Same Sex Marriage Legislated In Rhode Island, Delaware

[isanbirder]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10782490

Bit by bit, the US moves towards same-sex marriage.

[LeCharivari]

Until the US Supreme Court rules, one way or the other (or possibly somewhere in the middle), its really more an indicator of changing views than any meaningful legislative progress.

[Jingthing]

Until the US Supreme Court rules, one way or the other (or possibly somewhere in the middle), its really more an indicator of changing views than any meaningful legislative progress.

Yes, pretty much, but IF the supreme court moves towards federal recognition of state gay marriages (which is definitely very possible) that is more good news for more people (the people in those legal gay marriage states). One twisted thing about this state progress is one of the anti-gay marriage through the supreme court argument is that gays are making slow progress anyway through such state changes and do not NEED the help of the supreme court. But without FEDERAL recognition of these state marriages they have very limited legal significance.

[KED]

Fantastic that R.I. and Delaware have joined the states and that Minnesota and Illinois should not be far behind.

I agree that the Supreme Court ruling is also a major step. I don't see how they could rule in favor of Prop or DOMA - this is so obviously a civil rights issue - they should hang their heads in shame if they deny us our rights.

[Jingthing]

It seems very unlikely at this stage that the supremes are going to force EVERY state to allow gay marriage. There is an excellent chance they will rule the feds need to recognize legal state gay marriages the same as legal state marriages. Assuming this result (nothing is certain though) the wisdom of pursuing the STATE marriage movement will be confirmed. At least Americans can have the choice to MOVE to the states that treat them as first class citizens and assuming a positive supreme court ruling, in a nation that does the same.

Now more than ever, full legal equality for gay Americans looks inevitable. But it will take more time.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I wasn't aware of this.

Some American Indian tribal governments have legalized gay marriage as well!

These tribes can set their own laws for their lands, like states, to some degree anyway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/among-indian-tribes-a-division-over-gay-marriage/2013/05/12/4c77bf3e-bb3a-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story_1.html

Scholars note that before their introduction to Christianity, many
tribes accepted their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members as
“two spirits,” even giving them added respect because they were thought
to have special powers.

American Indians originally came from Asia.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

"American Indians originally came from Asia."

Highly debatable, even if you ignore the monogenesis and polygenesis theorems; recent studies of DNA indicate that many originated in western Europe up to 40 millenia ago, rather than migrating across the frozen wastes linking Siberia and Alaska over 20,000 years later during an Ice Age, which seems unlikely.

Hardly a suitable debate for the Gay Forum, however! ...

[LeCharivari]

It seems very unlikely at this stage that the supremes are going to force EVERY state to allow gay marriage. There is an excellent chance they will rule the feds need to recognize legal state gay marriages the same as legal state marriages. Assuming this result (nothing is certain though) the wisdom of pursuing the STATE marriage movement will be confirmed. At least Americans can have the choice to MOVE to the states that treat them as first class citizens and assuming a positive supreme court ruling, in a nation that does the same.

Now more than ever, full legal equality for gay Americans looks inevitable. But it will take more time.

What a tangled web ...

... IF "the feds ... recognize legal state gay marriages the same as legal state marriages" those marriages would still apparently entitle those so married to federal benefits and rights nationally and internationally, including in those states that do not recognize gay marriage .... otherwise the result would be that a gay couple married in Rhode Island would retain their federal benefits if they moved to Iran but lose them if they moved to Alabama; or that a gay/lesbian couple in the Marine Corps based at 29 Palms in California with full Federal benefits and rights would lose them if they were posted to a base in Quantico, Virginia, but not to Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan.

On the other hand IF that really is the result, its difficult to see any "wisdom" in it.

[Jingthing]

Oy vey. It's a big step (assuming a favorable supreme decision). You want instant miracles? We don't have them. They were never possible in the U.S. situation. We've discussed here MANY TIMES already that this very legal mess that will be created if marriages from some states are recognized federally and not others is the very mess that is likely to eventually end up in the supreme court LATER because it is a mess that will clearly not stand forever.

Great news coming much faster than Americans EVER EXPECTED clearly isn't good enough for some. I don't get it. I really don't.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

...

Hardly a suitable debate for the Gay Forum, however! ...

OK. You'd be surprised how many American Indian people can pass for Thai though. (North and South America.)

Edited May 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Oy vey. It's a big step (assuming a favorable supreme decision). You want instant miracles? We don't have them. They were never possible in the U.S. situation. We've discussed here MANY TIMES already that this very legal mess that will be created if marriages from some states are recognized federally and not others is the very mess that is likely to eventually end up in the supreme court LATER because it is a mess that will clearly not stand forever.

Great news coming much faster than Americans EVER EXPECTED clearly isn't good enough for some. I don't get it. I really don't.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly ...

Are you seriously saying that you think a Supreme Court ruling COULD say "that a gay couple married in Rhode Island would retain their federal benefits if they moved to Iran but lose them if they moved to Alabama; or that a gay/lesbian couple in the Marine Corps based at 29 Palms in California with full Federal benefits and rights would lose them if they were posted to a base in Quantico, Virginia, but not to Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan"?

I'm not knocking your "great news", but its hard to understand how anyone with any "wisdom", whether its the gay activists or the Supreme Court judges, could see that sort of solution as acceptable, even in the short term.

[Jingthing]

I think you understand quite well.

It's ain't a final solution, buster.

It's a big step on the path to the goal.

Eyes on the prize.

American gay rights activists are stoked and with good reason. Public opinion change has been mind boggling. We don't care if one or two less than supportive non-Americans want to denigrate our super fast and super big progress (in the context of our system, culture, and political realities). We know better. Especially people like me who knows where we came from! (Anita Bryant/Jerry Foulwell/Briggs Initiative, etc.)

Honestly even if the supremes hand us a total loss in the pending decisions, the consensus is STILL we're going to win equality, in time, it's only a matter of time.

P.S.: How many gay American married couples will be moving to Iran? That's totally meshuga!

Edited May 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Another bit!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/13/minnesota_gay_marriage_gov_mark_dayton_set_to_sign_bill_making_state_12th.html

Make it an even dozen. Minnesota is set to become the 12th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to wed.

...

Today's vote is that much more noteworthy because it was only this past
November that gay-marriage advocates were playing defense, successfully
campaigning to block an amendment to the state constitution that would
have defined marriage as being a union solely between a man and a woman.