+1 for NJ

[rknapp]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061026/D8L00RSO0.html

 

No, not legalization of marijuana... just gay marriage (or at least civil unions).

[AFriendlyFace]

Yay for New Jersey!

 

Let's hope things go well in Connecticut, Iowa, and Maryland!

 

On another note, LOL, when I saw this topic I thought you were referring to something good that had happened to NickolasJames

 

Anyway great! take care all

Kevin

[Krista]

Yes, I finally have a reason to like New Jersey... kidding, but eh.

 

Maryland better or I'm going to have to disown my favorite state. The only reason why it's my favorite is because of the Men's College Basketball team.. and that was only because one of the former stars was cute...

 

Anyway, Gay Marriage in New Jersey, I would have thought New York would have allowed it, but nice to see that other states are taking steps towards freedomes that people deserve

 

Krista

[jalaki]

Rock on for New Jersey. *hopes other states can maybe learn a lesson, eventually*

[colinian]

Yes, I finally have a reason to like New Jersey... kidding, but eh.

 

Maryland better or I'm going to have to disown my favorite state. The only reason why it's my favorite is because of the Men's College Basketball team.. and that was only because one of the former stars was cute...

 

Anyway, Gay Marriage in New Jersey, I would have thought New York would have allowed it, but nice to see that other states are taking steps towards freedomes that people deserve

 

Krista

 

And California! Don't forget California! There's a gay marriage case that will be heard by the state Supreme Court soon.

 

Colin

[icedfire]

I'm glad that the State Supreme Court at least paid lip service to equality, though this isn't *full* legalization quite yet...the ruling basically mirrors that of Vermont a few years ago, allowing the legislature to decide whether to allow actual marriage (based on legal definitions) or civil unions. I never really doubted that the court would rule favorably towards gay equality, but I don't know that the legislature will be brave enough to take the next step.

 

On one hand, the potential for people from across the country to marry in New Jersey and return home (since the state doesn't have a residence requirement for marriage) is exciting -- one can imagine the tumult that would result from gay couples challenging state laws upon returning home. However, I read an interesting article today about the potential for evangelicals and "family defense" interest groups to once more raise the spectre of the "gay agenda," and attempt to mobilize the conservative religious base to vote in two weeks. It's difficult to forecast.

 

I only hope we avoid the irony of having this case, which could quite possibly be viewed as a monumental step towards true gay equality in twenty years, serve as a rallying cry to stymy the process in this year's elections. I shudder to think of what a continued conservative majority might do in reaction to this case if they can avoid accountability for another two years.

 

Rob

[Drewbie]

 

First Massachusetts, now New Jersey, have to give nj props

 

Hope Maryland gets it, be close for me to get married then

[JamesSavik]

Don't break out the champaign just yet.

 

In 2004 Karl Rove orchestrated the placement of numerous ballot initiatives which outlawed gay marriage in key states. The theory was that putting something on the ballot that would inflame the conservative base would be useful for Bush who has big problems with that part of the party.

 

I find the timing of this verdict suspect. Coming so soon before the midterms, I have to wonder if this is the rumored "October Surprise".

 

The GOP has played the gay card over and over and over again. The Foley Scandal makes this much more difficult during this election cycle but we're already seeing it.

 

I don't think that it is gaining the same traction that it may have had in past. After all; what is REALLY scarier-- a few thousand gay couples married or more inept and corrupt republican leadership?

[Lugh]

Virginia has it on the ballot too... lets not forget. Not so sure it will pass, but one never knows...

[Marty]

On one hand, the potential for people from across the country to marry in New Jersey and return home (since the state doesn't have a residence requirement for marriage) is exciting -- one can imagine the tumult that would result from gay couples challenging state laws upon returning home.

I'm not sure how the law works in the US (the federal/state divide - if divide is the correct word - confuses me).

 

However, there is an interesting case being considered by the Irish High Court at present. Details can be found here.

 

Basically two lesbian women, who married in Canada, are seeking to sue the Irish Revenue Commissioners (something similar to the US IRS?) after they returned to Ireland to find that they would continue to pay higher taxes as single people, rather than less money as a married couple. They are claiming that the equality provisions of the Irish Constitution have been violated.

 

Judgment has been reserved; which basically means that the judge is considering all the legal arguments before making a decision.

 

The two women have indicated that they are prepared to appeal to the European Court if they lose the case (in the EU a case can normally only be heard in the European Court after it has been through the courts in the member state first).

 

The Irish Government may well appeal the case to the Irish Supreme Court should it go against them. But, that said, the Government is currently considering legislation to at least recognise civil partnerships (if not full same sex marriages) along the same lines as happened in the UK recently. Many gay activists in Ireland are of the opinion that a Civil Partnership bill would only give gay and lesbian people second class status.

 

Homosexual acts were only legalised in Ireland as recently as 1993, on foot of a case brought to the European Court by the (now) Irish Senator, David Norris, in 1988.

 

~ Marty~

 

[glomph]

In 2004 Karl Rove orchestrated the placement of numerous ballot initiatives which outlawed gay marriage in key states. The theory was that putting something on the ballot that would inflame the conservative base would be useful for Bush who has big problems with that part of the party.

 

I find the timing of this verdict suspect. Coming so soon before the midterms, I have to wonder if this is the rumored "October Surprise".

 

Well, they had to do something. Osama seems to be running late with his video. He got the timing just right in 2004.

 

Virginia has it on the ballot too... lets not forget. Not so sure it will pass, but one never knows...

 

The Virginia proposal is so broad that there could be lots of unintended consequences to straight couples, seniors, health care implications, etc. People have to decide if their hatred of gays is strong enough to risk the other effects. Still, it could motivate enough folk to come out to vote to reelect their idiot senator.

 

 

As to the base issue at hand, somebody remind me, why is it that we give tax breaks to people for having sex?

[jalaki]

As to the base issue at hand, somebody remind me, why is it that we give tax breaks to people for having sex?

 

We don't. Sex stops with marriage, y'know? Or at least that's what a lot of married couples would have us believe, haha.

[The Reaper]

This is the kinda stuff that really pisses me off. All this is jus disrimination. People should hav the right to marry (if legal age) regardless of race, ethnic background, sex, sexual orientation........... Its downright criminal that it its illegal ANYWHERE.

 

And those stupid conservitives can shove it already. Im sick of them.

 

 

 

 

Ian

Edited October 28, 2006 by The Reaper

[Formosa]

Hi!

 

Congratulations to New Jersey, and I guess the US in general for this small, but significant step forward! This development actually hit the headlines in the Netherlands.

 

Just to share with you guys the situation of same-sex marriage in the first country in the world to legalise it. (Guess where!)

 

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. When the Dutch Parliament allowed homosexuals to marry in 2001, they didn

[rknapp]

Bringing up an old since I don't know if anyone here has updated the NJ bill.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...e_gay_marriage/

 

This doesn't affect me in the least, but it's good to know that legal recognition of gay couples has grown two four states now! Mass., Vermont, CT, and NJ.

I'm a little confused over what the one woman in that article said about couples not having the respect of full marriage here... If two guys were legally married and came upon someone who dissapproved, they would not have any respect from that person... just sayin'.

[colinian]

California doesn't have gay marriage (yet, it's scheduled for review by the State Supreme Court). It does, however, have legal domestic partnerships. That means any two people of the same sex who are both at least the age of 18 or two people of the opposite sex as long as one of them is over the age of 62, are both single, are unrelated by blood, and who have a common residence, can officially become domestic partners. (You can read the law here.) That means domestic partners, most of whom will be same-sex partners, have the right to adopt, parental rights, inheritance rights, the right to enter in joint contracts, and patient access rights among others. In 2007 California will extend two additional rights/responsibilities to domestic partners.

 

First, California is a community property state, and that is being extended to domestic partners. That means all property is owned on a 50%/50% basis by each person in a domestic partnership, exactly as it's done for married couples. This could complicate termination of a domestic partnership.

 

Second, domestic partners will have to file their California income taxes as Married Filing Jointly (MFJ) or Married Filing Separately (MFS), and a surviving member of a domestic partnership will be able to file as Head of Household (HOH) if they meet the other qualification rules (like having one or more eligible dependent children). This will make filing income taxes more complex for domestic partners in California since the Federal income tax rules do not recognize domestic partnerships. IMO, it's going to be worth it!

 

Colin

[JamesSavik]

Gay marriage is a red herring and frankly I'm sick of it.

 

It will never happen in the US but gay political groups pin all of their hopes on it.

 

All gay people would be better served if we went after basic human rights like equal opportunity employment, fair housing and other anti-discrimination protections: bread & butter economic and civil rights that gay people DO NOT have in the majority of the country.

 

If we persue these rights and protections as clear cut civil rights issues, we'll win.

 

If we persue gay marriage, a misunderstood and contentious issue that puts us in direct conflict with powerful religious lobbies, we'll lose every time. It's a simple matter of numbers and they've got more.

[Bondwriter]

All gay people would be better served if we went after basic human rights like equal opportunity employment, fair housing and other anti-discrimination protections: bread & butter economic and civil rights that gay people DO NOT have in the majority of the country.

From my (very) little knowledge of US laws, discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in many of the above situations. Having laws enforced is yet another problem.

One thing to me in favor of a civil union (marriage sounds too religious to me, sorry): my sister married a US citizen about three months after meeting him 10 years ago. He got the French nationality, now she has a green card. Why could I never have even considered that as I went on the same University program? Even though there is a civil union in France, I am not allowed to fall in love with a foreigner and imagining I'll live with him forever and ever.

[JamesSavik]

>>From my (very) little knowledge of US laws, discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in many of the above situations. Having laws enforced is yet another problem.

 

 

This sort of illustrates the red state-blue state divide in the US. Some states DO have anti-discrimination laws and they are, quite predictably, blue states.

 

Red states are where the problem lies in more ways than one.

[TheZot]

Well, as a resident of one of the blue states (though Connecticut wussed out and did the whole 'separate but equal' thing) I'll say that if you don't mind the cold, we've got plenty of space.

 

People don't usually realize exactly how different things are from place to place in the 'states. My mom got a hell of an eye-opener the week she spent in rural Mississippi with a church group. It's a very different world compared to what's up here, that's for sure. I am so glad we got the stupid fire'n'brimstone religious crap out of the way a century ago.

 

Wouldn't surprise me to see New York and the rest of the New England states to have marriage be gender-neutral within a decade.

[Demetz]

I guess I'll thrown my own opinion into the ring....

 

I'm willing to settle for the government calling it a civil union instead of marriage. Let all the backwater bigots have their sanctity of the word marriage, there's nothing stopping gays who get a civil union from having a ceremony or from calling it a wedding themselves. The rights are what is most important, not the word. When we've got the rights in every state we can reevaluate our position and decide from there rather pushing to legally call it what by de facto it already is, or pursue a more pressing cause. This is one queer boy who will be celebrating the day when all that's left for gays to fight for in terms of equality is the name of an institution. We should focus on the rights now and work on legally calling it the same thing its called for straight people when the time comes.

 

Now I also recognize that continuing the fight in those states which have instituted civil unions, to call it marriage, may present a short cut to killing to birds with one stone, causing a legal situation where other states have to put it through the court systems... maybe this will work, maybe not... the short cut might turn out to be dead end though, or worse, turn out not to be a short cut and instead deposit us in a worse position than we were in before. I don't know which will be the case, no one can ahead of time.

 

Democrats are facing a similar problem with gay marriage that Republicans face with abortion. For years republicans have campaigned on how much they despised the practice of abortion... they've packed the supreme court to their advantage... if they're going to outlaw abortion, now is the time to do it. They didn't though. Why? If they do they face a massive battle in every state, and numerous states which could go republican or democrat, including Florida, have polls showing that majorities don't want to see roe v wade reversed. They don't want to risk losing those states.

 

Where's the similarity? GLBT groups face a fight like that in nearly every state, where the party which we turn to for support will take political hits for supporting us. Are the democrats brave enough to stand up for what's right? ... I'll give that a maybe. Are they strategic enough to make it work if they did... I'm sorry but what I've seen of the democratic party tells me they're near hopeless when it comes to strategic planning. I might be wrong, I hope I am... but I just don't see the democratic party rallying to our defense. In fact, what I have seen is a redevelopment of the old southern democrat style politics. I forget the man's name, but I watched a democrat running for office in Tenessee very adamantly declare he's not for anything remotely gay in nature.

 

Honestly... I see both parties dissolving shortly. The republican party has managed to annoy everyone of its constiuency, and the democratic party as it finally have a chance to swoop in, take up the reigns of government and do some good is plagued by the fact that the senior members of the democratic party are the same ones who ran it into the ground and will do so again. I predict we'll see both parties collapse within the next ten years, and a major restructuring of the party system in this country... which is something the GLBT community will need to grab ahold of and work to its advantage in every way possible. There's no way to ally ourselves with the fundamentalist party thats bound to emerge, but we could have a good shot with the libertarians... I see a lot of political maneuvering in the future and a great deal of social change... we've just got to go one step at a time.

 

There is somethingof a monument to Martin Luther King on campus at the University of South Florida, on a plaque are the words "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Perhaps a new development in the civil rights movement is in order.

 

Hmm... I do believe I've babbled on long enough, later guys.

 

[lonelygay51]

This hope that one day America will have gay marriage.

[The Reaper]

http://www.asofterworld.com/soft_oct20_2006.htm

 

Ive always LOVED A Softer World but this one just seems to fit this topic.

 

For those of you that dont know, A Softer World has a LOT of gay jokes. (i like the heterosexual fisting joke hehe)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: this is the heterosexual fisting one HAHAHAHA ---------> http://www.asofterworld.com/soft_nov17_2006.htm

Edited February 28, 2007 by The Reaper

[MMandM]

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Some peoples desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.

 

If the moral majority of persons in this country may deprive homosexuals of their fundamental rights and equality within society based solely on their prejudices and moral disapproval, and if homosexuals cannot seek redress in our courts of law, then this ain't America.

[Bill W]

Let's just take our success when and where we can, yet be ready to repel the conservative backlash that we expect will follow.