Same Sex Marriage Laws Around The Globe - Photos -

[powderpuff]

This is the way Progressives work.

When they can't get what they want they find some liberal judge to rule in their favor.

Then when the people have an election & they say they don't want something they go find a liberal judge to overturn the democratic vote.

Now we have a gay judge on the supreme court - Kagan - it's 5 4 in favor -.

For progressives they have to get rid of God.

[LaoPo]

History was made today in California on gay marriage. A few of the most powerful, competent, experienced lawyers in the US(who happen to NOT be gay) launched an historic case to overturn the voter's overturn of the marriage equality in California. The argument was that it was unconstitutional to deny gays the same civil rights to marriage that others have. This was a national argument and it was about marriage, wanting the SAME deal as everyone else. Yes, sir, the SAME deal, the same language, MARRIAGE, the SAME civil rights. In the US, it is ridiculous to have anything but marriage as there are tens of thousands of existing laws that specifically mention marriage. If you don't call it marriage, they are not getting the same rights unless you pass THOUSANDS of new laws.

This case in California will possibly/probably mean this case will go to the supreme court. The national supreme court. They will decide if gay Americans are having their civil rights violated or not in regard to MARRIAGE rights. Not namby pamby domestic partners language, MARRIAGE. Equal rights. Full equal rights. This is going to be all or nothing indeed and it is a fight worth fighting, win or lose.

Point to keep in mind, when in the US interracial marriage bans were outlawed, interracial marriages were actually much less supported than gay marriage today. They got their rights because they DESERVED them under the civil right protection of the constitution. As do gay Americans.

The significance of this case which makes it historic is that the California court ruled for the first time in history that denying equal civil MARRIAGE rights to gay Americans violates the NATIONAL constitution, NOT about only one state's constitution.

Who knows, maybe if the US finally makes this just change, it will have an influence on many other countries, including THAILAND.

STATE OF WEDDED BLISS:

California Judge rules Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Prop 8 Ruling: Read the FULL TEXT

SAN FRANCISCO (Associated Press) -- A person close to the case says a federal judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.

A copy of the ruling had not yet been publicly released.

Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.

FULL TEXT, here:

http://www.scribd.co...-8-Ruling-FINAL

LaoPo

[Jingthing]

This is the way Progressives work.

When they can't get what they want they find some liberal judge to rule in their favor.

Then when the people have an election & they say they don't want something they go find a liberal judge to overturn the democratic vote.

Now we have a gay judge on the supreme court - Kagan - it's 5 4 in favor -.

For progressives they have to get rid of God.

Liberal judge? He was appointed by George Bush, Senior. Not liberal, but a believer in the CONSTITUTION and also a very fair judge. The only way to further civil rights for ALL Americans is through the supreme court, yes JUDGES. The same as for racial civil rights. The majority under the brilliant US constitutional has no right whatsoever to limit the constitutional civil rights of any minority, vote or no vote. Kagan is NOT a lesbian, what total bunk.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

In the BBC report on the California ruling being discussed above, it stated that the ban on gay marriage was overturned, but that gay couples had already had the right to a civil union. Apart from the name, what is the difference? I mean, in terms of such things as equal rights to state benefits, inheritance laws and so on.

[Jingthing]

In the BBC report on the California ruling being discussed above, it stated that the ban on gay marriage was overturned, but that gay couples had already had the right to a civil union. Apart from the name, what is the difference? I mean, in terms of such things as equal rights to state benefits, inheritance laws and so on.

BIG. I am sure the list below is very incomplete. Also note state gay marriages and civil unions are MEANINGLESS for national issues such as taxation and immigration and recognition of other states and countries of the marriage/or union as legitimate. ONLY gay marriage legalized at the FEDERAL LEVEL (through the supreme court) will be equal to heterosexual marriage.

The trouble with these weak cave in compromises is that they create legal nightmares. Like I said before, marriage is already woven into tens of thousands of US laws. You can't apply your relationship to those laws unless you have a REAL marriage.

Of course I agree with this --

Conversely, advocates of same-sex marriage contend that anything less than full marriage rights extended to same-sex partners is analogous to the "separate but equal" racial laws of the Jim Crow era.

Differences from marriage

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a requirement for marriage license applicants.[2]

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[2]

* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage; there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[2]

* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[2][4][5] In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from the program.[6]

* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships[2], in which one partner believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.

* The process for terminating a domestic partnership is more complex and expensive than the divorce process. On May 17, 2009, a bill passed the California state assembly which, if passed into law, would streamline and equalize the processes.[7]

* California's unemployment insurance program allows the someone about to be married to move to another city in order to marry that person and to begin to collect unemployment insurance immediately, this benefit is not provided to those just about to enter into a domestic partnership. In 2010 a bill was introduced in the California Aseembly which, if passed, will eliminate this discrepancy.[8][9] (Note that domestic partnership, unlike marriage, requires co-residency, as described earlier.)

In addition to these differences specific to the United States, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel [5]), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.

Many supporters of same-sex marriage also argue that the use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference,[citation needed] and in the majority opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed,[10] suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions".[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California Edited August 4, 2010 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Thanks, Jingthing. I had no idea the differences could be so big (I still prefer the other name, but my reasons are different!)

Now maybe we could think of the 95+% of the world's population who do NOT live in the US.

[Jingthing]

Due to the historic news in California, now it will work its way through the courts, so don't expect this story to go away quite yet. I don't know if we will prevail or not. The wisdom of the strategy of the lawyers from the famous Bush vs. Gore case (yes, both of them) who have launched this case (and in my view these two straight laced men are already among the biggest heroes in gay American history regardless) of more or less going for broke is yet to be determined. We may see total victory on this issue within a short time, or the end result may be a massive setback, for example if the supreme court rejects the argument that denying equal civil rights to gays is unconstitutional.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

Credit where credit is due -- to Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies

It is certain that some day gay Americans will have equal marriage civil rights. The question is when. A year from now or 100 years from now? In any case, three straight white men will have their names writ large when the final history is written, Olsen and Boies of course but also San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[JohnLeech]

John, I am what I am. I find your tone hostile and I am not interested in a flame war with you. Goodbye.

And what you are is wrong. It has nothing to do with "a flame war", although that is one way of avoiding the issue - it is simply that your supposed "facts" are as way off as your "opinions" and your "impressions".

Example:

In the US, it is ridiculous to have anything but marriage as there are tens of thousands of existing laws that specifically mention marriage. If you don't call it marriage, they are not getting the same rights unless you pass THOUSANDS of new laws. ........... ONLY gay marriage legalized at the FEDERAL LEVEL (through the supreme court) will be equal to heterosexual marriage.

Totally untrue, as I have already explained in this very thread: "Some European countries even took the easy way out and limited their Civil Partnership laws to saying that wherever the word "marriage" appeared in any law it also included Registered Partnerships, and wherever the word "spouse" appeared it also included Registered Partners."

What part of that don't you understand? What part could not apply in the US? What could be simpler and more acceptable now?

JT is one of the small but very vocal group of gays you can find in any gay ghetto who want to have every "right" that heterosexuals have, while at the same time they want their "gay rights" to be sacrosanct. Unfortunately they and their fellow homophiles do more to set back acceptance of gays generally and equal rights in particular than their equally bigoted homophobic opposite numbers. Fortunately as more and more "normal" gays are coming out and being readily accepted as "normal (but gay)" by others the homophiles are being sidelined and progress on issues such as Civil Partnership is being made in spite of them.

Edited August 5, 2010 by JohnLeech

[Jingthing]

What you are proposing would be IMPOSSIBLE in the US because 50 states have 50 sets of laws. This isn't my opinion. This is the mainstream facts as presented by any mainstream US gay rights lobby. Your other personal attacks stuff, suggesting you are normal and I am not and that only people like you are helping gay rights and people like me are the enemy of gay rights, go peel a grape, dude. Ignore time!

Edited August 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

More evidence --

Instead, Obama supports civil unions, the extension of legal benefits to gay couples, which he says provide important rights to gays and lesbians in their everyday lives. Never mind that many gay activists view civil unions as an unwelcome half-measure that undermines efforts to secure the right to marry.

I agree with the many gay activists. If that makes me a villain to my fellow gays, I think I can handle that. More info, the road to the supreme court will likely take years. That could be good news if Obama has a second term and gets more judge picks.

Half measures? Would Martin Luther King have accepted half measures? Why should we? Are we inferior?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080502211_2.html

Edited August 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[JohnLeech]

JT, your idea of "evidence" is a little off - that is the opinion of the reporter, not Obama, and even that refers to "many gay activists" rather than "many gays".

To put the record staight, I have never said or implied that I am "normal" and you are not, that I am "helping gay rights", that you are a "villian" and "the enemy of gay rights", etc, etc. What I have said is that you and those like you are behind the times and either cannot or do not want to accept that mainstream gays, and the rest of the world, have moved on since the days of the Gay Liberation Front and Outrage.

[Jingthing]

I still can't get over how big and historic the California court judgment was. What a fantastic and substantial victory in the long process towards full 100 percent equality for American gays. It is made rather sweeter that the fantastically competent and thorough judge who ruled this way is a CONSERVATIVE appointed by a REPUBLICAN (that's the RIGHT WING party in case you don't know), and a gay man! Nothing less than full equality, it's worth the fight.

Would Rosa Parks have settled to be seated in the middle of the bus?

He (Judge Walker) frames gay marriage as a question involving the most basic, cherished rights that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans. In doing so, he raises the stakes sky-high: Are gays and lesbians full citizens of this country, or are they something less?

Walker stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080504766.html

Happy happy Joy Joy, Judge Walker

Edited August 6, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Watch out, traditional marriage!

[JohnLeech]

I still can't get over how big and historic the California court judgment was. What a fantastic and substantial victory in the long process towards full 100 percent equality for American gays. It is made rather sweeter that the fantastically competent and thorough judge who ruled this way is a CONSERVATIVE appointed by a REPUBLICAN (that's the RIGHT WING party in case you don't know), and a gay man! Nothing less than full equality, it's worth the fight.

Something that is hardly likely to help the case - and arguably something which something which should have been grounds for him recusing himself, if true (the judge has never confirmed or denied hi sexual preferences).

Would Rosa Parks have settled to be seated in the middle of the bus?

Probably not, but so what? There is no connection between the two, no matter how often the comparison is made. Racial discrimination is as unpleasant and objectionable as sexual discrimination - agreed, no arguments, end of story. Marriage, however, is accepted as a union between a man and a woman - no more, no less. Two men (or two women) cannot "marry", as the word is generally understood any more than a man can breastfeed or become pregnant. There are simple biological differences between men and women that cannot be legislated away - they are different, but equal under the law.

Men cannot use women's toilets and vice-versa - does that mean that one is superior or inferior to the other, or one is being denied their constitutional or basic human rights? No. It simply means they are different but entitled to equal rights.

Judge Walker's ruling, while sweeping, is far from conclusive as he concludes "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker concluded. "Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional." If it shown (as it easily can be) that a Civil Partnership gives equal rights to a marriage, so that neither is "inferior" or "superior", then the constitutional argument is moot (not legally relevant).

[Jingthing]

This is the way Progressives work.

When they can't get what they want they find some liberal judge to rule in their favor.

Activist Judges! They're out to ruin your life!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/08/11/fiorejudges.DTL

[Jingthing]

Some more gay marriage comedy from the Colbert Report t.v. show.

Colbert reporting about legal gay marriage in both Canada (top layer) and Mexico (bottom layer) quips showing a map of North America --

"We're (the USA) going to be the straight meat in a gay sandwich. I believe that's called a fluffermutter."

[Jingthing]

Not news here, but more confirmation about how President Obama has been a huge disappointment in his moral leadership for the gay civil rights struggle. He didn't run promising much more , but it is still not good. I suppose his biggest contribution to gay equal rights ultimately will be his supreme court picks (and yes I do believe he will get two terms).

With the Proposition 8 fight, Obama has fallen short in a different way, by his reluctance to join an emerging social consensus. Obama had previously criticized California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, as "divisive." But his official position—which no one believes he actually holds—is that he is against legalizing gay marriage. Americans are changing their views on this issue with inspiring rapidity. Judge Vaughn Walker's moving opinion provided an occasion for Obama to move to embrace the extension of equal rights to gay people. Instead, he slunk mumbling in the other direction. How dismal that America's first black president will be remembered as shirking the last great civil rights struggle.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266152/ Edited September 5, 2010 by Jingthing