Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well the New Hampshire bill has passed too, although yet to be signed by the governor.

Rather interesting that the New Hampshire bill, in the form that it passed, actually recognises a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well the New Hampshire bill has passed too, although yet to be signed by the governor.

Rather interesting that the New Hampshire bill, in the form that it passed, actually recognises a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage.

---

That's been standard for a while, insofar as one has legal force and the other (by itself) doesn't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Iowans have opinions about things, but getting along with your neighbors generally rates higher than self-righteousness.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

A proposed law to recognize a growing number of same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries is winding its way through California's Legislature.

Opponents of gay marriage say Senate Bill 54 violates Proposition 8, a voter initiative approved last November that amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The bill's sponsor contends that his proposed changes to state family law are consistent with the California Supreme Court's nuanced decision in May to uphold Proposition 8.

<snip>

Leno's bill would declare that any same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions before Proposition 8 be recognized on par with marriages that took place in California.

Same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions after Proposition 8 was approved would be afforded the same legal rights that marriage gives them here, but they could not use the word "marriage" to refer to their legal relationship.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macx:

quote:

---

So I'm to assume that people who have "no" religion (=at least 16% of the population at the last census) shouldn't be allowed to marry?

---

Why would people who have no religion wish to marry? Wouldn't you just live with your partner and let that be that? Isn't it kind of a lie to be all "I'm not religious" and then turn around, dress up and ask a religious offical to perform a religious ceremony? Guess hypocrisy isn't limited to Christians.

---

The state has every right to be involved in marriage, and it's got nothing to do with religion at all. In an ideal world (ideal as I see it, anyway ) the state would have no involvement in the religious aspects of marriage at all -- marriage would be purely a legal arrangement.

The state has a right -- I would say a duty -- to be involved in marriage, in this legal sense, because the majority of couples who live together give little thought to what will happen if a relationship breaks down, or one of the partners dies (and one or other of those things will happen in every case).

In the UK (and probably everywhere else) the state provides a set of default arrangements for such matters as distribution of property on death or separation, care of children, powers of attorney, and many other things. All of these arrangements can (in the UK, anyway) be overruled by the partners themselves by specific arrangements. But the state defaults provide a default set of arrangements that work tolerably well in most cases -- far better than nothing, anyway.

In short, the state would not have to be involved in marriage (in the legal sense) if couples who entered into a relationship made specific and detailed plans for its ending. But it isn't at all human nature to do that.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Schwarzenegger Signs Gay Rights Bills

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed two gay rights bills, one honoring late activist Harvey Milk and another recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

<snip>

Leno's SB 54, meanwhile, requires California to recognize marriages performed in other states where same sex marriage is legal.

In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California will not recognize the couples as married but will "provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even New England's frozen dairy desserts are becoming more gay friendly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Reserecting this thread from the depths to say that I read today that Mexico is now allows gay marriage.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... when the same-sex marriages began in Iowa, no one showed up to protest. This was apparently a surprise to the national media, but would not be to anyone who had spent much time in Iowa...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In America social progress seems to develop organically to a great extent, rather than initially via legislation or court rulings.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Hang on, remind me... Proposition 8 is the thing that banned gay marriage again, right?

So gay marriage is back in California for the time being?

It's like some kind of seasonal event...

---

Gay marriage isn't quite back. The judge has delayed ruling on when it can start up again. Plus the other side is planning to appeal. (They evidently presented their side very poorly, basically saying it was self-evident and not much else.)

I'm pleased with the decision, and hope same-sex marriage starts up again soon.


--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I've only read tiny fractions of the judgment so far, but I'm quite pleased that the judge has hit the 'the purpose of marriage is procreation' argument on the head.

I don't know why people keep even trying to use this one, when from a LEGAL standpoint it's perfectly obvious that marriage laws don't require an investigation into fertility before you're allowed to marry.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether. Most secular gays and lesbians do not give a damn if churches bless their marriages as long as they do not interfere with their right to get a civil marriage. As well religious people will be bloody assured for the 1000th time that Catholic priests will not be thrown in prison for refusing to marry same-sex couples.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether. Most secular gays and lesbians do not give a damn if churches bless their marriages as long as they do not interfere with their right to get a civil marriage. As well religious people will be bloody assured for the 1000th time that Catholic priests will not be thrown in prison for refusing to marry same-sex couples.

---

Number of Catholic priests imprisoned in the U.S. for refusing to marry the previously divorced = 0

Given the Catholic Church's well known refusal to recognize the marriages of those previously divorced (which are legal in all U.S. states) and the fact that the U.S. has imprisoned exactly zero priests for their refusal to perform such ceremonies, anyone arguing that legal gay marriage will mean jail time for objecting clergy is either incredibly ignorant or making a blatantly bad faith argument. For some reason the distinction between civil and religious marriage only becomes 'confusing' when same-sex couples are involved.

Calls to "divorce religious and civil marriage" ignore the fact that this is already the case in the U.S. No religious faction can legally marry anyone without a state-issued license, nor is a religious ceremony required for a marriage to be considered legal in any state.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether.

---

From your lips to God's ears.

---

It's not up to God, it is a government matter.

That is basically what happens with the marriage licence, so why not make the issuance of such licence the "civil marriage". Then those of church backgrounds can have their church ceremony as well.

Sounds simple to me.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Sounds simple to me.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Whether or not clerics act as agents of the state in performing weddings has no bearing on this issue. Opponents of same sex marriage would still oppose it if guaranteed their churches wouldn't have to perform them. Clerics who support same sex marriage can bless same sex unions and call the ritual marriage. It just isn't recognized by the state.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

All Mexican states must recognize gay marriages

MEXICO CITY — Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory.

In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere.

It did not specify what degree of recognition must be granted to same-sex couples.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Ye gods, to think Mexico is in some way more civilizationally advanced than the USA. Although of course the people who hate Mexicans would also fail to see advancedness if it were written on the insides of their Foster Grants.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Ye gods, to think Mexico is in some way more civilizationally advanced than the USA. Although of course the people who hate Mexicans would also fail to see advancedness if it were written on the insides of their Foster Grants.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
DOMA is unconstitutional in as much as it authorises the violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
An interesting quirk in the judge's ruling today denying a stay during the appeal (beyond one week) is the fact that the proponents of the gay marriage ban may not have legal standing to appeal the ruling. The suit was officially against the State of California, and the State would have to file an appeal. But both the Governator and Attorney-General have said they agree with the ruling and will accept it.

If the Measure 8 Proponents don't have standing to appeal, this case won't make it to the Supremes. Expect a lot of legal wrangling on the details more than on the merits of the case.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
DOMA is unconstitutional in as much as it authorises the violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

---

Not really, or at least there's an arguable case that it doesn't. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution reads, in it's entirety:

quote:

---

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

---

That second sentence clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate the manner in which Full Faith and Credit is applicable and, implicitly, to stipulate ways in which it's not. So while I agree that DOMA is a shameful monstrosity, it's not unconstitutional.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
DOMA is unconstitutional in as much as it authorises the violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

---

Not really, or at least there's an arguable case that it doesn't. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution reads, in it's entirety:

quote:

---

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

---

That second sentence clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate the manner in which Full Faith and Credit is applicable and, implicitly, to stipulate ways in which it's not. So while I agree that DOMA is a shameful monstrosity, it's not unconstitutional.

---

As I read it, it is within the authority of Congress to legislate the means whereby full faith and credit is administered between the several states; conversely, I am not at all sure that the constitutional provision grants Congress the authority to selectively nullify the extension of full faith and credit of the public acts of the states amongst themselves. Moreover, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

---