|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, same-sex couples are now getting legally married in Minnesota. The ground had failed to open up and swallow the state and civilization has (once again) failed to collapse.
When will we get to see the apocalyptic stuff the anti-equality folks have been warning about since same-sex marriage was first suggested as a possibility?
I believe plagues of mosquitoes and black flies will descend shortly in the Land O Lakes.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Ir's also the first day of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, but that state is so small that if it were swallowed by the earth it might be a while before the rest of us noticed. Any RI-based shipmates who can confirm their continued existence?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Four days later the silence is starting to be a bit worrying.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Same Sex Marriages are happening in Rhode Island.
gay marriage law takes effect
One city clerk described it as "A day of Smooching".
Rhode Island has always been a convenient refuge from the Godly in the City on the Hill.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
It looks like New Mexico may be the next American state to legalize same-sex marriage. The judge making the ruling (which only applies to two of New Mexico's thirty-three counties) based his decision on two facts:
- Neither the New Mexico state constitution [PDF] nor its state laws say anything about the gender of the parties to a marriage.
- The New Mexico state constitution does have a clause forbidding discrimination by gender.
In short, issuing same-sex marriage licenses was held to be legal because there's no law against it in New Mexico.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
So are we at 15 now?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So are we at 15 now?
For countries, it's getting hard to know how to count! It's 15 if you count Brazil but don't count England/Wales which hasn't come into force yet.
To be honest I'm not even sure how to label the UK situation, damn them and their strange constitutional arrangements. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
United States, it's 13 states plus DC, not including New Mexico.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So are we at 15 now?
For countries, it's getting hard to know how to count! It's 15 if you count Brazil but don't count England/Wales which hasn't come into force yet.
To be honest I'm not even sure how to label the UK situation, damn them and their strange constitutional arrangements.
United States, it's 13 states plus DC, not including New Mexico.
Yes, even when England & Wales comes into force, we still have to wait for Scotland. All because we nominated Scottish law for our civil partnership at the Consulate in Sydney.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The number of counties in New Mexico which are now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples has risen to six. Some blogger has calculated that more than half of New Mexico's population lives in those six counties.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Admittedly he might only be Prime Minister for another 5 days or so, but this was the Australian Prime Minister last night.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And here's another first:
quote:
Two months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to expand federal recognition of same-sex marriages, striking down part of an anti-gay marriage law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a same-sex wedding.
The officiating is believed to be a first for a member of the nation's highest court.
Ginsburg officiated Saturday at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.
No, not that John Roberts, though I have to admit my mind went there when I found out that Ruth Ginsburg was officiating at John Roberts' same-sex wedding.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Good on both of them.
I thought Kevin Rudd's questioner's eyes were going to explode from his head.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, Rudd is gone.
But as I noted earlier in this thread, the Prime Minister-elect, Tony Abbott, made a significant shift in policy by NOT taking a particular policy to the election. Rather than making a firm promise to 'defend' heterosexual marriage, he has left the door open for a conscience vote.
There are at least a few people in his party who are likely to push for one. Although I would think it would take 6-12 months for any pushing to really get going.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Hopefully his changing from firmly against to wishy-washy is a positive sign for Australia.
From his talk with Katy Perry
quote:
Abbott said her catchy hit "Hot n Cold" would make a good election anthem for his party, but Perry was not so sure.
"I don't know, I don't know if that's the best song we can pick for a politician," she said of a song that begins with the lyrics: "You change your mind like a girl changes clothes".
Actually, Perry is wrong. That line is perfect for a politician.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Nice.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
New Jersey Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that the new federal rulings establishing federal recognition of same sex marriage means New Jersey has to offer same sex marriage rather than civil partnerships under equal protection laws. She's ordered New Jersey to start marriages by Oct 21.
Republican Governor Chris Christie, who is rumored to have presidential campaign ambitions has said he would seek a stay and appeal to the state Supreme Court. He had previously vetoed a bill from the legislature enabling same sex marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
New Jersey Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that the new federal rulings establishing federal recognition of same sex marriage means New Jersey has to offer same sex marriage rather than civil partnerships under equal protection laws. She's ordered New Jersey to start marriages by Oct 21.
But- forgive my legal ignorance- if this is what the Supreme Court had intended in the decision last summer, wouldn't it have required all the states to start offering marriages? I thought that they hadn't established that gays *do* have equal protection; just that people who are legally married have to be treated as such by the federal govt.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
That might not be what the Supremes intended, but this case would be handled under New Jersey law. I haven't read the decision, but I'd guess that, since the US Government recognizes marriages but not Civil Partnerships, then the State of New Jersey can't claim that they are equivalent. IF they had been using a "separate but equal" defense to maintain "equal protection", then the decision makes sense. But the requirement for "equal protection" may be something written into New Jersey law that doesn't affect anyone outside the State.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Hmm, that's an interesting one. Whether that form of reasoning would survive, I'm not sure.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm, that's an interesting one. Whether that form of reasoning would survive, I'm not sure.
Note he is appealing to the State Supreme Court so this is an interaction of previous decisions by the State court with previous decisions by the US Supreme Court. One of the previous decisions by the state court in 2006 was that "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." So the state passed a civil unions bill to avoid same-sex marriage. Civil unions were suppose to give the same rights as marriage and it did legally as long as the federal government treated same-sex couples the same way whether they were 'legally married' or 'legally in civil unions'. However the US Supreme court decision in June changed this. Now married same-sex couples are treated legally differently from civil union same-sex couples and the New Jersey constitution according to the State Supreme Court doesn't allow this. Hence the recent NJ decision.
Assuming the State Supreme Court hasn't changed its mind they will uphold the decision (unless the legislature preempts them and renders it moot by approving same-sex marriage which they've already done once and overriding the Governor's veto which they haven't yet). The State Supreme Court did split in 2006 but the splitters felt that civil unions wouldn't be a sufficient remedy for the problem and that only marriage would do.
Note this won't be a decision that can be appealed easily to the US Supreme Court since it is a matter of State constitutional law and not one that conflicts with the US Constitution. BTW unlike some State Supreme courts, New Jersey justices do not run for office and cannot be recalled by a popular vote; they serve for an initial 7 year term and if re-appointed then serve till age 70 or retirement (unless impeached or deemed incapable [which is pretty difficult to do unless truly incapable]).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm finding it a little confusing, and perhaps I didn't pay enough attention to precisely what the US Supreme Court decision implied for civil unions as opposed to marriages.
That's one of the stupid things about civil unions, really. By creating a whole separate category you start having to figure out when it's just like a 'marriage' and when it's 'not a marriage'. And cross-jurisdictional recognition is one of the big problems.
Which reminds me... (best put in a separate post)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The Australian Capital Territory is set to introduce same-sex marriage. One of the various news stories.
The ACT Government has been minded to do this before, but there are a few new factors this time. One is that federal law has changes such that it is more difficult for the Commonwealth to overturn an ACT law than it used to be.
Another is that they are relying on advice from New South Wales that such a move is constitutionally valid. NSW may also consider introducing same sex marriage. Tasmania tried to introduce it but several upper house members voted against because they said they had legal advice that it WASN'T constitutionally valid.
(Constitutional arguments surround whether the Commonwealth Marriage Act, which only allows heterosexual marriage, entirely covers the 'marriage' field or whether the States and Territories are free to legislate for other kinds of marriage. Technically, the States and Territories clearly have POWER to make a law on marriage (and any commentator who says they don't hasn't got a good grasp of Australian constitutional law), the question is whether such a law is allowed to operate in practice or is blocked by the contrary Commonwealth law under section 109 of the Constitution.)
I'm pretty certain that any State or Territory same sex marriage law will end up in the High Court. With the ACT, there's the extra wrinkle that the Commonwealth Parliament could overrule the law (but as noted this is now more difficult than it used to be). With a State law there is no power to overrule by legislation and the High Court would be the only resolution.
Any such case would be dangerously fascinating: in order to overrule a State/Territory same-sex marriage law, opponents would have to argue that the Commonwealth power over 'marriage' includes same-sex marriages. They would have to confirm that they really are marriages and that the Commonwealth could legislate for them if it chose.
In some ways the worst possible outcome would be to say that the Commonwealth has no power over same-sex marriages because they're not really marriages.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The New Jersey ruling is indeed on the interaction of New Jersey Law that was proposing separate but equal civil unions and the Supreme Court recognition of Same Sex marriage and not civil unions.
The politics of it are a bit odd. Frothing homophobes aside, NJ is a fairly liberal east coast state where there's a fair amount of support for same sex marriage. The governor's opposition is believed by cynics to be bullet proofing for a an attack from the right during future Republican Presidential Primaries. This can be noted in his photo opportunities with President Obama during federal emergency relief during Super Storm Sandy. The cynics believe that he doesn't really want to win as much as not be blamed for losing on same sex marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm finding it a little confusing, and
Which reminds me... (best put in a separate post)
It is notable that same sex marriage legalizations barely make the headlines anymore, they've become so unsurprising. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Nice.
One red sock and one blue sock - nice indeed!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Tasmania tried to introduce [SSM] but several upper house members voted against because they said they had legal advice that it WASN'T constitutionally valid.
Which is odd really, when you think that Tasmania has had SFM (Same Family Marriage) for years (dives for cover...).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Nice.
I suppose. Though you know what would've been even nicer? Standing up for the rights of his so-called "friends" when he was in office. Or even making some kind of public statement when his son was basing his 2004 re-election strategy on preventing same-sex marriage from ever becoming legal. Of course, that might have been politically costly, either to himself or to his political dynasty.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Nice.
One red sock and one blue sock - nice indeed!
I knew a programmer once who always wore discordant fluorescent socks. He said it was much easier to find complements than matches in the morning...
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, we'll be getting our High Court case.
I'm not surprised that different governments are getting different legal advice, because I've seen conflicting opinions on this from qualified sources for years and years.
I'm going to be very nervous about this in some ways until it's decided, because in the long term the court's reasoning will be more crucial than the actual outcome.
Why? Because a potential precedent question surrounding the 'marriage' power is: is a same-sex marriage actually a 'marriage' under the Constitution?
The answer 'No' would mean the ACT law is valid, and I think people would celebrate for all of 5 seconds before realising that answer would prevent a federal law ever being passed.
[ 10. October 2013, 22:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I didn't understand the references to compatibility with the Commonwealth Marriage Act. Is that Australia or Commonwealth law applying to all countries in the Commonwealth? If it is the latter what happens when the UK legalizes same se Marriage?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I didn't understand the references to compatibility with the Commonwealth Marriage Act. Is that Australia or Commonwealth law applying to all countries in the Commonwealth? If it is the latter what happens when the UK legalizes same se Marriage?
Commonwealth = the Commonwealth of Australia. That's the official name of the nation, and so we call our national laws 'Commonwealth' laws.
I said 'federal' laws because I tend to think that's easier for Americans in particular to understand, as that's the terminology they use - federal government and so on. Here it's 'the Commonwealth'.
[ 12. October 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
New Jersey should be starting to perform same sex marriages on Monday!
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
So now with New Jersey on board, by virtue of court rulings that are extremely unlikely to be reversed, there is a total of 15 US marriage equality jurisdictions when the District of Columbia is included. Additionally several counties in New Mexico have been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, though the supreme court of that State hasn't yet issued a ruling on the legality of SSM.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
Oregon is legally recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, even though a clause in the state Constitution prohibits such marriages from being performed in the state. For those living in the greater Portland area that only requires a quick trip across the river into Washington State.
Meanwhile signatures are being gathered for an initiative to change the Constitution, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the ballot next year.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The Australian Capital Territory law has passed today. Stay tuned for the hearing dates of the inevitable High Court challenge.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
This Philadelphia-based website provides a helpful map of the American northeast, showing that same-sex marriage is now legal in every state from Maine down to Maryland, except Pennsylvania. For comparison, this geographically-contiguous region of ten states plus the District of Columbia contains about as many people as South Korea. Adding Pennsylvania would give this region about the same population (and only a slightly smaller land area) as the U.K.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Congratulations Michiganians and Illinoisians!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Nice! I know a few people who will be happy about the Illinois one in particular.
Meanwhile here in Australia, the challenge to the ACT legislation will be heard in early December, and New South Wales is bringing on its own debate (which was already on the cards).
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
SIT DOWN EVERYONE
The government of Ireland ( IRELAND ! ) are proposing a referendum on SSM - granted not until 2015 but still.
And they're doing it because support for SSM is reckoned to be about 75% of the population
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I was going to post about Ireland but, after struggling to find the news article I read the other day, I wondered if I'd dreamt the whole thing up.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The wonderful ad about asking permission to marry Sinead has done its work, then!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyzyl
Ship's dog
# 374
|
Posted
And in Hawaii... Hawaii marriage bill
(Edit: correct damn spelling}
[ 09. November 2013, 15:03: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]
--------------------
I need a quote.
Posts: 668 | From: Wapasha's Prairie | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
And in Hawaii... Hawaii marriage bill
And it's about time, too! It was a Hawaiian court case that first raised the realistic possibility of legal same-sex marriage in the U.S., so coming in at number sixteen (or whatever) should be something of an embarrassment.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I gather the Hawaiian Senate has given the tick.
Commonwealth (ie Federal government) has lodged its written submissions for the same-sex marriage court case here. Worth noting that, while it's not critical to their argument, they say that they think the 'better view' is that same sex marriage is constitutionally permissible at the national level.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
SIT DOWN EVERYONE
The government of Ireland ( IRELAND ! ) are proposing a referendum on SSM - granted not until 2015 but still.
And they're doing it because support for SSM is reckoned to be about 75% of the population
It boggles the mind that SSM is being considered but not abortion, but this is still great news.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
So with Hawaii and Illinois, a total of 16 states have now signed on to SSM. It does not go into effect in Illinois until next summer, while in Hawaii the effective date is anticipated to be in only a few weeks time, on or around Dec 2nd. Thus counting the District of Columbia, 17 US jurisdictions have now legalised SSM through one means or another. Additionally, the State of Oregon recognises SSMs performed in other jurisdictions, even though not performing SSM within its own borders (this was the same situation that existed in New York State before it enacted SSM legislation). Also, SSM has been going on in several New Mexico counties that together represent the bulk of that state's population, though the issue has yet to be decided by their state supreme court.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Don't forget a few Native American tribes in the United States which allow same-sex marriage; their ceremonies are also legal though, like all same-sex marriages, recognition in other jurisdictions can be iffy. However they are only an option if one potential spouse is a member of the tribe.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It boggles the mind that SSM is being considered but not abortion, but this is still great news.
It actually makes sense from the point of view that the government should only prohibit things that harm others. If you consider abortion to be killing a baby, as many do, then clearly it's a more serious matter than the government (not the church) recognising two men living together. Abortion is actually a much tougher needle to thread, theologically and politically, than gay marriage.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
