Good news on the G/L marriage front
- Thread starter surferboy
- Start date
madame_zora
Sexy Member
And there's a difference between the two?
[post=282235]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Stop it, you guys are creeping me out. Let's get back to all the gay lovin' around here, okay?
And there's a difference between the two?
[post=282235]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]The biggest hompophobe is the closet case afraid that someone will open his closet door.
... got on this topic a few months back because NJ was working toward 'civil unions', and my next door neighbor thought it a good idea.
I pulled out a short part of NJ's Public Law... and read to her who (in 1950-somethiing - and since) is permitted to marry...
Persons who are or certain minimum age, not related by (fill in the normal expectations of mother-son, woman-uncle, first cousins...)
AMAZINGLY it does NOT exclude a person of the same sex....
She was stunned to hear it so clearly say it that way. (her brother is gay)
Now, if only someone would read it publicly and Sue for what they are so clearly entitled to. (well, someday)
(sorry- I can't locate the section of family law... but its on the first or second page of that section of law)
I pulled out a short part of NJ's Public Law... and read to her who (in 1950-somethiing - and since) is permitted to marry...
Persons who are or certain minimum age, not related by (fill in the normal expectations of mother-son, woman-uncle, first cousins...)
AMAZINGLY it does NOT exclude a person of the same sex....
She was stunned to hear it so clearly say it that way. (her brother is gay)
Now, if only someone would read it publicly and Sue for what they are so clearly entitled to. (well, someday)
(sorry- I can't locate the section of family law... but its on the first or second page of that section of law)
I have to ask a question....
I am straight. Always have been...almost certainly always will be. NEVER have I felt threatened by anyone else's sexuality. No one ever said to me "Al, you must do gay things" or anything like that. I have gay friends...when we go out, they look at the guys and I look at the woman and they think that's cool and vice versa. I have never felt embarrassed that someone of my acquaintance was looking at a guy and many times the gay men can see what I do in a given woman. I never thought any gay people were compelling me to join the lifestyle or anything like that...if anything, the gays of my acquaintance were far, far more tolerant of the straights than the straights of my acquaintance were of the gays.
Now, given that....
I have known gay and lesbian relationships that were at least every bit as loving and enduring as any straight relationship possibly could be. So, why can't such people be married and recognized as such by the state? Shouldn't THAT be the criterion rather than the genders and gender preferences of the partners?
So what's the big deal? Or am I just missing something?
I do not understand why someone can get so bent out of shape over an issue that really has nothing to do with him/her.
I am straight. Always have been...almost certainly always will be. NEVER have I felt threatened by anyone else's sexuality. No one ever said to me "Al, you must do gay things" or anything like that. I have gay friends...when we go out, they look at the guys and I look at the woman and they think that's cool and vice versa. I have never felt embarrassed that someone of my acquaintance was looking at a guy and many times the gay men can see what I do in a given woman. I never thought any gay people were compelling me to join the lifestyle or anything like that...if anything, the gays of my acquaintance were far, far more tolerant of the straights than the straights of my acquaintance were of the gays.
Now, given that....
I have known gay and lesbian relationships that were at least every bit as loving and enduring as any straight relationship possibly could be. So, why can't such people be married and recognized as such by the state? Shouldn't THAT be the criterion rather than the genders and gender preferences of the partners?
So what's the big deal? Or am I just missing something?
I do not understand why someone can get so bent out of shape over an issue that really has nothing to do with him/her.
Gay marriages are 100% legal in most of Canada and have been for over a year now. What P.M. Martin is doing right now is extending this to all of the Court jurisdictions where the old discriminatory law has not yet been struck down (Alberta & Atlantic Provinces). I believe the old law fell in Quebec first, then BC, then Ontario, though it was the Ontario ruling that carries the most legal weight and stands as 'precedential' when the government chose not to appeal.
- jonb,
To be more exact, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and the Yukon Territory have ruled restrictions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Canada also doesn't have a residency requirement, so anyone in North Dakota can go up to Manitoba. Alberta, PEI, New Brunswick and Northwest Territories don't recognize any same-sex marriages, but Nunavut recognizes ones from other governments.
We had a huge thread on same-sex marriage in Nunavut a while back on alt.native. It doesn't help much that everyone but Okalik seems to recognize sacred transvestites and other elements which aren't very heteronormative at all. (Their flood story actually involves two male survivors and then one gives birth to the first woman.)
We had a huge thread on same-sex marriage in Nunavut a while back on alt.native. It doesn't help much that everyone but Okalik seems to recognize sacred transvestites and other elements which aren't very heteronormative at all. (Their flood story actually involves two male survivors and then one gives birth to the first woman.)
RunnerSF: The NYC ruling is somewhat of a mixed blessing on the gay marriage front. It relied heavily on federal law therefore opening the ruling to federal court challenge (unlike prior cases which relied soley on specific state constitutions and issues). While it is difficult to amend the NY constituation, as a poster above pointed out - Mass efforts are showing that it can be done in states with similar admendment methods. (and 11 other states showed it can be done in states with easier admendment methods). Moreover, the case will add fruther fuel to right-wing efforst to obtain a federal amendment. All the while from a case that is in legal limbo and will most likely be until it reaches the US supreme court years and years from now.
I'm a firm supporter of marriage equality and I've worked on the issue. Just figured I'd point out a nit picky differences between the states that make the NY decision a bit more problematic.
I'm a firm supporter of marriage equality and I've worked on the issue. Just figured I'd point out a nit picky differences between the states that make the NY decision a bit more problematic.
The current debate is rooted in the EQUAL PROTECTION clause of the constitution - I get protection equal to you ... (at least in theory)
And, coupled with the rights to adopt (therefore raise children), those rights become increasingly important to GAYS who adopt.
And, thus, the right to marriage and spousal benefits is just an extension of the right to adopt and raise children. That's the core of the "marriage license" - the State's "Contract" with a couple to raise their offspring without the state's support.
So- only Gays should raise children withoout the obligations of the 'Marriage Licnese"--- tell me what I'm missing... seems it would be in society's interest to have children in stable homes with Marriagge contracts to obligate the [natural or adopted] parents.
Who would refuse the rights of children ? Evidently, those who hate gays would. They seem to be so confused!
[ Funny how the "family values" issue came around to bite 'em in the backside! ]
And, coupled with the rights to adopt (therefore raise children), those rights become increasingly important to GAYS who adopt.
And, thus, the right to marriage and spousal benefits is just an extension of the right to adopt and raise children. That's the core of the "marriage license" - the State's "Contract" with a couple to raise their offspring without the state's support.
So- only Gays should raise children withoout the obligations of the 'Marriage Licnese"--- tell me what I'm missing... seems it would be in society's interest to have children in stable homes with Marriagge contracts to obligate the [natural or adopted] parents.
Who would refuse the rights of children ? Evidently, those who hate gays would. They seem to be so confused!
[ Funny how the "family values" issue came around to bite 'em in the backside! ]