We just can't win gay marriage elections

[bluestateguy]

Domestic partners (WA)? Sure!

Anti-discrimination in housing and jobs (Kalamazoo)? Sure!

But marriage is our Berlin Wall.

It sounds horrible to say, but we may just have to wait for a lot of mean old people to die.*

*Not the good old people who DID vote for marriage equality. Just the mean old people who are homophobic bigots.

[vadawg]

1. honestly i think its just the word marraige, if you took that word out

same rights etc but just dropped the word, then i think it would all pass with majorities. Whether people like it or not the word is what the majority of the people voting are voting for...

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Yes, it's a referendum on the word and whether it's only for religious people to define it.

[vadawg]

5. whether you like it or not, society as a whole defines it the same as the religious folk

maybe that will change over time, but in the meantime whats more important winning rights or winning the word....

[Ms. Toad]

11. It is not just a word.

The "word" has legal meaning throughout the world, and calling marriage something else has legal implications that are extremely complex to overcome in order to reach equality.

You can only grant the same rights within the smallest political entity (the state) that grants rights related to the "word." Every larger (or parallel same size) entity piggybacks on the rights created the granting jurisdiction. The rights are associated with the "word" because, from a legal perspective, if you use a different word you are presumed to have done so because you intended different rights. If you use another word you might (although it is no guarantee) be entitled to the rights associated with that different word in other states, from the federal government, and in other countries - assuming a status named using that other word existed in those other entities.

In other words, no matter how much you might want to make another "word" equal, it would take decades of legal work before it actually would be equal.

[vadawg]

14. the point being that it will take decades anyway to get the votes

give civil unions with all the rights that the government gives, you could pass that tomorrow...

[imdjh]

21. They aren't that stupid. They will fight that, even though they imply that they won't.

The ones who try to sound reasonable, the "just don't call it marriage" assholes, they're not sincere. As soon as you don't call it marriage, as soon as you do civil union kind of stuff, they are in court challenging it as an approximation of marriage.

Look in Florida. After saying that Amendment 2 wouldn't hurt gay people and cohabiting couples, that it wouldn't be used against existing rights and arrangements, those fucking assholes filed suit the day after the election to take away DP benefits from state employees and universities.

[vadawg]

23. and they are the minority of the people who vote no on the ballots

look at what people even here on DU say about people they know, its the marraige word thing that has a different meaning to people thats the issue, you take that away from the crazies and the religious people can be peeled away, then you have a supermajority...

[sabrina 1]

25. Well, I know it's not much consolation

but have you seen the results of this vote on Domestic Partnerships

50% reporting Washington: Domestic Partnerships

Approve or reject a bill that expands “the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.”

Washington: Domestic Partnerships Answer Party Votes Pct.
Approve — 506,936 51.1%
Reject — 484,567 48.9

Granted it includes hetero-sexual couples and it isn't 'marriage' but it does show that people are moving forward in their thinking. Not long ago, hetero couples who were not married had no rights, and still do not in many areas. This looks like it's going to pass for both gay couples and hetero couples.

It's not much, but it's something. Baby steps are all we seem capable of for now.

[theHandpuppet]

44. Yep, the anti-choice crowd does the same thing

They say it's just abortion, but >>>big surprise<<< you soon find out the opposition doesn't end with abortion, but extends to contraceptives and then to any power a woman might have to control her reproductive rights.

Like the anti-choice crowd, those opposed to equality for GLBTs will just keep moving the goalposts.

[theHandpuppet]

45. Exactly. Virginia being a prime example.

"The ones who try to sound reasonable, the "just don't call it marriage" assholes, they're not sincere. As soon as you don't call it marriage, as soon as you do civil union kind of stuff, they are in court challenging it as an approximation of marriage."

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36314-2004Jun12.html

Marriage Affirmation Act.

The act -- really an amendment to an earlier law -- was passed in April, over Gov. Mark R. Warner's objections, and it takes effect July 1. It says, "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."

[laconicsax]

32. Segregation is unacceptable. eom

[Ms. Toad]

49. Even if they passed tomorrow

Which I suspect would not happen, those rights would only be recognized within the boundaries of the state that created them - and even not fully there, to the extent that your rights are federally derived. There would be no recognition across state lines, or by other countries. So you cannot quickly create equal rights through civil unions. Once you create that special status, it will have to go through decades of court battles to gain the reciprocal recognition (and all of the legal rights) that (the "word") marriage already has.

At least within the United States, gaining legal recognition for marriages that already exist - and for all future marriages - will require a handful of court cases. One to declare the mini marriage discrimination statutes and amendments unconstitutional (up to two cases), one to declare the federal marriage discrimination law unconstitutional (one case), and perhaps one to test mandatory recognition of marriages performed in other countries.

The number of cases required would be dramatically higher for similar recognition of civil unions - since most states and countries don't have the civil union laws. Is a domestic partnership registry the same thing as a civil union? What rights are owed if the receiving state (and the federal government don't have those statuses)? With marriage, what you get are the receiving state's rights (California, for example, is a community property state - a couple moving from California to another state doesn't carry the community property rights with them even though their marriage was created in California; that couple is entitled to whatever the new state has). If the receiving state has nothing - are they obligated to treat your civil union as a marriage? as nothing? to create a reciprocal state?

It took decades for the states to sort out this reciprocal marriage (divorce, child custody, estates) thing - you are suggesting starting over again from scratch. Pick up an estates or a domestic relationship casebook and flip through the cases (paying attention to the years in which crucial reciprocity of rights were sorted out) and see if you really want to start that all over again to get the full range of rights - after you manage to get recognition for civil unions (which I strongly suspect would not be as trivial as you thing it is).

[tavalon]

35. I'm wondering why America makes such a big deal about the separation of church and state

and then mixes it with impunity by mixing a religious ceremony with partnership legalities?

But separate but equal doesn't work for me either. If straights get to mix church and state, so too should gays be allowed to.

[vadawg]

36. thats why we should seperate them, have the civil side do a contract

for any couple, then if the churches want to do a marriage ceremony they can, but the government dosent recognise it....

[tavalon]

38. I completely agree with you, btw

[ieoeja]

58. That is already what happens.

The government does not recognize a marriage ceremony today. They only recognize marriage contracts.

If a church in the United States performed a marriage ceremony today without the couple also signing then filing a marriage contract with the state, that marriage would be recognized by the church, but not by the government.

Conversely, if a pair of divorced Roman Catholics today signed and filed a marriage contract with the state, that marriage would be recognized by the government, but not by the church.

"Marriage" is a specific type of legal partnership. It is no less a legal concept than an "LLP". Prohibiting two gay people from forming a Marriage is no less discriminatory than prohibiting gays from forming a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP).



Let me try this from another angle. Ever see the priest on M*A*S*H* bless a jeep? That is EXACTLY what priests do for a marriage. They bless it, the don't create it. Marriage is no more a religious tenent than is a jeep. It existed as a legal partnership in Europe for millenia before the Church decided marriages don't count if not blessed by a priest.

That made sense in a time when the Church resolved disputes over ownership and inheritance among the peasantry. If they didn't record who was married to whom, how could they resolve those disputes properly? But unless you want the Church to take over *all* legal matters associated with marriage and divorce, it doesn't make any sense to pretend that marriage is a religious tenent.

[Ms. Toad]

51. It's not quite as much a mixture as it seems.

If you read the statutes in most states, what you will find out is that states authorized classes of individuals which are authorize to solemnize marriages. One of those classes includes ministers who have registered with the state, and then act on behalf of the state (just as a justice of the peace does) when signing the license. The state could designate used car salesmen who have registered with the state as authorized to solemnize marriages, if it chose to do so.

Couples who have a religious ceremony, but who also want legal recognition, must comply with all the legal requirements of the state (vaccinations, if required, obtaining a license, qualification to be married (age, distance of relationship - if any, gender, etc.). They then have to have someone the state recognizes as authorized to solemnize the marriage sign the license. That could be someone also authorized to perform the religious ceremony - or it could be someone entirely different.

The only place I am aware it gets muddy is the hard fought exception for traditional Friends meetings - which don't have ministers (and thus no one person who could either perform the ceremony or register with the state). In that case, in most states, there is an exception that permits someone from the faith community to attest that the marriage tool place in accordance with the practices of the faith community. That exception is not generally well known - and takes a lot of effort to exert in a manner that is consistent with the religious practice (including fielding calls about why the license - which often doesn't recognize the exception - has been "defaced"). Some just give up, and register someone with the state - which then makes the marriage itself inconsistent with the belief of the community that one person has the power to create a marriage. The marriage is a covenant between the couple and God, which is witnessed by those present, who make a covenant to support the marriage. No one person present has any more authority than any other to marry (or to declare married) the couple.

[theHandpuppet]

40. Thank you, Ms. Toad

Well said.

I was really hoping my partner and I, who have been tgether for nearly 20 years now, would see the day when we could freely marry and enjoy the same rights in this country as the rest of the citizenry. I do not believe we will live long enough to see that day. The problem is not our hanguip on a word, but this society's love affair with hatred and fear encapsulated in a word.

[tsuki]

46. What is in a "word"?

If you are married in a religious ceremony without a license, are you married? Religious folk say yes, state says no.

If you have a civil ceremony with a license, are you married? Religious folk say no, state says yes.

I ran up against this one with my Mother. I wanted a civil ceremony, but she wanted me married.

Go for the rights, fark the tribal rites.

[Ms. Toad]

47. I am speaking of the word in connection with legal status.

As to your first question - both are correct. You will not have the rights associated with marriage because the third party to the marriage (the state) has not joined in the quasi-contract that a legally recognized marriage creates.

As to the civil ceremony with a license - again both are correct. Your church has no obligation to recognize all of the marriages that the state does.

As to your debate with your mother - you are comparing applies and oranges. The mechanism (civil ceremony) with the result (state of marriage). I suspect what your mother wanted was a religious ceremony - which is not necessarily synonymous with wanting you married.

From a legal perspective, the word that applies (and which virtually all states and countries have agreed or been required to grant reciprocal recognition/rights throughout the world) is marriage - whether you get there with a secular rite and a license, or by state recognition of a religious ceremony.

(And, for what it's worth - you could have a civil ceremony and still not create a (legally recognized) marriage).

[tsuki]

69. Your suspicion is incorrect. My Mother believed that if I did not

have a form of the tribal rites with the invisible man in the sky attending, I would not be in a "marriage".

This morning, I regret yielding to her. I would love to tell people that I am not married; I am have a civil contract.

[Romulox]

64. "'Domestic Partners' shall have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities under the law...

for purposes of Federal Law as do 'Married Persons'."

Some variant of this language would do the trick. No "decades" of legal work would be required.

[Ms. Toad]

74. That only works reasonably well within the state which sponsored it.

See this post for a more complete explanation of the issues. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6922369&mesg_id=6923519

Just looking at federal tax issues under the scenario you suggest, if a domestic partner is recognized in Washington state, and the federal government passes some form of recognition (best case scenario - a relationship status that is supposed to confer rights equivalent to marriage, recognized by the federal government.

That couple moves to Ohio, where such recognition is expressly barred. Next year, when the couple files their federal taxes, are they married? Probably not - federal tax (and other) status is derived from the state marital status at the time of filing; the couple is not married (does not have any legal status as a couple) under Ohio law. Maybe so - if you look at the cases under common law marriage. Federal recognition of common law marriages for tax and other purposes are derived from the laws of state in which they were created, not whether such marriages could be created now or ever in the current residence state. But, then again, maybe not - since that federal recognition is premised on the reciprocity between states - which doesn't currently exist with domestic partnerships.

That's just one small issue.

So - yes, decades of legal work.

Edited to add: If you really think it's that simple, go to your local law library and ask them to point you to either a domestic relations or wills, trusts, and estates casebook. What you are suggesting is duplicating all of that work, and more, because during the decades that the intricate dance was worked out between various political subdivisions with respect to marriage - at least marriage existed in each of the jurisdictions. Since civil unions/domestic partnerships don't even exist in most places that adds another layer of complexity.

[Romulox]

76. The issue you're speaking on turns on Full Faith and Credit, not the characterization of the union

"So - yes, decades of legal work."

The issue you are working on does not turn on the definition of "marriage", it turns on Full Faith and Credit. Repeal of DOMA will be required to fix that situation, regardless of how WA state characterizes the partnership.

In other words, if the partnership between two same sex persons is labeled a "marriage" in Wa state, the couple will nonetheless enjoy no protections of that word in Ohio without a repeal of DOMA. How they are treated for Federal tax purposes also would not turn on the issue of the word. Simply put, Ohio does not recognize "marriage" between same sex persons, so denominating this union a "marriage" affords it no special legal protection in Ohio.

DOMA could be repealed in an afternoon.

"If you really think it's that simple, go to your local law library and ask them to point you to either a domestic relations or wills, trusts, and estates casebook."

No offense, but I happened to have a fairly current wills, trusts and estates casebook in my personal study. Again, "for the purposes of intestate succession, 'domestic partners' shall be the precise equivelent of 'spouses'," would be substantially all that is required to amend broad swaths of EPIC, Michigan's Estates and Protected Individual's Code.

On the other hand, since Michigan does not recognize same-sex marriage, a married same-sex couple from out of state would not therefore be included in the line of intestate succession because their partnership is denominated 'marriage' in their previous state.

[Ms. Toad]

78. And the problems you are suggesting

with the marriage discrimination statutes and amendments take as few as 2 (federal/state in one and international in a second) and no more than three (state/federal/international) court cases to fix, when the time is right.

Your suggestion, again, only resolves the issues within the state of Michigan, and then not perfectly since it does not address Federal lack of recognition. It does not address reciprocity in other states or countries which do not have civil unions or domestic partnerships, which is what will take decades of litigation. If you create a different status, the legal presumption is that the difference was deliberate and the courts should give it meaning. That means the reciprocity will not be automatic - even when similar statuses exist in other political subdivisions.

While I do not oppose gaining rights by whatever small steps can be made, asserting that it would be easier to gain equal rights by creating a separate status fails to take into account the intricate interrelationships between political subdivisions.

Pull out that casebook of yours and trace the history of gaining recognition of common law marriages for purposes of intestate succession. Not a simple matter - and a patchwork of domestic partner registries, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. would be far more difficult to muddle through.

[Romulox]

79. "reciprocity in other states..." is what "Full Faith and Credit" means...

"It does not address reciprocity in other states...which do not have civil unions or domestic partnerships"

This is precisely and specifically what "full faith and credit" refers to: Under the Constitution, the States are required to give "full faith and credit" to the laws, acts, etc. of the other States. This is why a "traditional" marriage that takes place in WA state must be given effect in Ohio.

DOMA abrogates this principle as to same-sex unions (whether they are called marriage or not,) and is likely Unconstitutional as a result. But it will have to be repealed and/or overturned for nation-wide marriage equality to have effect regardless of any other issue involved. Amending the law will require legal work regardless, in other words, and I don't think expediency or efficiency is therefore a compelling argument.

"Your suggestion, again, only resolves the issues within the state of Michigan, and then not perfectly since it does not address Federal lack of recognition."

Federal recognition of marriage depends on state definitions of marriage. That won't be changing, and so the situation will have to be dealt with in either Federal legislation or in a nationally binding judicial decision (such as that of the SCOTUS,) one way or the other. Any attempt to redefine the contours of marriage is a 50 state problem in that respect.

In short, marriage is a state issue, and there is no "quick and easy" path to disentangling the definition of marriage from the issues of full faith and credit, federalism, "comity", etc. etc.

"It does not address reciprocity in other...countries which do not have civil unions or domestic partnerships,"

No US law can do that.

[Ms. Toad]

81. Yes and no.

Full faith and credit is actually pretty complex when you are referring to acts (laws), rather than judgments.

When you move from one state to another, you lose the benefit of the laws of the originating state (mostly), you pick up the benefit of the receiving state (mostly). What ends up being respected, after considerable litigation in the arena of marriage to establish it, is the legal status of marriage. Your new state acknowledges the status conferred by your old state, but what is associated with your legal status are whatever benefits and restriction your new state has decided pertain to that status. So it doesn't require respecting the acts (laws) of the old state in the same way a judgment is required to be respected. Every state (and country) has a legal status of marriage - so when you are married and you move to a new state you still recognized as being legally married and are entitled to something under the full faith and credit clause, but what you are entitled to is not necessarily the same as you were entitled to before.

In that respect, marriage is very different than any of the categories of civil unions, in that there is not a universal status in each state - there are not even quasi equivalent statuses in most states.

Even if we get over the marriage discrimination statues and amendments (which do pose additional challenges that did not exist at the time of Loving v. Virginia), and the full faith and credit clause is found to apply - the question remaining is, to what are the parties entitled in the new state? It is pretty clear, looking at how marriage has been treated, that the new state does not have to grant them whatever rights and responsibilities their originating state associated with that status. If I move from California, for example, my community property rights don't follow me into my property acquisition activities in my new state.

If I move to a state that has an identical status (a limited civil union, for example), my rights might be pretty clear. If I move from a state that has a domestic partner registry which grants some rights to one that has civil unions with all rights associated with marriage, am I entitled to the benefits of the civil union in my new state - even though that was not my status in my old state? If I move from one that has civil unions that are expressly bestowed with all rights associated with marriage to one that recognizes same gender marriage, am I entitled to be treated as married? If I move from a state with marriage to one with civil unions, am I entitled to the rights associated with civil unions? If I move from a state with civil unions with all rights associated with marriage to a state that has no legal status for same gender couples - I'm just out of luck?

All those questions have already been answered with marriage through domestic relations and inheritance/descent cases. (Recognition of common law marriages when the receiving state doesn't recognize them, recognition of interracial marriages when the receiving state doesn't recognize them, child custody, alimony, etc.) You would have to start over from scratch with some other status (on top of having to enact the legislation in each state to start out with). Guidance could be drawn from marriage decisions, but would not be binding because the status(es) is(are) deliberately different. Even assuming reciprocity can be compelled - at a minimum, it would require multi-state litigation, at least until all of the various pairings of the different not quite married statuses are resolved with respect to what each status corresponds to in each other state which has different statuses.

Answering them for same gender marriages is, as I suggested, a simple judicial matter. The questions are all federal constitutional questions. Whatever is decided with respect to one marriage discrimination statute/amendment will ultimately be settled at the Supreme Court level and will be binding on all states - as it was in Loving and Virginia. So it is not a 50 state solution, in terms of the quantity of litigation required. You need a federal constitutional decision declaring that recognition of the status is mandatory between states, and another (or perhaps the same one) declaring that the federal government must recognize marriages created within each state.

As to international recognition - I was speaking primarily of US recognition of international marriages, particularly recognition of marriages performed in Canada or any of the other half dozen countries in which same gender marriages are already legally recognized. You need another federal constitutional decision on this issue. You are correct that we cannot force other countries to recognize our marriages - I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

You are correct that the various marriage discrimination statues and amendments complicate the matter. It is still a federal constitutional question, but the litigation will have to overcome "strongly held public policy" arguments with respect to the statutes and whatever legislative history documents the state's justification, and the added weight the various constitutional amendments have because they are constitutional (at the state level) rather than statutory.

I'm not inclined to expend much energy getting to the starting gate with something else, when we're already there with several states and countries which recognize marriages. It is still a far simpler task (once the court is composed of individuals who are more inclined to respect stare decisis than the current bunch) to address the existing inequalities via the status that many couples already "possess," who already have demonstrable harm and standing to demand legal recognition of our marriages, than starting from scratch with a hodge-podge of state statutes that have to be reconciled and then still go through the same process of overcoming constitutional barriers that still exist whether you are talking about marriage or something less than marriage.

[NMMNG]

28. The same assholes

who claim they're "only defending marriage" also fight against Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions. They claim they're "marriage-like" unions and therefore are just as much a "threat" to the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage. The people in ME who worked their asses off to destroy marriage equality also tried to destroy Domestic Partnerships ten years ago, despite their claims to the contrary.

THEY are the ones who are fighting over "a word", not us. The rights come with the word, like it or not. They claim their religion owns the word but they are wrong. Stop trying to pander to them and their bigotry.



It's people like you that make me want to leave off the word "democrat" when I vote, if I ever vote again. I'm sick to death of people who claim to be on my side but then expect me to compromise left and right when it comes to the basic civil rights of myself and my family. FUCK THAT!

[laconicsax]

30. No.

This is a straight-forward issue. Marriage is a civil institution. The only religious aspect is that clergy are allowed by the state to preside over joining ceremonies. Religion has no claim to marriage, yet they continue to make it, and accommodationists are willing to let them do it.

[regnaD kciN]

34. Well...

...keep in mind that, in WA, the vote was on "domestic partnerships," not gay marriage, and it's still too close to call. OTOH, opponents based their whole campaign on scaring people that, if domestic partnerships weren't rejected, it would be the first step on the slippery slope to gay marraige. OTOOH (and I've run out of hands, here), the same logic could extend all the way to "if we don't execute gays, it will be the first step toward gay marriage, so ???

[Unvanguard]

52. It's not a "word." It's a question: are we REALLY equal or just sorta-kinda?

We're going to fight this out until the end. You don't compromise on equal rights.

[gatorboy]

57. "let's just call it an interracial civil union."

Oy. Glad you weren't around to "help" during the 60's

[VMI Dem]

2. Our own President is against it.

Where now?

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Yes where now?

:shrug: What the hell is wrong with us? I feel sick! :puke:

[Jennicut]

4. My parents and their friends are all against it. My friends are all for it.

Generational differences will get less and less in a few years.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

6. What's sad is the Maine proposal wasn't forcing anyone/any group to marry people....

....if they objected to the concept. Even with very open ended wording, the anti-gay forces are such frightened and pathetic people they can't let it go......

[DaveinMD]

7. harder in midterms

when young people rarely vote. It will happen. We have to keep fighting.

[imdjh]

12. We lost California with Obama on the ticket.

We've lost every referendum in a general with the possible exception of Arizona. The problem is that there is more than one problem. In 2008, many Obama voters voted with the Republican bigots on Prop 8 and A2, while others simply didn't vote in any column except president. We had lots of voters here who walked into the booth, voted for Obama and called it a day. They didn't vote on issues, judges, or amendments.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Note that both tax-reduction referenda...

....TABOR, and the reduction in the auto excise tax, were soundly defeated.

So there's a substantial wedge of Maine voters who voted against two tax-cutting referenda, and voted for a repeal of gay marriage legislation.

That's not a straight wingnut vote.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. A modest change of tactics

There are not as many mean old people as you think -- but they get stoked up on rage, and go out and vote. So WE have to get the vote out. Liberals stayed home everywhere except in the NY-23 race.

And we have to "take it to" the culture warriors. Combative angry ranting won't work; Limbaugh's and Beck's and Hoffman's and Palin's rant-populism show us that a "new paradigm" is called for. I am sure that there are hundreds of things we could do that are overlooking. Sure, we're all disappointed and angry, but we only have 51 weeks to get ready for the NEXT election.

It ain't over yet.

--d!

[imdjh]

15. I'm thinking baseball bats at the moment. Too extreme?

[Dogmudgeon]

27. We still haven't tried agitprop

Tug at the heartstrings.

Most people can't empathize with same-sex fucking. But hearing that two people deeply in love have been denied the right to marry is a different story.

And being forbidden to be with one's life partner when death is near is also an atrocity that gets to people. It's up to us to make sure every such tear-jerking story is kept in circulation around the water coolers of America. We have no Uncle Tom's Cabin -- yet.

There is a very effective "baseball bat" against religion-engineered bigotry. It's the simple notion of fairness. Let the bigots try to sell the idea that God is a Klansman.

--d!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. My mom is a perfect example of this barrier.

Former hippie? Sure. Probably never voted for a Republican in her life. She'd likely be called a "socialist" by the current standards of our political discourse. However...

When it comes to gay marriage, her response is, "Can't they just, y'know, call it something else?"

It's one of the few political disagreements we have, and for whatever reason I cannot understand, she won't change her mind about it.

[Hepburn]

60. Tell your mom for me ...

...one can marry two colors of paint for a wall and one can marry two spices while cooking...get over it, Mom, marriages are not just between one man and one woman.

Signed,

Hepburn ~~ in her 60s and still a 60s Hippie :hi:

[d_b]

13. Time is on our side.

[LostInAnomie]

16. In about 20 years this country is going to be a VERY different place...

... for the simple fact that a lot of the people that despise social progress will have died off.

[d_b]

17. Yea I give it 20 years too

[imdjh]

26. Take your pick of predictions, but yours assumes a great deal of assimilation of immigrants.

While many of the predictions of what this country will look like in 20 or 40 years are bad misunderstandings of how race, culture, immigration, and society work - one thing is for certain: Most of our immigrants are uneducated poor people coming from culturally backward places. So, how do we figure that they are going to be assimilated to our sophisticated culture, when we have people who don't even think they should have to speak English, or co-mingle with the American Anglo Saxon culture at all?

[Beregond2]

29. Good point.

All the people I saw with petitions for the anti-gay-rights measure in WA were Russian immigrants.

[imdjh]

73. I assume you are kidding.

And while I have a sense of humor , your remark is the kind of dismissal that some otherwise intelligent people often find sufficient to avoid looking at the true impact of something they have a philosophical rather than practical position on.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the Russian immigrants tended towards social conservatism. Some Muslim immigrants to parts of Europe, the ones who went from being the poor in their own country to forming a ghetto in their host, have certainly shown a trend towards social conservatism and resistance to social or cultural assimilation. Once they get the right to vote, would we expect them to magically start voting for liberal ideas?

[Unvanguard]

55. Even with immigration, the age divide on same-sex marriage is still immense.

It'll happen. It's only a matter of time.

[imdjh]

71. I have little doubt about the inevitability of it, though I wonder if I'll live to see it.

[krabigirl]

83. Yep. Until then, things will suck. We are living in Fundie-land.

[NoSheep]

18. Closer than ever before. I have to have hope.

[JI7]

19. civil rights was won through court battles and legislature, the same will be true of gay marriage

[liberalpragmatist]

22. Gay marriage legal in 5 states, up from 2 at the beginning of this year

The Maine vote is really upsetting. But it's important to take a long view sometimes. At the beginning of this year, only two states permitted gay marriage: MA and CT. Now, even with Maine's repeal, five states do - MA, CT, VT, NH, and IA. This is two steps forward, one step back. Or four steps forward one step back.

It'll happen.

That being said, I do somewhat agree that maybe for the next few years we should focus on "civil unions" in states where ballot initiatives could repeal the statute. Still go for full gay marriage where ballot initiatives are rare or hard, but as an interim step go for civil unions in the other states. (And really, the experience of VT and CT suggests that "civil unions" don't last that long - within a decade, those states should be ready for full gay marriage.)

[Beregond2]

31. Yes,

I wish people could keep a little better historical perspective. When I was a kid (which wasn't THAT long ago,) the vast majority of nice, normal Americans thought homosexuals belonged in mental institutions. We have come a long way in that time, much farther than I ever dreamed we would. Let's not get so upset over each defeat that we forget the overall triumph.

[XemaSab]

24. Yeats summed up being a liberal thusly:

The best lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.

:(

[Old and In the Way]

33. The main thrust of the Yes on 1 campaign was-

They going to teach our kids gay marriage in our schools. Why anyone would believe this, is beyond me. Problem is, almost every religious group/church was against it and I'm sure that was a factor. It's all about creating fear based on lies. But time is not on their side. Eventually, enlightenment will win out.

[SoCalDem]

37. Look at the way the ballots are always worded

Prop 8 . a "yes" meant NO..and in Maine, I think it was the same today..

The referendums are usually long, wordy pieces of double-talk & lawyerese, and in Prop8's case many people actually thought they voted FOR gay rights, but it ended up being the opposite..

and as always, people who are vehemently OPPOSED to something, are usually more eager to toss their two-cents into the mix.

There were probably many people who thought that since it was a "law" already, they did not need to vote...

[Davis_X_Machina]

39. Maine had a 'people's veto' referendum...

...on an anti-discrimination bill in 2005, for which a 'no' vote was also needed to save the legislation, and it was saved, by eight per cent. People up here know how these work. 70% or more of last night's voters were around and voting on that ballot question

[quaker bill]

41. I am all for same gender marriages

I have stood for it and have gotten our Friends Meetings to adopt marriage equality as our practice.

That being said, had you put school desegregation up to a vote here in the 1960's, it would have lost badly. FL voted for Obama and banned same gender marriages at the same time on the same ballot.

It is a civil rights issue. Civil rights protect minorities from the whims of majority rule. The whim of majority rule has expressed itself in Maine, as it did in FL. There is a reason that civil rights are generally won in court and not put to a vote. This is the reason.

There is magic to the term "marriage", you don't have to agree with it or like it, I don't, but the evidence is clear that it exists. Thinking that this is ignorant, while correct, does not change reality.

I think it would be wize to take marriages where they can be had and allow the "equal protection" and "good faith and credit" clauses in the US Constitution to do their work when the time is ripe. This could be a while.

[Ganja Ninja]

42. Why not try another tact?

I like Jesse Ventura's idea of having all marriages legally defined as civil unions and doing away with the term marriage when it comes to the legal use. It's really just a religious ceremony anyway.

[Stevenmarc]

48. Sometimes I wonder

whether people think shit out before they hit the post message button or not. Anytime I've ever asked an opponent of marriage equality what the hell they were defending when it came to DOMA I could never get one legitimate answer, having all marriages defined as "civil unions" hands them a reason on a silver platter.

It's an idea that would set the cause back at least another two decades because you have removed the focus from the actual civil rights issue to an issue of the majority having to protect an existing right, it's a totally unproductive diversion.

The term marriage isn't the problem, the problem is that most people don't know what the fuck the term marriage means even the ones who are married. They can't quite comprehend that marriage as it exists in this country actually is a civil contract and all the optional mystical ceremony surrounding it is virtually meaningless. They don't quite get that it's the state that administers the contract and only the state can dissolve it when you chose to divorce, it isn't like you have to go back to the church for a demarrying ceremony.


"It's really just a religious ceremony anyway", mmmm, no, that would be called a Wedding, you like most people have confused wedding and marriage, wedding is the one day event, marriage is the legal contract between two individuals.

[Ganja Ninja]

54. A marriage ceremony and a wedding are the same thing.

The terms are interchangeable. I thought this was about civil rights. As long as you keep selling this as gay marriage or same sex marriage the religious right will keep blocking it with all their might. To them marriage is something done in a church before God. You're messing with religion in their eyes.

If you make civil unions for all the law of the land regardless of sex and you confine the term marriage to the churches then you put everybody on an equal footing legally. Discrimination will still exist on the personal level, nothings going to change that no matter how many laws they pass.

By redefining marriage legally you win the same rights under the law. Isn't that what it's all about or are you only interested in forcing this down the throats of the religious right?

[ieoeja]

61. There is no such thing as a marriage ceremony.

The ceremony is called a wedding. The marriage is a specific type of legal partnership.

Prohibiting gay couples from forming a Marriage is no different than prohibiting them from forming a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP).

[Ganja Ninja]

65. I'm not talking prohibiting anybody from doing anything.

I'm saying if they won't allow gay marriage but will allow civil unions then return the favor and eliminate marriage altogether for everyone. Take marriage right out of the public lexicon. Civil unions will be the only thing recognized by the law. Equality for everyone.

[Ms. Toad]

75. What you are suggesting is legal nonsense.

See this post for a more complete explanation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6922369&mesg_id=6923519

Marriage is a status that is created and defined. Marriage is also an internationally recognized legal status, with a very intricate balance of laws (broadly speaking) that have been worked out over decades of court cases and legislative changes. The local definitions and requirements very, but once you gain that status on a local level, you are entitled to the rights associated with that status in every political subdivision you enter.

You can't just create a new status locally, snap your fingers, and magically have that intricate balance of laws apply - particularly when your new local status does not even exist in most political subdivisions. The current balance only works because marriage is a universally recognized status. In addition, in accordance with universally accepted canons of construction, if a different word is used - or a different status is created - the difference was deliberate. In other words, the presumption is that the status must be treated differently because there is no reason to create a new one if it is the same as the old one.

[justiceischeap]

62. Question about your post -- seriously

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm hoping you can seriously answer this...so, here goes:
You got to your county office that gives out marriage licenses (that's the contract of which you speak, correct?) and then you go to the church or the JP and get hitched. Then after the ceremony is complete, you, your new spouse and whoever officiated the ceremony (plus some witnesses if I recall) sign the marriage license.

So, if you just had an officiator sign, plus two witnesses without the ceremony, it would be a legal contract, right? There's really no need for "I pronounce you man and wife," right?

[ieoeja]

63. You didn't ask it of me, but you are (virtually) correct.

I say "virtually" because you still have to file the contract with the state.

When I got married we actually signed the contract the night before. The monsigneur told us at the time we were now technically married, though we post-dated the signatures.

Note: it was the priest who told us that we were married even though no ceremony had yet been performed. Even the priest at that time made no pretense that marriage was a religious issue.

[Romulox]

66. Marriage isn't really a contract, inasmuch as it binds a third party

(the state), and that the essential dimensions of the relationship aren't really defined by the parties to the agreement...

It resembles a legal partnership more than it does a bilateral contract.

[Ganja Ninja]

70. I'm saying when you go to the county for a license it will say ...

"Civil Union" not marriage no matter what the sex of the applicants. Whatever ceremony you have and how it's worded is up to you.

[Ms. Toad]

77. For legal reasons, it needs to say marriage.

That is the internationally recognized status.

To gain true equality for any other status, you would need not only a change in local law, but legislative and/or litigation to extend the rights to sister political subdivisions (in the US, other states), the overriding political subdivision (in the US, the federal government), and to sister political subdivisions to the overriding political subdivision (other countries).

[Ganja Ninja]

80. Well that shoots that down then. n/t

[ieoeja]

59. Marriage was a legal partnership in Europefor millenia before the Church took responsibility for it.

Since the Church was responsible for adjudicating ownership/inheritance/etc for the peasantry, they needed to keep records of marriage and divorce.

When the government assumed those responsibilities, the Church reverted to its previous role. You can have a priest bless your marriage if you want, but that doesn't make it a marriage. Or don't have it blessed, and it is still a marriage. The legal contract you sign and file with the state makes it a marriage. The ceremony is just a blessing and utterly meaningless to the state.

[TheKentuckian]

43. They've been using this for cycles to GOTV and fire up their base

This needs to be settled at the Federal level with the quickness or its going to continue to suck bad for at least 10 years. Sure, some Democrats are supporting these distortions but its very much substantially the Reich Wingers fueling this stuff.

It is wrong, unconstitutional, and an anchor around our party's neck because the wingnuts put anti-civil rights initiatives on as many ballots as possible every damn year.
The courts have to be restored folks. The courts are priority or we're going to get rolled on this and corporate personhood issues, at the least it clips our wings and flips close races by driving that nutty vote.

[Tesha]

50. But it can't be settled at the Federal level because:

1) Federal Democrats are almost-completely gutless and

2) The Federal courts are packed with Republicans.

It's a tough nut to crack, but changing demographics will
eventually carry the day everywhere but Dixie.

Tesha

[Unvanguard]

53. Yes, we can. We almost won in California. We almost won in Maine.

These were two close elections. And the trend is against them. It's only a matter of time.

[Odin2005]

56. The bigots are good at scaring people.

Which is why civil rights should not be up for vote.

[tonysam]

67. And the nice, young people

will turn into the mean old people who will vote it down again and again.

Remember, most voters are no longer the "greatest generation"; those people have largely died off. It's the baby boomers, those people who were in the forefront of civil rights and women's rights issues, and those afterwards, who are the voters.

And SSM STILL can't win.

[krabigirl]

84. Nope. People under 50 pretty much are not as insane about the whole gay thing, period.

Older people in general are so very anti-gay.

[Taverner]

68. People are too stupid to do the right thing

If Civil Rights or Slavery would be left to a referendum, hello jim crow...

Seriously, voters are hateful and stupid

And our side sucks at organizing any kind of opposition

[slackmaster]

72. Gay marriage will win when enough peoples' hearts and minds have been won over

It's going to take more work.

[krabigirl]

82. You're right. We can't. Right now, America is still a backwards, bigoted, religious nation.

It won't be so in 20 years, but right now, frankly, it sucks.

[BlueIris]

85. Crap. I accidentally recommended this thread. Oops.

No reason for my post here other than the state that I didn't mean to rec it!

[Malikshah]

86. Not giving up. Not even waiting for the bigots to die. Will just keep fighting

until we have basic rights in this country.

Arguments to the contrary merely hold people back.