Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I used to be round about no to not caring. Now I just don't care.

I suppose I don't see anything romantic about a gay marriage. Do two blokes just stand up the front of the church eyeing each other nervously?

And there'd be no dress. :o

I suppose I might want to have a lesbian marriage, but whether it was legal and approved by a church or not I still don't think anyone would really believe in it so I can't see the point.

What I mean is, everybody says that marriage is about the two people being married, but it isn't. Marriage is really all about the rest of the people who are being forced(or invited) to celebrate it. Other wise why would it be such a big deal for them all to be there, and in the case of gay marriage, accept it?

I'll personally hunt down anyone who say's no and yell at them at what year we're currently in.

Yes, I support sausagexsausage/tacoxtaco marriage.

Kia Ora Fiona,

::) Yes! I'm all for others finding 'happiness' in/with their marriage !... :o No wait !...That's not the kind of 'gay' marriage you're talking about is it ?  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on December 29, 2011, 08:42:15 PM
Kia Ora Fiona,

::) Yes! I'm all for others finding 'happiness' in/with their marriage !... :o No wait !...That's not the kind of 'gay' marriage you're talking about is it ?  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

What on earth are you on about Zenda? :icon_dizzy:

Quote from: JoeyD on December 29, 2011, 08:06:40 PM
I'll personally hunt down anyone who say's no and yell at them at what year we're currently in.

Yes, I support sausagexsausage/tacoxtaco marriage.

You are tempting me to vote "No" ;) :D

Quote from: fionabell on December 29, 2011, 08:53:35 PM
What on earth are you on about Zenda? :icon_dizzy:

Kia Ora Fiona,

::) At one time the term 'gay' meant one was 'happy' and carefree !

Metta Zenda :)

I think people should be able to get married as long as they make each other happy.
Honestly, marriage should be just marriage, not gay or straight...maybe people marriage?
:D

Quote from: Zenda on December 29, 2011, 08:59:02 PM
Kia Ora Fiona,

::) At one time the term 'gay' meant one was 'happy' and carefree !

Metta Zenda :)

lol i get it now :D

Of course I said yes. The big issue is things like health insurance, pension benefits and other legal rights that a spouse gets in a traditional man/woman marriage. Why should two loving partners be denied these rights?

And the other reason I said yes was...I don't want Joey hunting me down. ;D

Jennifer

Duh!

Hell No!! I'm soooo against it.

Come at me Joey.
;)

Quote from: Jennifer on December 30, 2011, 12:19:31 PM
Of course I said yes. The big issue is things like health insurance, pension benefits and other legal rights that a spouse gets in a traditional man/woman marriage. Why should two loving partners be denied these rights?

Actually one can get all that in a thing called "Civil Union"

So that's not actually a reason.

Quote from: fionabell on December 30, 2011, 01:31:30 PM
Actually one can get all that in a thing called "Civil Union"

So that's not actually a reason.

A reason? A reason for what? I don't understand. ???
In the USA the terms gay marriage and civil union generally mean the same thing. There is no standardized terminology. Only 13 out of 50 states recognize civil unions (or domestic unions, or domestic partnerships or whatever name you want to give it) between two people of the same sex (gay). I guess I don't understand the question as you posed it and I apologize for that. :embarrassed: Sometimes I am a little slow at understanding so please have patience with me as you clarify your position. Thanks fionabell. :)

Jennifer 

I think this is really an American issue.
I don't get it, the land of the free, and so many rules from the people from the bible belt.
We do have gay or lesbian marrige for more than 10 years.
I was one of the first to marry a woman as a woman, no big deal here.

Hi annette,

I don't get it either. The religious fanatics still have too much power in this country which was supposedly founded on freedom of religion.
The bible belt is the southeastern states where religion holds sway over all else and it will be a long time before gay marriage is recognized in that part of the country. :(

Jennifer

Hi Jennifer

Yeah, they have way too much power.
In earlier times we admire the US, it was such a modern country.
Americans are used to fight to their last breath for their freedom ans what is happening now? a bunch of bible fanatics rules the country, you have to live by their laws.
I mean, freedom is something that you can live your life without being a burden to others.
I can't imagine why it should be a burden when two people love eachother and want to be together.
A marriage is just a sign to the rest of the world or society that you love and wanted to be belong to the other.
In a great part of the country they make it illegal, because of a book that's written 2000 years ago with no name of the author.
If they want to live like that, it's their choice and their freedom to do so but to force others to do the same is repression in my eyes and that's something completely different than freedom.

Have a happy newyear

Quote from: Jayr on December 30, 2011, 12:40:41 PM
Hell No!! I'm soooo against it.

Come at me Joey.
;)

Meow.

Quote from: annette on December 30, 2011, 03:27:55 PM
I think this is really an American issue.
I don't get it, the land of the free, and so many rules from the people from the bible belt.
We do have gay or lesbian marriage for more than 10 years.
I was one of the first to marry a woman as a woman, no big deal here.

Perhaps it is now an "American issue," but in reality it dates back to prehistoric times.  One needs to look at the "prehistory of marriage to understand the foundational issues.

In the earliest societies - which were comprised of extended families, tribes, clans, and the like - there is little evidence of same-sex unions.  Ancient burial sites, when found to have multiple individuals, record nuclear families and extended families. Rarely, if ever, have burial sites been found with genetically unrelated same-sex couples.

So apparently, same-sex unions served no purpose and were frowned upon by the ancients.  Considering the high infant mortality rate in primitive cultures, societal pressures must have been to pair fertile couples or create harem-type relationships.

As societies grew, relationship rules were developed to protect bloodlines and ensure tranquility within the society.  These were either codified as civil law (such as that of the Babylonians or Egyptians), or as religious law (such as those of the Hebrews).  It is the Judeo-Christian heritage that colors modern western marital codes.

My personal, libertarian philosophy, is that consenting adults should be able to enter into any sort of relationship they find mutually beneficial.  Whether it is called  marriage, or civil union, or whatever, it beside the point.

I prefer to think of it as "Marriage Equality", because those of us who are TS or Intersex are not covered by the Marriage Act here.  That means they can't honestly fill in the paperwork without committing perjury for a start. 
How does someone who identifies as both man and woman fit into the current system? They don't, and there is obviously no consideration of them.
Currently if you have SRS and want to change your Birth Certificate gender and are married, you have to divorce.  That is unjust. 
The whole topic didn't become a major issue until Penny Wong, the Federal Finance Minister announced that her wife (they married overseas) was pregnant.  Having read all the anti opinions, it appears that their main crime is refusing to be owned by a man.  That makes this a Feminist issue, and a Human Rights issue too, as it affects the Transgendered and Intersex as well as gay and lesbian citizens.

Karen.

In the US, civil union is not legally equivelent to marriage.  (this message is US-centric)

Heterosexual marriage is recognized in all states and territories, and in all foreign nations.  Civil unions are recognized by less than 1/2 of the US, and rarely by foreign nations.

That matters for things like being able to decide where your spouse will be burried, if your spouse dies somewhere other than a place that recognizes same sex civil unions.  There's also federal law - civil unions are not recognized as equivilent to marriage by the feds.  This isn't just about civil rights you can assign with contracts, either, but also rights and obligations.  No contract can allow a same sex couple to claim joint taxes federally (an example of a right most of the time).  No contract can apply rules about conflict of interest in federal matters to a same sex spouse or civil union partner (an example of an obligation - I couldn't sign a contract as a federal employee if my wife was the CEO of the corporation getting the contract - but a gay couple could do exactly that.

How does it affect trans people and their spouses?  If I was married to a post-op MTF, and I'm a cis-male, and we went to Texas, where she died, her body would be released to her parents, not me as her husband (since Texas, at least some of it, uses the idea of expected DNA to determine sex).  Her parents could then put whatever name they wanted on her tombstone.  It's even worse for pre-op or no-op people.  For that reason (because there is no good definition of legal sex), even heterosexual trans people and their SOs should support gay marriage - to eliminate one of the very few reasons that states have to come up with bogus definitions of sex and gender.

We've made marriage about love years ago, instead of inheritance and property rights.  It's about time we finished that change.

We've made marriage about love years ago, instead of inheritance and property rights.

Maybe some people did.  People without property I guess.  But those rights (which are awesome, I can pass on everything I own, tax free) are still pretty important.

Love has a hard time lasting in these trying times, but real estate, that's still forever.

Quote from: Jennifer on December 30, 2011, 03:15:24 PM
A reason? A reason for what? I don't understand. ???
In the USA the terms gay marriage and civil union generally mean the same thing. There is no standardized terminology. Only 13 out of 50 states recognize civil unions (or domestic unions, or domestic partnerships or whatever name you want to give it) between two people of the same sex (gay). I guess I don't understand the question as you posed it and I apologize for that. :embarrassed: Sometimes I am a little slow at understanding so please have patience with me as you clarify your position. Thanks fionabell. :)

Jennifer

Sorry. Yes I'm wrong. I see you don't have civil unions there. In Britain Two males etc can get a civil union which is as good as marriage for all legal purposes. Sometimes siblings even have one, for instance if they are old and have lived together instead of having families etc.

America is a big confusing mess(and your leaders like to keep it that way I'll bet) and I think a lot of oppositional forces cancel out good and reasonable things.

I think a lot of oppositional forces cancel out good and reasonable things.

And they tend to cancel out a lot of idiot ideas too.


America is a big confusing mess(and your leaders like to keep it that way I'll bet)

I'll bet you they HATE it.  That's what so much of the 'culture war' stuff is about, trying to make NYC and Cali obey the same law that they pass in Yeehaw Kansas.  I kind of like it confusing (you can study and find out ahead of time), everyone need not live by the same rules.

"Do I support gay marriage?"

Well, I keep trying but the government won't let me! ::)

Well, of course. I support it! I'd be stupid not to. When you consider how much of the horrible law we're fighting was imposed under the pretext of "protecting traditional marriage", the choice becomes obvious.

Total support, why should heterosexuals be the only people to live in hate full relationships :laugh:

Australia seem to have gotten its act together and against the usual suspects same sex marriage is lawful in  many states and will maybe be accepted Federally unless our bigot of the leader of the opposition prevents his party having a conscience vote.

I really don't see why these things are a big deal. What is the sanctity of marriage when most (? don't have the stats) end in divorce. Yes that is truly religious and blessed by gods.

Besides I want to wear the big dress and all the trimmings

Cindy

The Marriage Act (in Australia, apologies if this is the wrong name) says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Pretty clear huh.

Now can someone give me a definition of a "man" and a "woman"?

Yes I do. I am still married to my wife and I would be rather hypocritical if I didn't for my Daughter's sake. She is Bi, so I would love for her to have a shot at matrimonial happiness no matter who her partner is.

I fully support marriage equality. I don't care for marriage personally but while straight people can get married it's only fair gay/bi people can too.

Quote from: Cindy James on January 02, 2012, 01:00:57 AM
I really don't see why these things are a big deal. What is the sanctity of marriage when most (? don't have the stats) end in divorce. Yes that is truly religious and blessed by gods.

In the US (not sure about AU), it is a bit less than most marriages.  But, yes, it's a bit hypocritical.

The end of traditional marriage happened when states started letting women earn wages (women always earned money, except for a period after WWII when it was their "civil dutiy" to let men have their jobs, and for the first time in history did not need to do wage earning or occupational activities for the family to survive; they didn't ever see the money though, that was the property of the husbands).  That changed marriage to be a partnership rather than a simple property transaction (yes, there are still financial elements, but love is actually supposed to matter now).

In fact, in the US, the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution (the one that granted blacks citizenship) almost did not pass because some legislators feared that if blacks were citizens, then that would likely imply women were.  And that would destroy marriage because it was a fundamental shift.  (ironically, they were somewhat right - the 14th Ammendment is the ammendment that has been interpreted to make sexual discrimination illegal)

If we can legally survive the shift in the US and other western cultures from "the man is always in charge of the family" to allowing all types of straight families to exist (yes, some still have the man in charge - but not all; certainly not mine), without the institution collapsing, I think two guys able to get some legal rights won't hurt anyone.

Does Australia recognize marriages from the commonwealth where gay marriage is legal, like Canada?

Quote from: Slanan on January 02, 2012, 10:08:38 AM
...In fact, in the US, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (the one that granted blacks citizenship) almost did not pass because some legislators feared that if blacks were citizens, then that would likely imply women were.  And that would destroy marriage because it was a fundamental shift.  (ironically, they were somewhat right - the 14th Amendment is the amendment that has been interpreted to make sexual discrimination illegal)

If we can legally survive the shift in the US and other western cultures from "the man is always in charge of the family" to allowing all types of straight families to exist (yes, some still have the man in charge - but not all; certainly not mine), without the institution collapsing

You have an interesting point of view.

A key provision of the 14th Amendment provides for "equal protection under the law."  It has been used in recent cases to coax activist courts into mandating same-sex marriage.  However, two important, precedent-setting US Supreme Court decisions from years past shed light on this strategy.

The more recent one is the 1972 Baker v Nelson case, in which the USSC upheld a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the Minnesota state law prohibiting same-sex marriage did not have 1st, 9th, or 14th Amendment problems.

An older case, Reynolds vs United States (1878) establishes that laws regulating marriage are valid, even if they prohibit some forms of free expression.

Quote from: Cindy James on January 02, 2012, 01:00:57 AM
... same sex marriage is lawful in  many states and will maybe be accepted Federally unless our bigot of the leader of the opposition prevents his party having a conscience vote.

Who is that?

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
The more recent one is the 1972 Baker v Nelson case, in which the USSC upheld a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the Minnesota state law prohibiting same-sex marriage did not have 1st, 9th, or 14th Amendment problems.

Were I a lawyer, I would say that that case can be re-examined under the basis of the 14th amendment on the basis of Lawrence v Texas, 2006 overturning Bowers v Hardwick, 1986 (both regarding anti-sodomy laws).  Lawrence was heard due, in large part, to the Romer v Evans, 1996 case (overturning Colorado's anti-GLBT Amendment 2).

Quote
An older case, Reynolds vs United States (1878) establishes that laws regulating marriage are valid, even if they prohibit some forms of free expression.

Yes, but other laws say that such regulation must serve a valid governmental purpose.  See Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 (can married couples use contraception).  See also Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (which prohibited interracial marriage bans) which overturned Pace v Alabama, 1883.  So clearly not all restrictions on marriage are constitutional.  The Griswold case decision (and the dissent in Poe earlier) articulate why government is required to tread lightly when it comes to marriage.

The court (and society) has changed significantly in its' interpretation of marriage and the 14th amendment.  It's also changed oon other amendments - for instance, it didn't always apply the bill of rights to states.  I'd also argue that today's marriage is very different from the marriages of the 1700's and 1800's, and even marriages in the 1950's and 60's, both legally and socially.  Property rights for women and divorce (for no other reason than two people cannot stand to be married to each other anymore!) probably changed it more than any other changes - and far more than gay marriage being legal would change it.

Quote from: Slanan on January 03, 2012, 05:07:04 PM
Were I a lawyer, I would say that that case can be re-examined under the basis of the 14th amendment on the basis of Lawrence v Texas, 2006 overturning Bowers v Hardwick, 1986 (both regarding anti-sodomy laws).  Lawrence was heard due, in large part, to the Romer v Evans, 1996 case (overturning Colorado's anti-GLBT Amendment 2).

Yes, but other laws say that such regulation must serve a valid governmental purpose.  See Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 (can married couples use contraception).  See also Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (which prohibited interracial marriage bans) which overturned Pace v Alabama, 1883.  So clearly not all restrictions on marriage are constitutional.  The Griswold case decision (and the dissent in Poe earlier) articulate why government is required to tread lightly when it comes to marriage.

The court (and society) has changed significantly in its' interpretation of marriage and the 14th amendment.  It's also changed oon other amendments - for instance, it didn't always apply the bill of rights to states.  I'd also argue that today's marriage is very different from the marriages of the 1700's and 1800's, and even marriages in the 1950's and 60's, both legally and socially.  Property rights for women and divorce (for no other reason than two people cannot stand to be married to each other anymore!) probably changed it more than any other changes - and far more than gay marriage being legal would change it.

As I recall, the more recent cases you cited were distinguished from the Baker case as they dealt with personal behavior rather than the issue of marriage.

The 1878 and 1972 cases both directly addressed the application of the 14th and 1st Amendments to the facts of the cases. What you suggest is clear judicial activism.  You can read the majority opinion and concurrences for both cases at FindLaw.  The rationale behind Reynolds is particularly important.  If upheld, the issue of same-sex marriage must be settled on political grounds, rather than by judicial fiat.

120% support SSM.

Ed Wuncler: "Do you support gay marriage?" Robert Freeman (scratching head) "Personally, I think all marriage is bad." The Boondocks, episode one, season one, "The Garden Party."

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 06:06:30 PM
The 1878 and 1972 cases both directly addressed the application of the 14th and 1st Amendments to the facts of the cases. What you suggest is clear judicial activism.  You can read the majority opinion and concurrences for both cases at FindLaw.  The rationale behind Reynolds is particularly important.  If upheld, the issue of same-sex marriage must be settled on political grounds, rather than by judicial fiat.

3 of the recent cases I cited (certainly more recent than 1878) dealt with public, not private, behavior.

Loving v Virginia is most applicable - unless Reynolds has overturned Loving!  It shows that the 14th can be applied to marriage, and that it can limit a state's ability to limit marriage.  The key question, assuming Loving was a good decision, is, since the constitution doesn't even mention marriage, where does the constitutional right to marriage come from?

As for clear judicial activism, I'm not sure it was clear.  It would also make Griswold judicial activism, as well as Loving, and Lawrence.  After all, nothing on a literal reading gaurantees the right to education about condoms, being able to marry outside of one's "own" race, or prohibits states from prosecuting sodomy.  There's no literal words that spell out the right to privacy, the sanctity of marriage, etc, in the Constitution.

Likewise, for Brown v Board of Education, what gives the US Supreme Court the right to regulate schools?  Isn't that a State task?  Yet, the 14th ammendment clearly applied.  As Brown's decision states:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I would say the same argument applies to marriage.  But I think we shall soon see (I also think current law violates the full faith and credit clause, but that's another issue entirely).

Quote from: Slanan on January 03, 2012, 09:54:16 PM
3 of the recent cases I cited (certainly more recent than 1878) dealt with public, not private, behavior.

Loving v Virginia is most applicable - unless Reynolds has overturned Loving!  It shows that the 14th can be applied to marriage, and that it can limit a state's ability to limit marriage.  The key question, assuming Loving was a good decision, is, since the constitution doesn't even mention marriage, where does the constitutional right to marriage come from?

As for clear judicial activism, I'm not sure it was clear.  It would also make Griswold judicial activism, as well as Loving, and Lawrence.  After all, nothing on a literal reading gaurantees the right to education about condoms, being able to marry outside of one's "own" race, or prohibits states from prosecuting sodomy.  There's no literal words that spell out the right to privacy, the sanctity of marriage, etc, in the Constitution.

Likewise, for Brown v Board of Education, what gives the US Supreme Court the right to regulate schools?  Isn't that a State task?  Yet, the 14th ammendment clearly applied.  As Brown's decision states:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I would say the same argument applies to marriage.  But I think we shall soon see (I also think current law violates the full faith and credit clause, but that's another issue entirely).

The 1972 Baker decision directly addressed equal protection claims. It represents settled case law.

The Reynolds rationale is of more interest.  In that case Reynolds claimed, among other things, the federal "Morrill Anti-bigamy Act" violated his 1st Amendment right of free exercise of religion (Reynolds was a Mormon who practiced plural marriage).  The Court ruled that Congress could not legislated against religious belief, but could regulate religious practice.

"Congress cannot pass a law ... which shall shall prohibit the free exercise of religion."

The Court then asked "would it be seriously contended that the civil government ... could not interfere to prevent [human] sacrifice" or prevent a widow from "her [religious] duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband?"

The reason the government was authorized to legislate was that:

Polygamy as always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.... At common law the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as a offence against society.

"...So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed....  To permit this would make the professed doctrine of religious belief superior to the law of the and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

So the Court stated that plural marriage was not a type that was traditionally or historically, nor was it authorized by any subsequent law or clause in the Constitution.  Congress was authorized to regulate the form of marriage as its role as an organizer of society.

If you substitute "same-sex marriage" for "plural marriage" in the decision, the rationale remains the same, the only difference beiong a claim of 14th Amendment violations instead of 1st Amendment violations.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 03:45:41 PM
Who is that?

Tony Abbott is his name. A lot of people dislike him in Australia. I don't dislike him but I wouldn't vote for him either. He's the leader of the opposition party. The equivalent of your republican party. The Liberal party, as they are called, are fond of putting the economy before people. I don't have anything against the man but I don't like the party or how difficult he'd make life here if he was in.

But he won't get in. For some reason women won't vote for dominant males in Australia.  We only like cute little cuddly tyrants  to destroy our standard of living. :)

Quote from: fionabell on January 04, 2012, 12:38:30 AM
Tony Abbott is his name. A lot of people dislike him in Australia. I don't dislike him but I wouldn't vote for him either. He's the leader of the opposition party. The equivalent of your republican party. The Liberal party, as they are called, are fond of putting the economy before people. I don't have anything against the man but I don't like the party or how difficult he'd make life here if he was in.

But he won't get in. For some reason women won't vote for dominant males in Australia.  We only like cute little cuddly tyrants  to destroy our standard of living. :)

I'm new here and did not realize you were down under.  Thanks for the insight.

Why do you consider him a "bigot"?

Quote from: Jamie D on January 04, 2012, 12:53:40 AM
I'm new here and did not realize you were down under.  Thanks for the insight.

Why do you consider him a "bigot"?

That wasn't me who first described him as a bigot. That was Cindy. I generally don't use words like that. I rather like him. He's a real man unlike most of our politicians.

He is bigoted against gay marriage though. He is very devout and was almost a priest. When he was young he was very right wing(apparently). I suppose he might be a "bigot". most people are so the chances are for it.

Maybe I was a bit harsh calling him a bigot. He is a devout Catholic, but he seeks to impose his mores on others. If he allowed the members of his party a conscience vote he wouldn't be a bigot but since he is forcing them to vote to his beliefs I think he is.

We have an interesting political system. The Liberals tend to put business before people and Labour the opposite, so as long as they serve a few terms each the economy and social improvements tend to keep advancing. Let one part rule for too long and they stuff it all up.

My way of explaining gay marriage to idiots.


I am divorced and remarried.   My ex husband and I have two kids.   Think about it.   My ex husband's relationship with my son by my second husband is "what?"  But my new husband is the "stepfather" to my kids.   They are adorable btw.  They call their father DAD and my husband Daddy.  They did this on their own which I think is cute.

Gay Marriage is not about the right to get married.  It's about how to create a legally recognized family.

I'm posting a really long winded stupid note that I wrote a long time ago.  It's not up to date.  It's not all inclusive.  But it's my opinion.


I know I know  TLDR

But whatever

QuoteThe time has come......so it was said. I think we all try to get along with people as best we can. Although that's never much been a priority in my life to which I think some of my family will testify, I've always tried to give people the benefit of the doubt. We all have our ways of finding our way and we many times take a wrong turn or just storm off in determined wrongness only to have to circle back eventually. And so in the humanity of us all, I try (or at least I hope I try) to give people wiggle room and to bite my lip when I can for the sake of keeping things from boiling over into unnecessary hurtful incidents. And so when it comes to the rights of homosexuals in this country, because so many of my dearest friends are religious people I've tried to understand. But recently I came to a sad realization, that what I was doing in a sense of neutrality was actually taking a side, that old line, that sometimes 'not saying something IS saying something." or "All that it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." And so although I stand to lose a few friends for this I guess I have to make a stand because my silence equals complicity.


Most people who know me know that I have always advocated for the rights of homosexuals to marry. Way way back, even before it became the cause of the day. To me the story was simple. It was always about family. Since I had a broken family, I began to rely on my friends as my family. And so I built up a strange menagerie of people (mostly feeling the love after a couple of Long Island Iced Teas) that I "loved" and quite a few of them were gay guys who just did me the honor of hanging with me in a night club without pawing at me like a gorilla in heat. It was great fun dancing the night away at the Hippo. I saw a lot of casual flings and a few very serious partners.

But I eventually moved on from this life on the edge and settled down. After building my own family by getting married and having kids, it dawned on me that this society doesn't allow for the same sort of moving on for the gay people we know. In some strange way we seem to expect the homosexual male in society to dance the night a way in a disco, then pause long enough to make us lots of fabulous fashions and decorate up a storm. Then faster than you can do two snaps up it's fast forward until you are now some sage old man wandering through the streets in a Sting song. You can be a Queen, a diva, and you can be fabulous.........but uh, the guys making thanksgiving while the family comes over and the kids run around the table chasing the dog........not so much.

For me what is being denied homosexuals by resisting the idea of marriage, is not keeping the sanctity of marriage sacred for the straight people who want the right to get drunk in Vegas and what the helling it up to the altar......or for jailed murderers to legally be allowed conjugal visits........because that's what marriage often amounts to in the straight world.......oh that and marrying teenagers.....oh and divorce.......lots of it............but I digress..........

But what is really at stake here is the right to build a legally recognized family. That reality that says these are my children and this is my spouse. This is my family. And to be able to say that without feeling like you are kidding yourself or putting on some sort of bravado to stick it to the straight man. No, just to be able to be a family and have it count in the world and matter to you rather than it counting to you and mattering in the world but in the wrong way.

I've had a lot of round about discussions with friends who have pulled this new tactic of insidiously sliding the conversation into a no man's land of "Can't we all just get along?"........ "It's not MY point of view," they say " and I have nothing against homosexuals at all.........but I'm sorry God made it clear that they are sinners, and I'm not saying one sin is worse than the other, we're all sinners.......but acting on homosexual impulses is a sin in the eyes of God so I'm sorry I don't know the ways of God and who am I to judge God. I just can't support sin."

And of course, that's perfectly agreeable, that's perfectly fine isn't it? They aren't really condemning the homosexual, and if they really feel this strongly about their faith this is just one of the bad things stuck in there that they are trying to be compassionate about right?


Except I don't believe it. The bible, if you are using that, has a whole plethora of God policies, like not wearing gold, not setting up a pagan Christmas tree, not bowing down to engraven images........." There's plenty to choose from and yet for some reason, being gay which is mentioned just a few times is up there like a hot priority in the bible. Now if people do follow the rest of it that's one thing. But if you don't, and yet you concern yourself with stopping homosexuals from getting married, well then I guess you aren't rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar now, are you? The whole point of Romans 13 was that the secular world is the secular world and not a concern of those devoted to a spiritual world. In other words, you live in the world and so you must deal with it, but it is not your concern.

So why are so many people concerning themselves with it?


I see homosexuals as not "THEM" over "THERE" but as part of the world in which we all live. I consider these people my brothers and sisters across the board. And like any cranky prejudiced person there are things about this community that annoy me and that I don't like. However, they are members of the greater family, our family, family planet earth. You know........the people? And bigotry is bigotry no matter how finely you try to split the gay hair and make it not so, that you are oppressing people based on your own personal preference. We are all in this together in the world and people should never ever have to ask to get the right to build a family.

The gay hair gets split again with that sentiment as people pour out the accusations of pedophiles wanting to marry children and beastophiles wanting to marry donkeys and philophiles wanting to marry file cabinets and such things. And of course at this point the gay hair has already been split so finely that it just doesn't hold up any more.

But if I have to lose a few friends in the process, I guess that's what is going to come of this. I consider it oppressive and wrong and just downright cruel to deny two consenting loving adults the right to build a family together based on the objections of a 2000 year old book, that you don't seem to follow to a tee anyway. At the end of the day, that gay hair has been split away. And I'd rather lose a friend than support oppression based on ignorance.


PS Yes I know that Matthew 22 is Caesar.......check out Romans 13, you might be surprised. 

Quote from: fionabell on January 04, 2012, 01:25:58 AM
That wasn't me who first described him as a bigot. That was Cindy. I generally don't use words like that. I rather like him. He's a real man unlike most of our politicians.

He is bigoted against gay marriage though. He is very devout and was almost a priest. When he was young he was very right wing(apparently). I suppose he might be a "bigot". most people are so the chances are for it.

Interesting.  In California, our former (1975 to 1983) and current (2011 to present) Governor, Jerry Brown, studied in a Jesuit Seminary at the age of 18 +/-.  In his first term he developed the reputation for being somewhat eccentric, and was nicknamed "Governor Moonbeam."  A lifelong bachelor, he dated singer Linda Ronstadt. Brown eventually married at the age of 67. 

He had/has the reputation of a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, which may explain his appeal to California voters.  Brown ran three times for the Democratic nomination for President (1976, 1980,1992)

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 11:54:53 PM
The 1972 Baker decision directly addressed equal protection claims. It represents settled case law.

The same argument could be made on Plessy v. Ferguson, which was obviously overturned.  The court isn't static in decisions just because it made one once.

In addition, Baker denied suspect class status to gays.  That's been overturned by later case law, which means that the current standand is very different than when Baker was there.  States can make laws that don't target suspect classes all they want.  But when the law impacts a suspect class, it has higher restrictions.  Gays weren't so recognized in the time of Baker.  The court at the time was still upholding homosexual behavior as criminal activity.  Criminals aren't legally a suspect class.

As Lawrence stated:
In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end.

The problem is that the rational relationship just plain doesn't exist anymore.  It used to.  It used to be two things:

1) Women and men had different legal purposes, rights, and responsibilities in marriages, according to Common Law.

2) Marriages for criminal activity (sodomy) should be prohibited.

Purpose 1 hasn't been true for quite a while (since the late 70s, I'd say, when divorce, custody, etc, laws were updated).  Purpose 2 hasn't been true since Lawrence (which used Romer v Evans as it's basis for rehearing the sodomy issue - despite criminalization of sodomy being clear case law prior to Romer).  That changes the foundation of the Baker decision significantly.

If the foundation of a decision changes, the court can and does rehear cases.  In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a civil rights decision by the Supreme Court that didn't overturn a previous decision by the Supreme Court that was already settled.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 11:54:53 PM
The Reynolds rationale is of more interest.  In that case Reynolds claimed, among other things, the federal "Morrill Anti-bigamy Act" violated his 1st Amendment right of free exercise of religion (Reynolds was a Mormon who practiced plural marriage).  The Court ruled that Congress could not legislated against religious belief, but could regulate religious practice.

This decision was used to support all sorts of things we now consider illegal.  Look up where it has been cited and in decisions.  Some have stood, some haven't, over time, even when the reason worked.

Quote
If you substitute "same-sex marriage" for "plural marriage" in the decision, the rationale remains the same, the only difference beiong a claim of 14th Amendment violations instead of 1st Amendment violations.

No, there are two differences.  First, with plural marriage, there is at least some argument for a legitimate government purpose that isn't based on not liking a class of people.  If the law prohibited MORMONS from marrying, then it would be unconstitutional.  Instead it prohibits plural marriage (Mormons weren't the only people doing plural marriages at the time - particularly in rural areas; it was relatively common to just walk out on a wife and find another in another town; there was no national ID card or anything like that, after all).  Among other reasons, having only one spouse serves government purposes because of things like "Who inherits?", "Who gets to make medical decisions for a spouse?".  These were real issues that the country was dealing with at the time as a result of payouts for dead civil war soldiers, who simply found a new place to settle after the war and thus new wife (in the end they paid both wives if a soldier had two wives, in a sense recognizing the plural marriage).  It was also a real issue with slave marriages - slaves were often married to multiple spouses as they were sold and traded to new masters.  There are things where one person needs to be making those decisions or receiving those rights.  Marriage, among other things, designates that one person.  At the time of that decision, there was also concerns about who's kid someone was - I'm not sure that would hold up today as a valid governmental purpose.

Second, the "only difference" is a large one, considering what the legal standards are.  First amendment and 14th amendment have very, very, very different law and legal standards and are arguments on one are not directly applicable to arguments on another.

Quote from: Slanan on January 04, 2012, 09:37:57 AM
The same argument could be made on Plessy v. Ferguson, which was obviously overturned.  The court isn't static in decisions just because it made one once.

In addition, Baker denied suspect class status to gays.  That's been overturned by later case law, which means that the current standand is very different than when Baker was there.  States can make laws that don't target suspect classes all they want.  But when the law impacts a suspect class, it has higher restrictions.  Gays weren't so recognized in the time of Baker.  The court at the time was still upholding homosexual behavior as criminal activity.  Criminals aren't legally a suspect class.

As Lawrence stated:
In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end.

The problem is that the rational relationship just plain doesn't exist anymore.  It used to.  It used to be two things:

1) Women and men had different legal purposes, rights, and responsibilities in marriages, according to Common Law.

2) Marriages for criminal activity (sodomy) should be prohibited.

Purpose 1 hasn't been true for quite a while (since the late 70s, I'd say, when divorce, custody, etc, laws were updated).  Purpose 2 hasn't been true since Lawrence (which used Romer v Evans as it's basis for rehearing the sodomy issue - despite criminalization of sodomy being clear case law prior to Romer).  That changes the foundation of the Baker decision significantly.

If the foundation of a decision changes, the court can and does rehear cases.  In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a civil rights decision by the Supreme Court that didn't overturn a previous decision by the Supreme Court that was already settled.

This decision was used to support all sorts of things we now consider illegal.  Look up where it has been cited and in decisions.  Some have stood, some haven't, over time, even when the reason worked.

No, there are two differences.  First, with plural marriage, there is at least some argument for a legitimate government purpose that isn't based on not liking a class of people.  If the law prohibited MORMONS from marrying, then it would be unconstitutional.  Instead it prohibits plural marriage (Mormons weren't the only people doing plural marriages at the time - particularly in rural areas; it was relatively common to just walk out on a wife and find another in another town; there was no national ID card or anything like that, after all).  Among other reasons, having only one spouse serves government purposes because of things like "Who inherits?", "Who gets to make medical decisions for a spouse?".  These were real issues that the country was dealing with at the time as a result of payouts for dead civil war soldiers, who simply found a new place to settle after the war and thus new wife (in the end they paid both wives if a soldier had two wives, in a sense recognizing the plural marriage).  It was also a real issue with slave marriages - slaves were often married to multiple spouses as they were sold and traded to new masters.  There are things where one person needs to be making those decisions or receiving those rights.  Marriage, among other things, designates that one person.  At the time of that decision, there was also concerns about who's kid someone was - I'm not sure that would hold up today as a valid governmental purpose.

Second, the "only difference" is a large one, considering what the legal standards are.  First amendment and 14th amendment have very, very, very different law and legal standards and are arguments on one are not directly applicable to arguments on another.

It is very rare for the USSC to overturn a prior decision; the principal being that of stare decisis.

It is better that legislation be developed, or changed, through the political process, than the courts usurp legislation power and attemptsocial engineering.

Getting back to Reynolds, in its decision, the court made note of the cultural differences of western society, where the common law tradition was opposed to polygamy, noting that plural marriages were "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people."  Also, the historic context for the passage of the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 were the recent "Mormon War" of 1857-1858, and the Republican platform pledge to rid the country of the "twin relics of barbarism" - slavery and polygamy.

The Court, of course, leaves open the opportunity for the statutory basis of the laws to change.  It reasoned in Reynolds that the promulgation of the 1st Amendment freedom to exercise your religious belief did not change the existing legal heritage with respect to polygamy.  In other words, the religious freedoms protected by the Amendment did not change the existing laws.  Similarly, the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14th Amendment did not anticipate the legal gymnastics that have recently been applied to them.

The case I am making is that the original meaning and intent of the 14th has been twisted, and badly twisted, through a series of activist courts.  It is in the realm of the legislative branch to make laws protecting our rights.  The principle of stare decisis is to prevent judicial anarchy.  Remember, an activist court can restrict as well as expand civil liberties, if left unchecked.

Remember, an activist court can restrict as well as expand civil liberties

See: in re Bush v. Gore for the most powerful example of an activist court restricting civil liberties.

As for the principal of stare decisis et quieta non movere it really does not apply to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has said so on many occasions, particularly where issues of Constitutional Law are involved.  It's main purpose is to keep inferior courts from reversing the ruling of superior courts.  Since all courts are inferior to the Supreme Court in matters of Constitutional Law it's a moot point.

And it's far more common that people imagine it, only seeing the Brown decision and few others, but  between 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.  In so doing the Supreme Court follows the explanation given in Smith v. Allwright (1944), which reads as follows: When convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.

I support Gay Marriage I don't believe there should be restrictions on who you can devote your life to!

Quote from: chimera on January 04, 2012, 03:05:28 PM
I support Gay Marriage I don't believe there should be restrictions on who you can devote your life to!

Technically there isn't. There's only restrictions to who you marry.

Option A:
1. Give marriage to churches and religions and let them do whatever they want with it.  Their ceremonies will have no legal meaning.
2. Any legal union between consenting adults can be created through your local courthouse or other judicial authority.

Option B:
1. Pass a law that says whatever authority deemed the marriage legal, only that authority can end the legal contract.
2. Create civil unions that have all the same privileges and rights as marriage does now and allows any consenting adults to be legally bound.

Option C:
1. Get rid of marriage, civil unions and all the rights and privileges altogether.
2. Free love.

Quote from: tekla on January 04, 2012, 02:56:19 PM
Remember, an activist court can restrict as well as expand civil liberties

See: in re Bush v. Gore for the most powerful example of an activist court restricting civil liberties.

As for the principal of stare decisis et quieta non movere it really does not apply to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has said so on many occasions, particularly where issues of Constitutional Law are involved.  It's main purpose is to keep inferior courts from reversing the ruling of superior courts.  Since all courts are inferior to the Supreme Court in matters of Constitutional Law it's a moot point.

And it's far more common that people imagine it, only seeing the Brown decision and few others, but  between 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.  In so doing the Supreme Court follows the explanation given in Smith v. Allwright (1944), which reads as follows: When convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.

You suggest  that Bush v Gore is an example of an activist court?  By a 7-2 decision, the Court found that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation, as the Florida Supreme Court had unlawfully mandated the use of different standards of re-counting in different counties.  That is less activism than it is a slam dunk against election theft.

The source of your assertion that the Court has overturned itself "in about 130 cases" can be found in this (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html) document.  Another discussion on the types of decisions that have been reversed by the USSC can be found here (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_the_US_Supreme_Court_reverse_its_own_decisions).

The principal of stare decisis does apply, but is not necessarily binding to the justices of the USSC.  However, they are careful "not to disturb what is settled" without good reason.  The concept here is horizontality.  A change in the applicable law controlling an earlier case is good reason.  Error is a good reason.  New evidence is a good reason.  A philosophical change in the Court is not a good reason.

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 04, 2012, 06:05:56 PM
Option A:
1. Give marriage to churches and religions and let them do whatever they want with it.  Their ceremonies will have no legal meaning.
2. Any legal union between consenting adults can be created through your local courthouse or other judicial authority.

Option B:
1. Pass a law that says whatever authority deemed the marriage legal, only that authority can end the legal contract.
2. Create civil unions that have all the same privileges and rights as marriage does now and allows any consenting adults to be legally bound.

Option C:
1. Get rid of marriage, civil unions and all the rights and privileges altogether.
2. Free love.

Perhaps all "marriages" should be common law.  And every marriage should have a prenuptial agreement.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 05, 2012, 01:45:50 AM
Perhaps all "marriages" should be common law.  And every marriage should have a prenuptial agreement.

Common law marriage was used primarily to eliminate what people thought was polygamy and adultery.

There wasn't as many advantages to being married at some points of history (no tax advantages, women couldn't own property, no chance to divorce, etc).  So lots of things went on that were morally disapproved by the religious groups.  For instance, a married couple might decide "We don't want to live with each other anymore".  So they would just quit living with each other, and each live with someone else (but since they couldn't likely divorce, they would also not marry this new person).  Common law marriage closed that door.  It also closed the door of being able to live "as married people" without being married - not everyone thought it necessary to marry, after all, and this really bothered some people!

It also tied to property rights - in some cases, people wouldn't marry because then, like now, it was hard to make a living farming, and there might be outstanding claims to the farm.  However, claims against the man's property couldn't be filed against someone else's property (like a woman who owned the land and who you just happened to live with).  So they wouldn't marry, so that they would be somewhat protected from losing everything - if they married, the woman's lands became the man's, so they could lose everything.  Later in the US, this got changed in the 19th century slightly (but don't think this meant the woman actually had full property rights, as she didn't; when married, the man still controlled the affairs of the property - it was a legal shelter to limit the scope of lawsuits!) specifically to allow marriages in these situations - because people couldn't stand to see people living in sin who weren't married!  But prior to married women being able to own property, common law marriage ensured that property belonged to the man if they lived "as if married".

I do agree with you about the prenump - ever registered marriage should have at least some check boxes on the marriage license about that (and, personally, I think it should apply to property ownership in general - some people want to share every piece of property as joint property [most buy a car that way, for instance, even when it isn't necessary by law in the state], other's don't want that - for instance my wife and I have chosen to own our property independently of each other, for instance, for legal and financial reasons, not to mention two checkbooks are easier to keep balanced if they are separate accounts that we transfer money between as needed, but with both people's full knowledge; If I bounce a check, I can't blame my wife!).

I personally think marriage should be 100% civil contract registration.  Just like the early Puritans in the US who saw no text on marriage being a formal church ceremony.  In fact, they thought doing religious weddings (unlike the southern settlers who liked their church weddings!) polluted the church by bringing civil contracts into it, rather than higher spiritual pursuits.  If someone's religion says they aren't married unless a minister marries them, fine - let them satisfy their religion however they want.  But for legally enforceable contract rights, they need a civil ceremony.  In other words, let Ceaser have what is Ceaser's and God have what is God's, and don't mix the two unnecessarily (and I say this as someone who's religious marriage was very important to me; I'd have no problem with one marriage being "before man" and another ceremony "before God").  I still don't understand why a religious minister is somehow more trustworthy or more proper in a legal sense for witnessing and conducting a marriage than is a random guy off the street (particularly since plenty of ministers have shown they don't have a full grasp on ethics and honesty!).

For sure the Bush v. Gore deal was activist.  In fact it went against the Constitution, which give the states full control over elections, and then empowers the HoR to accepting, or rejecting those results.  The Florida results should have been rejected (not certified), which would have created a situation in the Electoral College where neither would have won, thus (again, following the Constitution) put the election into the hands of the HoR to vote on.  All those procedures were laid out in pretty clear English.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

That was amended to read:

AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.


AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.


Oh yeah, they pretty much just blew past this part: President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves as both Bush and Cheney lived in Texas at the time.

But go ahead, find me in there where it gives the federal court any power over the state electoral decisions.  It does not.  It lets the HoR do it.  But that was back when our government worked, and of all the broken parts, nothing is more broken than Congress.

Quote from: tekla on January 05, 2012, 11:30:18 AM
(snip)

Oh yeah, they pretty much just blew past this part: President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves as both Bush and Cheney lived in Texas at the time.

This charge was litigated in the Courts and the plaintiffs lost every time.

"Cheney, a former Wyoming congressman, lived in Dallas [Texas] while he was chairman of Haliburton Co., until he changed his voting registration to Teton County, Wyo., on July 21 [2000] -- four days before becoming Bush's running mate....  Cheney ... also owns property in McLean, Va."

(source: CBSNews, 2/11/09)

"The Secretary [Cheney] is legally registered to vote in Wyoming.... Their Jackson Hole residence is their permanent home. They twice voted in Wyoming in just the last year.  Assertions otherwise are specious."

(source: Jackson Hole News and Guide, 11/15/2000)

Quote from: tekla on January 05, 2012, 11:30:18 AM
For sure the Bush v. Gore deal was activist.  In fact it went against the Constitution, which give the states full control over elections, and then empowers the HoR to accepting, or rejecting those results.  The Florida results should have been rejected (not certified), which would have created a situation in the Electoral College where neither would have won, thus (again, following the Constitution) put the election into the hands of the HoR to vote on.  All those procedures were laid out in pretty clear English.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector...

In Bush v Gore the primary issue was not whether the legislature of Florida had control of elections in the State (it did, and had established laws and regulations covering the conduct of elections for President). Instead, the issue was whether the willy-nilly recount methods authorized by the Florida Supreme Court violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.  The Florida Supreme Court had obviously hijacked the process and were, in effect, constructing vote count regulations as they went along - a usurpation of the legislature's prerogative.

100% in support.

It doesn't hurt me or anyone I know.

Let people marry the people they wish to marry.

It clearly does NOT hurt other people for GLBT people to marry. I cried last night thinking about how f'd up it is I can't marry the person I love.

IF the people opposed to this also opposed divorce I might have some sympathy for their opinion. It's not about the sanctity of marriage, it's about bigotry and hate.

Read this to see what actually constitutes a family in reality today, not the fantasy world the opponents assume and promote. These people are fine with RUINING a child's life to promote this ideal.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/changing_reality_american_family.html (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/changing_reality_american_family.html)

Quote from: Stephe on January 28, 2012, 12:26:16 PM
IF the people opposed to this also opposed divorce I might have some sympathy for their opinion. It's not about the sanctity of marriage, it's about bigotry and hate.

EXACTLY.

Back when the Hawaii (USA) governor vetoed same sex marriage, she said, essentially, that gay marriage is illegal for the same reason that marrying your cousin should be illegal.  She apparently flunked biology (uh, gays couples don't have kids, nor do the kids that they would have if they could have the same sorts of genetic concerns of first cousins).  She also flunked law (you can marry your first cousin in Hawaii).  Nevermind that marriage of first cousins is recognized in all 50 states, if the marriage is performed in a jurisdiction that allows it.  I believe it to be Ohio - but could be wrong on the actual state - has a law that makes it criminal to "evade" the marriage laws by marrying in another state (as Loving vs. Loving did and were charged with in Virginia when they "violated" state law by marrying "outside their race" in another locale) - except if you are marrying your cousin, in which case it's okay to evade that law (it's targeted pretty much entirely at same sex couples).

Recently in Colorado, the mayor of Longmont signed a letter from many mayors saying same sex marriage should be legal.  The mayor got all sorts of hate mail, some of it was reprinted in the local paper.  Not one hateful later didn't reference how "God" hates same sex marriage.  Most told of the revenge of God on Longmont should the mayor not recant.  But apparently divorce - which Jesus himself talked about - isn't a big deal.  I'll note too that the "loopholes" for allowing divorce (unfaithfulness/adultery and marriage to a non-believing spouse) don't apply to abused wives if you want a strict reading of the Bible.  Yet, I'd hope few wouldn't miss the injustice of not allowing an abused wife to divorce.  Never mind that there was a reason Timothy was told that church leaders should be "but the husband of one wife."  Note they weren't told "leave the Church", but rather just that they shouldn't be leaders.  So maybe polygamy isn't great according to the New Testament, but it also didn't send you to hell.

That said, look up covenant marriage - some of these religious nuts [disclaimer: I'm a Christian and believe very strongly in the Bible, just not the same as these guys] actually want to make it nearly impossible for people to divorce.  Covenant marriage disallows a divorce where there isn't fault by one or the other party - you have to prove fault in court.  You can enter into a covenant marriage in Arkansas, Arizona, and Louisiana right now.  Further, much of the anti-trans and even anti-gay arguments, when the bigots don't resort to simply "The Bible Says So", come down to "Men and women are intrinsically different and it's ignoring the God-given differences of the sexes to support a trans person or a gay person.  After all, kids need a mommy and a daddy."  In other words, the same type of natural-law arguments that they used to say the races were fundamentally different as a result of God's will, and, thus, treating them the same would be violating the express purpose of God's creation.  It's all interconnected.

Quote from: Slanan on January 28, 2012, 02:50:24 PM
In other words, the same type of natural-law arguments that they used to say the races were fundamentally different as a result of God's will, and, thus, treating them the same would be violating the express purpose of God's creation. 

What REALLY pisses me off is: in the 1960's only 20% of the population was in favor of interracial marriage but the supreme court stepped in protecting their civil rights. This time around, the civil rights of another minority are put up for popular vote.

That was a far different court.

Quote from: Stephe on January 28, 2012, 04:39:27 PM
What REALLY pisses me off is: in the 1960's only 20% of the population was in favor of interracial marriage but the supreme court stepped in protecting their civil rights. This time around, the civil rights of another minority are put up for popular vote.

It wasn't until the 80s that a majority of people favored legal interracial marriage.  One could easily argue it was in part due to the law that public opinion changed, but that change took a long time.  How someone like Gov. Christie of NJ (USA) could have the gall to say, essentially, that Blacks should have put their rights to a vote is beyond me, but that's what the argument about same sex marriage seems to bring out in some people.  :(

Quote from: Tori on January 28, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
That was a far different court.

?? AFAIK the supreme court ruled that all states HAVE to allow inter racial marriage. I don't think they are willing to make a ruling like this for gay marriage. Instead they keep putting it up for a popular vote. I just find it odd they (the government) now puts a minority rights issue up for popular vote.

Yes, everyone should have the right to marry.

I have read the Australian Federal  Marriage Act and could not find a definition of "man" or  "woman" in it.  That is the first thing I would look for as a point of proof in any prosecution for an offence under the Act.  I will pitch this to a lawyer if I can find a supportive one.

Karen.

I am fully in support of Gay marriage and urge people to sign http://www.c4em.org.uk/. (http://www.c4em.org.uk/.) I however personally would rather like to see civil partnerships being extended to "straight" couples as well. I think that both should be open to anyone regardless of sex or gender!