Post removed

[EarthWindFire]

1. huh

what are you talking about?

[JustAnotherGen]

2. +1

Is there some reference/quote/article/issue that triggered this post?

[dbackjon]

3. Since he thinks that States should decide if I get equality

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/01/22/white-house-still-says-marriage-not-a-federal-issue/


Then this is the logical conclusion to his reasoning.

[pipoman]

4. Too bad he doesn't feel the same about MJ...

[Wabbajack_]

8. I have to agree with you

It sure as fuck should be a federal issue. Establsihement cause.

[union_maid]

5. Marriage is generally a state by state issue

And it's on that basis that they can make the argument that DOMA is unconstitutional.

[dbackjon]

6. Wrong

Loving vs Virginia ended that issue.

And that is NOT why DOMA is unconstitutional.

[bemildred]

7. Loving vs Virginia was about race.

And that is why DOMA is unconstitutional, because it is not the Feds business to define marriage.

The Feds ARE in a position to enforce "equal protection" and I think that is what we wiil see in due course, if necessary. It may not be necessary except in the most backward states.

My suggestion for you would be to move to California or some other state that wants to modernize itself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[Bluenorthwest]

13. California passed Prop 8 to revoke existing rights. Here is the text of Prop 8:

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what Mildred Loving has to say about it:
“ Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

[bemildred]

15. That was overturned in Fed court on appeal, twice, for violation of equal protection.

It's on appeal to the USSC, which will do nothing, and it won't pass again.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Main article: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

After the California Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative, a suit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was filed in a Federal District Court in San Francisco. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, stating it is "...unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry."[186] The court also determined that "Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for limiting the designation of 'marriage' to opposite-sex couples."[187] The court also stayed the ruling; the voter initiative was to remain in effect pending appeal.[11] On August 12, Walker announced his decision to lift the stay (which would have allowed same-sex marriages to be performed) as of August 18, 2010.[188][189] However, on August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit indefinitely extended the District Court's stay, stopping new same-sex marriages in the state of California pending appeal. It also scheduled an accelerated time table for hearing an appeal of Walker's ruling.[190]
Perry v. Brown (on appeal)
Main article: Perry v. Brown

On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Imperial County may not have standing to intervene in the lawsuit. Therefore, the court certified a question to the California Supreme Court as to whether non-governmental proponents of an initiative have standing to appeal when the State is no longer willing to defend it.[191] On February 16, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to address the Ninth Circuit's request.[192] The court set an expedited schedule for the hearing[193] and heard oral arguments on September 6, 2011.[194] On November 17, 2011, the court issued an advisory opinion that the proponents of Proposition 8 did have standing, and could defend it.[195][196]
Ruling

On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.[197] The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.[198]

The court concluded that Proposition 8 had no purpose other than to impose the majority's private disapproval of gays, lesbians, and their relationships through the public law, and to take away from them the designation of marriage and its recognized societal status.[199] The findings of fact and expert witness testimony in District Court played an important role in this appellate decision, emphasizing that it is unreasonable to believe Proposition 8 was enacted to: promote childrearing by biological parents, encourage procreation, be cautious in social change, protect religious liberty, or control children's education.[200] The court declared that it is "implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman."[201][202]

The dissenting judge, Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[203] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[203] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[203] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[204]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8#Legal_challenges

Gay rights in California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_California#Summary_table

There are other states too, several now, and more all the time.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. But the people passed 8. To say 'they want change' is about as disgusting as telling people to

move if they want rights straights are entitled to and smug about. I mean, obviously I know 8 was overturned, but you are claiming CA is some shining example. Not MA, but California, where the majority voted against the rights of their neighbors.
In addition, all of the important rights are Federal level. As long as the heterosexual majority insists upon bigoted and discriminatory laws the various States can only go so far. We are still forced to lie on our federal tax forms to allow you to tax us as 'single' when we are not. Our spouses are not entitled to Social Security survivor's benefits and we are treated very unfairly in immigration law. All of that is Fed, not States.
All of that continues because straight people are content to allow it to continue. When they get sick of doing wrong to their neighbors we will see change where it needs to be made, in DC.
Obama claiming that MY rights are up to the States while HIS are protected in the Constitution is bullshit, particularly when on marijuana reform and other issues he claims the States have NO rights to make law.
His 'position' is all over the place, contradictory and hypocritical. Situational ethics like few have the guts to put forth. Some arbitrary division of people, those with rights and those who must go begging from the States is absolutely immoral and according to the Loving decision, not Constitutional at all.
Note down thread the comment that says equal human rights is 'about sex' and people don't want to talk about sex right now. People who turn to their neighbors and say 'I have a marriage, you are all about sex'. Good company the anti equality folks keep! Really nice, open minded stuff....

[bemildred]

18. Yeah, I guess it's hopeless, you better stay there. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Stay where? What are you talking about? I'm not hopeless, I am hopeful and I know that change

will come where it is needed, to the Federal law. I know that being married in MA today does no good when it comes to taxation, Social Security, immigration and hundreds of other issues.
I just get tired of the Californian meme that CA is the bestest when they are not. MA gets bragging rights, not CA, which was my home for the vast majority of my life and is still my second home. CA does harm to itself politically with the thought that they are so super liberal, that's part of how 8 got passed, those who should have opposed it were saying 'no way will CA pass that, we are super liberal'.
The fact that you answer with snark because I am advocating national and actual change just shows that entitled smug I was speaking of. We are talking about the future security of my loved ones, and your attitude is not really suited to that sort of extremely important area of discussion.
Whatever. If we had waited for the straight community at any juncture in the past, we'd be nowhere still, so trust me, we are not waiting for them now.

[bemildred]

25. Where you are! I didn't say you were hopeless! Good for you! nt

[dbackjon]

23. My suggestion is that you learn about civil rights

Why should I have to move to get equality.

Gay Rights are CIVIL RIGHTS. If you don't believe that, you are a bigot.

Loving vs Virginia was about Marriage.

[bemildred]

26. Thanks, I'll do my best. nt

[Angry Dragon]

9. .............

[butterfly77]

10. The country wants to..

talk about Jobs this term not just sex.Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Equal human rights is not 'about sex'. What a fucked up and bigoted thing to say.

Is that how your family is? All about sex? Not love, not commitment, not a lifetime of shared tragedy and joy?

[butterfly77]

16. Your fucked up...

who in the hell are you calling a bigot? I am for equal rights for everyone. I see a pattern here last term we should have been on the republiCONS asses for 2010 and the damn lies they put out there.

You can still fuck,have a committment with whoever but,WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT JOBS!

[Bluenorthwest]

19. This thread is about human rights, not sex.

Human rights. You say it is about sex. Why are you spending time saying our relationships are just about sex instead of being out there talking about jobs? What the fuck is stopping you? Is it your contention that if LGBT people advocate for equality you can not speak out for jobs? What's stopping you? Why are you here, in this thread saying others relationships are all about sex instead of being out there talking about jobs? Oh, sorry I mean JOBS!
If you are so binary that you can only think of JOBS then go forth and advocate as you so desire. Do as your heart tells you. There is no law preventing you from doing anything you wish, you are straight and thus have full rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. And by the way, I said your words were bigoted, not that you are a bigot. Big difference.

And those are bigoted words. Sorry if it bugs you that some will see those words as bigoted, but to claim human rights issues are 'about sex' is bigoted. Hugely.

[dbackjon]

24. you are a bigot

I could lose my job just because I am gay.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Didn't take them long to back track on the good ground they held for a day...

State's Rights for me, but not for his parents, oh, no, no no. And not for Medical Marijuana or just plain old Marijuana, no, no, States have no rights there, none at all, but of course States have the right to oppress LGBT people, of course.
The situational ethics of the moderate centrists will be their undoing. Cake and eat it too.
A person who would call me brother then shit on my rights is a hypocrite.

[geek tragedy]

21. More race-baiting from you. I guess you haven't learned that rubbing racism

in the face of black folks does your own cause zero good.

[dbackjon]

27. How am I race baiting?

Unless you don't believe that gay rights are civil rights?


There is no difference in what I posted and what Obama said.