved revisions to a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday. If Gov. John Lynch signs the measure into law, the state will become the fifth in New England and the sixth nationally to allow same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html?hp

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sarah-knoploh/2009/06/04/politico-obama-out-step-pro-gay-rights-sentiment

President Obama is apparently out of touch with Americans on gay right issues according to the June 4 article by Politico’s Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin. In the article “Gay Groups Grow Impatient With Obama,” Smith and Martin criticized Obama for the not taking an active role in supporting gay rights, such as same-sex marriage. But Smith and Martin paint an inaccurate portrayal of the American peoples’ stance toward same-sex marriage.

[vonna]

There is already the D.O.M.A that defines marriage as between a man and a woman and any s/s marriage doesnt NOT have to be recognized by any state other then the one it was performed in

thank Mr bill Clinton for that one .




he Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

This is shameful and should be repealed.

[beattherap]

I may get slammed for this but IMO I think if the gay community opted for some kind of title for a committed domestic patnership/civil union instead of calling it "marriage" it may be more acceptable on a national basis. I could care less what it is called personally as long as they would have equal benefits afforded a "married couple". Personally I support same-sex marriage (as my previous posts show) but I think those of us that do are in the minority. In any event whatever is done should be done at the federal level as right now not all states recognize same-sex marriage performed by other states. Unless it is proven scientifically (very controversial) that gays have no choice in their sexual preference I can understand (may not agree) why some people do not believe this is a civil rights issue. Just being honest :( JMHO

Where states stand - updated 6/09:

Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA)

Forty-one states currently have statutory Defense of Marriage Acts. Three of those states have statutory language that pre-dates DOMA (enacted before 1996) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Thirty states have defined marriage in their constitutions. Arizona is the only state that has ever defeated a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman (2006), but subsequently passed one in 2008.

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/HumanServices/SameSexMarriage/tabid/16430/Default.aspx
a real dilemna...

a majority opposes ssm, but those who support ssm marriage or civil unions combined outnumber those opposed to any legal recognition of ssm...

even if doma is repealed, the problem with civil unions is it doesn't bring federal benefits... it can at least give state benefits... imo, many more states would approve civil unions than marriage...

i doubt congress can be counted on to do anything to assist ssm nationally...

i'm not among the affected group, but i think i'd lobby hard for civil unions, get it passed, then work on the next step.

imo.

[LisaM22]

i think the federal government should step in and end the discrimination - it is sad that the states have to do the right thing on their own because the government wont

ironically I think the ca vote did more to help the future of equal rights then most know

[Brat2002]

Where exactly does BO stand on this issue? He refused to tear apart the Defense of Marriage Act and many in the gay community have been upset with him. Why isn't he supporting them?

Is he worried about offending some Americans, or other countries? Is he afraid his popularity will slide if he has the courage to take a stand on this issue?

Who is he trying to impress?

'We don't have any gays in Iran,' Iranian president tells Ivy League audience
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483746/We-dont-gays-Iran-Iranian-president-tells-Ivy-League-audience.html

[LisaM22]

Where exactly does BO stand on this issue? He refused to tear apart the Defense of Marriage Act and many in the gay community have been upset with him. Why isn't he supporting them?

Is he worried about offending some Americans, or other countries? Is he afraid his popularity will slide if he has the courage to take a stand on this issue?

Who is he trying to impress?

'We don't have any gays in Iran,' Iranian president tells Ivy League audience
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483746/We-dont-gays-Iran-Iranian-president-tells-Ivy-League-audience.html

I agree, president Obama is doing more to address this issue, but it is still not enough, equal rights needs to be addressed now, this is America, we do not ignore equal rights issues because they don't jive with someones religious beliefs, Obama is conflicted because of his own religious bigotry, he needs to do what is right and I think he will in the end

[beattherap]

Where exactly does BO stand on this issue? He refused to tear apart the Defense of Marriage Act and many in the gay community have been upset with him. Why isn't he supporting them?

Is he worried about offending some Americans, or other countries? Is he afraid his popularity will slide if he has the courage to take a stand on this issue?

Who is he trying to impress?

'We don't have any gays in Iran,' Iranian president tells Ivy League audience
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483746/We-dont-gays-Iran-Iranian-president-tells-Ivy-League-audience.html
here's my guess...

he wants to repeal doma, but not as much as he wants to pass health care, climate change, financial reg, and do some other things... he knows that the effort to repeal doma might lose and doesn't want to expend political capital on that fight... he knows he'll be portrayed as pro ssm and go down in popularity.

imo.

[LisaM22]

here's my guess...

he wants to repeal doma, but not as much as he wants to pass health care, climate change, financial reg, and do some other things... he knows that the effort to repeal doma might lose and doesn't want to expend political capital on that fight... he knows he'll be portrayed as pro ssm and go down in popularity.

imo.

I would say he could have someone run with this if he wanted too, Obama is not a micro manager even though he is great at multi tasking

[LisaM22]

I think we will see Obama push equal rights in marriage first from a federal level, the fed supporting what the states have chosen and not picking and choosing which legal marriages are recognized and which are not, this allows Obama to do something while still letting the states decide for themselves

[baltoman99]

Dumb question -- doesn't Congress have to approve a repeal to the DOMA law? And if that's the case if the majority of the states are not willing to even offer civil unions -- could it just be a case that President Obama knows that a repeal would not be approved at the federal level and perhaps this is why he is taking "baby steps". Congress' votes are supposed to represent the majority of their constituents wishes. As my previous post shows -- we are in the minority that approve same-sex marriage and most do not view this as a civil rights issue because most believe that it is a choice to be gay not that you are born that way and therein lies the issue. Every scientific study done on this is controversial and debatable.

Obama could sign an executive order repealing DOMA and DADT. But then he becomes George Bush.

Further, it's only a temporary victory for the Gay Community as in 4 or 8 years, a Republican President goes in and pulls the rug from under the Gay Community.

Instead of the vile being thrown at Obama for this, why not direct the vile where it belongs............the members of Congress who need to draft the bill to repeal both and have Obama sign it into law making it harder for a Republican President to get rid of it.

BTW, this isn't directed at you as you've thrown no vile at the President. It's just a general observation I've made at some who want the President to just bypass Congress all the way around.

[beattherap]

Dumb question -- doesn't Congress have to approve a repeal to the DOMA law? And if that's the case if the majority of the states are not willing to even offer civil unions -- could it just be a case that President Obama knows that a repeal would not be approved at the federal level and perhaps this is why he is taking "baby steps". Congress' votes are supposed to represent the majority of their constituents wishes. As my previous post shows -- we are in the minority that approve same-sex marriage and most do not view this as a civil rights issue because most believe that it is a choice to be gay not that you are born that way and therein lies the issue. Every scientific study done on this is controversial and debatable.
as i understand it, the immediate benefit of repealing doma is that ssm in states that allow them would be recognized on the federal level for social security, tax returns, and anything else requiring people to be married to qualify...

imo, congress wouldn't repeal doma anyway, the political downside outweighs the benefits, and as obama has said, federal law doesn't stop states from adopting civil unions granting the same state benefits as marriage or recognizing ssm from other states..

[beattherap]

Obama could sign an executive order repealing DOMA and DADT. But then he becomes George Bush.

Further, it's only a temporary victory for the Gay Community as in 4 or 8 years, a Republican President goes in and pulls the rug from under the Gay Community.

Instead of the vile being thrown at Obama for this, why not direct the vile where it belongs............the members of Congress who need to draft the bill to repeal both and have Obama sign it into law making it harder for a Republican President to get rid of it.

BTW, this isn't directed at you as you've thrown no vile at the President. It's just a general observation I've made at some who want the President to just bypass Congress all the way around.
that cracks me up... obama didn't wait for congress on the economy, health care, financial regs, bailouts, climate, etc...

he doesn't want to deal with doma.

imfo.

[LisaM22]

Obama could sign an executive order repealing DOMA and DADT. But then he becomes George Bush.
<snip>

when did GB sign an executive order to protect the equal rights of Americans?

[baltoman99]

when did GB sign an executive order to protect the equal rights of Americans?

He didn't but then that wasn't my point.

My point was he used many signing statements and executive orders to get what he wanted and none of us on the left were happy with it.

Now suddenly, because it's a Democrat in office, some on our side would be ok with it and I'm sorry, but I'm not a hypocrite. Obama is going about this the right way, it's Congress who needs to draw up the bill, pass it and get it to his desk to sign.

Thats just my opinion and I'm sure many won't agree.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I think we will see Obama push equal rights in marriage first from a federal level, the fed supporting what the states have chosen and not picking and choosing which legal marriages are recognized and which are not, this allows Obama to do something while still letting the states decide for themselvesBut the President is opposed to same gender marriage and the Justice Department is arguing in support of DOMA.

:confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Obama could sign an executive order repealing DOMA and DADT. But then he becomes George Bush.

Further, it's only a temporary victory for the Gay Community as in 4 or 8 years, a Republican President goes in and pulls the rug from under the Gay Community.

Instead of the vile being thrown at Obama for this, why not direct the vile where it belongs............the members of Congress who need to draft the bill to repeal both and have Obama sign it into law making it harder for a Republican President to get rid of it.

BTW, this isn't directed at you as you've thrown no vile at the President. It's just a general observation I've made at some who want the President to just bypass Congress all the way around .

Speaker Pelosi could ram it through if she wanted. jmo

[Lady_Jean_La]

He didn't but then that wasn't my point.

My point was he used many signing statements and executive orders to get what he wanted and none of us on the left were happy with it.

Now suddenly, because it's a Democrat in office, some on our side would be ok with it and I'm sorry, but I'm not a hypocrite. Obama is going about this the right way, it's Congress who needs to draw up the bill, pass it and get it to his desk to sign.

Thats just my opinion and I'm sure many won't agree.

You are right, many don't agree. :scared:

[Lady_Jean_La]

It is the majority of Americans who are opposed to same-sex marriage. Don't understand why this is being made a "Presidential" issue. It is an issue for Congress. President Obama does support civil unions however were Congress (based on the majority of Americans) to submit a bill to repeal DOMA, I do believe the President would sign it. Until the majority of Americans start knocking on Congress' door to do this - it is NOT a priority other than to the gay community. JMHO

It has become a Presidential issue because of campaign promises made prior to the election to get votes. imo

[LisaM22]

He didn't but then that wasn't my point.

My point was he used many signing statements and executive orders to get what he wanted and none of us on the left were happy with it.

Now suddenly, because it's a Democrat in office, some on our side would be ok with it and I'm sorry, but I'm not a hypocrite. Obama is going about this the right way, it's Congress who needs to draw up the bill, pass it and get it to his desk to sign.

Thats just my opinion and I'm sure many won't agree.

I disagree, executive orders area legal way to address the issue, and should be used or congress should make them illegal so they are never used

[baltoman99]

I disagree, executive orders area legal way to address the issue, and should be used or congress should make them illegal so they are never used

Again, you're missing my point.

Yes, he can sign an executive order repealing DOMA and DADT, I'm not disputing that.

What I am disputing is that those are the laws as passed by Congress and they would only offer a temporary fix. It would be like throwing crumbs to the Gay Community.

I'm sick of Congress getting a free pass these days. They need to change the law, Obama can only sign an Executive Order to temporarily repeal it.

Instead of folks bashing Obama over the head on this, perhaps they should direct their anger at the group who thinks just sitting on their azzes is just a-ok.

[LisaM22]

Again, you're missing my point.

Yes, he can sign an executive order repealing DOMA and DADT, I'm not disputing that.

What I am disputing is that those are the laws as passed by Congress and they would only offer a temporary fix. It would be like throwing crumbs to the Gay Community.

I'm sick of Congress getting a free pass these days. They need to change the law, Obama can only sign an Executive Order to temporarily repeal it.

Instead of folks bashing Obama over the head on this, perhaps they should direct their anger at the group who thinks just sitting on their azzes is just a-ok.

no it would not, as if that was the way it was for 8 years, what reason would congress have to not make it law and he could tell congress to pass it or he would

[baltoman99]

no it would not, as if that was the way it was for 8 years, what reason would congress have to not make it law and he could tell congress to pass it or he would

Fine, lets make him no better than Bush. Frankly, I really don't care at this point.

The man is doing what he's supposed to do. Congress passes laws, not the President. But if it makes you feel better to give Congress a pass and lay it all on the doorstep of Obama then by all means knock yourself out.

Congress refuses to budge on DOMA and DADT. Obama has spoken out against both. It's the way Democrats have always been. They get control and don't want to do what they're supposed to do with that control.

[baltoman99]

no it would not, as if that was the way it was for 8 years, what reason would congress have to not make it law and he could tell congress to pass it or he would

I didn't address part of your post.

What reason would Congress have to not make it a law? I don't know, ask them because it's Congress who refuses to draw up a new law repealing DOMA and DADT.

And again, Obama can issue a signing statement or an executive order if he chooses bet that doesn't make it a new law. Laws are passed by Congress, not by the President.

[beattherap]

Again, you're missing my point.

Yes, he can sign an executive order repealing DOMA and DADT, I'm not disputing that.

What I am disputing is that those are the laws as passed by Congress and they would only offer a temporary fix. It would be like throwing crumbs to the Gay Community.

I'm sick of Congress getting a free pass these days. They need to change the law, Obama can only sign an Executive Order to temporarily repeal it.

Instead of folks bashing Obama over the head on this, perhaps they should direct their anger at the group who thinks just sitting on their azzes is just a-ok.
you'll go to any lengths to excuse obama... he didn't wait for congress on a host of other issues, did he... members of congress who want to repeal doma would start today if obama said let's do it.
imo.

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-gay-marriage-poll20-2009jun20,0,7857481.story

Opposition to gay marriage by African Americans was widely seen as a major factor contributing to the passage of Proposition 8. Latinos in the current poll were split, with 45% supporting same-sex marriage and 46% opposing.

[LisaM22]

Fine, lets make him no better than Bush. Frankly, I really don't care at this point.
<snip>.

not sure where you come up with that, just because Obama uses his executive powers to defend equal rights, how does that make him like bush anymore then being president cause bush was a president makes him like bush

[Lady_Jean_La]

Here we go again with race. How can black people have been the deciding factor in Prop 8. They only make up 12% of the ENTIRE US POPULATION and not all of them are voters. So what are we talking about here -- 450 black votes -- maybe ??? :rolleyes:

Not sure if it was you -- but someone brought this up before and it has been debunked with official stats.

1.8 million maybe.

Not debunked, just a different opinion. imo

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

[Lady_Jean_La]

That means: There are 7 times as many white people in California as Blacks. There are nearly 6 times as many Latino people in California as Blacks. And there are double the number of Asian people as Blacks so again I ask how can the black people have been the deciding votes?
Well, let's say excluding black voters it was 50/50. Thjen the black voters support the propostion 70/30. That would do it. imo

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html


Weston, 44, is one of an overwhelming number – 70 percent – of black voters in California who voted for Proposition 8 and helped secure its passage, according to exit polling conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

African Americans, energized by Barack Obama's presidential bid, boosted their numbers at the polls this year to 10 percent of the state's electorate, up from 6 percent in 2004.

[LisaM22]

Yes. The 10th Amendment specifically calls for such issues to remain with the states.

IMO


then you think the fed gov should recognize what ever the states decide? as of right now they are not

[Lady_Jean_La]

What you are failing to take into account is that NOT all black people are reigstered voters and not all black registered voters voted at all for Prop 8.

Others have taken on the challenge of looking at the basic numbers and concluded that it is simply false to suggest that Prop 8 would have been defeated if African Americans had been more supportive. The amendment seems to have passed by more than half a million votes, and the number of black voters, even with turnout boosted by the presidential race, couldn’t have made up that difference. That’s an important fact, but when African American supporters of equality are being called racist epithets at protests about Prop 8, the numbers almost seem beside the point.

Republicans and white churchgoers, among many other groups, voted for Prop. 8 at higher rates than African Americans. There are few African Americans in the inland counties that all voted overwhelmingly to strip marriage equality out of the California constitution. So why single out African Americans? Who’s really to blame? The Religious Right. Let’s start here:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081106/NEWS/811060247/1348

There are differing views and you can take your pick. My view says it hasn't been debunked. Minorities favored Prop. 8 and voted in record numbers. That is a fact. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4062&MediaType=1&Category=26

Another U.S. Senator has flipped on the issue of legalizing gay marriage. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, announced over the weekend that he now supports gay marriage.

[doctor_J]

[QUOTE=Athena2;13204198]I may get slammed for this but IMO I think if the gay community opted for some kind of title for a committed domestic patnership/civil union instead of calling it "marriage" it may be more acceptable on a national basis. I could care less what it is called personally as long as they would have equal benefits afforded a "married couple". Personally I support same-sex marriage (as my previous posts show) but I think those of us that do are in the minority. In any event whatever is done should be done at the federal level as right now not all states recognize same-sex marriage performed by other states. Unless it is proven scientifically (very controversial) that gays have no choice in their sexual preference I can understand (may not agree) why some people do not believe this is a civil rights issue. Just being honest :( JMHO
Where states stand - updated 6/09:[quote]

snipped respectfully

Bolded to address.

This is exactly why I can not equate homosexuality, (a behavior) with race (a genetically determined attribute). There is only anecdotal "proof" that homosexuals are born with that trait and scientifically, anecdotes don't count.

[LisaM22]

the only people that have a choice are those that are bi-sexual - thus if you think you had a choice i would say you are bi, you just choose one over the other, otherwise you would understand why for the majority it is not a choice

[Lady_Jean_La]

Everyone has choices but they also have tendencies. Just a matter of time until we gain more knowledge through genetic research. But some people are more likely to get cancer. Then there is the warrior gene. imo

But in this day why not allow adults to form unions with who they want?

[doctor_J]

the only people that have a choice are those that are bi-sexual - thus if you think you had a choice i would say you are bi, you just choose one over the other, otherwise you would understand why for the majority it is not a choice

You may believe that, and many do, but there is no scientific evidence for it. We are mapping the Human Genome and we have not yet come across a gene for homosexuality. There is no physiological or chemical process in the brain or body that has provided evidence. It's a hypothesis. It may or may not prove to be true. Same is true for transgender people. There may be a biological of genetic basis but we haven't found it. If there is ever found to be genetic proof, it would be what scientists call a "fatal mutation" in evolutionary terms, as in an overwhelming predominance of such a characteristic would eventually lead to the extinction of a species. Which makes it even more unlikely that homosexuals are "born that way". They have urges, compulsions and desires, just like heterosexuals, and they act on them. As a scientist, I don't have an opinion on whether it's "right or wrong". I leave that to lawmakers and judges to determine. What I won't do, is accept as fact, something that cannot be proven or accept anecdotal evidence due to it's political popularity.

[LisaM22]

You may believe that, and many do, but there is no scientific evidence for it. We are mapping the Human Genome and we have not yet come across a gene for homosexuality. There is no physiological or chemical process in the brain or body that has provided evidence. It's a hypothesis. It may or may not prove to be true. Same is true for transgender people. There may be a biological of genetic basis but we haven't found it. If there is ever found to be genetic proof, it would be what scientists call a "fatal mutation" in evolutionary terms, as in an overwhelming predominance of such a characteristic would eventually lead to the extinction of a species. Which makes it even more unlikely that homosexuals are "born that way". They have urges, compulsions and desires, just like heterosexuals, and they act on them. As a scientist, I don't have an opinion on whether it's "right or wrong". I leave that to lawmakers and judges to determine. What I won't do, is accept as fact, something that cannot be proven or accept anecdotal evidence due to it's political popularity.

did you have a choice, did you say, I am attracted to men and I am attracted to women, but I choose ???? - did you have a choice? simple question.... if you were only attracted to one then you never had a choice

as far as extinction of species.... if all humans were no longer attracted to one or the other sex, what do you think may happen? remember most men are attracted to women, most women are attracted to men, but sometime it is visa versa, so both attraction most remain with us, sometime a person is even born with both sexual parts, explain that?

only bi-sexuals have a choice and only bi-sexuals can't understand why others do not think there is a choice, that much is obvious, I know I do not have a choice who I am attracted to, do you?

[doctor_J]

Hermaphrodites or intersexuals don't belong in the same discussion because their scientific basis has long been understood. There is either abnormality or a mutation in the gender chromosomes. Occasionally there is no abnormality in the chromosomes but in the patient's endocrinology during development. Sometimes it can be caused by the fusion of twins while in the blastocystic stage of development. Contrary to popular belief, true human hermaphrodites are rare. The more common abnormality is pseudohermaphroditism, where one set of sexual organs are fully developed and functional and the other is vestigial. These are the kinds of facts we do NOT know about human homosexuality.

Now if homosexuality can be found in the chromosomes or physiology of the endocrine system, we'll have an answer and the proof of the hypothesis put forth by the gay community. There is limited research in this area due to lack of funding.

As to questions about my personal choice, I was so young at that time, I don't think I had ever heard of homosexuality. Seriously, it was a country backwater with no education in sight. I do not think that at age 16 I even knew a same sex relationship was an option.

[LisaM22]

<snip>

As to questions about my personal choice, I was so young at that time, I don't think I had ever heard of homosexuality. Seriously, it was a country backwater with no education in sight. I do not think that at age 16 I even knew a same sex relationship was an option.

I did not ask if you knew anything about anything, I asked if you were attracted to both males and females but chose one or the other, or was it natural, no choice at all

if you were only attracted to males or only attracted to females there was no choice, did you have to make a choice?

[doctor_J]

Being attracted to same sex does not mean they have no choice. Probably most of the gay people in the world right now are married or in a relationship with the opposite sex and "in the closet" about their urges or desires. It's only been in recent years that people became more open. Many, Many people marry and have children and raise them, then announce they are gay. Many women go gay, then go back. Women, a large percentage, doing time in prison, have lesbian relationships and after getting out resume their heterosexual lives. 25 years ago, or even less, I don't think I knew a single open homosexual person, although I attended 3 major universities. There's always choice. Maybe they choose to act on their urges, or maybe they choose to live a more mainstream heterosexual lifestyle, or maybe they choose celibacy.

I'm not saying that homosexuals were NOT born "that way" and nothing will change that. I'm saying it's not scientifically proven and the research so far does not support that hypothesis. As I said, there's not a lot of grants being devoted to the study of human sexuality in the last 10-20 years.

[LisaM22]

Being attracted to same sex does not mean they have no choice. Probably most of the gay people in the world right now are married or in a relationship with the opposite sex and "in the closet" about their urges or desires. It's only been in recent years that people became more open. Many, Many people marry and have children and raise them, then announce they are gay. Many women go gay, then go back. Women, a large percentage, doing time in prison, have lesbian relationships and after getting out resume their heterosexual lives. 25 years ago, or even less, I don't think I knew a single open homosexual person, although I attended 3 major universities. There's always choice. Maybe they choose to act on their urges, or maybe they choose to live a more mainstream heterosexual lifestyle, or maybe they choose celibacy.

I'm not saying that homosexuals were NOT born "that way" and nothing will change that. I'm saying it's not scientifically proven and the research so far does not support that hypothesis. As I said, there's not a lot of grants being devoted to the study of human sexuality in the last 10-20 years.

did you make a choice, did you act on your urges? sorry, but if you choose to deny your attraction and pretend to love someone to fit a stereotype is not a valid choice, yes it is a choice, but not one any of us should approve of - you are still gay, you can't change that by CHOOSING to hide the fact

[LisaM22]

Perhaps after they locate the "straight gene" it will be easier for them to locate the gay gene.

they found this gene

"Monogamy gene found in people"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn14641

[Lady_Jean_La]

Hmmm....... it is a choice but of sexual preference. If a person who has repressed their gay urges in a heterosexual life they are denying their preference and therefore are not really living "their" life but someone else's. Most that leave the heterosexual life (come out) finally feel they are really living how they were meant to live.

I also wouldn't compare gay women or gay men in jail - since sexual urges are different from sexual preference. Same sex is only available in jail so it is a matter of need rather than preference. JMO

To address Lisa's comment about "bi-sexual". Some do have sex with both genders but the preference is still the one of the same sex.

I also agree that the science has not been proven though but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist either. Having said this though many people who believe the Bible tells them they have to save these people -- wouldn't make any difference if it were scientifically proven or not. Personally regardless of what it turns out to be I leave the judgment up to God.

Maybe some people have repressed genes. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1971727.html

Joseph Weems and Randall Won celebrated their first anniversary with a low-key weekend barbecue for friends at their Land Park home. Ellen Pontac and Shelly Bailes sipped mango mimosas, then took a walk around Davis and had a quiet dinner. Laurie Warren and Seanain Snow didn't celebrate at all.

[LisaM22]

<snip>
To address Lisa's comment about "bi-sexual". Some do have sex with both genders but the preference is still the one of the same sex.
<snip>

I was saying that unless you are bi-sexual there is no choice, you can choose to pretend to be attracted to one or the other, but you can not choose who you are attracted too - therefor I think that anyone that thinks it is a choice must be bi-sexual, otherwise they would know from their own experience that their was no choice

[Lady_Jean_La]

I was saying that unless you are bi-sexual there is no choice, you can choose to pretend to be attracted to one or the other, but you can not choose who you are attracted too - therefor I think that anyone that thinks it is a choice must be bi-sexual, otherwise they would know from their own experience that their was no choiceDuring some circumstances people can overcome their natural urges. Some may go through periods where there is little or no attraction. Or there can be compelling attraction for short periods to that which is not the norm. Humans are complex creatures who can not always be placed in a cubby hole. imo

[Ladybug]

http://www.365gay.com/news/should-gay-marriage-remain-a-states-issue/

At this point in time, I am inclined to say YES. I have said in the past that, at this point in time, if half our states agreed to it then we would be making progress. I feel I am being realistic with that statement however some disagree with me.

But a bigger question is - why are some of us so disappointed in CA? Is it because of Hollywood and the sexuality within the film industry? One would think with it's population and culture, gay marriage would pass without a hitch. Is Hollywood only prepared to represent straight sex in films due to money and politics? CA seems so liberal to most of the world - why do you think gay marriage is in such turmoil there? JMO
Firstly, I do think that States should decide if they want to allow gay marriage. Secondly, I am very surprised that Calif. is having such a hard time passing this with Hollywood and all as you mentioned. I think this proves that Hollywood is way too liberal. Being on the west coast is like being detached from the rest of the country..imo

[joolz]

Firstly, I do think that States should decide if they want to allow gay marriage. Secondly, I am very surprised that Calif. is having such a hard time passing this with Hollywood and all as you mentioned. I think this proves that Hollywood is way too liberal. Being on the west coast is like being detached from the rest of the country..imo

Love the cliched "with Hollywood and all" sweeping description. You do know the population of California, don't you, since you claim to live here? Hollywood makes up a very small part of the constituency in the state, and while it may be too liberal for your taste, I'd like to see how you quantify "way too liberal."

Your version of "Hollywood" was mainly oblivious until far too late in the campaign of the huge influx of money being poured into the campaign against same sex marriage. Let's see what happens if it gets on the ballot again.

BTW, as a native Californian I take issue with your description. I much prefer to think of the west coast as being a political and social leader for the rest of the country. IMO, the "detached" states would be the ones that blather about seceding from the union.

[Lady_Jean_La]

California bill would recognize same-sex marriages from other states

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2041961.html

A proposed law to recognize a growing number of same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries is winding its way through California's Legislature.

[LisaM22]

we have 1000's of married individuals in this country that do not have the same rights in America as everyone else, the federal government needs to address the discrimination, states can't choose to honor some marriages from other states but not others, the same is true for the federal government, it has to recognize all legal marriages or none

[LisaM22]

California bill would recognize same-sex marriages from other states

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2041961.html

makes sense they already recognize same-sex marriages from their OWN state, what would they do ask when and where you were married to determine if it was one of the legal marriages they would recognize - basically they would be legalizing polygamy by not recognizing these marriages

[LisaM22]

You make absolutely no sense. :shrug:

what part don't you comprehend? :shrug:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Wasn't Obama going to take up this issue and help you get what you want?
IMO
I don't think so.
:blushing:

[LisaM22]

Wasn't Obama going to take up this issue and help you get what you want?
IMO

yep, he has 4 years to work on the equal rights issues of this country before his 1st term is up, hopefully he comes through for those Americans being discriminated against, he already has made some progress, but much more to be done

[Jay]

As far as federal or state issue, I'm not sure how that is decided. The Death Penalty seems to be a federal issue but it isn't.

It is federal, the 8th AM.


The age to drink alcohol would seem a state issue but it isn't.

It IS a state issue, but coercive on the feds part.


What makes prostitution a state issue and drug enforcement a federal issue?

Prostitution can be a federal issue, but mostly state. Drug enforcement is both.

[Jay]

So when is the last time you've sent a letter to your Representative saying that DOMA needs to be repealed or anyone else on the board that feels this should be a priority?


Regardless of Doma's repeal, if it were to happen, most generally states do not have to recognize same sex marriages from another state if it violates thier own public policy, as the Full Faith and Credit clause has exceptions.

[Lady_Jean_La]

On the question of gay marriage remaining a state issue, I have a passing IMO "what if" thought. There seems to be a divide in the issue whether to take a grassroots state by state approach, or a civil rights federal approach, which a few perceive as elitist.

How about a Viva Las Vegas Approach? Concentrate the effort in Nevada, the Marriage and Divorce Capital. Big $$$$$ for the hospitality industry there. Then enjoy the snowball effect of other state marriage related businesses wanting part of the profits.

Then take the federal approach, leaving Pres Obama to defrock DOMA and recognize all legal state marriages.

What snowball effect?:confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

:read: Then enjoy the snowball effect of other state marriage related businesses wanting part of the profits.

Do you have a link to this snowball effect? :confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Think: wedding planners, photograpers, caterers, florists, etc ... people in business who make money in the wedding business. Now multipy that by 50 states.

snowball effect (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snowball%20effect)

google (http://www.freeopenbook.com/google-for-dummies/)

I just haven't seen it. Great expectations - yes. Fruition - no. No snowballing. People in the wedding business are like everyone else - hurting economically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/fashion/weddings/23MARR.html

It feels like a snowball effect, coming only months after Canada legalized marriage and three years after Vermont allowed civil unions for gay couples. And it comes just in time for same-sex couples to begin planning a June wedding.

[LisaM22]

Read your post I responded to.

what part don't you comprehend?

[LisaM22]

Think: wedding planners, photograpers, caterers, florists, etc ... people in business who make money in the wedding business. Now multipy that by 50 states.

snowball effect (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snowball%20effect)

google (http://www.freeopenbook.com/google-for-dummies/)

exactly...

[vonna]

imo Marriage is a religious issue. Not a state of federal matter.

It most certainly isn't to folks who are not religious!

[Lady_Jean_La]

It most certainly isn't to folks who are not religious!

Not religious folks don't need marriage. imo

[jaxback]

Not religious folks don't need marriage. imo

Oh goody, more exclusionary rules made up on the spot - are you kidding? So you are saying that if I'm not religious then I'm not entitled to take, honor or believe in marriage vows? That's an "interesting" point of view.:rolleyes:

[LisaM22]

Not religious folks don't need marriage. imo

what? marriage is a legal contract between two people in the eyes of the law, marriage in the church has zero legal effect, same sex couples can marry in a church right now, they just can't get the LEGAL marriage, the more important marriage to most and the one that REALLY counts....

[Lady_Jean_La]

Oh goody, more exclusionary rules made up on the spot - are you kidding? So you are saying that if I'm not religious then I'm not entitled to take, honor or believe in marriage vows? That's an "interesting" point of view.:rolleyes:

You can if you wish, I just don't know why you would want a religious ceremony if you are not religious. I think a civil ceremony works for everyone and a religious ceremony for those who wish. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

what? marriage is a legal contract between two people in the eyes of the law, marriage in the church has zero legal effect, same sex couples can marry in a church right now, they just can't get the LEGAL marriage, the more important marriage to most and the one that REALLY counts....
Exactly! Thank you.

[LisaM22]

Exactly! Thank you.

glad I could help you clarify your post, sounded like you were saying non-religious people did not need to get married

[LisaM22]

You can if you wish, I just don't know why you would want a religious ceremony if you are not religious. I think a civil ceremony works for everyone and a religious ceremony for those who wish. imo

because the "marriage ceremony" is not religious to everyone, it can be to some, doesn't have to be though, that is not a requirement to get married

this thread though is about same sex couples getting married... so that is kinda off topic

[Lady_Jean_La]

glad I could help you clarify your post, sounded like you were saying non-religious people did not need to get marriedWe drifted off topic for a moment it appears. I see no reason why non-religious people would want a religious ceremony except as some sort of fraud perhaps to keep the family happy or something.

Strictly speaking a civil ceremony fulfills the legal requirements and the religious ceremony is just for show. imo

[LisaM22]

We drifted off topic for a moment it appears. I see no reason why non-religious people would want a religious ceremony except as some sort of fraud perhaps to keep the family happy or something.

Strictly speaking a civil ceremony fulfills the legal requirements and the religious ceremony is just for show. imo

it's called a marriage or wedding ceremony, they can be both religious or not, they can also be both at the same time, for some it's just tradition to do whatever they do and some do have some crazy wedding ceremonies and yes, some mix in religion for family and friends as well, even if they are not religious themselves, I would not call it some sort of fraud, they are just thinking of others besides just themselves

[LisaM22]

thanks RightProper, that is really what it comes down to, equal rights for all, separate but equal is not has never worked, it's just plain wrong

[LisaM22]

:confused: ......Marriage, for legal reasons if nothing else, is needed. Inheritance, critical care decisions, etc make it a necessity. Religion has nothing to do with it except in the context of people using it as a reason to stop gay marriage. IMO it's not right to be used that way because god does the wiring in the womb.

Besides a wedding ceremony should be anyones right. Not just Heterosexuals. Many people don't want just a civil ceremony and call it good. The time for this to go away is upon us. Witch burning etc. went out with the 1600s. Last time I checked we are now into the 21st century and it's time for the bias to stop. JMHO of course.

yep and it's funny some say the can't support same sex marriage, but Adultery is one of their faiths top ten sins right next to murder, and they seem to support that with no issue at all, in fact Adultery is legal in this country, just look at Sanford.... seems as though even c-street still supports Sanford, kinda odd, one woudl think if you can support one of the top 10 sins, surely anything not even listed as a sin woudl not even be a concern

[justaguy]

plus....a marriage ceremony...reception. wow.

its a chance for those of us who can't dance worth beans to get out there and make fools of ourselves...surrounded by up to hundreds of other wheezing out of shape people doing the same thing!

PLUS!!!!!!!!!!! CAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all you can eat....if you go back every time they change servers.


u all seemed to have forgot the above..the real issues!

[Jay]

DOMA won't be struck down for several reasons.


1. Under the FFC clause, states are not bound to honor the public policy of a sister state that violates it's own; US SC Nevada v. Hall, quoting Pacific.

2. Same sex marriages have already been ruled to NOT violate the federal constitution, per the US SC, 1971.

3. Reading the FFC clause,we see a provision for Congress itself to define/outline what records are to be honored, and same sex marriage prohibitions falls within it's umbrella.

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

[Jay]

Adultery is legal in this country


Some states still codify it as illegal, but they are basically desuetude laws.

Adultery/criminal conversation, can be tortious though, as some states, a few, still recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection.

[LisaM22]

Some states still codify it as illegal, but they are basically desuetude laws.

Adultery/criminal conversation, can be tortious though, as some states, a few, still recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection.

the bible rates adultery up there with murder, in fact one of the top sins, if our government used the ten commandments as a template for our own laws ( which this is proof they did not), adultery would have to be up there on the felony crimes too

[Jay]

the bible rates adultery up there with murder,


Have a cite for that?

[Lady_Jean_La]

Hummm. Kind of difficult to believe someone would have a problem comprehending the "snowball" effect. If that's to difficult to understand, the multiplication factor would be way over their heads. BTW, not a bad idea at all. It could really take off.:Biggrin:

Have you evidence of this showball effect? Please post a link showing people flocking to a state and spending enormous amounts of money for a gay marriage. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

:confused: ......Marriage, for legal reasons if nothing else, is needed. Inheritance, critical care decisions, etc make it a necessity. Religion has nothing to do with it except in the context of people using it as a reason to stop gay marriage. IMO it's not right to be used that way because god does the wiring in the womb.

Besides a wedding ceremony should be anyones right. Not just Heterosexuals. Many people don't want just a civil ceremony and call it good. The time for this to go away is upon us. Witch burning etc. went out with the 1600s. Last time I checked we are now into the 21st century and it's time for the bias to stop. JMHO of course.

Civil unions meet non religious needs all over the world and they could in the USA. I still see little reason why non religious people want religious ceremonies but there is nothing legally preventing them. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

yep and it's funny some say the can't support same sex marriage, but Adultery is one of their faiths top ten sins right next to murder, and they seem to support that with no issue at all, in fact Adultery is legal in this country, just look at Sanford.... seems as though even c-street still supports Sanford, kinda odd, one woudl think if you can support one of the top 10 sins, surely anything not even listed as a sin woudl not even be a concern

Adultery is a state issue. imo

[Jay]

2. Same sex marriages have already been ruled to NOT violate the federal constitution, per the US SC, 1971.




That should read same sex marriage PROHIBITIONS do not violate the federal constitution.

[A-hem_1]

Gay people can be religious. Why should they be denied a religious ceremony?

[Lady_Jean_La]

Gay people can be religious. Why should they be denied a religious ceremony?I think that would be up to the religious leader.

[justaguy]

cake cake cake

[Lady_Jean_La]

DOMA won't be struck down for several reasons.


1. Under the FFC clause, states are not bound to honor the public policy of a sister state that violates it's own; US SC Nevada v. Hall, quoting Pacific.

2. Same sex marriages have already been ruled to NOT violate the federal constitution, per the US SC, 1971.

3. Reading the FFC clause,we see a provision for Congress itself to define/outline what records are to be honored, and same sex marriage prohibitions falls within it's umbrella.

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This brings up an interesting question. If a German woman citizen married an American woman citizen. The German woman then gave birth to a boy in France. Would the child have dual citizenship? Could the child claim American citizenship? Would the child be a natural born citizen of the USA?

This might get very confusing if the USA does not recognize the marriage. But what if they moved to a state where same gender marriage is legal?

Sometimes things get confusing and will have to be dealt with eventually. imo

[LisaM22]

Have a cite for that?

sorry, i thought most people knew the 10 commandments ;)

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/10-Commandments.html

murder #6
adultery #7

same sex marriage not even on the list

and working on Sunday is actually higher up on the list then murder

[LisaM22]

I think that would be up to the religious leader.

you mean you have to ask a religious leader if you can be religious now in order to be a Christian? sense when?

[Jay]

sorry, i thought most people knew the 10 commandments ;)

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/10-Commandments.html

murder #6
adultery #7

same sex marriage not even on the list

and working on Sunday is actually higher up on the list then murder


Of course I know about the Decalogue, but you seem to be #ing them as above. You really don't think any non rememberance to keep holy the sabbath is as morally culpable as murder, do you?

Every "sin" shall we say, can fall under one commandment or another, as it is impossible to # every one.

Murder is a sin that "cries to Heaven for vengeance".

I would rather have to repent for adultery than murder.

Keeping holy the sabbath does not mean not working necessarily. If it did, police and fireman are breaking God's law.

If you mean menial labor, such as mowing the lawn, and not valued work, the commandment does not mean that in a total sense, no!

The Catholic church devides sin, generally, into venial (small) and Mortal (soul damning).

MURDER is always a Mortal sin. Theft or adultery is not always the case.

[Jay]

This brings up an interesting question. If a German woman citizen married an American woman citizen. The German woman then gave birth to a boy in France. Would the child have dual citizenship? Could the child claim American citizenship? Would the child be a natural born citizen of the USA?

This might get very confusing if the USA does not recognize the marriage. But what if they moved to a state where same gender marriage is legal?

Sometimes things get confusing and will have to be dealt with eventually. imo


Good question. As I understand foreign birth law, both parents must be American citizens and of opposite sex?

[Lady_Jean_La]

sorry, i thought most people knew the 10 commandments ;)

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/10-Commandments.html

murder #6
adultery #7

same sex marriage not even on the list

and working on Sunday is actually higher up on the list then murder

Sunday? :confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

you mean you have to ask a religious leader if you can be religious now in order to be a Christian? sense when?
I believe you would have to ask a religious leader to perform a religious ceremony. I don't think that is exclusive to Christians. Do you believe a caliph would perform a same gender marriage?

[jaxback]

:blushing: Embarassing isn't it, when we find ourselves behind formerly apartheid South Africa entering the 21st century? jmg

Indeed it is. And positively freaky that some people seem to want to keep marching backwards into the past. :scared: jmo

[beattherap]

:biggrin: That's the fun part, some churches already marry same-sex couples in all 50 states, other churches lobby against same-sex marriage. It's their right, either way to define their sect.

Discrimination is a state/federal issue regarding the legal rights of same-sex couples. Some will cherry pick laws from their limited knowledge and claim this or that. It's their right, I say GO history boy.

Speaking of history, separate but equal did not stand the test of law, either. Nor should it have.

:biggrin: Acceptance for same-sex marriage is gaining momentum, from 0 to more than 10 states now. As with the vote for women and interracial marriage, people realize it ain't no big ting, and life goes on. http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm
ssM is legal in 6 states, not 10... 4 states have civil unions or domestic partnerships...

imo, ssM won't be legalized by congress or a majority of states... if courts don't do it, it won't happen.

imo.

[LisaM22]

Of course I know about the Decalogue, but you seem to be #ing them as above. You really don't think any non rememberance to keep holy the sabbath is as morally culpable as murder, do you?

Every "sin" shall we say, can fall under one commandment or another, as it is impossible to # every one.

Murder is a sin that "cries to Heaven for vengeance".

I would rather have to repent for adultery than murder.

Keeping holy the sabbath does not mean not working necessarily. If it did, police and fireman are breaking God's law.

If you mean menial labor, such as mowing the lawn, and not valued work, the commandment does not mean that in a total sense, no!

The Catholic church devides sin, generally, into venial (small) and Mortal (soul damning).

MURDER is always a Mortal sin. Theft or adultery is not always the case.

so you do not think the 10 commandments is what your god considers his top ten offenses, what is it then, just 10 random rules he picked out of his magic hat?

[Jay]

so you do not think the 10 commandments is what your god considers his top ten offenses, what is it then, just 10 random rules he picked out of his magic hat?



Obviously you don't believe in God, and it was not very respectful the way you phrased that.

[LisaM22]

Obviously you don't believe in God, and it was not very respectful the way you phrased that.

who said I do not believe in a god, you seem to confuse believing in god with believing in the bible, they do not go hand in hand, you can do one without the other - it's disrespectful for you to try to use the bible and or god to take away the rights of others.... jmho

[jaxback]

A little off topic but if a person believed in a God (http://www.google.com/search?q=god+definition&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=1I7GPEA_enUS295) (A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship.), wouldn't they capitalize 'God"? By using the lower case I sense a rejection or contempt for 'God', why disrespect and demote 'God' unless you don't believe and want to make a statement to believers?

I chose to capitalize God, not as a sign of my beliefs but as a sign of respect to those that do believe.

And that's a choice. And your summation of capitalization v. non-capitalization is an opinion. I don't recall OP whom you are backhandedly chastizing giving an opinion on the subject, and - as you said - it's OT anyway. Why don't you take it to the religious threads?

[Jay]

who said I do not believe in a god, you seem to confuse believing in god with believing in the bible, they do not go hand in hand, you can do one without the other - it's disrespectful for you to try to use the bible and or god to take away the rights of others.... jmho


Now I'm disrespectful??

Pathetic attempt to take the spotlight off your previous comment!

Whatever Lisa!

[LisaM22]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:1-4;&version=9;

"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?"


so why are some christian's trying to judge, why not let each to his own, if two consenting adults love one another, who are you or I to judge

[A-hem_1]

I honestly cannot see what religion has to do with equal rights for all.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I honestly cannot see what religion has to do with equal rights for all.
I'm with you, we seemed to have gone off track unless someone can explain. imo

[LisaM22]

I honestly cannot see what religion has to do with equal rights for all.

it should not, but sadly some, not all Christians feel it is there place to prevent two consenting adults in love from having the same rights they do, there is enough hate in the world to contend with, why attack people in love that want to get married... just makes no sense

[vonna]

:sad: Not just a few of the Christian or of other faiths, what about the party of family values members who would not include all pair-bonded consenting adults?

You mean the people who love to hate????

[LisaM22]

Bingo .... and love to enforce their "values" on others, w/o living them themselves. hypocrisy by another name.

sense many of them have been caught cheating on their wives, maybe in their minds they are saving them from the nightmare they know as marriage, maybe they do not know that marriage can really be about love that lasts longer then the honeymoon, could be part of that waiting until they were married to have sex (if any of them even follow their own rules that is), who knows

[February]

:shrug: one of the funniest/ironic bumper stickers i have ever seen: "preserve marriage as we know it" ... that can't be good, if they are hoping to save people by denying the 'pleasure.' jmg


Divorce, adulery, etc ... yep .. love that "sanctity" of marriage


My parents were married for 42 years. I have an Aunt and Uncle who have been married for 65 years. THAT'S the sancity of marriage,
They were married in Church, live by the guidelines and have beautiful lives.
50% of marriages end in divorce,,but the rest don't because they have the true foundation.

[Brentwood]

My parents were married for 42 years. I have an Aunt and Uncle who have been married for 65 years. THAT'S the sancity of marriage,
They were married in Church, live by the guidelines and have beautiful lives.
50% of marriages end in divorce,,but the rest don't because they have the true foundation.

I don't think that someone has to be straight to have that kind of commitment of marriage and bond of love. Some day this kind of bigotry will end toward people that just so happened to be born gay.