Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Forgot about Florida b/c Alfred and I have been planning for MN nuptials.

― midnight outdoor nude frolic up north goes south (Eric H.),

you and your shrieking nothingness

Well, let's just say fuck you too, sugar.

that much closer to picking a new issue to avoid the life-and-death ones!

ENDA! That will be huge.

Gay marriage in the Middle East!

But do let me know when I can start voting on whether people live or die. I've got a list.

and i never will be missed

(pssst apocalypse by climate change etc)

Start planning your Waikiki weddings.

QUESTION: Now that the state Legislature has passed the marriage equality bill, what happens next to the measure?

ANSWER: Senate Bill 1, House Draft 1 now goes to Gov. Neil Abercrombie who has already said he will sign it into law.

Q: Once it is law, when will same-sex couples be able to marry in Hawaii?

A: The bill allows for legal gay marriages as soon as Dec. 2.

Q: What will happen to Hawaii-sanctioned civil unions now that the state plans to permit same-sex marriages?

A: In short: nothing. According to the state's registrar of vital statistics, the civil union law -- and reciprocal beneficiaries -- will remain unchanged. Neither will phase out as a result of same-sex marriage being passed. The bill passed today states that couples will not need to terminate their civil unions or reciprocal beneficiary relationships before marrying because the marriage will automatically do that for them. Additionally, rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities offered to the couple through the previous legal relationship will continue uninterrupted through the marriage and be considered to have accrued since the first date of the civil union or reciprocal beneficiary relationship.

Q: Will the opposition to same-sex marriage end with the new law?

A: No. Opponents vow to challenge the law in court once Abercrombie signs it. Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto on Thursday declined to issue a restraining order sought by opponents to halt action on the legislation, but said once the law is adopted, he will consider its constitutionality.

And we'll see where that goes but anyway. Hawaii!

Looks like Abercrombie may sign as early as tomorrow. Illinois doesn't make it official until next Wednesday.

dope moves hawaii

Abercrombie has just signed.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/today-history-in-the-making-watch-live-as-hawaii-governor-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill/politics/2013/11/13/78626#.UoPlfRDe4Zx

I'm marrying gr80.

You're in Washington, he's in Illinois, get married in Hawaii, it all works.

So...where's next? I'm looking at the map (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/) and kind of scratching my chin. Oregon at least kind of plausible, right? But after that... I mean it's going to hit the point where all the states that are possibly going to do this of their own accord will have done it, and "let it happen in the states" is going to run out of juice. I mean, right? I guess somewhere like Ohio =might hypothetically flop back on their constitutional amendment, which was backed by 62% in a referendum back in 2004; FreedomToMarry reports a poll showing a 52% majority in favor of marriage equality in 2012.

That said, I'm still amazed how quickly this went from something linked to a couple of freak outlier states, easily pigeonholed as obvious bastions of liberalism RUN AMOK, to fifteen-sixteen states.

Sorry, Rev, you're joining Eric and me in mah-riaj.

:-(

So...where's next?

IIRC New Mexico is where the next decision will go down, currently before the state Supreme Court. Oregon's looking very likely next year as you note. After that it does get tricky per the incremental strategy, but this is also why there have been a slew of lawsuits filed in a variety of non-recognizing states essentially designed to force the issue. My guess is the presumption is to get this before the Supreme Court again and finally put it away, presuming no full repeal of what's left of DOMA.

Keep in mind that with Illinois about to formally join, the total US populace covered by gay marriage will be around 40% -- and that's not chump change. If Pennsylvania and Ohio went over that alone would take it well over 50%, and at that point I think you'd be seeing some tremendous pressure for a national standard that's already starting to come through -- business interests are increasingly more vocal about it being a selling point in terms of recruitment and assignment. Combine that with what's inevitably starting to happen when it comes to gay couples in the military, or one in the military and one out, and where THEY'RE assigned and things will be resolved within the next few years, pretty much. The relevant lawsuits are already under way.

I've already seen an argument that Christie's nod/wink approach -- "Hey I tried but what are you going to do?" -- is going to become the new default over time on the right. Not exactly sure of that myself -- at some point you inevitably run into people who really honestly do object to it and aren't going to change their minds -- but at the same time, the trend has been and continues to be a series of clear indicators that there's growing national acceptance on all fronts. It's a shitty fact that there's still some years to run on this but compare it with ten years ago, much less twenty, when this whole thing essentially kicked off with the original Hawaii decision, and it is pretty amazing still.

Great answers Ned, thanks. Yeah, I should be more optimistic. This whole thing could be a done deal in the relatively near future, and yet, yeah, SO recently it was just unthinkable.

Sorry, Rev, you're joining Eric and me in mah-riaj.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9vk5vUzuXc

Sorry, Rev, you're joining Eric and me in mah-riaj.

― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:48 PM Bookmark

I can't condone that. Polygamy makes a mockery of traditional marriage between a man and man.

who are the men here.

yall just move to new caledonia and find a cool turtle to name after yourselves.

what is this thread about. oh yeah, gay marriage. go die in a fucking fire.

property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol states gay marriage thing makes me feel better lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol property transfer lol property transfer lol property trasfer lol ned raggett lol states gay marriage thing makes me feel better lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCtO_WdsdqM

New Mexico makes it 17

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57291925-78/ban-judge-sex-court.html.csp
Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

!

Same-Sex Couples in Utah Getting Marriage Licenses

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-utahs-sex-marriage-ban-21293820

so has the federal court called state law unconstitutional on this issue prior? how important is this?

uh, prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court

okay, dumb question on my part. so does this mean that wherever a law is raised banning gay marriage, the feds will move in and revoke it? how quick is this moving now?

more detail

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=148&title=federal-judge-rules-utah-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional&fm=home_page&s_cid=featured-1

forks i think it means the broader issue of state bans based on gender will be at the supreme court pretty soon and likely overturned i.e. a more active ruling? california ruling was limited somehow, i can't remember in what way though, i'm slow on this stuff.

Yeah this is moving pretty quickly. Due process is starting to work out damn fast.

Also, at least one gay couple has already married (no waiting period in Utah). So an attempt to revoke that (which will happen) would only prompt a further lawsuit that will rule similarly at some point.

http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2013/12/20/breaking-utahs-first-gay-married-couple/

*dies*

hahahahahaha fuck washington county

utah is by far the reddest state this has happened in fwiw.

xp to matt: yeah, if the state of utah takes this to the supreme court that should force a more active ruling. the state of california didn't appeal the original district court ruling against prop 8, so the supreme court was able to avoid ruling directly on its constitutionality by simply determining that the defendants (supporters of prop 8) had no standing to appeal, leaving the district court's decision intact.

ty

https://twitter.com/jsethanderson/status/414169183707234304

Seth Anderson ‏@jsethanderson

Line out the door now in Salt Lake. A celebration of love and joy.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bb9srY-IYAcPQPw.jpg

Utah state senator Jim Dabakis just got married to his longtime partner.

damn it xp

this is especially sweet given that Utah-based orgs funded Prop 8 in California

Ryan Bruckman, spokesman for the Utah Attorney General’s Office, said its attorneys plan to appeal the decision and were currently drafting a motion to seek a stay of the ruling "as quickly as we can get it taken care of."

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert issued this statement late Friday afternoon: "I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah. I am working with my legal counsel and the acting Attorney General to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."

the u.s. judge ruled in 16 days on this (he was scheduled to issue a decision jan. 7).

is it possible this could be at the supreme court in a year?

The only long-term couples that I know who aren't married couldn't be because they live in Utah and New Mexico. This week is pretty alright.