Legal Gay Marriages Comes To America's Capital

[Jingthing]

Another step down the long road.

[Jingthing]

Your boy nobama says marriage is between one man & one woman. Nice try.

The esteemed Nobel peace prize winning US president is named Barack Hussein Obama. Also, he is not a boy. That is a racist way to refer to a grown black man, or didn't you know that? You are correct, sadly Obama opposes legalizing gay marriage at the federal level. I suspect this is for political reasons only, he is a politician, not a Martin Luther King. This small victory is about the city of Washington D.C., the District of Columbia only. They have their own government but it also relates to the federal government, it being the nation's capital. Symbolically thought this is a rather big victory with lots of visibility as D.C. is the city of government and the supreme court. Someday it will be the supreme court, located in Washington D.C., that will vote to rule that denying gay Americans equal civil rights under the law is unconstitutional. Whether that happens in one year or fifty years, we don't know, but it will definitely happen. I bet you Obama knows that too in his heart, given the amount of times he quotes Martin Luther King.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Jingthing

[LaoPo]

Your boy nobama says marriage is between one man & one woman. Nice try.

The esteemed Nobel peace prize winning US president is named Barack Hussein Obama. Also, he is not a boy. That is a racist way to refer to a grown black man, or didn't you know that?

The remark by powderpuff is appalling and "not done". President Obama deserves a lot more respect than to be called like powderpuff did. He has to learn a lot I suppose.

I'm used to legal gay marriages of both sexes as it is quite common in my own European country but the US is, for a substantial part, still quite puritan as are many other countries and societies. It will take time.

LaoPo

Edited December 17, 2009 by LaoPo

[powderpuff]

D.C. did not pass gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't exist.

But I have a serious question gingging. Is sodomy illegal in Thailand?

[Jingthing]

D.C. did not pass gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't exist.

But I have a serious question gingging. Is sodomy illegal in Thailand?

Legal gay marriage exists where it is legal under the law. That includes many nations. Legal gay marriage in a US state or Washington D.C. is technically legal but lacks the legal rights afforded heterosexual marriages at the federal level. These limited state marriages can be helpful for things like qualifying for health insurance through your spouse's employer, hospital visitations, etc. Of course couples have their own personal reasons for doing it, sometimes just a symbolic declaration of their relationship.

Thailand? No legal gay marriage here. As far as I know sodomy and gay sex is not only legal here but a national specialty. (That was a joke.)

BTW, friendly reminder. This is the gay forum. It is not the place to express anti-gay sentiments. Thank you.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Jingthing

[endure]

D.C. did not pass gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't exist.

But I have a serious question gingging. Is sodomy illegal in Thailand?

Nothing's illegal in Thailand as long as the price is right.

BTW did you know that sodomy is an action not confined to homosexuals?

[airplane]

I'm amazed! Did they really pass a gay marriage law? What about two heterosexual men who want to get married, can they not marry? How does the government get involved with asserting whether men are straight, bi, gay or transgendered? Seems confusing to me... It seems awful confining to limit marriage to straights and gays, and then only between two people.

[Ijustwannateach]

I would like to remind our gentle new viewers that the gay forum is not a place for homosexuality to be challenged. Insofar as this topic is concerned, challenges to gay marriage should only be made on the basis of it being BAD for GAY PEOPLE (my personal view, as I feel that it has clearly not worked out for straight people)- not on the basis of religious, heterosexist, or chauvinist beliefs against gay persons.

As far as I am aware, sex acts of any type between/among consenting adults are NOT ILLEGAL in Thailand- and that topic is off-topic for this thread.

Airplane, I agree with you that if we're going to broaden marriage we may as well make it possible for various groups- though I think to include some responsibility along with the benefit may be necessary- requiring the group to establish residence together or raise children or something of that nature in order to encourage economic and social development.

[Jingthing]

I'm amazed! Did they really pass a gay marriage law? What about two heterosexual men who want to get married, can they not marry? How does the government get involved with asserting whether men are straight, bi, gay or transgendered? Seems confusing to me... It seems awful confining to limit marriage to straights and gays, and then only between two people.

It really is not that confusing. A SAME SEX marriage is also known as a gay marriage. States and nations that allow such legal unions aren't interested if these two people of the same sex are actually gay. Certainly two straight guys could get married in places where gay marriage is legal. Why they would want to is curious, but that's their business. As you may know, it is very common indeed for gay people to enter into marriages with people of the OPPOSITE sex for whatever their personal reasons. The states don't get involved in that either.

As far as the idea of gay marriage being bad for gay people, I am sure it is very bad for some gay people. However, it is only a choice and I am not aware of any country forcing gay people into these unions. So the obvious argument is shouldn't gay people have the same CHOICE to marry the person they love as others? I believe the US supreme court will one day rule this way; you cannot deny an entire class of people the same civil rights as everyone else. It wasn't so long ago that marriages between whites and blacks, and whites and Asians were illegal in several US states.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Jingthing

[PeaceBlondie]

Meanwhile, it has become legal now for gay men to marry in all three capital cities of North America. Yes, Mexico City.

[Jingthing]

Meanwhile, it has become legal now for gay men to marry in all three capital cities of North America. Yes, Mexico City.

I hadn't realized. A 21 pinga salute to our Mexican amigos.

[PeaceBlondie]

Like DC, the chilangos have their own 'state' legislature, and they voted in in this week.

Chinese picked up on it http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/...Mexico-City.htm

The UK http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...ld-1848123.html

[sbk]

Our good Representative from Utah is now challenging the law and plans to have it repealed. Since DC is not a state, its residents do not enjoy the same representation or legislative rights as their state abiding American brethren. Wonder how Mr Utah man would feel if Nevada came along and told them they thought Utah needed to legalize prostitution? Or California told them to legalize medical marijuana?

[endure]

And China has its first state sanctioned gay bar:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ds-1848122.html

[LaoPo]

Meanwhile, it has become legal now for gay men to marry in all three capital cities of North America. Yes, Mexico City.

Not for gay -lesbian- women ?

MERRY CHRISTMAS

LaoPo

[Ijustwannateach]

JT- you may not have noticed, but in many areas which have marriage law, even partnerships which are not technically marriages *become* so under the law (common-law partnerships, 'palimony' laws, etc.) so that even if gays chose not to be married they might wind up with no choice from a legal standpoint, much as many straight couples do now. I don't mind gays have the choice to become married- a bad choice, I feel- as long as they aren't forced into it by default.

And just wait until gay divorce rears its ugly head....

[airplane]

Gay men will, in their own time, figure out what straight men discovered long ago - that legal marriage is a bad deal for individuals, but remains a wonderful tool for social control. The issue is really about the enormous human need for recognition and approval in an extremely narcissistic age.

[Scott]

Personally I opposed to it. It would take me a year to get into shape to wear a Vera Wang gown!

It sure would help with some of the legal hassles of the other half never having any real say so in the relationship.

[Jingthing]

Well, in the US, legal federal marriage status would be very beneficial for long term couples. For example, they would have the same immigration rights as heteros as well as social security survivor benefits. We could bring our Thai fans back with us if we were crazy enough. Not to mention spousal health insurance though this will become less important due to the private health insurance bonanza bill.

Edited December 25, 2009 by Jingthing

[jerry921]

It's not law yet. It's been passed by the council, signed by the Mayor, but isn't law until it passes Congressional review. Congress has 30 days (counting only days they are in-session) to review it, and can overturn it. But if Congress does nothing, it becomes law after the review period expires.

There is a lot of political horse-trading going on around the health care bill, and that process isn't over, so we must all hold our breaths for a few weeks longer.

[Naam]

D.C. did not pass gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't exist.

But I have a serious question gingging. Is sodomy illegal in Thailand?

Nothing's illegal in Thailand as long as the price is right.

BTW did you know that sodomy is an action not confined to homosexuals?

you don't say!

[PoorSucker]

[steven100]

It's not law yet. It's been passed by the council, signed by the Mayor, but isn't law until it passes Congressional review. Congress has 30 days (counting only days they are in-session) to review it, and can overturn it. But if Congress does nothing, it becomes law after the review period expires.

There is a lot of political horse-trading going on around the health care bill, and that process isn't over, so we must all hold our breaths for a few weeks longer.

I wish Thailand would pass a law that accepts gay marriage !!

Thais should pressure the government.

JMHO.

[Navalator]

JT- you may not have noticed, but in many areas which have marriage law, even partnerships which are not technically marriages *become* so under the law (common-law partnerships, 'palimony' laws, etc.) so that even if gays chose not to be married they might wind up with no choice from a legal standpoint, much as many straight couples do now. I don't mind gays have the choice to become married- a bad choice, I feel- as long as they aren't forced into it by default.

And just wait until gay divorce rears its ugly head....

...............it already has, in California! A prominent conservative homophobic Republican state legislator who voted for the so called "gay" domestic partners act said that he did so so that gays would have to go through the same crap that straights have to go through when divorce time comes around. California's domestic partners legislation is a carbon copy of the straight" legislation with the word "marriage" being substituted by the phrase "domestic partners". Such things as community property laws and child support kicks in now when gays wish to divorce in the State. On the other hand, domestic partners can no longer be denied partner access by homophobic religious (read Catholic) hospitals during times of medical emergencies.

So essentially, gays have the same rights and responsibilities of straights in California. In addition, there are now scores of legal protections for the widowed partner which prevents rabid relatives of the deceased sweeping in and stealing domestic assets. The closer you get to equality, the more legal responsibilities, liabilities and protections you have. As North Carolina Senator Jessy Helms once said when exhorting the U.S. Senate o voted down a "gay rights" bill: "Give homosexuals civil rights and they will take our jobs!". Sage advice from a renown racists and homophobe.

The domestic partners legislation also dilutes the rantings of homophobic religious leaders, such as Jerry Falwell, who blamed the destruction of the New York World Trade Centers destruction on homosexuals.