Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (9 years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (9 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”

Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (9 years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (9 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (9 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (9 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (9 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (9 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (9 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (9 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (9 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (9 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

cristalnacht (lukas), Friday, 20 December 2013 23:57 (4 months ago) Permalink

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."

From the Album No Baby for You! (Matt P), Friday, 20 December 2013 23:58 (4 months ago) Permalink

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

From the Album No Baby for You! (Matt P), Saturday, 21 December 2013 00:00 (4 months ago) Permalink

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

From the Album No Baby for You! (Matt P), Saturday, 21 December 2013 00:02 (4 months ago) Permalink

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.

joygoat, Saturday, 21 December 2013 01:04 (4 months ago) Permalink

10th Circuit Court denied Utah's request for an emergency stay tonight so get ready for a slew more marriages tomorrow...

Ned Raggett, Monday, 23 December 2013 01:23 (4 months ago) Permalink

And 10th Circuit reaffirms Shelby's rejection of the stay, gay marriage to remain legal through the resolution of the formal appeal at least, Gov. Herbert already saying in internal emails that there's minimal impact on state services. State's move now, but I suspect this is pretty much done on a practical level. Question is do they take this to the Supreme Court so Kennedy can put the final kibosh.

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57306142-219/state-sex-marriages-utah.html.csp

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 00:47 (3 months ago) Permalink

Officially four Utah counties still going "La la la I can't hear you!" Including Utah County/Provo/BYU.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 00:50 (3 months ago) Permalink

And to answer Matt P's question -- I don't think a year? It kinda depends on when the 10th Circuit decides, which sounds like it might not be until summer. If Utah loses, they'd have to appeal, then it depends on when the Supreme Court schedules it, if they agree to hear it (which is pretty damn likely).

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 00:53 (3 months ago) Permalink

Hmm, though one final twist via the Washington Blade re the immediate stay:

But same-sex marriage seeking to marry in Utah aren’t out of the woods yet. State officials — Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes — can file a request for a stay before the U.S. Supreme Court. The request would go to U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who could refer the issue to the entire court.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 00:59 (3 months ago) Permalink

provo spain?

mookieproof, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 01:01 (3 months ago) Permalink

Gotta love Orem.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 01:04 (3 months ago) Permalink

utah county is the weirdest place in the u.s.

From the Album No Baby for You! (Matt P), Wednesday, 25 December 2013 02:00 (3 months ago) Permalink

towns named after book of mormon characters. one of the articles had the weirdest fuckin quote from batshit insane byu law professor lynn wardle. hope they get the shit sued out of them.

From the Album No Baby for You! (Matt P), Wednesday, 25 December 2013 02:07 (3 months ago) Permalink

"sexual civil rights"

mookieproof, Wednesday, 25 December 2013 02:25 (3 months ago) Permalink

so pretty

From the Album No Baby for You! (Matt P), Wednesday, 25 December 2013 06:50 (3 months ago) Permalink

Stop now in place in Utah per Supremes. SCOTUSBlog thoughts as to why:

The order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents. The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law. The order, however, cannot be interpreted as a dependable indication of how the Court will rule on the issue when it finally decides to do so directly.

...

As a result of the new order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, based in Denver, will go forward with an expedited review of Judge Shelby’s decision. The appeals court has ordered briefing to begin on January 27 and to be completed by February 25. It has indicated it is not likely to grant any extensions of time to file those documents. It has not yet set a hearing date.

With the Justices’ order in the case, it now appears almost certain that the question of state power to bar same-sex marriages will not be before the Justices during the current Term. A case on that issue would have to be granted this month to be reviewed before the Court is expected to finish this Term in late June.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 January 2014 17:15 (3 months ago) Permalink

Doesn't matter – I ain't marrying anybody in You-tah.

the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 January 2014 17:16 (3 months ago) Permalink

I rule that the state of Utah can fuck itself.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 6 January 2014 19:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

until a few hours ago it could

the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 January 2014 19:34 (3 months ago) Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/federal-judge-rejects-oklahomas-gay-marriage-ban.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

...Oklahoma! Not to take effect immediately - judge has preemptively put the ruling on hold in anticipation of appeal - but maybe noteworthy in that the decision, as I understand it, is based on simple rational-basis review, maybe with a little of the 'animus' vibe from Romer. Much lower order of scrutiny.

Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 15 January 2014 05:59 (3 months ago) Permalink

Makes sense that it was put on hold since the appeal goes to the Tenth Circuit anyway, where the Utah case is going. Still, another sign of cracks in the remaining dam.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 15 January 2014 06:02 (3 months ago) Permalink

Reading through state entries at freedomtomarry.org can lead to some kind of surprising moments. Like:

Georgia:

A majority of Georgia residents (57%) say that same-sex couples should be able to either marry or join in civil union. (Public Policy Polling, December 2012)

Montana:

A growing number of voters in Montana support marriage, with 43% saying it should be allowed. Additionally, 64% of respondents said they support either marriage or civil union for same-sex couples. (Public Policy Polling, February 2013)

South Dakota:

Support for the freedom to marry has increased dramatically in the past 8 years, with 45% of the state's residents now supporting marriage. In 2004, just 24% were supportive. (Williams Institute, 2012)

Mississippi:

Support for the freedom to marry has nearly doubled in the past 8 years, with 34% of the state's residents now supporting marriage. In 2004, just 18% were supportive. (Williams Institute, 2012)

Now, obviously there's a lot buried in the "either marriage or civil union" line. I suspect at least some of the growth is people saying, well, they'll get this marriage thing if we don't cough up civil unions! (Wonder if this line is being pushed at all in conservative circles.) But still - - - One in three people in Mississippi is kind of crazy.

Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 15 January 2014 06:47 (3 months ago) Permalink

related: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/01/21/gay-jurist-decision-bodes-well-marriage-equality-cases-experts/

Writing for the majority, U.S. District Judge Roy Reinhardt ruled that Abbott “unconstitutionally used a peremptory strike” to exclude Juror B from the case because of his sexual orientation, but goes further by saying the court must apply heightened scrutiny in its ruling in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.
[...]
But the decision in the Ninth Circuit is significant because it creates precedent within that jurisdiction to apply heightened scrutiny in the numerous cases before it involving gay people and may encourage courts outside the circuit to do the same.

1staethyr, Thursday, 23 January 2014 03:04 (3 months ago) Permalink

Florida!

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 23 January 2014 03:05 (3 months ago) Permalink

I claim you first.

The Reverend, Thursday, 23 January 2014 05:32 (3 months ago) Permalink

Need to know if Eric hasn't applied already.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 23 January 2014 11:51 (3 months ago) Permalink

Applied my signature to the divorce papers? We've been through this ...

Alfre, Lord Woodard (Eric H.), Thursday, 23 January 2014 14:03 (3 months ago) Permalink

OK, rev, let's do it. I'll be in Seattle in April.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 24 January 2014 01:20 (3 months ago) Permalink

well done Scotland. better late than never.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25960225

i lost my shoes on acid (jed_), Tuesday, 4 February 2014 22:06 (2 months ago) Permalink

FYI Scotland have legalised gay marriage to alfred.

i lost my shoes on acid (jed_), Tuesday, 4 February 2014 22:31 (2 months ago) Permalink

Interesting Nevada news:

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, in a motion filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Nevada's legal arguments defending the voter-approved prohibition aren't viable after the court's recent ruling that potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.

"After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Masto said in a statement.

Nevada's move comes as the federal government and courts around the country in recent months have chipped away at laws the prohibit marriage and benefits for same-sex couples. In a one-month span from December to January, two federal judges struck down state bans on gay marriage for the same reason, concluding that they violate the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican seeking re-election this year, said he agreed with the Democratic attorney general's action.

"Based upon the advice of the attorney general's office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court," Sandoval said in an email to The Associated Press.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 02:07 (2 months ago) Permalink

Man, my "but we're really running out of likely states" post from last November is just looking more and more quaint every day. Keep 'em coming!

Doctor Casino, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 04:41 (2 months ago) Permalink

Kansas House passes bill that would allow service refusal to same-sex couples on religious grounds

“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”

|$̲̅(̲̅ιοο̲̅)̲̅$̲̅| (gr8080), Wednesday, 12 February 2014 02:30 (2 months ago) Permalink

Kansas politician stands up for enormously unpopular version of Christianity among Kansans, bravely risks the backlash.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 02:37 (2 months ago) Permalink

In contrast to which, in Virginia:

https://twitter.com/AGMarkHerring/status/434157953944276992

*ALERT* Equality marches forward in VA: Federal judge declares state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Issues stay pending appeal.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 14 February 2014 03:19 (2 months ago) Permalink

Virginia goes down, partially thanks to Nino.

So rare to see this kind of unity in any anti-conservative movement; it's like the liberal think tank of The Corner's dreams really did conference call every federal judge and say, "You will cite Antonin Scalia's dissent in Windsor and aggravate Rush Limbaugh."

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 February 2014 17:54 (2 months ago) Permalink

As of Wednesday, incremental progress in Kentucky, my state of origin: while the ban on gay marriage remains in effect, state government is required to recognize marriages conducted in other states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kentucky-must-recognize-gay-marriages-from-other-states-federal-judge-rules/2014/02/12/8ec79508-9410-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/12/kentucky_gay_marriage_scalia_would_hate_this_ruling.html

one way street, Sunday, 16 February 2014 18:51 (2 months ago) Permalink

Scaliamania sweeps the federal judiciary.

Aimless, Sunday, 16 February 2014 19:47 (2 months ago) Permalink

Meantime if you haven't laughed at Erick Erickson lately, enjoy the self-applied Gordian knot:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/21/yes-jesus-would-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-person/

Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 February 2014 23:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

And just now in Texas:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ban-on-gay-marriage-ruled-unconstitutional-5270099.php

As with Virginia, stay in place.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 19:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7678/methodists_make_history__or__an_argument_for_ecclesiastical_disobedience/

“Biblical obedience demands ecclesiastical disobedience”

j., Tuesday, 11 March 2014 22:22 (1 month ago) Permalink

lol protestantism

goole, Wednesday, 12 March 2014 20:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/04/judge-to-declare-ohios-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/?hpt=hp_t2

^^^ a bit misleading headline-wise - the ruling apparently will deal only with the refusal to recognize gay marriages from other states, but still!

Doctor Casino, Friday, 4 April 2014 18:29 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/patriciamiller/7756/ohio_catholic_school_teachers_required_to_sign_morality_clause/

The contracts instruct employees to refrain from “conduct or lifestyle that’s in contradiction to Catholic doctrine or morals,” including:

improper use of social media/communication, public support of or publicly living together outside marriage, public support of or sexual activity out of wedlock, public support of or homosexual lifestyle, public support of or use of abortion, public support of or use of a surrogate mother, public support of or use of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, public membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals, and/or flagrant deceit or dishonesty.”

so if you live/sleep together outside of marriage, make sure you have an actual shack to do it in, so no one will be the wiser

j., Friday, 4 April 2014 22:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.