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

[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.

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.

I find what you just said rather illogical. There were two men. They could not marry in Italy. Period. IMPOSSIBLE. You are also mixing the issues. Of course an Italian national can marry a foreigner in Italy if opposite sex. The issue I had raised was whether they were both Italians or not, because if they were both Italians they found a U.S. state that allowed both gay marriage AND marriages where there is not one U.S. national in the couple. A country would really have to be extremely xenophobic to not allow a marriage (straight mostly) between one of their nationals and a foreigner. Maybe North Korea is that bad ... but even there doubtful.

I'll go even further. By going back to Italy with a LEGAL marriage from somewhere else (it didn't really matter WHERE else!!!!!) they amazingly managed to have that marriage legally recognized in their small area of Italy. That is bloody historic. If it takes Italy 100 years to have legal gay marriage and it might take longer with the Vatican there, they are already in the history books as early pioneers. In my view, that should be applauded, not dissed. This couple has moved this forward.

If they were two Italian nationals (still not clear) that would mean that in at least one U.S. marriage equality state that the U.S.A. can now be used as a MARRIAGE TOURISM destination for non-U.S. national gay couples, the same way that used to happen in Canada. That's kind of interesting.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I so agree with this article.

The civil rights fight for legal gay marriage is not only about marriage.

It's about resisting legal DISCRIMINATION of all kinds against gay people.

It is meaningful whether you want to ever marry, or not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cary-franklin/the-fight-over-gay-marria_b_5134675.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

In this regard, the recent same-sex marriage decisions very much resemble Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case in which the Supreme Court struck down laws barring interracial marriage. The court in Loving recognized that traditional notions -- about family, and about entire groups of people -- sometimes need to give way.Loving granted interracial couples the right to marry, but the case was about more than that. It was part of a much broader social and legal change half a century ago that extended to education, employment, housing, and many other contexts. This change repudiated an entire regime in which large numbers of Americans were treated as second-class citizens based on one aspect of their identity.

The recent same-sex marriage decisions, all of which cite Loving, are similarly far-reaching. They grant same-sex couples the right to marry. But they are also part of a much broader social and legal change. They reject a long history of anti-gay discrimination. In so doing, they reinforce the notion that the Constitution guarantees liberty and equality to all gays and lesbians -- whether or not they're the marrying kind.

[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.

I find what you just said rather illogical. There were two men. They could not marry in Italy. Period. IMPOSSIBLE. You are also mixing the issues. Of course an Italian national can marry a foreigner in Italy if opposite sex. The issue I had raised was whether they were both Italians or not, because if they were both Italians they found a U.S. state that allowed both gay marriage AND marriages where there is not one U.S. national in the couple. A country would really have to be extremely xenophobic to not allow a marriage (straight mostly) between one of their nationals and a foreigner. Maybe North Korea is that bad ... but even there doubtful.

I'll go even further. By going back to Italy with a LEGAL marriage from somewhere else (it didn't really matter WHERE else!!!!!) they amazingly managed to have that marriage legally recognized in their small area of Italy. That is bloody historic. If it takes Italy 100 years to have legal gay marriage and it might take longer with the Vatican there, they are already in the history books as early pioneers. In my view, that should be applauded, not dissed. This couple has moved this forward.

If they were two Italian nationals (still not clear) that would mean that in at least one U.S. marriage equality state that the U.S.A. can now be used as a MARRIAGE TOURISM destination for non-U.S. national gay couples, the same way that used to happen in Canada. That's kind of interesting.

My posting is not illogical; you don't need to be so down-putting on people. You just didn't understand what I said.

Here it is again: It would have made a much better sense and have a broader political impact in Europe had they married in an EU country rather than the US. It does matter where they got married.

[Scott]

Is a European marriage more valid than a US marriage?

Can countries decide whether a marriage is valid depending on where people are married?

Would Italy recognize a marriage in one EU country but not an EU country?

[onthemoon]

Is a European marriage more valid than a US marriage?

Can countries decide whether a marriage is valid depending on where people are married?

Would Italy recognize a marriage in one EU country but not an EU country?

If you want to make a political statement in a European country, it will have a better effect if they had married in another European country. There are enough Europeans who don't think that the US is the naval of the world.

Just saying.

[Jingthing]

Is a European marriage more valid than a US marriage?

Can countries decide whether a marriage is valid depending on where people are married?

Would Italy recognize a marriage in one EU country but not an EU country?

If you want to make a political statement in a European country, it will have a better effect if they had married in another European country. There are enough Europeans who don't think that the US is the naval of the world.

Just saying.

Aha. So this is what this about for you? A way to vent off topic anti-American sentiments?Typical. Predictable.

Again, the RELEVANCE really of this news on THIS thread is the question ... were they BOTH Italians or not? Because if they were both Italians and there is at least one U.S. marriage equality state that allows two non-U.S. people to marry ... the U.S. has just entered the gay marriage TOURISM market. This can be used a tool for foreigners to advance their civil rights struggles back home. It shows the basic unfairness of any non-recognition of gay marriages anywhere and everywhere. For example, say Bolivia, they will surely recognize a marriage of two Bolivians done in the USA but they will not recognize a same sex marriage done the same way. This kind of thing can be a useful persuasion tactic. It's been important within the USA when couples married in marriage equality states seek recognition of their marriages in non-marriage-equality states then they can often win legal battles or at least highlight the basic discrimination highlighted by the non-recognition.

I am just speculating still on the TWO Italians thing. If only one was an Italian and there is no U.S. marriage equality state where TWO non-U.S. nationals can marry, then my points about the U.S. perhaps now being a gay marriage TOURISM destination do not really apply.

As the U.S. has FIFTY different marriage laws for each state, does anyone know the general legal situation in most states on the issue of whether TWO non-U.S. nationals can marry or not? It's already obvious they can marry everywhere when there is at least ONE U.S. national.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

Is a European marriage more valid than a US marriage?

Can countries decide whether a marriage is valid depending on where people are married?

Would Italy recognize a marriage in one EU country but not an EU country?

If you want to make a political statement in a European country, it will have a better effect if they had married in another European country. There are enough Europeans who don't think that the US is the naval of the world.

Just saying.

Aha. So this is what this about for you? A way to vent off topic anti-American sentiments?Typical. Predictable.

It's a perfectly valid point. If they wanted to make a political point about the fact that gay marriage isn't available in Italy they have 10 other countries IN EUROPE (which Italy is part of) where gay marriage is available. If they were wanting to make a political point why would they choose the USA where it's not universally available across the whole country?

[Jingthing]

Are two Italian nationals allowed to marry in which countries in Europe other than Italy? Does anyone know? I already acknowledged the point before (at first I could only INFER as it had not yet been COHERENTLY stated) about the supposed more relevance of a European marriage well before the snide dig at the USA comment. It may be a perfectly valid point but really a minor TANGENTIAL one as the major issue in Italy is gay marriage is ILLEGAL period. I don't see any see any legal difference in Italy where the marriage came from. The small victory this couple won was likely not impacted either way due to the country of marriage ... obviously Italy generally recognizes foreign married as married except for same sex ones.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

Are two Italian nationals allowed to marry in which countries in Europe other than Italy? Does anyone know. I already acknowledged the point before about the supposed more relevance of a European marriage well before the snide dig at the USA comment. It may be a perfectly valid point, but sorry it has already been made repeatedly and it is hardly a MAJOR point ... the major issue in Italy is gay marriage is ILLEGAL period. I don't see any see any legal difference in Italy. Having the marriage from Europe makes no difference legally. The small victory this couple won was likely not impacted either way due to the country of marriage ... obviously Italy generally recognizes foreign married as married except for same sex ones.

Let me repeat myself:

"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/m...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."

Italians (and any other citizens of the EEA including Switzerland) are NOT subject to immigration control in the UK and can thus get married whether they are gay or straight.

As I said it would be much more powerful politically if they got married in the UK (or whatever other EU countries allowed it) rather than in the USA. Now that's not US bashing it's simply a fact.

[Jingthing]

It's not a fact. It's your OPINION. The actual FACT is that the very first gay marriage legally recognized anywhere in Italy was a marriage made in the USA. God forbid something done in the USA would have any relevance in Europe. It wouldn't have been any more or less legally recognized if the marriage had been from France or from South Africa. End of.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

It's not a fact. It's your OPINION. The actual FACT is that the very first gay marriage legally recognized anywhere in Italy was a marriage made in the USA. End of.

I repeat - it would be much more powerful politically if they got married in a nearby EU country that allowed gay marriage rather than a country that is not part of the same political organisation and which doesn't have gay marriage available to all its citizens.

[Jingthing]

It's not a fact. It's your OPINION. The actual FACT is that the very first gay marriage legally recognized anywhere in Italy was a marriage made in the USA. End of.

I repeat - it would be much more powerful politically if they got married in a nearby EU country that allowed gay marriage rather than a country that is not part of the same political organisation and which doesn't have gay marriage available to all its citizens.

You can repeat it 1000 times but it's still your opinion only. Cheers.

Interesting cultural note --

There are about 17 million Americans with Italian heritage.

There are about 59 million people in Italy.

Mama mia, gotta love that Italian wedding soup!

Edited April 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

I see you've got your victim beanie on again so I'll leave you to it. Ciao baby!

[Jingthing]

I see you've got your victim beanie on again so I'll leave you to it. Ciao baby!

Your opinions aren't any more factual than anyone else.

The E.U. does not dictate marriage law for each member nation.

There is no E.U-wide mandate (pun intended) to allow gay marriage in all E.U. nations.

On the known facts in this particular case, we still don't even know if both people were Italian. If one was an American, it would make more sense that they got married in the USA.

I have also found out they were married in NEW YORK in 2012.

Still don't have the nationality information.

My guess now is that they both probably are Italian because that would be a fair assumption, and if one was an American, that would probably be mentioned somewhere in the press.

I have yet to see any mention in the press that because their marriage wasn't done in the EU that it somehow degrades the political value of their civil rights victory in this small area of Italy and its implications for the future of the gay marriage civil rights struggle in Italy.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

In general, one person has to be a resident of a state to be married in that state. Residency requirements are usually based on a length of stay. I don't believe to be a resident that you necessarily have to be a citizen.

What a bunch of nonsense about it being politically more powerful to be married in the UK. Either a gay marriage is recognized in Italy or it isn't. There are general agreements between countries that those that are married in one country have their marriage recognized in all other countries -- there are exeptions, but a mess the world would be in if countries decide to recognize marriages in some countries but not others.

This topic is about the short or long road in the US, so perhaps that is the topic that should be discussed.

[Jingthing]

Yes, my mistake for introducing the Italian connection here. Should have been a separate thread (or nothing).

[sustento]

In general, one person has to be a resident of a state to be married in that state. Residency requirements are usually based on a length of stay. I don't believe to be a resident that you necessarily have to be a citizen.

What a bunch of nonsense about it being politically more powerful to be married in the UK.

It's not nonsense at all. Italy and the UK are part of the same political union and share the same set of laws and directives passed by the European Parliament. Whilst they are both sovereign states and are free to pass laws affecting themselves a certain amount of internal political pressure can be exerted within the EU which can't be exerted by countries outside of the EU. As I said I wasn't attempting to bash the USA just pointing out a bit of political reality but I see that my post has been misinterpreted yet again so as they say in Thailand - up to you!

[Jingthing]

Another poster made the snide comment about the USA not being the naval of the world. Somehow I doubt if the Italian couple had gotten married in New Zealand whether we would have heard a similar comment about New Zealand not being the naval of the world. It was only a coincidence that this historic decision in Italy involved a marriage from the USA. It could have been from anywhere where they could have legally married outside Italy. The USA isn't doing imperialism on Italy here as implied by the naval of the world comment and I respect the intelligence of the Italian people to realize that ... and judge it irrelevant that this particular first accepted gay marriage in Italy was from the U.S. and not the E.U.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

The reference about two people being married in the States and then it not being recognized in Italy is not relevant to this topic. It is worthy of discussion, but please open a separate thread.

What pressure could be brought to bear by the various EU countries on other EU countries is interesting from a legal point of view.

[Jingthing]

You're right. If someone wants to start such a thread, please do. (I don't.)

[Jingthing]

The news continues to be almost nothing but good news for gay civil rights advocates on this topic:.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Oregon's attorney general will not defend the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing it cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge.

Ellen Rosenblum joins fellow Democratic attorneys general in at least five other states who have pledged not to fight for their state bans on gay marriage

http://www.katu.com/politics/Oregon-wont-defend-gay-marriage-ban-in-lawsuit-246374991.html

[Jingthing]

This poll suggests that 83 percent of Jewish Americans support legal gay marriage. That is higher support than I would guessed even though yes Jewish Americans are a very liberal demographic. The other two very liberal demographics in the USA include African Americans and you guessed it ... GAY Americans. Latino Americans also a somewhat liberal demographic but dramatically less so than Jews, gays, and African Americans.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/83-percent-jewish-americans-support-gay-marriage270214

However, African Americans are generally not as liberal as Jewish Americans on SOCIAL issues, specifically gay civil rights. Sad but true. But still a majority now (60 percent) perhaps thanks to President Obama:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/05/30/11550/support-grows-for-marriage-equality-among-african-americans/

Interestingly as far as GAY American support for marriage equality, I have been unable to locate a link to show their level of support for MARRIAGE equality!

However, I think it's entirely logical to assume that the level of support among GAY Americans for marriage equality (which after all is about equal civil rights for GAYS) has got to be at least as high as among Jews. So if among Jews it's 83, surely it's got to be at least 90 percent among gays! Even 83 percent support for ANYTHING is a remarkable and dramatically overwhelming majority for ANY political issue.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

It has become really hard to keep up with the pace of the victories in recent months, state by state. I certainly haven't done that here. I could have never predicted how rapid this has been and also that almost all of the rulings have been in our favor.

Anyway ... here is the latest. IDAHO.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-idaho-gay-marriage-20140513-story.html

Idaho's same-sex marriage ban became the latest to be declared unconstitutional Tuesday when a federal judge handed another victory to gay and lesbian couples. That extended a unanimous streak of rulings across the country over the last year.

"Marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority may deny," Chief Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale wrote in her opinion.

[Jingthing]

A campaign ad from a candidate from the traditionally anti-gay republican party:

Well most republicans aren't quite at that point yet and Massachusetts is an especially LIBERAL state but it's still another sign of continuing progress.

[onthemoon]

A campaign ad from a candidate from the traditionally anti-gay republican party:

http://www.

Well most republicans aren't quite at that point yet and Massachusetts is an especially LIBERAL state but it's still another sign of continuing progress.

I am indeed surprised that a republican would air this as part of an election campaign. As you said, that's Massachusetts and this probably won't happen soon in Alabama.

But hey. It's usually the democrats' domain to be tolerant and accepting, so this must be a big deal within the Republican Party.

[Jingthing]

Dramatic and rapid progress in the four years since 2010.

Looking back to 2010 with some funny protest signs, mostly related to U.S. marriage equality:

Edited May 18, 2014 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

JT: With all the recent Federal Court decisions reportedly relying on Windsor as precedent, I went back and re-read the decision to see why they picked that case to rely on in declaring their State's Constitutions as a violative of the Fifth Ammendment provisions regarding due process and equal protection.

I was very pleased to see that the court in Windsor did not go down the path of "suspect class discrimination" which requires enanced scrutiny for gays but created a class consisting of all citizens of the states who the states had decided should be treated equally with opposite sex marriage citizens of those states. With the states granting same sex couples the same marriage rights.as opposite sex marriages, Windsor strongly came down on "states rights", the darling concept of the political right. While all the dicta in the decisions supports due process and equal protection, it never goes to the issue of "suspect class" and "enhanced scrutiny" all former court decisions regarding discrimination against gays have always struggled with.

Thus lower federal court judges no longer have to deal with a "suspect class" in their gay discrimination logic.. By merely referring to that portion of Windsor that establishes a class of citizens of a state granted same sex marriage rights and a state constitution that discriminates against that class by denying it the same marriage rights, they are home free and almost compelled to rule as they have been doing.

Hopefully the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, when they are faced with these decions on appeal, will stick with the logic of Windsor and not go to the tough question of marriage as a right under the US Constitution.

[Jingthing]

OK. Now OREGON.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_gay_marriage_ban_struck.html

Depending on how you're counting, it's now 18 states out of 50 with marriage equality.

8 more and that's a majority.

Supreme court -- just DO IT already ... the backlash will be minimal at this point.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Jingthing

[ProThaiExpat]

The interesting subtext to the Oregon Decision is it was from an out gay judge.

Do you hear screams of prejudice from the right? No, in my view it is because Judge Walker, the Prop 8 judge came out after he retired. He said emphatically that he had no interest in marrying his long time lover as the Oregon judge said as well. The fine line is if they had a personal interest in their decision, ie. desire to marry their existing partner, there may well be grounds to a charge of prejudice.

After the Prop 8 case and Judge Walker came out, the right screemed prejudice. It was answered by many judges both gay and straight when they said if a gay judge can't hear a gay case, straight judges couldn't hear straight issue cases. Checkmate!!!!

[onthemoon]

OK. Now OREGON.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_gay_marriage_ban_struck.html

Depending on how you're counting, it's now 18 states out of 50 with marriage equality.

8 more and that's a majority.

Supreme court -- just DO IT already ... the backlash will be minimal at this point.

Congratulations to Oregon, but there is something I don't understand about US law:

The plaintiffs in the Oregon case as well as the defendants, chiefly represented by Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, urged McShane to strike down Oregon's ban.

How can the plaintiffs and the defendants have the same lawyer, and ask the judge for the same thing?

At the same time, the anti-gay-marriage group NOM requested a stay so that they can appeal, but that was not granted.

While I am biased and like the outcome, I am not quite sure this was what is called a "fair trial".

Maybe I am just confused though.