CA Supreme court chickens out

[Kodieboy]

I agree its only a matter of time.. we will have everything we want ... but if we want to see it in our life time ... we cant just sit back and wait ... as for there being more important things ... wont there always be .. there will never be a time there isnt ...

Life is short ....... and the longer you stand back and allow things to drag out...... thats how long it will take ...... and then some.

I want equal rights in my life time.

 

[Jayman01]

Breaking news. The Nevada legislature has overridden the Governor's veto on a domestic partnership bill that extends "most" of the benefits of marriage to both str8 and gay couples.

While I would prefer marriage be available, the more acceptance we can obtain, the better. Sooner or later most will see that if marriage is offered in some places and partnership in others, one standard will need to be applied. That standard should be the higher of the two - marriage.

Keep the ball rolling brothers, there is hope on the horizon.

Jayce

That is fantastic news. You know me Ia m an all or nothing kind of guy on this issue though. Let's hope that Marriage is accepted sooner than later. Thanks for the news Jayce.

 

[Jayman01]

Good points Lester and Marky,

I'm actually amazed that gay marriage is as close to being within our reach as it is. As I've said it is almost a foregone conclusion at this point. The more the opposition fights it the more ground they lose because the tide of public opinion is gradually moving our way. Is it moving as quickly as I'd like? Of course not! But I can't help but be optimistic about the near and long term future. Does that mean that it will be easy and that we can become complacent and wait for it to happen? Again no. As Marky is so valiantly charging ahead in his own home state it becomes obvious that it will take time, work, money, patience and perseverance but we will get there.

I must admit that 5 or 6 years ago I was a doubter on the issue of gay marriage. Not that I was opposed to it at all. I just worried that we would create a backlash against us that could actually set us back years in the level of public acceptance that we had already achieved.

I came out in the mid 80's when the AIDS crisis was at its peak. It created a backlash for us then that took a decade to overcome. When I think back to when serious people, some of whom were politicians and others who were influential televangelists were demonizing us on a regular basis, I have to cringe. They were seriously trying to get public opinion in favor of a "Gay quarantine". They wanted to ship us off to islands like the old leper colonies where supposedly we would wallow and die of AIDS and our own moral indecency.

To think that only 20 years later we are talking about gay marriage being legal in a few states already I can't help but be pleased. Those a decade ago or less who advocated a more incremental and piecemeal approach to gay rights were wrong. If we go for the top prize above all then the other rights (partner insurance, death benefits, hospital visitation, bequeathing of estates, medical decisions by partners) will have to fall into place. I agree with Tighty that going state by state seems the best way to go under the current circumstances. However I don't think we should settle for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Those may still be useful for common law type couples who choose not to marry for their own reasons. But all gay couples who want to marry should have the right to marriage.

Tampa the AIDS pandemic information you gave here was wonderful. It really goes to show the obstacles we have had to overcome in society. Bless your heart and thank you for sharing.

 

[Kodieboy]

Nowwwwwwww

 

[vicekid]

I was not surprised by the CA Supreme Court decision. As others have mentioned to overturn a Constitutional amendment would have to really be abnormal.

I'm going to suggest something totally different. Since the US Constitution provides a separation of Church and State, why is this state, or for that matter any state involved in recognizing ANY type of Marriage???







Would we not be better off getting the states out of this business and let it be the business of the Churches? They can then independently determine who(m) they wish to "marry". Case closed!

We have far too much government intruding into each an every segment of our individual lives. It is getting to the point that one day government will tell us not only when we can go to the bathroom, but which one, and whether we can either A) Piss, B) Crap or C) both.

So would we be better off trying to get LAWS passed that say YES or NO to Gay Marriage or would we be better off just getting the state out of the Marriage Business which is a "Church" issue and call it a day?

Live Long and Prosper,

Vicekid
(with shields up, full power).

 

[Markymark]

I was not surprised by the CA Supreme Court decision. As others have mentioned to overturn a Constitutional amendment would have to really be abnormal.

I'm going to suggest something totally different. Since the US Constitution provides a separation of Church and State, why is this state, or for that matter any state involved in recognizing ANY type of Marriage???







Would we not be better off getting the states out of this business and let it be the business of the Churches? They can then independently determine who(m) they wish to "marry". Case closed!

We have far too much government intruding into each an every segment of our individual lives. It is getting to the point that one day government will tell us not only when we can go to the bathroom, but which one, and whether we can either A) Piss, B) Crap or C) both.

So would we be better off trying to get LAWS passed that say YES or NO to Gay Marriage or would we be better off just getting the state out of the Marriage Business which is a "Church" issue and call it a day?

Live Long and Prosper,

Vicekid
(with shields up, full power).

The fact is, the state is involved in recognizing "marriage" simply because it is the state which must deal with the other half of marriage--DIVORCE. Logically, if you say that someone is divorced, you must first say they were, married. In a perfect world, I agree the state would have nothing to do with marriage, but this world ain't perfect, and few christian churches support divorce, much less equitable separations. Therefore, to protect the interests of all parties, the state must intervene. Since the state(s) must acknowledge the existence of marriage, AND the state(s), together and separately, guarantee the equal status of all citizens, it is left to the states to grant marriage rights to all who desire them.

Remember also, it is easier to condemn a group of people as sinners and heretics, if you treat them as if they are not equal. If the Churches do not allow GAY marriage, and the state does not step in, then the State is giving tacit approval to a form of discrimination. And, we only discriminate against BAD people, Right? Think about it... Do you really want to settle for second class status?

I am,

 

[tampa24]

The fact is, the state is involved in recognizing "marriage" simply because it is the state which must deal with the other half of marriage--DIVORCE. Logically, if you say that someone is divorced, you must first say they were, married. In a perfect world, I agree the state would have nothing to do with marriage, but this world ain't perfect, and few christian churches support divorce, much less equitable separations. Therefore, to protect the interests of all parties, the state must intervene. Since the state(s) must acknowledge the existence of marriage, AND the state(s), together and separately, guarantee the equal status of all citizens, it is left to the states to grant marriage rights to all who desire them.

Remember also, it is easier to condemn a group of people as sinners and heretics, if you treat them as if they are not equal. If the Churches do not allow GAY marriage, and the state does not step in, then the State is giving tacit approval to a form of discrimination. And, we only discriminate against BAD people, Right? Think about it... Do you really want to settle for second class status?

I am,

Good points Marky!

 

[Kodieboy]

I seen this movie and i sobbed my heart out

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7hsb1_lucas-martin-gay-themed_people


If anyone wants a copy PM me

 

[Jayman01]

I was not surprised by the CA Supreme Court decision. As others have mentioned to overturn a Constitutional amendment would have to really be abnormal.

I'm going to suggest something totally different. Since the US Constitution provides a separation of Church and State, why is this state, or for that matter any state involved in recognizing ANY type of Marriage???







Would we not be better off getting the states out of this business and let it be the business of the Churches? They can then independently determine who(m) they wish to "marry". Case closed!

We have far too much government intruding into each an every segment of our individual lives. It is getting to the point that one day government will tell us not only when we can go to the bathroom, but which one, and whether we can either A) Piss, B) Crap or C) both.

So would we be better off trying to get LAWS passed that say YES or NO to Gay Marriage or would we be better off just getting the state out of the Marriage Business which is a "Church" issue and call it a day?

Live Long and Prosper,

Vicekid
(with shields up, full power).

Vicekid, I think the issue is that many churches do recognize and sanction same sex weddings. However for legal purposes the state must acknowledge them. For example most companies issue life insurance to their employees. If we as GLBT citizens don't ask questions we would not find out that all of these policies are set as by law. By law means legally recognized heirs to the insurance money. If the state does not recognize the institution of marriage then there is no legal spouse so it will fall in line of succession brother sister niece and nephew. etc... Each state is a little different. That is one example of the necessity to recognize gay marriages as legal and binding. Also, married couples who have been married at least 10 years divorced now or not may claim a portion of their spouses social security income. There are a lot of reasons that same sex marriages need to be legal in the eyes of the govt. Although it sure would be nice if they would just let the church's decision stand. I do believe that it could be argued that churches need to be recognized by by the US govt; to stand as a formal church. So, if the church has a 501 (c) (3) charter as a church and it is in order and recognized by the US Govt. Should not their marriages stand as legally binding in all 50 states? Now there is a constitutional question.

Ablative Armour Shielding to Maximum

 

[tucsonjayce]

So who's going to New Hampshire in January to get married. Add another state to our list. The NE is going for marriage and the west coast (CA, OR,WA) has civil unions. Interesting, but stupid! Oh well. Mikey and I can't really do the legal thing until Uncle Sam recognizes same-sex unions. His meds on Medicare cost $38K last year, if US recognizes us, then he can get health care with me at the VA as my spouse. Oh the webs that are woven....

Be well,

Jayce

 

[tucsonjayce]

Mass vs. USA

The AG of Massachusetts has filed suit against the United States because DOMA unfairly restricts the civil rights of some 16,000 same sex couples who have married in the state (ok I know it is a commonwealth).

Yeah! Not a group of people but a state with all the standing that is entailed.

 

[Jayman01]

The AG of Massachusetts has filed suit against the United States because DOMA unfairly restricts the civil rights of some 16,000 same sex couples who have married in the state (ok I know it is a commonwealth).

Yeah! Not a group of people but a state with all the standing that is entailed.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step... " One step at a time we will get it done.