Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?em (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?em)

"The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court's decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized."

Some minister of a large church in San Diego was interviewed on TV and said this was a great day.  He then used the Bible three times to justify the decision.  (What about separation of church and state?)  To further support his position he asked "what's next?"  Then claimed we'd have people wanting to marry dogs. 

Don't you just love the wild extremes these people go to in order to fuel their fear mongering? 

I wonder what he would have said about trans people?

Julie

The same story by way of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600363.html?hpid=topnews).

I've no idea what that feller would have said about trans-people. But I'd be willing to bet that most of us wouldn't have agreed with him. :)

In reality I don't think the decision says what people are thinking it says.  It's very narrow, extremely narrow and the right wing may find it a Pyrrhic victory before all is said and done.  It's really a victory for nothing more than nomenclature at best.  And the court did not want to legislate from the bench, as they should not.  Nor did this case, in reality, have anything to do with gay marriage, it had everything to do with how the initiative process works and if the voters can overrule the assembly and/or courts, and they can.  In reality its a victory for the people, though it may not look like it.  And, since the prior marriages stand, then there is de facto, gay marriage in California, and you know this is going to be on the ballot again next year, and lets hope the supporters decide to run a campaign and not just a 3 month pre-victory party.

Rather a bit silly.
The old ones count, but no new ones.

The old ones obviously did not destroy the state like so many claimed it would.

California has a much bigger problem. They need to get rid of the prop system as it does not allow for leadership. It prevents the tough decisions that no one is in favor of but must be made. Soon the budget will reduce the services and people will move as they can no longer afford to live there. The infrastructure will start to decay with no money for maintenance. It will become an extension of Baja.

Quote from: Leslie Ann on May 26, 2009, 04:40:06 PM
Rather a bit silly.
The old ones count, but no new ones.

The old ones obviously did not destroy the state like so many claimed it would.

Apparently not, and that should be a highlight point of the referendum next year part of what tekla referred to as "let's hope the supporters decide to run a campaign and not just a 3 month pre-victory party." Real people to be shown as real people with families and strong relationships and not simply a string of faceless maxims appealing to minds. Elections are most definitely about hearts and this needs to be punched and punched all over California by the organizers this time.

N~

The SC gave three ways this can be changed.  Yet another proposition. Action by the State Ledg, who are, even by California standards pretty worthless.  And by a Constitutional Convention.  No modern state (since the Civil War Era) has had a full out Constitutional Convention.  It would be exciting and scary at the same time.  It would need to overturn Prop 13, the 'super majority' needed to pass a budget or raise taxes, and some how settle the marriage issue, though I'm sure in fine California style all sorts of other issues ranging from surreal to practical would all find supporters.

The government was served with a lawsuit the week of April 27th regarding the Defense of Marriage Act which bars federal recognition of same-sex couples. Now the Department of Justice, under President Obama's authority, has till the week of June 22nd to respond. They can either carry out on with the lawsuit defending DOMA, or choose not to defend an unconstitutional law.

I'm sure they are busy trying to find some sort of third option.

Why did the court do that? Are they afraid for the power of this fundamentalist people and their lies about gay marriage? Blame on you, Court!

Boy, of all the things people don't understand, the legal system is right up there with quantum physics and the Kabbalah.

As I said:
Nor did this case, in reality, have anything to do with gay marriage, it had everything to do with how the initiative process works and if the voters can overrule the assembly and/or courts, and they can.  In reality its a victory for the people, though it may not look like it.

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 04:58:58 PM
The SC gave three ways this can be changed.  Yet another proposition. (...) And by a Constitutional Convention. 

Why did the SC prefer one of this two possibilities? Why they made this stupid decision? Is they any change to change it? Maybe with another Prop.?

The Court gave three ways, it did not prefer one over the other, it simply listed them.

Let me guess, none of you have really read the decision have you?  There was a reason there were not big old riots in SF today.  They did read it, and came to the same conclusion I did.  All the Court did was give the right wing a word, but beyond that, nothing.  It let the prior marriages stand, which, BTW has the wingnuts spinning round like a top.

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 05:08:32 PM
Boy, of all the things people don't understand, the legal system is right up there with quantum physics and the Kabbalah.

As I said:
Nor did this case, in reality, have anything to do with gay marriage, it had everything to do with how the initiative process works and if the voters can overrule the assembly and/or courts, and they can.  In reality its a victory for the people, though it may not look like it.

How can this be a "victory" for people, if a part of this people got stolen their rigths? It is a vctory for fundamentalist Churches, Sects and Cults, which see,that they can do everything. That they IS NO SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCHES AND STATE/COUNTRY! I'm so furious at the moment, i wish I can do something to change the judges mind!

i wish I can do something to change the judges mind!

Never met one have you?  Its easier to make the sun rise in the West and set in the East than to change a judge's mind.

The ruling was not - NOT - about gay marriage, it was about the people changing the Constitution on a basic level through the initiative process.  The Court already ruled last year on gay marriage and it was that ruling that set off this process.

QuoteIts easier to make the sun rise in the West and set in the East than to change a judge's mind.

LOL Unless you live in MS. What is an appointment to the Federal bench worth. Ask Scruggs, Trent Lott's  brother in-law.

I still don't understand how you can have separation of church and state yet have a law that holds or denies a ritual that is performed in a church and based on the bible...usually.

I don't think people should care who gets married and who doesn't. It shouldn't matter. People need to grow up and just let it go.

I feel a little saddened they banned it. It really isn't any of our business to make a whole class of people upset by denying them something they should be able to have just for being who they were born as.

OK.  I really haven't read the thread, but I will voice my opinion.  Mostly because I am no pain.

The idiots that passed this law are flat out bigots.  Religion has nothing to do with rights. People that voted for this law and the morons that up held it, have their heads so far up their.......

I am so tired of the BS that the Immoral Minority spreads that it makes me sick.  And yes, I  iam just enough light to voice my true opinion.

I am sorry if it P.O. 's the mods, or anyone else.  The last thing that HUMAN rights need is religion.

And people wonder why I turned my back on the so called religious movement.

Opinions expressed are my own.  Read history.  The worst thing that happened was organized religion.

The Inquisition. The Catholic church.

Nazi Germany.  Supported by the the Catholic Church.

The Jesuit Priests.  The CIA for the Catholic Church.

Priests in general.  Spies for the the ... guess who... the Catholic church.

Guess what......... I am not surprised that it failed.  Guess what the unofficial religion of the good old USA is.  The Catholic Church.

I am really sorry if I PO'd anyone, but I am sick and tired of the Catholic Church telling us what to do.  And After all it is only the Old Rome Empire reborn.

Your so called Pope is nothing more the Emperor the the Empire of the Old Rome Empire.

Janet

They did not really ban anything except the use of the word "marriage" in a legal sense.  People can still go down to the courthouse and do the Domestic Partnership deal that is 100% the same in terms of obligations, rights, benefits as a marriage contract.  People can still 'get married' if the Church allows it, like the MCC and other churches.  All the court said the law did was say 'marriage' was for straight couples, and DPs were for gay or other couples.

But why do same-sex couples have to go thru the BS of sign "special" papers, when a straight couple can go to Reno and have the same thing.  BS.

It is all nothing but religious rhetoric.


Janet

QuoteThe last thing that HUMAN rights need is religion.

The problem is that many will take the rights without the responsibilities. Nothing is free. Marriage also has many responsibilities. It is a contract not a religion. The religions do not want to change the contract and its value to them. There by denying others who do not believe the same responsibilities attached to the rights.

Score 1 for the god fearing bigots. Funny how they bring in lawyers and not God when it comes time for a divorce. And where is their god when they are out cheating on each other.

Don't 50% or more of marriages end up in divorce? With a 50/50 chance of it not surviving I guess "god" isn't blessing the straight marriages either.

QuoteScore 1 for the god fearing bigots.

They did not score anything. The marriages are still valid. California is no longer a leader in social reform. Many other states are ahead of them and are more physically responsible.

Quote from: lisagurl on May 26, 2009, 08:40:33 PM
They did not score anything. The marriages are still valid. California is no longer a leader in social reform. Many other states are ahead of them and are more physically responsible.

Sounds like they got to keep the term "marriage" and the others have to use the words "Domestic partnership".

I'd call it a win, even if it is a bitter stupid one.

Pretty much they are going to sign the same papers, its just that one will say 'marriage' on the top, the other will say 'domestic partnership' on the top - the SC said specifically that they are to be treated under the law in exactly the same way.  Which is a failure for the Xian Right.  They also said that the actions of the State were legal, so they can not pass some ex post facto law that would have reneged on prior good faith agreements -  i.e. the previous marriages, including the ones done in SF, stand.  Another defeat for the Right.

And we're going to do this again next year.  Bet on it. 

Quote from: lisagurl on May 26, 2009, 08:37:07 PM
The problem is that many will take the rights without the responsibilities. Nothing is free. Marriage also has many responsibilities. It is a contract not a religion. The religions do not want to change the contract and its value to them. There by denying others who do not believe the same responsibilities attached to the rights.

But if two people who love each other, regardless of their birth sex, have to jump thru BS to have the same rights?  When I married my ex, a bio woman , in Reno, Nev., we just sign a piece of paper that said we were Husband and Wife.  Why can't a same sex couple do the same thing.  Yes Marriage is a contract, but because it is sanction by the church, it is legal.

BULL.  If it is legal for a man and woman to enter said contract just by saying "I do". Why can't Joe1 and Joe2 do the same thing..  The reason is because the Immoral Majority has their head up their.....  It is because it is their way or the Highway.  And try to get a same-sex 'marriage' to be observed in another state that is anti-same sex.  It is just a load of religious crap.  If same-sex couple have to jump thru hoops, so do everyones else.

Janet

Janet Lynn I have to BS on you, "Nazi Germany.  Supported by the the Catholic Church."

Extraordinary claims call for extraodinary proof.

Now heres what I think is going to happen in the long run.

Civil Unions for all "couples." State.

The "State" stays out of the "Marriage" Biz. Church.

This will probably take some 5 years, give or take 2 years.

Many ordinary Catholics objected to attacks on their church, but there was simply no opposition to Nazism tout ensemble. ... In fact, there were key points at which Nazi and Catholic attitudes intersected and created a basis for mutual support. Both groups hated the Weimar Republic. The Nazis opposed Weimar because it was allegedly too Jewish and led by the "November Criminals" who sold out the country after the First World War; Catholics objected to it because it smacked of liberalism, sexual degeneracy, and an irreligious spirit.

Cardinal Faulhaber, for example, gave a speech in May 1933 in which he expressed thanks for the Volksgemeinschaft, or spirit of community, which Hitler had fostered, and rejected "liberal individualism." Moreover, Catholics shared with Nazis an instinctive fear of the Bolsheviks.

Finally, there was a form of anti-Jewish sentiment that was openly accepted among Catholics, based in part on the theological argument that the Jews sinned by rejecting Christ and in part on the historical fact that many Jews had played leading roles in the Kulturkampf. As early as 1925, a Franciscan priest named Erhard Schuland wrote a book called "Katholizismus und Vaterland" (Catholicism and Fatherland) that called on Germans to fight "the destructive influence of the Jews in religion, morality, literature and art, and political and social life." Schuland expressed what was very much the consensus in German Catholicism of the day...

Support for the Nazis, their social policies, and their anti-Semitism was not limited to ordinary Catholics and a few random priests:

    Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg was known as the "Brown Bishop" because he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. In 1933, he became a "sponsoring member" of the SS. After the war, however, he claimed to have been such an opponent of the Nazis that they had planned to crucify him on the door for the Freiburg Cathedral.

    Bishop Wilhlem Berning of Osnabrück sat with the Deutsche Christen Reichsbishop in the Prussian State Council from 1933 to 1945, a clear signal of support for the Nazi regime.

    Cardinal Bertram also had some affinity for the Nazis. In 1933, for example, he refused to intervene on behalf of Jewish merchants who were the targets of Nazi boycotts, saying that they were a group "which has no very close bond with the church."

    Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg called Nazi racism directed at Jews "justified self-defense" in the face of "overly powerful Jewish capital."

    Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg said that they true Christian religion "made its way not from the Jews but in spite of them."

Because the Catholic leadership did not consistently oppose the Nazi policies, it was relatively easy for the Nazis to co-opt the Catholic churches in their effort to round up and exterminate the Jews. A large number of Jews converted to Christianity in order to avoid persecution and the only way the Nazis found them out was because of the help of Catholic authorities:

    After April 7, 1933, civil servants in Germany were required to prove that they were not Jews. Because births had been registered by the state only since 1874, the church was called upon to provide many records. The Catholic church cooperated right up to the end of the war. Likewise, after the 1935 Nüremberg laws that forbade marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans, most Catholic priests did not perform such ceremonies, even though the number of Jewish conversions to Catholicism was accelerating because of the persecution.

Yes, right up until the end of the war, Catholic clergy were actively assisting the Nazi program of racial purification. They provided detailed records of who converted and who didn't, who married and Jew and who didn't. When two people wanted to marry, Catholic priests enforced Nazi race laws against Aryans being allowed to marry non-Aryans. The Nazis' agenda of racial discrimination and purification would not have worked without the active, willing, and eager cooperation of Christian churches.

After the war, the Allies tried to rely on Catholic clergy to help them in their program of de-Nazification of the government. That was a mistake — Catholic assistance to the Nazis hadn't ended when the Nazis surrendered. Catholic bishops realized that eliminating all Nazis would leave Communists and Social Democrats in charge and they concluded that that would be worse than having the Nazis in power — so they basically lied to the Allies. Unrepentant Nazis were returned to positions of authority over the German people because Catholic clergy gave them a clean bill of political and ideological health.

Eventually the Allies grew wise to the Catholic duplicity and stopped relying on the word of priests about whether someone had been a Nazi. That is the legacy of the Catholic Church from Nazi Germany: not resistance, but cooperation; not the defense of principle but the defense of social power.

From:
Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, John L. Allen Jr., Reviewed by: Austin Cline at his web site.

[Karen raises had to Tekla]

I read it, I get it, the SC ruling says that both forms of long-term partnership in California are completely legally identical (as far as rights and benefits attainable in the State of California.)  Identical.  Both 'Marriage'-between-one-man-and-one-woman, and 'Civil Union'-between-two-men-or-two-women.  Identical. Legally. Identical. But only as pertains to California-granted rights and benefits.

Only the word is different.  'Civil Union'=same sex partners, 'Marriage'=traditional partners.

But even having the word 'Marriage' does not get the federal rights and bennies.  Because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

My landlady (she's Japanese,) said she'd been told that civil unions are identical to marriage, except for the word.  I explained how it was only identical - on paper - in California, about how couples became un-married if the traveled to another state, and how - even if the civil union was legally identical (on paper) to 'Marriage', - it would be treated as different, lesser or non-existent both in other states and right here in California.

I predict there will be some major court battles from same-sex couples - both Married and CivilUnioned - whose rights were not recognized.  There's already the case in Florida of the spouse who was denied access, along with their children, to her wife who was dying in the Miami hospital's ICU.

Even if we won marriage, there's still years of such battles.

But, Tekla, I understand.

Now let's qualify a ballot measure to convert all marriages to civil unions...

Karen

Thank you Tekla.

I still wouldn't lump the Catholic Church with the Nazis to the extent that they both are equally responsible for the 80 million or so deaths caused by WW2, however that reference does lend credence to a certain amount of collusion between the two.

Karen... "There's already the case in Florida of the spouse who was denied access, along with their children, to her wife who was dying in the Miami hospital's ICU." This wont be received well here when it makes it to the courts.

and "Now let's qualify a ballot measure to convert all marriages to civil unions..."

Though not in the same words the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and the other so called "wing nuts" are more or less moving towards this position.

It's hard to have "equal protection under the law," "separation of Church and State," and a "constructionist" view of the Constitution w/o taking a version of your position.

If y'all haven't been to www.fivethirtyeight.com (//http://) I highly recommend Nate Silvers blog on polling and the stats underlying politics. The last detailed post he had on gay marriage shows a national trend to approve at +2% a year. That adds up quick, hence my idea that this issue will have resolved itself in 3-7 years.

Quote from: Karen on May 26, 2009, 09:45:08 PM
Now let's qualify a ballot measure to convert all marriages to civil unions...

A get "marriage" to be the domain of religion and civil union or domestic partnership to be the domain of state. Like, er it seems to me like it should be. Heh.

As far as couples go, well, what about those of us whom have more than one? At least the 'couple' unions (by whatever name) have some hope. ^*shrug*

just convert all opposite sex marriages to civil unions... since they have the same rights, nobody will mind  >:-)

Z

The "convert" idea could be problematic however. That would be in effect an "ex post facto" issue. I get the idea though, so lets just set aside the semantics of the situation.

A small personal rant. Da#n you guys... I'm contemplating law school. :P

Quote from: Lori on May 26, 2009, 08:37:27 PM
I guess "god" isn't blessing the straight marriages either.

For a lot of women it is a blessing to see their husbands NO MORE!  >:-)

For a lot of women it is a blessing to see their husbands NO MORE!

Yeah, and my guy friends say "You know why divorces are so expensive?  Because they are worth it!"

Tekla, in Nazi germany wasn't only the catholic church who act wrong. Even the protestant church (except the "Bekennende Kirche" (confessional church) by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others), also JW and LDS. They are all to blame for that what they have had done in that time!!!

And, bye the way,in Germany a domenstic partnership isn't the same as a marriage (tax law; pension law; other laws). The right by a married couple isn#t the same right as a DP has.And this is so in most European Countries.

---

Post Merge: May 26, 2009, 10:45:16 PM

---

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 11:34:55 PM
For a lot of women it is a blessing to see their husbands NO MORE!

Yeah, and my guy friends say "You know why divorces are so expensive?  Because they are worth it!"

For your female friends an advice (joke): She can make it cheaper: Just one Bullet!  ;D ;) >:-)
That's the little she-devil in me.

Either way she gets the house, is that it?

And you didn't ask about the other churches, I can only answer what was asked, plenty of blame to go around there.

Quote from: tekla on May 26, 2009, 08:31:23 PM
They did not really ban anything except the use of the word "marriage" in a legal sense.  People can still go down to the courthouse and do the Domestic Partnership deal that is 100% the same in terms of obligations, rights, benefits as a marriage contract. 

Not at all true! There are over 1100 benefits opposite sex couples get that same sex couples do not.  The federal government does not recognize same sex marriages.  You can get married in one state and move to another and your marriage is invalid.  If a same sex spouse dies the surviving spouse will have to pay taxes opposite sex couples do not.  If a woman in a lesbian relationship bears a child her spouse often is not considered the other parent and might have no recourse to custody in the event of a divorce.  And the list goes on and on.

Civil unions, domestic partnerships are just something created to throw same sex couples a bone.  They mean almost nothing.  If you want to test it, just ask all the married couples to accept only the same benefits offered by a civil union and watch the screaming begin.  There's no way opposite sex couples would accept what same sex couples are being offered.

Make all marriages civil unions with EXACTLY the same benefits at the state and federal level (IRS included) as what marriage offers.  Leave the word marriage to the religious world and let them decide if they will honor the union of same sex couples.  For the rest, they can go to the courthouse or an accepting church and enjoy all the same benefits as the rest of the married world.  Then we would achieve real equality.

Don't believe the BS that civil unions or domestic partnerships are the same as marriage because they are absolutely not!

Julie

We are talking about a California Supreme Court decision here, one that would have no bering on Federal law at all.  Only California, only for California and Californians.

Read what the SC said, Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are equal in every way, in the State of California, and only for the State of California, and only for Californians, to marriage.  That's the very fine line they drew, and why I say the right wing really lost this.

So yes, for us - and only for us, and NOT at a Federal Level, and a California Supreme Court decision would never change Federal Law - it is now, de facto, the same thing.

Is the ban immoral and against human rights?  Yes.

That said, it's hard for a court to rule that a constitutional amendment (Prop 8 ) is unconstitutional.  Unless one could successfully argue that the Prop 8 vote failed to follow appropriate procedures, there is no case.

As tekla says, this issue is important enough to keep returning to the ballot, and it's going to flip the other way eventually (as public sentiment grows more tolerant on this issue).  As tekla mentions, the pro- campaign is likely to find more success when it focuses on humanizing same-sex couples rather than arguing about LDS or other outsiders exerting influence.

There are a number of cases in NJ where the premise is that "in the eyes of companies and people being civilly unionized does not, regardless of legislative action, (in that case) make the unions equal to marriage."

Separate but equal was struck down by the Supremes in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954,) but it took another 10 years for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to pass and at least another 20 for that law to become "accepted" by a huge majority of people.

"Marriage" has something around 1900 years of cultural and societal head-start on civil unions. It will be seen for many generations more as being "better" and "realer" than civil unions, regardless of who has what.

USA has never, since the initial generation at least and I'd still go with "never," been a strong secular republic. Church and State have been inextricably mixed since the ink to write "total separation of the church from the state" dried after Madison wrote it.

The law may change in 5-7 years, I have my doubts about that as well. People do seem to be trending toward acceptance of gay unions as being valid and legal. But, I suspect the social barriers will remain in lotsa places regardless of law.

N~ 

QuoteYes Marriage is a contract, but because it is sanction by the church, it is legal.

The church does not make it legal. The constitution as stipulated by the democracy, it is what makes it legal.
CA has big problems when it allows the demos-mob rule. Most states allow the demos to elect leaders and they make the decisions that is a big difference.
I do not care what they call the contract. Perhaps all contracts that are legal should not use the word marriage and let that be an exclusive religious term with no legal meaning.

QuotePeople do seem to be trending toward acceptance of gay unions as being valid and legal. But, I suspect the social barriers will remain in lotsa places regardless of law.

That is correct. Even in MS most concede to let same sex couples have the same rights. However Joe Redneck would not want to invite them into their homes. The law can not change peoples culture only marketing seems to .

As tekla mentions, the pro- campaign is likely to find more success when it focuses on humanizing same-sex couples rather than arguing about LDS or other outsiders exerting influence.

I never said that, I said it will be successful when the pro side gets serious and runs a real campaign and does not underestimate it's opposition.  And getting out of their white middle/upper middle class mindset would be a positive first step.

And, at that, I think its going to take two, or three victories to win in the end.

Quote from: tekla on May 27, 2009, 08:39:02 AM
I said it will be successful when the pro side gets serious and runs a real campaign and does not underestimate it's opposition.  And getting out of their white middle/upper middle class mindset would be a positive first step.

Just getting out of SF and Marin wouldn't be a bad idea. 4% even when you're focussing on people who already support you is pretty fair. When you start finding ways and using them to get close to people who are not your "type" you may find that you do way better.

NO on 8's hugest problem was that they relied on "self-evident" truths and coddling their own fears of "those people." Have to admit that Catholics and Mormons didn't do all that and managed to pull what seemed certain defeat in June to victory in November. My self-evident truth is often not quite so evident to people not me. :)

What was the swing according to polling between those dates?

I think tekla pretty much has the right of it. No on 8 was too busy planning victory parties to do the hard work on continuing the campaign.

Putting out a huge effort in San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma counties was not needed, they needed to work LA, Fresno and Modesto.  It's like the Obama campaign focusing on Chicago, of course he was going to win Chicago, he was from there (offer not good if you're Al Gore) and Chicago has been voting Democratic like forever.  At least a few people seem to understand this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/27/MNSK17RGTS.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/27/MNSK17RGTS.DTL)

The opposition has the two Bs, buck and bodies.  And thinking they could not get out the vote was silly.

It's sad though to the extent that its become the entire focus of the gay human rights campaign, and when its over people will lose interest in the rest of the agenda, when the other stuff actually affects more people.

Julie Marie, I see nothing wrong with marrying my dog. He listens and does not talk back. He finds me funny when I come home drunk. When I have him wear a studded collar he doesn't call me a pervert.

Quote from: tekla on May 27, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
It's sad though to the extent that its become the entire focus of the gay human rights campaign, and when its over people will lose interest in the rest of the agenda, when the other stuff actually affects more people.

Agreed. Marriage doesn't add much to anyone's life. Partnership or union is possible and in some ways perhaps even stronger when it's not tied to a state sanction. (Just my experience.)

I mean it's all well and good to be married, but when there's nothing to eat because you cannot get employed, nothing to do because you're in a hospital consistently for the ways others physically attack you, feel totally alienated because people have great fear for the way you look, act, with whom you keep company. Well, those things seem to be more acute problems.

The focus for the entire "marriage' thing is basically on those who already have status, mostly professional gay males and some lesbian couples. It's another point in their status system of points.

In the lives of most LTBGers marriage is either already an accomplished fact or not a huge priority. It's like having access to the display window at Macy's while the store's interior remains off-limits. 

I mean this story was also published here yesterday. https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,60413.0/topicseen.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,60413.0/topicseen.html)

There actually is a gentleman in Hawaii who married his horse.

Quote from: tekla on May 27, 2009, 12:35:30 AM
We are talking about a California Supreme Court decision here, one that would have no bering on Federal law at all.  Only California, only for California and Californians.

Read what the SC said, Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are equal in every way, in the State of California, and only for the State of California, and only for Californians, to marriage. 

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

    * Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
    * Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
    * California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
    * Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
    * There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.

Why can't opposite sex couples become domestic partners unless one is 62 or older?  That was made part of the California Domestic Partnership law because it is NOT the same as marriage.  It is "mostly" the same.  If it was 100% identical why not just call all legal unions civil unions or marriages or domestic partnerships?  They have different names for each because they are not identical.

The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 because they said it did not create a substantial change in the state constitution.  That's debatable if you consider the issue of equal rights.  In math equal means exactly, as in no difference.  Domestic partnerships in California are not equal to marriage.

What I said about domestic partnerships and civil unions, in general, was said because too often people think domestic partnerships really are the same and, if it doesn't affect them directly, take a "what's all the crying about?" attitude.  I've heard it many times by those who are not affected by this.  It's important the public knows there is a difference.  Trans rights follow gay rights.  We have to stay involved if we ever expect to gain our rights.

Julie

Julie, I think Tekla may have a good point in her opinion. That being that if there is this decision from the SC that same sex couples who are bonded together through Domestic partnerships in their eyes do in fact have equal protection in legal status then any attempt to deny them access to the same rights and privileges as those enjoined through a Marriage" certificate would amount to discrimination and opens the door to huge law suits!

That being said, as I stated in another thread, why doesn't our CA legislature enact a law that prohibits the use of the term "Marriage" from the certificates since the SC's decision says that same sex partners can and do have this "equal" bond but just can't use the word "Marriage" in it. This way we kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, by giving the phobes their ownership to the term "Marriage" and not violating the intent of prop 8, then still allowing for full and equal protection of the very issues you cited. A side benefit is we remove the religious aspect to the issue that the state should not be a part of in any case. Another benefit: we don't have to return to the ballot box or waste a whole lot of time and money, only to have something far worse than this decision handed back to us.


Dawn   

  * Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.

Hey, now that's a unique method for a happy marriage, don't live together. Hell, why didn't I think of that?  I'd still be married.

    * Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.

Any parent who lets someone below the age of 18 get married ought to be taken to court on child abuse charges.   Since DP is a contract, it makes sense, as no minors are allowed to sign contracts for anything.

    * California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.

What the hell is this?  I thought that by definition marriage was a public act on the public record.  What's the thinking here.

    * Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

That may change now.  Besides, at the rate we're going, there aren't going to be any state employees real soon.

   

Quote from: Genevieve Swann on May 27, 2009, 09:09:38 AM
There actually is a gentleman in Hawaii who married his horse.

if it is possible, can I ride their kids?

---

Post Merge: May 30, 2009, 03:36:23 AM

---

Tekla, is it true, that DP must not be be accepted by and in churches, a marriage licence must be accepted? maybe this is one of the reasons, why churches dont want to have gay marriage?

We need to get this same sex marriage thing passed so we can move on to marriages to multiple partners.  I really don't like being told I can only marry one person.

Actually if you ask my wife, she says my best friend and I (of 20+ years) act like an old married couple. ;)

Being LDS, and from Utah, I thought that you already did the multiple partners deal.

Quote from: tekla on May 30, 2009, 09:33:35 AM
Being LDS, and from Utah, I thought that you already did the multiple partners deal.

I haven't PERSONALLY gotten a chance to do it. ;)  Naw, I wouldn't want that anyhow.  My first post was was in jest because I AM LDS, however, I'm not from Utah - that's a scary place. ;)

Quote from: interalia on May 30, 2009, 04:09:27 AM
We need to get this same sex marriage thing passed so we can move on to marriages to multiple partners. 

Some minister said that gay marriage would lead to multiple partner marriages and then onto marrying animals.  So be careful if you marry more than one person because you may want to marry your dog next.

Julie

Quote from: Julie Marie on May 30, 2009, 11:58:58 AM
Some minister said that gay marriage would lead to multiple partner marriages and then onto marrying animals.  So be careful if you marry more than one person because you may want to marry your dog next.

Julie

I guess this "minister" can't remember that for example, the LDS had polygamy in their history, and that it was okay if one not LDS white man "married" a lot of Native-American women or Afro-American "Slaves". And what was with "Lavender-Marriages" or "Boston Marriages"? Isn't that hypocritical if this was okay, but not to be gay and married?

Quote from: Julie Marie on May 30, 2009, 11:58:58 AM
Some minister said that gay marriage would lead to multiple partner marriages and then onto marrying animals.  So be careful if you marry more than one person because you may want to marry your dog next.

Julie

I actually know of people who would want this.  And why should we be denying them?  Aren't the animals their property?  I know, it is absurd, but I am aware that there are a group of people seeking this type of change.

Quote from: interalia on May 30, 2009, 04:07:51 PM
I actually know of people who would want this.  And why should we be denying them?  Aren't the animals their property?  I know, it is absurd, but I am aware that there are a group of people seeking this type of change.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults.  Animals and children don't fall into that category.  As for the people you know who want to marry an animal... :o  well, I'll just leave that alone for now.   ???

Now to say something that will be really unpopular; I'm sick of hearing about gay marriage and Prop. 8.  Once again the LGBT community managed to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory for the reasons previously stated so well by Nichole and Tekla.  For all the posters and ads we saw in the SF Bay Area you'd think there it had a chance of passing.  All those TV ads in one of the most expensive media markets in the country went to waste.  A few more votes out of Kern and Fresno counties and they probably could have pulled it off.  But then we wouldn't be able to sip Cosmos at Harvey's and cruise.

I suspect I'm not the only one that is tired of it.  I've seen news about a drive to put it back on the ballot ASAP.  But if it couldn't be done riding Obama's coat tails, it's going to have real problems in gubernatorial primary.

Because of my own laziness I'm in a position where I can marry anyone I want regardless of gender.  But what's the point of being queer if you're just going to mime straight people?