Patrick

It has been in the news all week and no-one has brought it up. Does no-one have any thoughts about some states rushing to put in their constitutions that marriage is only legal between a man and a woman and Massachusettes ruling that gay marriage is legal.

If gay marriage is leagalised in a few states then that will piss of GWB, I wonder if he will fight it in the whitehouse or just bend over and take it like a man!

Patrick (I'm not gay, but I think my boyfriend is)

Pimpbot

I don't believe Bush can do anything about it if its ruled on by the state legislator?. Perhaps someone can clear that up who knows a bit more about U.S. politics.

Pimpbot

When Melissa Etheridge asked Dolly Parton if she thought gays should be allowed to marry, Parton replied, "Hell, yeah! Why shouldn't y'all suffer like the rest of us?"

kazzuk

I guess this brings new meaning to the "wedding ring" !!! OUCH

sibsie

I'm 100% in favour of it. But just because MA introduces it doesn't mean it has to be recognised by federal government. Someone did talk me through all this a couple of days ago and there's a very long thread on it in the marriage based visa section. Worth a read to hear what the bible brigade had to say.

excpomea

As a fully paid up member of the so called "Bilble brigade" I think that the Homosexuals of the world are intitled to the same rights as everyone else. Even as far as 'marriage' If that's what they want to call it.
I feel the State should recognise the commitment and stability that forming a union brings.
But 2 provisos, Don't expect to get married in my church. Find a Catholic for that, and don't make it compulsary.
It's hard enough living with a woman, never mind another bloke..

irb

UK law is or is just about to be changed for same sex partners. As I understand it, the purpose is to give some recognition to same sex partners in law because the Law Lord a year or two ago ruled that a spouse could not be the same sex. I belive the issue that gave rise to the change was when a man nursed his male partner thru aids for years, at the end when he was admitted to hospital, the sick mans family refused to allow the sick mans same sex partner to visit him in hospital or have any part in the funeral. (I recon it was the family who were sick) Also, he had no legal right of succession to the tenancy of the home they shared for years. Had they been a man and women partnership none of this would have been a problem. Anyway, the Law Lords didn't want to upset the definition of a Spouse, I suspect that would have cost the government too much in benefit payouts, so the government addressed the problem by giving some recognition to same sex partners but no going as far as recognising them as a spouse.

Lion in Winter

Why?

Patrick

Its got nothing to do with the marriage service and everything to do with a gay couple having the same rights as a straight married couple for example putting your spouse on healthcare! Thats what gays want out of a marriage, not to be married in a church per say.

Patrick

Patrick

Surprisingly, as all the priests seem to be gay, the catholic church does not recognise homosexuality! As far as the catholic church is concerned it doesnt exist, ignorance is bliss I suppose

Patrick

dunroving

That's just what this situation needs - a healthy dose of humor! Good on Dolly!

Rockgurl

I just posted a long reply on the marriage forum topic. I'm quite breathless now! LOL. Well, you all know where I stand with this, as I am a direct result of what happens when we allow discriminatory laws to continue to cause misery and unfairness. It's only a matter of time now. In my heart I am still married, legal or not. I wear the ring and I believe in my heart. That's all that matters. Religion is not an issue as far as I am concerned.

What makes me laugh is that Britney can go and marry someone in a drive thru in Vegas for 45 minutes but that is soooo much more sacred than my marriage! Hell...you can even get Elvis to do it! How holy!

excpomea

I would guess with them having their heads stuck in the sand all the years they have had to resort to taking it in the rear..

Did I say that out loud

effi

Had to think long and hard before jumping into this one, don't want to upset anyone. Anyway, there is one thing that I don't think is quite right. At my husbands' place of work, they give benefits to same sex couples not married but living together. Yet by the same token my husband has a young guy working for him who has a live in girlfriend and they have had a baby together, for whatever reason they do not wish to get married, and this girl is not entitled to benefits thru the Company. I know, you will all say "well they could get married and she could get benefits", but why should they have to, what is fair for one should be fair for all. Before any of you go calling me homophobic, you could not be further from the truth, one of my best friends is gay. If people are going to start shouting for equal rights, then it should be equal rights for all, not just for some who may cry 'discrimination'.

Duncs

The point is that they have a choice. A gay live in couple could reasonably decide not to marry but right now they can not make the other choice to marry and gain all the legal benefits and privilages that accompany that state. It is simply a matter of discrimination.

In answer to the above queries. The problem that arises if Massachusetts allows gay marriage is that Article IV of the US Constitution says at "Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." This means that if you are legally married in MA and you move to Ohio then under the constitution your marriage should be recognised and if it is not then Ohio authorities are breaching the US Constitution for which legal relief can be sought in federal courts and ultimately the supreme court. This is a big problem because Ohio has just begun passing legislation to outlaw such gay marriages. Hence a clash of laws federal vs state. In legal theory federal overides but the politics are obviously more sensitive. The legal solution and the one Bush will most likely embrace is to push an amendment to the US Constitution but this will require a 2/3's majority of both houses(House of Reps and Senate) and then 2/3 majority of all 50 states(34). This one will run for years yet. there is of course the possibility that MA will pass its own constitutional amendment but it seems unlikely to happen fast enough to stop a problem.

This does not require a church to marry anyone only for gay civil unions to be recognised in law. No ones church willl be required to marry anyone. Divorce is legal but the catholic church does not recognise it either. the Episcopal church recognises gay marriages so it will be up to each church and is a separate issue.

Finally in my lecture, the UK is introducing a civil unions bill that will allow gay couples to have a civil union and thus enjoy similar legal rights to married couples but without calling it a marriage. Currently the state of Vermont has a law that does this but it is not recognised outside of Vermont. This will mean for instance that a gay man who lived with his partner as a couple for maybe 30 years+ will now be allowed to make funeral arrangments for his partner on his death or visit him in hospital on his death bed and have some rights in relation to how they are treated.

the issue will run and run and is at base a clash of values so it wont be resolved easy. I for one hope that a discriminatory amendment is not allowed to deface the US constitution which is supposed to protect rights not remove them but i am in a minority on this one so the tyranny of the prejudiced majority may win out.

For a historical perspective though l suggest you read this tale and listen to some of the things you will see said about gay marriages in the next months and years:

Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were married in June 1958. She was black; he was white. The wedding was performed in Washington, D.C., where the law permitted racially mixed marriage. The Lovings then settled in Caroline County, Virginia. That October a grand jury indicted the Lovings for violating Virginia’s law against marriage between whites and non-whites. The two pleaded guilty in January 1959 and were given a choice: Go to jail for a year, or take a 25-year suspended sentence on condition that they leave Virginia and not return. The Lovings opted for the latter and retreated to Washington.

The judge who exiled the Lovings wrote that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.�

Ultimately the supreme court stepped in to overturn the states laws as unconstitutional but it took a long struggle and many states had political majorities who fought against the changes.

hope my comments help peoples understanding,

regards,

Duncan