The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear cases related to marriage equality. One concerns California's Proposition 8, in which voters banned same-sex marriage. The court will also review a challenge to the the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton.
The terrific folks at SCOTUS Blog are making a deep dive into this. Lyle Denniston liveblogs:
the Court has offered to rule on Prop. 8 and on DOMA Section 3, but it also has given itself a way not to decide either case. That probably depends upon how eager the Justices are to get to the merits; if they are having trouble getting to 5 on the merits, they may just opt out
DOMA Section 3 is the part that says the federal government may only recognize opposite-sex marriages.
Today's announcement makes for a moment of great risk and opportunity for supporters of marriage equality. On the one hand, the court is giving them a chance, but there's no guarantee that the deeply divided court will rule for their cause. We are also at a moment when marriage equality has finally begun to win at the ballot box, which makes proponents of the judicial solution that much more nervous about convincing the court that sexual minorities are politically powerless.
What's not at issue is that DOMA, in particular, causes people in same-sex couples to suffer more than their straight counterparts, even when their states recognize marriage equality. Your letters after the jump.
My late uncle and his partner were the sweetest couple for over 15 years. They had a rich, happy, monogamous relationship. Even though they registered as domestic partners in their SF hometown, when my uncle passed, his spouse lost the following:
1) rent controlled apartment;
2) survivor benefits of social security;
3) survivor benefits of pension;
4) waiving of estate taxes
My uncle's spouse had to relocate out of state to find an affordable place to live on own his limited pension and social security benefits. He had to leave his network of friends, doctors, family and community and religious support systems. He was able to find a gay-friendly city in Portland, Oregon.
I know it happens. In Iowa, neighbors of mine were a lesbian couple. One of them was killed in a car accident, her family came in and took the kids, the furniture, the car, and had power of attorney over the house. Obviously these two should have had a will, but they were young and healthy and didn't think about accidents. So the surviving partner had nothing.
Leave a Comment:
The argument that individual rights trump majority rule rings very true with me. I doubt that the right wing of the SC shares my beliefs. At least they've never shown any indication of it.
Too bad for the bigots that Kennedy wrote both of the key precedents for marriage equality.
It's a telling moment for the SCOTUS to do what's right and humanly decent, instead of giving into the power of hate. Our prayers are with them that they elevate America to one the ideals on which we were (supposedly) founded... equality.
Too bad one's first though is that it's a Black Day when the Supreme Court announces they will take up anything on any subject.
I've always been a huge fan of Rachel Maddow...I've never heard anyone talk that fast and that intelligently, presenting such a cogent discussion of the topic at hand. I just found out today that she is a Rhodes Scholar and holds a Ph.d in Politics from Oxford University. Not once in all the years I've watched her show have I ever heard her mention that, nor have I ever heard her referred to as Dr. Maddow, a title to which she has earned based on her accomplishments. My compliments to you, Dr. Maddow, or as your fans call you...Rachel!!!
Those of us who were fans of her radio work on Air America fondly recall a regular segment on her show called Ask Dr. Maddow... fans were encouraged to call a phone number and leave a voice mail asking pretty much anything. Each time a question would be selected, researched and answered on-air as best as possible. Big fun.
From time to time on the show Rachel has mentioned her time spent in the UK, and a few months ago on the show she referenced the time she was working on her thesis, but as a rule she doesn't advertise her qualifications. I don't think she really needs to. People who are always careful to let you how what letters come after their names are usually just using them as a crutch.
She is classy and smart and a great role model. Just this week FOX new called her a name you would hear on the recess grounds in 5th grade, and this is not the first time. She stays classy despite the obvious homophobia and other insecurities thrown her way. Hope you are enjoying your time off and having a nice cocktail with Susan.
I predict the SCOTUS will say Prop 8 is a state issue because I cannot see any of the conservative judges coming out for individual rights. The court will likely uphold the validity of Prop 8. I don't make any prediction for DOMA which is different because it entails issues with Full Faith and Credit of the US Constitution. If a state recognizes a gay marriage, the issue becomes whether the federal government and other states can refuse to recognize that legal marriage. This is very similar to the miscegenation cases that resulted in the SCOTUS declaring that marriage is a fundamental right under the US Constitution. It is kind of difficult to dance around that holding without going through twisted logic. So then we have to ask whether the SCOTUS will reverse all those cases which include the ones involving contraception and other sorts of privacy issues. This could be the opening for the SCOTUS to undercut Roe v. Wade even further.
The full faith and credit clause seems to my very inexpert mind a fairly simple matter. If DOMA is argued against on the basis of that (as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment), and the Court upholds DOMA, then what is there that will limit the fallout? If states can ignore legal marriages enacted in other states, why not wills, business contracts, or any other legal arrangement people may enter into?
I kind of wish this matter had waited until one of the nuttier old wingers, Scalia or Thomas, had died of terminal hemorrhoids or something so that Obama could cut the "conservative" wing of the bench down to size a little.
DOMA is a much narrower issue than Prop 8. The DOMA was passed to prevent the federal government from recognizing legal gay marriages. Another provision allows states to refuse to recognize such marriages. If gay marriage is a state issue then the fed cannot refuse to recognize the marriage and that allows such legal marriages the same rights under federal law. However, if states are allowed to refuse to recognize the marriages, it violates FFC to the extent that a state is refusing to give recognition to another state's act. The state right to refuse to recognize the act of another state is limited to very narrow exceptions that are strictly interpreted. I don't see gay marriage as one of those exceptions, but I am not prescient so the SCOTUS will have to do a dance around that issue. Hence, the case opens more issues than it resolves.
It kind of makes me think there will be a broader effect than CA.
They could have turned it back to the state, which is what I kind of thought they'd do.
It will be interesting (?) to read/hear what the NOM lawyers say about why the voting away of a right is Constitutional.
I feel good that we have Boies and Olson on No on 8 team.
That they take on DOMA as well seems like a good thing, and having a SCOTUS like we have, perhaps it will be seen as a fair ruling.
I am no lawyer, but it certainly seems unconstitutional to me, even if I was married in the window where it was legal in CA (before prop 8), which leaves things up in the air.
Mike, do you think Loving v Virginia can have any standing? I realize this was interracial marriage and they were arrested, but it seems to me they ruling of Loving v Virginia stated marriage was a right.
Loving is one of those cases which said marriage is a fundamental right and therefor the state law against interracial marriage was unconstitutional. But states do have some rights to regulate marriages, e.g. between 1st cousins, people not capable of giving consent due to mental disability, etc. That is why I think gay marriage is going to be a state issue and not a federal constitutional issue. DOMA is far more problematic for the court.
I have thought the state would decide, but Loving made me think otherwise.
Yes, DOMA is going to be interesting.
Thanks Mike, I'm feeling very torn; one mine minute optimistic, the next worried. We'll see around June, I guess.
Mike,
I follow your argument, but T. Olson argued to the Cal. SC that this was simply an equal rights issue and won. I have a hard time seeing how the regs you listed could impact a decision that was decided in the equal/civil rights arena. I think a state could still maintain the regulations but would have to lose the equal rights side of the argument.
Sandy, I think DOMA is a slam dunk. Again, it will be decided in the equal/civil rights arena. Remember one of Pauly's Laws (they aren't MY laws, just my rendition of universal laws): History may move slowly, but it ALWAYS and ONLY moves forward.
Wouldn't the fact that DOMA makes same-sex marriage a federal and interstate issue undercut any argument that Prop 8 is merely a state matter?
Exactly my thoughts. One important provision of DOMA is that states don't have to respect (reciprocate) other states decisions. Striking down DOMA would bring back reciprocity. That would re-enforce the fact marrying the person you love is a fundamental right. Individual states can put up their own regulations (you need to be 18 or 21, etc) but you can't deny any two people to right to marry.
That's the big issue - whether same-sex couples are more like 18 year-olds or first cousins, or more like interracial couples.
It is the contention of gay rights supporters that the big difference is that if you say that a gay person cannot marry anyone of the same sex, you are cutting off every possible person that they might choose to marry, making marriage (a fundamental right) inaccessible in any meaningful way.
First cousins still have the ability to choose another person from the whole range of people to whom they are able to be attracted, and 16 year-olds are going to be 18 year-olds someday.
If interracial opposite-sex marriage is part of the fundamental right - a white man has all single white women to choose among even if he cannot marry the black woman he loves - how much more important is it to not deny all possible spouses to a citizen?
And unless the Court is willing to declare that infertile straight people have no right to marry (even if a state can grant them the privilege of doing so), then they really can't claim that gay people, who can still adopt or raise their own kids by other partners, are inherently ineligible to marry.
I have never seen a valid justification why a man who has had a vasectomy can marry a woman who has had a hysterectomy but a same-sex couple cannot marry.
I was kinda hoping that President Obama would have had a chance to appoint another justice or two before these issues came before the court.
More and more, America is becoming "No Country for Old Men."
- and it is about effin' time!
i echo the concern instead of relief when SCOTUS takes up a case involving the expansion of what are, to me, obvious rights. DOMA sucks, the idea behind it sucks, that it was even considered let alone became law sucks. why Clinton signed it was and still is a mystery to me. hell how it got out of congress is a mystery.
Now taking odds that Scalia will cite Salic Law in his opinion. (If he writes one.)
His vote and Clarence Thomas are guarantees, and the four liberal votes will go in support of giving homosexuals their rights. That leaves three votes that can go either way. Justice Kennedy in my opinion can overcome party to do right.
I think the really interesting question about Scalia will how he will weasel out of is extremely clear statement that as long as Lawrence v. Texas is precedent there is no valid reason to deny same-sex marriage.
He has to say he was lying then, admit he's lying now, or come up with some seriously Pretzelian logic to have it both ways.
Scalia will do whatever he has to do to reach his desired conclusion. He is an ideologue and we already know how he'll rule, and I don't much care how he reasons (except that some idiot years from now may cite him as precedent).
I think only two of the justices will matter, to the extent that how they will rule is uncertain. One obviously is Kennedy. The Prop 8 case has been argued with his past rulings in mind, but that's no guarantee how he'll rule now. The other justice I don't know about is Roberts. I'm not sure where he falls on culture war issues. Also, I don't know how deep or lasting the rupture with the other right-wing justices is over the ACA is, nor which way that experience will push Roberts. Has he been cut loose and freed from their direct influence? Is it a break that can be healed and he'll do his best to curry their favor? Or is he simply right back in their fold?
These are good cases to go up. In California, the referendum TOOK AWAY A RIGHT based on bigotry. SCOTUS can rule in favor of marriage equality without having to tell every other state that they must follow suit so, they can make an incremental ruling. The bad news, of course, is that it wouldn't be a slam-dunk total victory for national marriage equality. The DOMA case, I think, is based in a state that recognizes the marriage but their citizens are discriminated against under federal law only. Again, this case could be decided without forcing the other states to stop discriminating. SCOTUS could simply rule that the federal government can't have a couple married for state purposes and not married for federal purposes. Again, they wouldn't have to force any state to recognize every marriage -- just that we can't have two separate treatments of the same spouses. Victories in these cases, I believe, would set up the next case based upon the Equal Protection Clause -- that the right to marry can't be granted to citizens of one state, but not another. I think the bottom line is that this is the best news possible.
What happens to a legally married gay couple that moves to a state that does not recognize gay marriage and the couple wants a divorce? Most states have a residency requirement usually30 to 60 days to get divorced. What happens to gay couples if one dies without a will in that state? Letting states refuse to recognize another state's marriage opens a whole can of worms.
I think it is quite discriminatory, all of it.
But I know there are states that would throw a fit if they went down the road of Loving or Civil Rights Act and overturn discrimination. It seems to me, this is similar.
No, the state can still have laws about age of consent or cousins, etc.
It seems to me the 14th Amendment would cover marriage equality. There can be same laws as far as being married to more than one person, or a person under say, age 14 (arbitrary).
I know some states went nuts over these past rulings. But we really have to question how there can be discrimination in marriage from state to state and federal laws are OK for these, but not for those.
People can still marry opposite sex or not marry at all if that makes them happy. It doesn't hurt them.
Gay marriage is like the capital punishment issue. There is no national consensus and the SCOTUS is unlikely to extend a federal constitutional right for gay marriage. Many Bible Belt states have large populations that are against gay marriage and if the court imposes it, the conservatives will be jumping all over the court. Saying it is a state issue avoids part of the controversy. Extending federal rights and benefits is less an issue so DOMA can be struck down. But then there are the issues between the states with these marriages. And that is going to be a big problem because we are a much more mobile society.
Yeah, I think that's probably what they'll do. I agree, being so mobile, especially with job transfers to keep a job does bring up a ton of more issues.
I think the Bible Belt hates the courts already, so if they decide it broadly, their hair will be on fire, just like in 1960s.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/
I am still hoping SCOTUS will rule according to the trend of the upward trajectory of approval and rip the bandaid off quickly instead of slow agonizing pain.
Call me an optimist?
If the court rules it is a state issue, then it will be messy just like Roe v. Wade. These rulings open more issues than they resolve. If the court in Roe made a clean ruling without all of the trimester crapola, we would not have all of these abortion issues today. The court should have said abortion was between a woman and her doctor--end of story. This gay marriage decision is going to open up decades of fighting over the issue that will go on for a long time after the decision.
Mike and Sandy,
I don't see how SCOTUS can decide it is a state issue because of the reciprocity issue. That is what brought Loving to the court. They got married in DC and went back to Virginia and got arrested. That decision said marriage is a basic right in any state and every state. That's why it had to go that way.
Call me an optimist!!
The question of access to marriage is distinct from the question of recognizing marriage, and, while it's never been done before, it's presumably possible to make a distinction between how a state recognizes the marriages of its own residents as opposed to those who are transiting or visiting the state. It's also distinct from federal benefits and federal recognition.
It would suck and be wrong, but they could say that if you are a married resident of Massachusetts, Mississippi has to recognize your marriage as you drive through, but if you move there, the do not have to, and that either way, you still have federal rights, (assuming that DOMA falls).
They'd also have to make a distinction between marital rights and parental rights - it's inconceivable that the Court could justify allowing a state to declare you aren't a parent just because you moved to a new state. Again, that's different from allowing you to adopt while a resident of the state.
Messy. Sucky. The right answer is a national consensus that gay people are real live equal citizens, But there are some partway steps that they can take.
I just don't see how they can declare a fundamental right to marriage for all individual citizens and then deny it to gay people.
@Pauly
The distinction between Loving and the Prop 8 case is that the former involves a constitutionally protected class-race. Therein lies the difference in treatment of each class. This allows the SCOTUS to avoid the issue about a federal constitutional right and say it is a state issue. That leaves the equal rights argument to be decided in the Prop 8 case which is the best argument for the whole case. A state cannot grant a right and then retroactively take it away. But that leaves the SCOTUS the option of striking down the retroactive provision or throwing out the whole amendment. I think the court will go with the former if possible, but I have not read the amendment so I can't say if the retroactive part is so intertwined with the whole amendment so as to make it impossible to sever that part.
Mike,
Good clarification. Thanks.
I am actually looking at Loving being much more related to DOMA and if so, that would make it a much broader decision.
I hope Rachel gets Ted Olson on the show for discussion. That man is so cool. His brilliance is undeniable and yet he has no problem explaining his thought so that even a tired, old carpenter like myself can understand.
The bottom line SHOULD be that no one can demonstrate to the Court a reason why homosexuals as a group should be treated differently than heterosexuals AND no one can provide real evidence of harm to the rest of us if homosexuals are able to marry and enjoy the full rights of that relationship. It worries me that this Court doesn't always do what it should.
We've had marriage equality in Massachusetts for over 8 years and it hasn't made a difference to anyone...except, of course, gay people who want to marry. It's a civil right for a civil contract.
Correlation is not causation, but the divorce rate in Massachusetts has dropped since same-sex marriage was legalized.
Many solid arguments here, unfortunately, logic and reason often play no real part in this Court's decisions.
I actually have not found that to be historically. Logic and reason don't actually have to enter their picture, they just have to follow the constitution. In my experience they have never ruled in favor of a religious basis for laws is sound.
Scalia said earlier these cases were "easy" so why hold any arguments/hearings. He has his mind made up already. Makes you wonder why, despite the lifetime position rule, that judges who have closed minds are allowed to keep their jobs when they refuse to listen to the will of the people and impose their own "morals" on their rulings while denying whole segments of the population their equal rights as guaranteed under the constitution. Why should a number of people be allowed to decide what "rights" a person should have? Shouldn't a right be just that, a right not a privilege granted by others?
From decision/opinion in Loving v. Virginia (under Roman numeral 11- near the end)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
Virginia,
Scalia is one of the reasons I'm optimistic. I'm very liberal and don't like the man at all, but when he says cases like these are "easy" I think he has to go back to the constitution and its amendments and find equal rights for ALL and the "full faith and credit of the United States", meaning that equal in one state is equal in all states, what I call reciprocity. A marriage in Minnesota must be recognized in all the other states.
Aside, have you seen the movie "Lincoln"? There is a scene in it in which Lincoln is talking to a boy and they are discussing mathematics, especially Euclid. Euclid's 1st law states that if A=C and B=C then A=B. Two things that are equal to a third thing are equal to each other. That is how Lincoln built his argument for equal rights and freedom for slaves.
And this is why I am holding faith in even as loathesome a person as Scalia.
Oh really name one instancce where he lagal opportunity to marry is outright denied regardless of means......if its a privelege surely it can be taken away. PS the courts have called married a fundamental right 14 times
And if two women want to be married they can't even ask for permission from the government whether they can pay or not. Not even close similar circumstance. Epic fail.
Your story relies on the idea that not having the financial means constitutes a denial of the ability to marriage. If you can't pay you can still at some point acquire the means to pay and have the certificate. If you are gay there is no means you can acquire to do that so they're not same by a long shot.
Isn't nice how wingers are always so quick to scream about freedom (in vague, non-specific terms), but whenever anyone starts to enumerate actual, specific rights they then shift to blanket denial: this is not a right, that is not a right, nothing is a right! Conclusion: in the right wing mind, 'freedom' is an excuse for repression.
Virginia...
with all due respect, the SCOTUS justices job is NOT to listen to the will of the people. Their requirement, in basic terms, is to interpret the Constitution of the US and by that, how laws which have been enacted comply with it.
If it is the "will of the people" for gay marriage to be legal, and SCOTUS does not find a constitutional justification for that law to exist, then the proper means for the people to make it legal is through the Amendment process.
just saying...
fortyninepont,
Hogwash. You don't have to "ask permission" from the state, you have to register your action with the state for them to grant legal recognition of you exercising your right.
They do check to see if there are impediments like other spouses, consanguinity, or (for the moment, being of the wrong gender), but they don't grant permission. They just record the action.
And strictly speaking, though it's BS, you aren't paying to be allowed to marry. You're paying the administrative costs of keeping the records. I'll grant that functionally, there's not a lot of difference, but your claims are flat-out false.
Correct - that's why of all the marriage equality states today only Iowa and Massachusetts did it the right way, with a court defending the civil rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority. California did it right too before they stumbled on Prop h8.
A possible outcome is a narrow ruling upholding Prop. 8, and a broader ruling striking down DOMA, with states left free to define marriage, but bound, along with the Federal Government, to recognize the validity of marriages made in other states, thus rendering such laws as Prop. 8 to be of no practical force or effect. The arguments should be fascinating.
Great, first my equality was in the hands of the California voters, now it's in the hands of right wing boobs with even more power (and entropy).
Too bad for you California and SCOTUS, me and my gay homosexual partner's gay marriage got grandfathered (because we were'nt stupid and got married while it was legal) in so we're actually married in this state, BITCHEZ!
And all you haters out there can go suck a whole bag of dicks for all we care!
Trollop's post may have been a bit vulgar, but at least his/hers was factual, which puts it ahead of yours in value.
By the way, you still haven't refuted CartoontheNews! post - not that I really expected you to so do.
Oh wait, that's right! I should have made the anti-liberty mob rule voters and a "conservative" SCOTUS my friends all along! Golly, why didn't I think of that before they already hated me with their Judeo-Mormon(?) religious horse-hockey?! Dude (or dudette, I'm a "dude"), maybe you haven't kept up on current events but we've been at odds since before the Great Tome of BS was illustrated for readers like you!
And you clearly didn't read my post. We are talking about estate tax waivers here. Estate tax waivers only apply to certain states (which I said in my above post). If you live in a state where you have to be granted an estate tax waiver then the way it works (usually) is they freeze 50% of your inheritance. The total amount owed in state estate tax (if your state has such a tax) is then taken from the first 50% along with any back taxes it's deemed were owed by the deceased. Assuming your deceased spouse had all of his/her taxes paid up and your state only taxes you at around 15% then your frozen assets never get touched. It's only the non-frozen assets that get touched. Whatever remains from the first half and the frozen amount then get transferred to you. That is when the estate tax waiver comes into place. The estate tax waiver is the form you file for this process.
Not all states require that you have an estate tax waiver. Some states directly transfer funds to the spouse and/or children of the deceased without a problem. Other states have a certain amount that will not be subject to tax if it's going directly to relatives. That all depends on where you live. But in those latter 2 cases you would not be filling out a form for an estate tax waiver. I said this in my first post.
And no you didn't address the post. You misunderstood my statement and then said you were laughing on the basis of your misunderstanding. You're now talking about your own personal inheritance issue which has nothing to do with the initial claim that you made about the estate tax waiver NOR does it have to do with being a surviving spouse inheriting money. You've now shifted the argument onto an entirely different discussion without ever addressing the conversation you brought up.
Trollop, you are a moron. why do you insist on trying make the rest of us look bad? Please stay in California with the other whack jobs. Do the rest of us self respecting gays a favor and go back into your closet.
^Self respecting gays telling others to go back into a closet. That's telling! Let's see, did I insult your religious "sensibilities" or your attempts to kiss ass to barter for your civil liberties? Now those are just assumptions on my part. Maybe I just don't understand you either?
You cannot waive your taxes, forty. Let's use some common sense here, please.
Either you owe a tax or you do not owe a tax. Now if what you mean to say is that Brady misspoke and what he was stating is that his uncle-not-in-law had to pay money on the inheritance he received from his now deceased partner, whereas a widow (legally recognized spouse whose partner has died) would not have had to pay said taxes, then OK. But in that case your point should have been that no taxes are ever 'waived,' but rather the law doesn't require legal spouses to pay those taxes. In which case you'd be agreeing with the sentiment Brady was making, but disagreeing on the particular phrasing he used. You'd be agreeing that the law discriminates against gays, but you'd be nit-picking at the phrasing.
Since I don't know that information (and neither do you) I am going off what Brady said which is the estate tax waiver.
This is a form filled out by whomever is handling the transfer of money to release the frozen 50% and to verify that all taxes have been paid by the deceased. You do realize that you the person receiving the money aren't the one who fills out this form, yeah? It's your broker or cpa or whomever handles your money transfer. I already stated this. In which case Brady would be stating that his uncle-not-in-law was never able to have that frozen amount released because the state would only do so to a spouse and by not being a spouse he was denied that money.
Additionally let's be clear here: we'd be talking about financial transfer of money. A coin wouldn't fall into the picture. The state doesn't go to the deceased person's house with a body guard telling you "no you can't come in here" until that waiver is taken care of. We're talking about the exchange of money from the deceased person's bank to your bank.
Also I just want to point out that you've insulted me multiple times, but I haven't insulted you once.
Justice Kennedy in Lawrence took the issue of the legality of gay sex and made a universal ruling making all of the sodomy laws in the country unconstitutional. I think we have a real possibility of the same thing here. Kennedy might again write a broad ruling making same-sex marriage legal. I think we have a good shot at it.
Why is the word "marriage" so important. Can't a couple be given equal legal status (same as married couples) without the use of the word "marriage"? Commitment is commitment and legal equality is legal equality without that word. I don't know why the law has to include the word marriage to satisfy the gay and lesbian community.
It is not to satisfy the "gay and lesbian community", although you are touching a very sensitive issue of "separate but equal".
It is to satisfy the legal depts of our society. Two people (of any combination of genders) can be in a long-term committed relationship but the legal depts of insurance companies, hospitals, communities (see all the discussion of estate taxes above), etc. do not recognize the relationship unless there is "marriage".
And I don't know why you remain opposed to granting equality to all.
Jes for the THIRD TIME now civil unions and marriages are NOT equal. I have explained this to you IN DETAIL. The only person obsessing on the word "marriage" is you. GLBTQ persons want to be treated as social and legal equivalents to their heterosexual peers. As with last time I sent you numerous links so you could do research on this subject and educate yourself. You are either willfully ignoring facts or you are engaging in such a level of cognitive dissonance that you are not allowing yourself to see the answers to the very questions you ask.
As for 49 you already stated that you're good with gays being granted the same benefits as straight people so I don't know how you're making the leap now to the idea that gays want to "jam" something down your throat (that's an oddly gay metaphor to use, by the way). I am also not sure where you get your information on the idea that gays are trying to force something on straight people. You don't have to be gay or get "gay married" (whatever that means). Allowing same-sex couples to marry has little to no effect on you or your relationship. As for the last sentence that's just completely made up bull@!$%#. You have zero evidence to support your premise. GLBTQ persons who have been in relationships for years- as the article discussed- want to have the same legal rights as their heterosexual peers. Their being in said relationships is the foundation on which the desire to marry rests (just as it is with straight people).
Marriage EQUALITY, we only want the same thing others have.
It's not up to others to determine this. We need people to read the Constitution before making votes about other peoples' marriages.
I have already shown the issues that are Unequal for same sex (gender) marriages. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples
http://constitutionus.com
My marriage is not jamming anything down heterosexual marriages THROAT'S (?).
It has everything to do with relationships and LAWS equal to everyone else. Nobody has to marry anyone at all if they don't want to.
Then why are so many non man/woman couples getting married? How can I have a marriage license on file with my government?
Your opposition is based on your opinions and beliefs, not the laws and Constitution.
Another term is separate, not equal. The opposition to Domestic Partnerships argued "special rights" and we should not allow "special rights".
Domestic Partnerships/ Civil Unions do not carry the same rights, and DOMA also causes Domestic Partnerships to be taxed differently than marriages and same gender marriages also.
It's not equal now. We want equality, that's all.
The "gays" are not out to bother "straights". The people of NOM will not leave us alone, attempting now to say people should stop associating with LGBTQ .
It is those who feel entitled to push around LGBTQ in the laws and otherwise. Yes, the separation and marginalization only serves to stir up animosity toward LGBTQ folks. Yes, I've received the brunt of such animosity, but others have paid a much higher price, because straights keep thinking it's OK to treat us badly, attack and kill us.
Sandy and I have now refuted the same argument what is this Sandy? 5 times? I don't mean to be rude, but you both need to take the cotton out of your ears. As I've already said: either you are SO unwilling to hear someone else's point of view and argument that you are WILLFULLY ignoring what they have to say OR you are not allowing yourself to comprehend their argument. In either case it makes communication impossible. You either need to listen and absorb what other people are saying, think about it, and then come up with reasoned and fact based arguments to refute them, OR you need to consider the possibility that you are the one who is wrong.
I do not understand why this is the case, but Republicans/conservatives/libertarians who blog here seem to have a huge ego problem. They seem to not recognize that they can be wrong and always start from a false position of entitled arrogance. That is, unfortunately, what both you and Jes are doing (although to be fair to the two of you I am not necessarily insinuating that this is being done on purpose).
Are there any other laws out there that afford the same legal protections as marriage besides marriage? No. Therefore you cannot argue that there is an interchangeable legal title that could be afforded to gays that gays are simply rejecting out of spite or any other presumptive argument.
Are there any other terms out there that afford the same authority, commitment, and dependence colloquially as marriage besides marriage? Again the answer is no. Therefore you cannot argue that society would be able to handle the segregation of the terminology while treating both equal.
Are all benefits guaranteed to marriage guaranteed by any other model other than marriage in the private sector? No. Therefore you cannot argue that the private sector will treat same-sex couples without marriage certificates the same as heterosexual couples with marriage certificates.
But lastly: both you and Jes seem to be ignoring the obvious flaw in your premise. Remember how I said so many Republicans here blog from a starting position of arrogance and entitlement? You are both doing that here with this question- although I'm not trying to be rude in saying this. You attempt to make it sound as though the terminology is trivial therefore another word would be equal, yet your entire complaint is predicated on there being importance to the terminology. If this doesn't convey a false premise then at the very least you have to agree it's a logical paradox. You don't care about this thing that you so adamantly care about? That doesn't make sense. The very fact that you are complaining serves as evidence that you do care about this thing you're complaining about and as such serves as evidence for why we cannot have a separate term for GLBTQ couples. You answer your own question just by asking it.
And it's more than that in this case. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement (and, I would add, privilege) are supporting heteronormative attitudes. Heterosexuality is seen as normal (in the sense of proper) and privileged, and the standard by which all deviating groups and individuals are evaluated. And sanctioned. When one class of people is in a dominant position, and another class is marginalized, it's hard for the privileged group to perceive itself as being privileged. Movements for equality are not understood as calls for justice, but as threats to the natural order. I think this is much more pronounced when the privileged group is an overwhelming majority and the marginalized class is so small as to be barely visible. How do you really get someone to see in a situation like this? For myself, I have the advantage of being a member of a majority ('race') but also of a minority (ace). The two perspectives inform each other. I don't know how you'd get someone to wise up to themselves if every aspect of their identity is one of privilege. Privilege is both a blindness and a will to be blind.
RE: jes33/fortynine point4 and their repetitive comments - forehead meet brick wall!
Brick? More like a block of dwarf-star alloy. They're so wrapped up in their heteronormativity they simply don't grasp the concept of equality.
A marriage is only between a man and a woman, until they move to California.. It's close anyway! With a "hefty" marriage between man/woman divorce rate, the protection of marriage sure seems to be a losing battle (although a bad economy seems to enhance marriage longevity!), but then, that is not what the "protection of marriage" is really about.
Exclusivity is not equality 49.4.
Impermanence is ironically immutable. Things change, maybe not this June and maybe not the way I would personally like it to but rest assured, it will all change.
Oh, lookie! NOM now intends to drive a wedge between gay people who support marriage equality and those who don't. Considering how well their attempt to drive a wedge between black people and gay people in the last election worked out, I'm not exactly worried; but these guys are truly sick. And, although I can't seem to track it down right now, I think support for marriage equality among gay people is overwhelming.
I suspect the idea isn't to split LGBT people, but to exploit the idea of divisions in the community as a reason why equality should be defeated: "Hey! We found a gay person who's against marriage! Our token trumps everything you've ever heard! Grab a bat and get bashing, straight people!"
The Declaration of Independence clearly states, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator withcertain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Now, this proves that the federal government should not be allowed to prohibit same-sex marriages. Do do so would be to contradict the vary basis upon which this great nation was founded. To prohibit same-sex marriages is to say that homosexuals are not equal as they wouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals to get married. Furthermore, it prohibits the Rights of homosexuals to have the liberty to marry the people that they love and their Right to pursue happiness.
And that's not even scratching the surface of all of the reasons that same-sex marriages should not be banned. so bring it on. We have an incredible country and I have faith in it that the right decision will be made. We will get marriage equality in thos country no matter how long it may take. of that I am 100% confident.
And yet I am a female married to another female. I have an OFFICIAL Marriage Certificate on file in OFFICIAL records.
That is what those like 49.4 does not (want to) understand.
I wish them an epiphany will come to them to see the reality.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Whether the other side likes it or not, the meanings of words change over time, frequently by chance and sometimes by choice. People and institutions change. That's not only how it is, that's how it has to be.
Sounds like the same argument the racists of Virginia used, that everyone could marry someone of the same race as themselves.
No wonder you bigots keep losing in court....you keep recycling the same arguments which lost last time.
If we could change the one word in that statement, that would blow the lid right off the kettle (Tea Party) and all their constitutional thumping and their bible thumping, would end and stop them dead in their tracks. Change the word men to all. Men have given up that privilege, seeing all the lives lost under their watch, not good, not good at all. Good men would never have let even one of our children suffer. Good men would do everything in their power to keep us out of harms' way. Good men don't sip tea, they guzzle it. Good men support all women and do not encourage or instigate any form of degradation. We are wives,grandmothers, mothers, and daughters we will never be regarded just as sex objects or maids or nannies.