PDA

View Full Version : gay marriage recognized in DC, legalized in Vermont



LegalSmash
7 Apr 2009, 12:43pm
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:

Vermont's vote marked the first time a legislature enacted it into law. Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that marriage couldn't be restricted to unions of a man and a woman, following the lead of Connecticut and Massachusetts, both of which approved it as a result of high court decisions.

California briefly allowed gay marriage last year, but a voter initiative in November repealed it.

CIVIL UNIONS:

In New Hampshire and New Jersey, same-sex couples can enter into civil unions that entail the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but gay-rights activists in those states are pushing for full-fledged marriage rights. New Hampshire's House passed a marriage bill in March, which now awaits a Senate vote. In New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine has pledged to sign a gay marriage bill that has been introduced in its legislature.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS:

California, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have domestic-partnership laws that extend many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

CONSTITUTIONAL BANS:

Voters in 29 states have approved state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment empowering the Legislature to outlaw same-sex marriage; lawmakers did so in 1998.

FEDERAL RECOGNITION:

Under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the U.S. government does not recognize same-sex unions, even those that are legal marriages in Massachusetts, Connecticut and several foreign countries.

OUT-OF-STATE RECOGNITION:

New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere but hasn't allowed them in the state. The Senate majority leader, a gay marriage supporter, says he doesn't have the votes to pass it in his chamber.

The District of Columbia Council on Tuesday voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

PotshotPolka
7 Apr 2009, 01:03pm
In all seriousness, coming from a family that actively condemns gays I cannot find a legitimate reason beyond personal beliefs to prevent these people from being able to marry. In all honesty I think this does supercede state rights even though I don't believe there is any Federal jurisdiction in this. Input?

trakaill
7 Apr 2009, 01:09pm
I still think its a disgrace to all the people that live their life's for God and his glory...
This is what this nation was founded on and should be respected, Im not a practicing christian myself but it is the religion I was brought up with..
I have nothing against gays I just dont think they should be "married", call it what ever the fuck you want but it should not be marriage..my 2 cents

Italian Jew
7 Apr 2009, 01:29pm
I still think its a disgrace to all the people that live their life's for God and his glory...
This is what this nation was founded on and should be respected, Im not a practicing christian myself but it is the religion I was brought up with..
I have nothing against gays I just dont think they should be "married", call it what ever the fuck you want but it should not be marriage..my 2 cents

I can see the very fabric of society tearing apart at the notion of using the word "marriage"...:crazy:

So are those who live in "God's glory" that support gay marriage wrong, or is it still a disgrace to them?

I thought this country was founded on freedom and liberty, not somebody's opinion on whether or not two dudes should elope (or just founding a country to get +Rep from God). Weird, I must have slept through all my government and history classes... :confused1:

How about they call it Super-marriage? Or maybe something else, something more technical, because even though they could live a very religious life, the other people's opinion on the religion are more important than theirs.

trakaill
7 Apr 2009, 02:03pm
I can see the very fabric of society tearing apart at the notion of using the word "marriage"...:crazy:

So are those who live in "God's glory" that support gay marriage wrong, or is it still a disgrace to them?

I thought this country was founded on freedom and liberty, not somebody's opinion on whether or not two dudes should elope (or just founding a country to get +Rep from God). Weird, I must have slept through all my government and history classes... :confused1:

How about they call it Super-marriage? Or maybe something else, something more technical, because even though they could live a very religious life, the other people's opinion on the religion are more important than theirs.

And thats why my opinion prolly wont matter in this subject and I was just sharing it with everyone else..
I never said anything about society falling apart..:crazy:

Italian Jew
7 Apr 2009, 02:12pm
And thats why my opinion prolly wont matter in this subject and I was just sharing it with everyone else..
I never said anything about society falling apart..:crazy:

Not at you in particular; the crazy evangelicals who, instead of actually following their religion, create their own interpretation of it so they can belittle/harass/assault others around them in the name of God. They do it to feel good about hating someone.

LegalSmash
7 Apr 2009, 02:24pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500029.html

apparently marriage is for straight white people.

Lux
7 Apr 2009, 03:54pm
In all seriousness, coming from a family that actively condemns gays I cannot find a legitimate reason beyond personal beliefs to prevent these people from being able to marry. In all honesty I think this does supercede state rights even though I don't believe there is any Federal jurisdiction in this. Input?

Exactly.

Why should gay people have to do what certain religious people want? Its their choice to be religious but they shouldn't force their thoughts on anyone.

Desum
7 Apr 2009, 04:02pm
It's about respecting the people who've been practicing marriage as a highly respected ceremony for over a thousand years.. I mean, i believe gays should have the same rights.. But damn just call it something else. That way you get the same rights and the Christians aren't offended by breaking their respected ceremony.

PotshotPolka
7 Apr 2009, 05:34pm
It's about respecting the people who've been practicing marriage as a highly respected ceremony for over a thousand years.. I mean, i believe gays should have the same rights.. But damn just call it something else. That way you get the same rights and the Christians aren't offended by breaking their respected ceremony.

"marriage" is practiced by all world religions I believe.

Frostbyte
7 Apr 2009, 06:05pm
There really isn't any legitimate reason why gays shouldn't have the right to be married. If it makes someone happy, why deny them of it? I personally don't think less of a person because of sexual prefrence, unless they were blatantly an asshole to me.

Slavic
7 Apr 2009, 06:17pm
It's about respecting the people who've been practicing marriage as a highly respected ceremony for over a thousand years.. I mean, i believe gays should have the same rights.. But damn just call it something else. That way you get the same rights and the Christians aren't offended by breaking their respected ceremony.

This whole incident about the right to Same Sex marriage could have all been avoided if the Washington truly kept church separated from state. Marriage and the circumstances that surround it should have been a strictly church oriented ceremony and ritual. If marriage was truly only authorized through the churches, then the Federal and State wouldn't have a problem with who ever wanted to get married.

Sadly, marriage is indeed tied in with the US government, and thus religious rituals are incorporated in Federal/State law. IMO the Federal/State should drop the term marriage and use civil union with regards to couples who wish to benefit from marriage related tax breaks, medical plans, etc. The actual title of marriage should be left solely for the religious institutions to handle.

Sometimes i wish i lived in a proper Republic instead of some weird Democracy.

trakaill
7 Apr 2009, 08:16pm
Sometimes i wish i lived in a proper Republic instead of some weird Democracy.
A republic in a galaxy far far away!!! Id be a Jedi!

But yeah I agree everyone should benefiting of a legal union and who ever want to go to the trouble of getting married could choose to do so! things would be quite easier and clear cut! Make them two completely separate things in a way, even tho they already are... but I know what I mean!

PotshotPolka
7 Apr 2009, 09:27pm
Sometimes i wish i lived in a proper Republic instead of some weird Democracy.


:clap: