Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NH, Ore. Prepare To Recognize Gay Couples

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 12:51 PM
Original message
NH, Ore. Prepare To Recognize Gay Couples
Source: 365gay.com

(Concord, New Hampshire) January 1 will usher in laws in states at opposite sides of the country that provide rights for same-sex couples.

In New Hampshire, dozens of gay and lesbian couples will herald the New Year by having civil unions. A special mass civil union ceremony is planned for midnight January 1 on the Statehouse steps.

Other couples will have ceremonies in towns across the state.

A new license was created for civil unions and became available at local clerk's offices in towns earlier this month.



Read more: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/12/122607couples.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. And about damn time, too. Too bad, though, that they aren't going for the whole
Right Thing: Marriage for any two people, be they heterosexual or not.

I simply do not believe that my marriage to Mrs R is threatened one bit if Joe down the street gets married to John, or if Sally gets married to Sue.

The arguments against Gay Marriage are full of shit.

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Thank You Redstone n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. My husband and I have yet to figure out how our marriage is threatened
by gay people getting married. Any threat we have we've brought on ourselves. I have yet to hear any opponent of gay marriage or civil unions between gay people explain how this threatens our heterosexual marriage. They are all full of $hit.

What I don't understand is why the state is getting involved in the marriages of ANYONE. If they are going to recognize one, then they better recognize them all. If they are doing this because it's a "legal contract", then they have to recognize any legal contract and that includes gay people. The way I see it, marriage is a religious ceremony and any married couple is a "civil union" in terms of state recognition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
32. Entirely FOS. I completely agree with you! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. Congrats New Hampshire and Oregon!
I know it isn't full equality, but it is a start and no one is giving up the fight now. If it helps a few couples between now and when all marriage is equal then it's a win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You said it Sister!|
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's the way I look at it.
Of course, I'm straight so I don't see it quite the same way a gay person would; I expect that I'd be disappointed in not having a real marriage. I would love to be there at the statehouse to cheer them on. Maybe I can make it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. I look at it as a step forward in the right direction
I have a bi or lesbian daughter (she's still figuring herself out)and I look at the civil unions as a small win in the bigger battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Congrats
My sister just got married to her partner earlier this year. Best wedding I've been to in while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rock_Garden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. Fantastic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. It may be baby steps, but at least it's steps forward. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. Right On!!!
K&R!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. How do the state Constitutional Amendments forbidding gay marriages NOT run afoul
of the (popular name) Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution, in light of what may now be FOUR states recognising those contracts?

Or is marriage not considered a contract between two individuals and a State?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. DOMA
Edited on Wed Dec-26-07 02:56 PM by FreeState
The federal DOMA law has yet to be challenged. That is where the Full Faith and Credit clause will be tested again (like it has in the past with interracial marriages etc). This will happen one day - but I think that the national GLBT groups fighting in the courts for Equality are waiting until full marriage is available in more than one state before trying - also they may be waiting to see what the make up of the highest court will be after the next Presidential election. Filing a court case now could end up in being ruled on in 2 or 3 years - you dont want to try a case that may be stacked against you. This and Abortion rights are a main issue every Democrat should be worried about - it's vital we have a Democrat in the office of president next time or Civil Rights as we know them will be over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. And Jim Crow, Festive Edition, continues to spread
Separate is inherently unequal. If it is not called marriage, it has NONE of the rights, responsibilities, privileges and protections that centuries of court precedent has recognized as part-and-parcel of marriage. The one and only way to get that recognition is to call it "marriage."

Yeah, yeah. I'm dancing for joy that we are allowed on the bus at long last. But don't expect me to rejoice that we can only travel while tied to the roof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. It's not comparable to racial equality in this case
If a same-sex relationship is accorded the very same rights as an opposite-sex marriage, there is not the same fundamental inequality that "separate but equal" racial entailed. All they did was just underfund the hell out of black schools in the pre-Brown vs. Board of Education days. If an employer is required to recognize a gay registered relationship the same as a heterosexual one, they're way too smart to risk screwing that up in terms of benefits, etc.


I acknowledge that it doesn't confer social accepability in the eyes of bigots, but they have the right to dislike interracial marriage as well, even though they cannot do anything about it either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. But the poster was questioning the "full faith and credit" clause, not Brown or the 14th amendment.
The full faith and credit clause is black letter law, and just awaiting for a legal NH marriage to move to another state with its homegrown DOMA to contest it. It will be a wonderful test case, black letter federal Constitution v. state's homegrown DOM statutes! Truly a battle royale, and frankly, I don't see how one can parse their way out of black letter Constitutional law.
Either there is full faith and credit or there isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. I beg to differ
Creating "civil unions" or any other form of marriage subtitution is inherently discriminatory. It creates a separate institution with very few of the rights et al. that come with marriage by statute and absolutely none that come with marriage by precedent. It kowtows to the bigots in exactly the same way that "separate but equal" kowtowed to racists. That is my point: MARRIAGE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS NOT MARRIAGE and since it is not marriage, our system of jurisprudence guarantees that it will never, ever convey the same rights as marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Yes, it is inherently discriminatory
but--like I tell the right-wingers I work with and am acquainted with--every couple's relationship is what they make it, without regard to what happens with other couples. When they say that marriage equality somehow 'dilutes' heterosexual marriage, I have to point out to them that what Adam and Steve down the street do has no more effect on their marriage than does drive-thru marriage, or no-fault divorce.


It may take some time before the folks in that squishy middle find out that letting gay and lesbian couples have full equal status (even if we don't presently call it 'marriage') is not going to make the sky fall. Surely, their children will grow up knowing same-sex couples, and when the Supreme Court finally does what it did with interracial marriage, then society will be ready to shrug it off with, "well, it was about time".


I share your desire for marriage equality, but all Massachusetts did was mar the constitutions of many states with anti-equality laws, and get Chimpy re-elected. A more gradual pace towards marriage equality would have been a far less bumpy road, and would have allowed more people a chance to join our side, before they were recruited to vote for an amendment to enshrine bigotry in their states' laws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. So demands for full civil rights helped "get Chimpy re-elected"?
Edited on Thu Dec-27-07 08:45 PM by TechBear_Seattle
Do you think that the Abolitionist movement caused the Civil War?

(Edited for clarity and to keep this post from being deleted.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Being as I was not
part of the voting population in 1860, I really don't know what issues "caused" the Civil War, I will let Ron Paul debate that with Tim Russert, as it no longer makes any difference to me. I do know that the normally non-political Amish came out in 2004 in Ohio, and they made a difference in that one state that defeated John Kerry, I have to think that gay marriage on the ballot worked against us.


I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, but there are a lot of muddle-headed straight people out there who still think "Well, I'm OK with gay rights, but marriage is something else," who need some time to absorb the fact that the same-sex couple living down the street is just as concerned about crime, taxes, and corruption as they are. The Repukes exploited the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision to not only win the 2004 election, but to stain the constitutions of many states with anti-equality law that will likely only be overturned by a US Supreme Court decision, if we have the votes to do so. Having Roberts and Alito there instead of John Kerry's appointments does not give me a lot of hope.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Sorry, that's just not fair
Asking gay and lesbian people to just continue waiting for the road to get less bumpy just isn't fair.

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do. I recognize the political expediency involved in CUs, and if they represent an incremental step in the right direction, I welcome that. But they are not equality, and there won't be equality until marriage is available to all. Mass. did not get Chimpy re-elected. Blaming those willing to step out first is not fair. By your reckoning, should equal rights for African American citizens have waited until everyone was cool with it? The Democratic party lost much of the south over desegregation. Does that mean we should have sat on our hands and waited for a more convenient time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. It really didn't help the cause
Like I said above, all it did was scare the crap out of fundies in the red states, and now they have constitutional restrictions on same-sex marriage, that will only be overturned by a full Supreme Court decision that says that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights as straight people to marry. Alito and Roberts may be less likely to go along with this than somebody John Kerry could have nominated and gotten confirmed to the Court.


Plessy vs. Ferguson gave us the phrase "separate but equal" in 1896, we didn't get to overturning that until Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. Black people did have to wait almost sixty years, and even longer when you consider that many local jurisdictions ignored Brown for years afterwards. Do you really think that it will take two generations for marriage equality to become a reality? I have far more faith in the younger people of today. A white person could easily have gone from 1896 to 1954 (and beyond) without any significant contact with people of color, but I think the only straight people today who don't have contact with gay people are those to whom gay neighbors, co-workers, and acquaintances just don't want to come out to, since they don't need a hassle.


Racial integration of schools did not make racism go away, sometimes people in the controlling majority need a bit of time to assimilate change. Gay and lesbian people have far more support in the media of today than people of color had during the tumolt of the 1950's and 1960's. It will not take long. Having states enact measures that seem incomplete to purists are a big step to showing people who are not fully homophobic that nothing bad is going to happen from society recognizing relationships of same-sex couples.


Perhaps I'm not seeing this from your perspective, can you enlighten me as to what civil union does not have that full marriage does? I'm not talking about the states that specifically have sought to limit domestic partnership (as did my former home state of Washington), but ones where there is language that says "this is the same as marriage, without the name".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
42. Oh Jesus Christ
I share your desire for marriage equality, but all Massachusetts did was mar the constitutions of many states with anti-equality laws, and get Chimpy re-elected.

OLD MEME. You're about three years too late for that flame war, but thanks for playing.

God, with "allies" like you, no wonder we're still second-class citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. Often it doesn't confer all the rights of real marriage, either
Never does it confer them wrt federal laws, taxes, etc.

CUs are a step up, but they're not the solution, and they are still unequal treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Massachusetts equal marriage laws
did not confer Federal recognition, either. It will take a Supreme Court decision to remove that stick from the IRS's ass, but there is a history of tax law that says that states get to define marital status in regard to Federal tax law, such as with community-property states, for example. I certainly hope that a Massachusetts tax case makes it to the Court before a full-faith-and-credit case arrives there, it will be politically easier for the Supremes to say that a state can define who is married for the sake of tax calculation.


Then, that becomes a step in the right direction to do so with civil union, which then becomes a step towards saying that "separate but equal" is as wrong for same-sex relationships as it was for schools for black and white America.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
41. It most certainly is the same
Civil unions are NOT accorded the very same rights as a marriage, that is the whole point of fighting for marriage equality. Ask the couples in NJ who found out exactly what their civil unions were good for when it came time to have their partners put on company health plans, not to mention that civil unions mean shit in terms of the federal privileges hetero marriages enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. Awesome news!
K&R

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. I know a bunch of people...
...who are gonna be goddam pissed off about this.

And I couldn't be happier about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. me too!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Siyahamba Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. All right, they can now sit in the bus!
Edited on Wed Dec-26-07 04:18 PM by Siyahamba
They have to sit in the back of the bus, but still!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. At least we are not under the bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
20. I remember reading that Bishop Gene Robinson
and his partner are going to have a civil union. I hope they send an announcement to Peter Akinola, and I hope the very thought gives him hemerrhoids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. LOL. Yes, I'd heard that, too.
And the picture you paint is rather entertaining, although I suppose I should be better than that... nah, it's still entertaining!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galileo3000 Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
22. Great news-hope it flies under the radar. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kajsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-26-07 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
24. This is good news!
It's about time!!

Congrats to NH or OR for taking a big step in the
right direction.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
25. i'll be happy for what is gained -- but the mere fact it is different only underscores
the bigotry at play.
including the bigotry of thse who are supposed to be on our side.

congrats to the folk who live there for what they have gained.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Maybe I'm wrong
but if I recall correctly, Oregon is the only state that has an anti-marriage equality clause approved by voters in its Constitution, which subsequently provided for civil union or domestic partnership. This shows a lot of courage on the part of the legislators and governor there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
28. I always thought the States would have to take the lead. The Fed's are always light years behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
31. Good. Little by little, piece by piece, until it's too widespread
to ignore anymore on a federal level... it WILL happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
39. Can we place NH safely in the Blue column?
Sure is sounding that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. No. But we're working to keep it blue. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 30th 2014, 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC