The short or long road to 50 state American marriage equality going forward

[onthemoon]

It's about equal rights. I personally don't care whether it's called marriage or civil union, as long as religion stays out of it.

I predict that "marriage" will continue to be the colloquial term. "I am unionized" or "I am partnered" does not seem to convey the same meaning as "I am married".

[onthemoon]

"Marriage" is a hetero-normative construct for the trading of property (women) between families and the legalization of issue that result from certain action within such unions. No self-respecting queer would go anywhere near such an institution with a 100 foot "pole."

Hetero-normative? Construct for trading of women?

Wow, you are well set in your prejudices.

[Jingthing]

It's about equal rights. I personally don't care whether it's called marriage or civil union, as long as religion stays out of it.

I predict that "marriage" will continue to be the colloquial term. "I am unionized" or "I am partnered" does not seem to convey the same meaning as "I am married".

This thread is specifically about MARRIAGE equality in the USA. The USA is well on the way towards 50 state MARRIAGE equality. It's already got national majority public opinion support and surprisingly has even made major gains in the most right wing U.S. area -- THE SOUTH. Civil unions were just a historical hiccup in the USA. Who's even talking about civil unions in the USA anymore? Answer -- almost nobody.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

"Marriage" is a hetero-normative construct for the trading of property (women) between families and the legalization of issue that result from certain action within such unions. No self-respecting queer would go anywhere near such an institution with a 100 foot "pole."

Hetero-normative? Construct for trading of women?

Wow, you are well set in your prejudices.

He's got a point about hetero-normative. Many gay people aren't interested in copying straight people. That's more than fine! Having 50 state marriage equality does not force any gay people to actually participate in marriage. It's just a matter of having equal legal rights under the law.

[onthemoon]

It's about equal rights. I personally don't care whether it's called marriage or civil union, as long as religion stays out of it.

I predict that "marriage" will continue to be the colloquial term. "I am unionized" or "I am partnered" does not seem to convey the same meaning as "I am married".

This thread is specifically about MARRIAGE equality in the USA. The USA is well on the way towards 50 state MARRIAGE equality. It's already got national majority public opinion support and surprisingly has even made major gains in the most right wing U.S. area -- THE SOUTH. Civil unions were just a historical hiccup in the USA. Who's even talking about civil unions in the USA anymore? Answer -- almost nobody.

We discussed this earlier. You (and according to you, all gays in the US) are anal about the word "marriage". No need to repeat this again (yawn).

Other people care about equal rights rather than vocabulary. This has been mentioned many times (yawn).

[sustento]

He's got a point about hetero-normative. Many gay people aren't interested in copying straight people. That's more than fine! Having 50 state marriage equality does not force any gay people to actually participate in marriage. It's just a matter of having equal legal rights under the law.

I suspect many more gay people have no idea what "hetero-normative" means nor do I suspect they care.

Edited March 14, 2014 by sustento

[Jingthing]

It's about equal rights. I personally don't care whether it's called marriage or civil union, as long as religion stays out of it.

I predict that "marriage" will continue to be the colloquial term. "I am unionized" or "I am partnered" does not seem to convey the same meaning as "I am married".

This thread is specifically about MARRIAGE equality in the USA. The USA is well on the way towards 50 state MARRIAGE equality. It's already got national majority public opinion support and surprisingly has even made major gains in the most right wing U.S. area -- THE SOUTH. Civil unions were just a historical hiccup in the USA. Who's even talking about civil unions in the USA anymore? Answer -- almost nobody.

We discussed this earlier. You (and according to you, all gays in the US) are anal about the word "marriage". No need to repeat this again (yawn).

Other people care about equal rights rather than vocabulary. This has been mentioned many times (yawn).

I reject your point. This thread is about something specific. Something legal. Something with precise terminology. Limited to one country's situation only. MARRIAGE. Yes, it's a big deal in the USA because we have a cultural thing about separate but equal NEVER being equal. Of course separate but unequal is obviously not equal either (as is often the case with international marriage substitutes). If you don't respect that, fine. But no reason to come on here with insults. You know there are many things to criticize about the USA but the American concept of civil rights, the ideal of full equality under the law in my opinion is NOT one of them. No, we aren't there yet. That's what makes it is a civil rights movement. We're GOING there.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

He's got a point about hetero-normative. Many gay people aren't interested in copying straight people. That's more than fine! Having 50 state marriage equality does not force any gay people to actually participate in marriage. It's just a matter of having equal legal rights under the law.

I suspect many more gay people have no idea what "hetero-normative" means nor do I suspect they care.

I agree many gay people don't know the term but I disagree that they wouldn't care about the basic issue. The debate about whether gay people should just copy heterosexuals has been ongoing and won't go away even if the ENTIRE world had marriage equality, which it never will obviously.

[onthemoon]

It's about equal rights. I personally don't care whether it's called marriage or civil union, as long as religion stays out of it.

I predict that "marriage" will continue to be the colloquial term. "I am unionized" or "I am partnered" does not seem to convey the same meaning as "I am married".

This thread is specifically about MARRIAGE equality in the USA. The USA is well on the way towards 50 state MARRIAGE equality. It's already got national majority public opinion support and surprisingly has even made major gains in the most right wing U.S. area -- THE SOUTH. Civil unions were just a historical hiccup in the USA. Who's even talking about civil unions in the USA anymore? Answer -- almost nobody.

We discussed this earlier. You (and according to you, all gays in the US) are anal about the word "marriage". No need to repeat this again (yawn).

Other people care about equal rights rather than vocabulary. This has been mentioned many times (yawn).

I reject your point. This thread is about something specific. Something legal. Something with precise terminology. Limited to one country's situation only. MARRIAGE. Yes, it's a big deal in the USA because we have a cultural thing about separate but equal NEVER being equal. Of course separate but unequal is obviously not equal either (as is often the case with international marriage substitutes). If you don't respect that, fine. But no reason to come on here with insults. You know there are many things to criticize about the USA but the American concept of civil rights, the ideal of full equality under the law in my opinion is NOT one of them. No, we aren't there yet. That's what makes it is a civil rights movement. We're GOING there.

[OMGImInPattaya]

"Marriage" is a hetero-normative construct for the trading of property (women) between families and the legalization of issue that result from certain action within such unions. No self-respecting queer would go anywhere near such an institution with a 100 foot "pole."

Hetero-normative? Construct for trading of women?

Wow, you are well set in your prejudices.

Wow, you are well set in your ignorance of the history of marriage!

[Jingthing]

People get married for all kinds of reasons in these modern times.

Two examples of heterosexual reasons that I know of personally --

1. Woman married a man for the sole purpose of getting him health insurance under her policy.

2. Woman married male airline employee for the free travel perks.

Sacred institution, my arse.

If anything the global civil rights movement for marriage equality has added VALUE to the existing "institution" of marriage.

[onthemoon]

"Marriage" is a hetero-normative construct for the trading of property (women) between families and the legalization of issue that result from certain action within such unions. No self-respecting queer would go anywhere near such an institution with a 100 foot "pole."

Hetero-normative? Construct for trading of women?

Wow, you are well set in your prejudices.

Wow, you are well set in your ignorance of the history of marriage!

I'd like JT to reply to this.

Edit: Just saw he did already. The world is in order.

Edited March 16, 2014 by onthemoon

[OMGImInPattaya]

Any straight-acting gay people in Michigan can now get married if they want as Michigan's opposites only marriage law was ruled unconstitutional yesterday/today by a federal district court. The state attorney general will appeal the ruling but no stay was issued by the trial court so county clerks can issue licenses until such a stay is issued or not by the appeals court should it take the case.

Somewhat interestingly, the case involved two lesbians raising adopted special needs children and the State didn't argue about their fitness as children. In fact, the state agreed that they were fine parents and that gay parents are just as fit parents as opposite-sex parents. The State only argued that the Feds should respect the 59% of Michiganders who voted in favor of marriage inequality in 2004 referendum. This seems to me to be a very thin legal branch to lean on as it's equilivent to asking a court to support anti-micegination laws back when because a majority of people supported them.

So it's now 17 states and Washington DC that have marriage equality.

Edited March 22, 2014 by OMGImInPattaya

[Jingthing]

Let's not ever forget the role of organized gay activist LOBBYING groups, most importantly of course the Human Rights Campaign. Here Vice President Joe Biden and his gay activist wife Jill Biden speak to the annual convention of this group. Knowing their work over years, it's impossible to imagine the progress made so far on all kinds of gay civil rights issues (not only marriage equality of course) without the HRC. HRC is now engaged INTERNATIONALLY in this time of increasing threats to gay people outside the U.S.:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/03/23/watch-joe-biden-gives-blunt-speech-hrc-gala

Edited March 23, 2014 by Jingthing

[OMGImInPattaya]

Let's not ever forget the role of organized gay activist LOBBYING groups, most importantly of course the Human Rights Campaign. Here Vice President Joe Biden and his gay activist wife Jill Biden speak to the annual convention of this group. Knowing their work over years, it's impossible to imagine the progress made so far on all kinds of gay civil rights issues (not only marriage equality of course) without the HRC. HRC is now engaged INTERNATIONALLY in this time of increasing threats to gay people outside the U.S.:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/03/23/watch-joe-biden-gives-blunt-speech-hrc-gala

The primary battle around the world and at home must be against religious belief. Almost all the hate and ignorance in the world springs from it!

[onthemoon]

Let's not ever forget the role of organized gay activist LOBBYING groups, most importantly of course the Human Rights Campaign. Here Vice President Joe Biden and his gay activist wife Jill Biden speak to the annual convention of this group. Knowing their work over years, it's impossible to imagine the progress made so far on all kinds of gay civil rights issues (not only marriage equality of course) without the HRC. HRC is now engaged INTERNATIONALLY in this time of increasing threats to gay people outside the U.S.:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/03/23/watch-joe-biden-gives-blunt-speech-hrc-gala

Quite an impressive speech. But then, he is a professional politician and wouldn't have come all the way to be vice president if he didn't know how to deliver a speech... ;-)

He said that there are five openly gay US ambassadors. Quite interesting, as there are also some (I don't know the number) of openly gay German ambassadors, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs was gay. I met HE the Minister, we had a nice talk.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Let's not ever forget the role of organized gay activist LOBBYING groups, most importantly of course the Human Rights Campaign. Here Vice President Joe Biden and his gay activist wife Jill Biden speak to the annual convention of this group. Knowing their work over years, it's impossible to imagine the progress made so far on all kinds of gay civil rights issues (not only marriage equality of course) without the HRC. HRC is now engaged INTERNATIONALLY in this time of increasing threats to gay people outside the U.S.:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/03/23/watch-joe-biden-gives-blunt-speech-hrc-gala

Quite an impressive speech. But then, he is a professional politician and wouldn't have come all the way to be vice president if he didn't know how to deliver a speech... ;-)

He said that there are five openly gay US ambassadors. Quite interesting, as there are also some (I don't know the number) of openly gay German ambassadors, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs was gay. I met HE the Minister, we had a nice talk.

Was that the commie Joska Fisher? Not really my type!

[onthemoon]

Let's not ever forget the role of organized gay activist LOBBYING groups, most importantly of course the Human Rights Campaign. Here Vice President Joe Biden and his gay activist wife Jill Biden speak to the annual convention of this group. Knowing their work over years, it's impossible to imagine the progress made so far on all kinds of gay civil rights issues (not only marriage equality of course) without the HRC. HRC is now engaged INTERNATIONALLY in this time of increasing threats to gay people outside the U.S.:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/03/23/watch-joe-biden-gives-blunt-speech-hrc-gala

Quite an impressive speech. But then, he is a professional politician and wouldn't have come all the way to be vice president if he didn't know how to deliver a speech... ;-)

He said that there are five openly gay US ambassadors. Quite interesting, as there are also some (I don't know the number) of openly gay German ambassadors, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs was gay. I met HE the Minister, we had a nice talk.

Was that the commie Joska Fisher? Not really my type!

No, Guido Westerwelle, Free Democrats (i.e. Liberal). Not a commie, to the contrary.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Let's not ever forget the role of organized gay activist LOBBYING groups, most importantly of course the Human Rights Campaign. Here Vice President Joe Biden and his gay activist wife Jill Biden speak to the annual convention of this group. Knowing their work over years, it's impossible to imagine the progress made so far on all kinds of gay civil rights issues (not only marriage equality of course) without the HRC. HRC is now engaged INTERNATIONALLY in this time of increasing threats to gay people outside the U.S.:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2014/03/23/watch-joe-biden-gives-blunt-speech-hrc-gala

Quite an impressive speech. But then, he is a professional politician and wouldn't have come all the way to be vice president if he didn't know how to deliver a speech... ;-)

He said that there are five openly gay US ambassadors. Quite interesting, as there are also some (I don't know the number) of openly gay German ambassadors, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs was gay. I met HE the Minister, we had a nice talk.

Was that the commie Joska Fisher? Not really my type!

No, Guido Westerwelle, Free Democrats (i.e. Liberal). Not a commie, to the contrary.

That young leader of the Free Democrats... The Vietnamese fella I think he is is cute. He must be gay to

[onthemoon]

Was that the commie Joska Fisher? Not really my type!

No, Guido Westerwelle, Free Democrats (i.e. Liberal). Not a commie, to the contrary.

That young leader of the Free Democrats... The Vietnamese fella I think he is is cute. He must be gay to

That would be Philip Roesler. Minister of Economics at the time. I met him too. Yes he is cute, but he is also straight. Sorry to break it to you.

[Jingthing]

A short detour to ITALY.

Now this is a twist, for sure.

An Italian couple married in the U.S. going back to Italy and now an Italian court has ruled it must be recognized at least in their town, a first for any legal recognition of gay marriage in Italy.

Of course with the influence of the Vatican being so strong, Italy is going to be a tough gay nut to crack.

But this is a start, and a bit ironic that a U.S. gay marriage is part of it.

The court ruled that there was no legal obstacle to the recognition of a gay marriage performed in a country where it is legal.

"Politicians should take note," said Fabrizio Marrazzo of the Gay Center rights group. "This opens a new chapter for gay couples in Italy."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-italy-gay-idUSBREA390LD20140410

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

As has been mentioned before the consensus interpretation of pro gay marriage legality rulings in numerous states is pointing to this being decided in the supreme court, and somewhat soon (historically speaking) and probably resulting in the big and final victory for marriage equality advocates.

But nothing is done until it's done. It is still possible to go to the supremes and to LOSE. Not likely, but possible.

In that case, the crazy patchwork continues where any president against gay civil rights can work to weaken the federal equality of existing state gay marriages, and of course the number of marriage equality states would continue to grow to it's natural limits (Alabama last).

Logic says the supremes will stop this crazy patchwork.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/04/11/gop-should-fear-the-coming-political-earthquake-on-gay-marriage/

But a SCOTUS ruling is plainly coming, and by this time next year, we could have a final answer on the law. If and when that happens, the political fallout will be enormous.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

A short detour to ITALY.

Now this is a twist, for sure.

An Italian couple married in the U.S. going back to Italy and now an Italian court has ruled it must be recognized at least in their town, a first for any legal recognition of gay marriage in Italy.

Of course with the influence of the Vatican being so strong, Italy is going to be a tough gay nut to crack.

But this is a start, and a bit ironic that a U.S. gay marriage is part of it.

The court ruled that there was no legal obstacle to the recognition of a gay marriage performed in a country where it is legal.

"Politicians should take note," said Fabrizio Marrazzo of the Gay Center rights group. "This opens a new chapter for gay couples in Italy."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-italy-gay-idUSBREA390LD20140410

While this is good to stir up the discussion in Italy, they could have married in Spain, the UK or another country in the EU to make their point. Would have been much more credible.

[Jingthing]

A short detour to ITALY.

Now this is a twist, for sure.

An Italian couple married in the U.S. going back to Italy and now an Italian court has ruled it must be recognized at least in their town, a first for any legal recognition of gay marriage in Italy.

Of course with the influence of the Vatican being so strong, Italy is going to be a tough gay nut to crack.

But this is a start, and a bit ironic that a U.S. gay marriage is part of it.

The court ruled that there was no legal obstacle to the recognition of a gay marriage performed in a country where it is legal.

"Politicians should take note," said Fabrizio Marrazzo of the Gay Center rights group. "This opens a new chapter for gay couples in Italy."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-italy-gay-idUSBREA390LD20140410

While this is good to stir up the discussion in Italy, they could have married in Spain, the UK or another country in the EU to make their point. Would have been much more credible.

There are different issues here. Many countries do NOT allow two foreign nationals to marry in their countries, same sex or not. Such as CANADA. Are these two both Italian? I don't know which U.S. states allow or don't allow two foreign nationals to marry, for those that do if any, the treatment would be the same for gay and straight. Any U.S. state marriage is now recognized by the U.S. federal government and any foreign government that recognizes foreign gay marriages would accept a U.S. state gay marriage (as they are now federally recognized).

Edited April 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

A short detour to ITALY.

Now this is a twist, for sure.

An Italian couple married in the U.S. going back to Italy and now an Italian court has ruled it must be recognized at least in their town, a first for any legal recognition of gay marriage in Italy.

Of course with the influence of the Vatican being so strong, Italy is going to be a tough gay nut to crack.

But this is a start, and a bit ironic that a U.S. gay marriage is part of it.

The court ruled that there was no legal obstacle to the recognition of a gay marriage performed in a country where it is legal.

"Politicians should take note," said Fabrizio Marrazzo of the Gay Center rights group. "This opens a new chapter for gay couples in Italy."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-italy-gay-idUSBREA390LD20140410

While this is good to stir up the discussion in Italy, they could have married in Spain, the UK or another country in the EU to make their point. Would have been much more credible.

There are different issues here. Many countries do NOT allow two foreign nationals to marry in their countries, same sex or not. Such as CANADA. Are these two both Italian? I don't know which U.S. states allow or don't allow two foreign nationals to marry, for those that do if any, the treatment would be the same for gay and straight. Any U.S. state marriage is now recognized by the U.S. federal government and any foreign government that recognizes foreign gay marriages would accept a U.S. state gay marriage (as they are now federally recognized).

You said that they are an Italian couple...

[Jingthing]

Did you not get my point? Obviously at least one is Italian. The article didn't say if BOTH are Italian. Many countries do not allow marriages where at least one person in the couple is not a national of that country. Such as Canada. I think I get your point as well, perhaps I do but we have so much trouble communicating I can't be sure ... that Italy being in Europe that a European marriage would be more meaningful in a European country. But nevertheless the first step in gay marriage Italian history involves a marriage done in the U.S.A. If they are BOTH Italian I don't know which (if any or all) European countries allow marriages where both people in the couple are not nationals of that country, do you? Yes I know that not all European countries allow gay marriages, in case that's what you think I'm asking about.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

Did you not get my point? Obviously at least one is Italian. The article didn't say if BOTH are Italian. Many countries do not allow marriages where at least one person in the couple is not a national of that country. Such as Canada. I think I get your point as well, perhaps I do but we have so much trouble communicating I can't be sure ... that Italy being in Europe that a European marriage would be more meaningful in a European country. But nevertheless the first step in gay marriage Italian history involves a marriage done in the U.S.A. If they are BOTH Italian I don't know which (if any or all) European countries allow marriages where both people in the couple are not nationals of that country, do you?

It looks as though the UK does as long as both are EU citizens. Italy is in the European Economic Area and Italians aren't subject to immigration control:

https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/giving-notice-at-your-local-register-office

"Foreign nationals

You and your partner must go to a ‘designated’ register office if either of you aren’t from the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland, and are subject to immigration control.

The process is different in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

You’ll need to apply for one of the following if you aren’t already in the UK:

• a visa to come here as a fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner if your partner is a British citizen or settled in the UK and you intend to remain in the UK
• an EEA family permit if you’re from outside the EEA and the person you’re marrying is from the EEA or Switzerland but not the UK
• a Marriage Visitor visa if you and your partner are from outside theEEA or Switzerland, you want to come to the UK to get married or register a civil partnership, and you and your partner intend to leave the country within 6 months

You must get married or register your civil partnership within 1 year, or 3 months if you’re in Scotland."

Edited April 12, 2014 by sustento

[Jingthing]

Canada used to allow "gay marriage tourism" but then changed the laws to require one Canadian national. I am curious about U.S. state marriage laws on this issue about needing one national. The article really should have spelled out that detail. This kind of thing is probably an international trend now -- challenging laws for recognition of marriages done in other jurisdictions, whether a different state or country.

[ProThaiExpat]

JT: I have great difficulty getting over my bias regarding politicians and their public vs. personal opinions. It seems to me that most politicians must have a base in the electorate to get elected. Thus my reasoning goes that maintaining that base through public statements curring their favor is essential regardless of ones own personal thoughts, beliefs and opinions.

For example, the public Dick Cheney comes to mind. While in the Bush administration, his pronouncements regarding gay marriage were clearly adverse while now, it appears to be mellowing and of course his gay daughter marrying may have somehting to do with that. My guess, he doesn't have to maintain an electorial base anymore, so as an elder stateman, he can allow his personal feelings to be more public.

Obama's early stand for opposite sex marriage "evolved" as we all well know. My guess is what he always personally thought is more in line with what his 'evolved" public stance is today.

"Telling people what they want to hear" may be a cardinal rule for a politician keeping his electoral base voting for him.

And then we have the Log Cabin Republicans!!!!!

[onthemoon]

Did you not get my point? Obviously at least one is Italian. The article didn't say if BOTH are Italian. Many countries do not allow marriages where at least one person in the couple is not a national of that country. Such as Canada. I think I get your point as well, perhaps I do but we have so much trouble communicating I can't be sure ... that Italy being in Europe that a European marriage would be more meaningful in a European country. But nevertheless the first step in gay marriage Italian history involves a marriage done in the U.S.A. If they are BOTH Italian I don't know which (if any or all) European countries allow marriages where both people in the couple are not nationals of that country, do you? Yes I know that not all European countries allow gay marriages, in case that's what you think I'm asking about.

I got married in Germany to my Thai husband. One of us was not a EU citizen, no prize for guessing who.

I don't think Italy has a law against Italian citizens marrying foreigners, either. That's why I find it totally pointless on a political level for these people to marry in the US. If there is such a law, they should fight against it, rather than marrying in the US.