Yehoodi.com

Frim Fram Jam, NY     Yehoodi Radio - Listen 24 hours a day! Listen 24 hours a day! Weekly updated shows     Frim Fram Jam - NYC's Lindy Hop Thursdays!    

  Everyone is gay

According to cnn.com: " Massachusetts' highest court reiterated today that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional. The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages. ".…

Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next > (1726 items total)

 
  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #1681
  • Originally posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 (6 years ago)

Yes Chiv, China Girl and I were married in Lenox, MA and it counts in all states.

Hoya what would it take to "go federal".

-Eff

  • Joined 7/30/04
  • 4355
  • Post #1682
  • Originally posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "Chivalrous"
I got that already but you missed the point of the question. Mass. "hetero marriage licenses" are perfectly valid in Alabama. Somebody who has a teaching license in one state still has to get certified if they move to a different state (unless they both have a specific agreement). But marriage doesn't work like that, except the regarding gay marriage. Why the difference, and why couldn't that be considered a federal issue?

MA marriage licenses are valid in AL because of the federal Full Faith and Credit Clause whereby all judicial acts in one state are recognized in all other states as equal to acts from those states. To put it more simply, a marriage license from MA is recognized in AL the same way an AL marriage license is recognized in AL.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause also permits regulation by Congress, which it did in the form of the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in 1996. DOMA does two things - it says a state need not give full faith and credit to a same sex marriage license from another state (though it may, if it so chooses), and the federal government will not recognize any marriage other than one man-one woman.

Challenges to that law would eventually (presumably) end up in front of the Supreme Court. The two most obvious examples are (a) going to a state which does not recognize same sex marriages with a CA or MA license, and suing on the grounds that the Full Faith and Credit Clause/Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to recognize it - basically saying that federal law trumps state constitutional amendments on the subject, and that the "no credit" part of DOMA is unconstitutional under the federal constitution or (b) suing the federal government for federal benefits available to spouses, but not to same-sex spouses, arguing that the "for the federal government, marriage is one man-one woman" part of DOMA is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Wombat, you're half right - what you suggest is a way to challenge half of DOMA. The way to challenge the other half is to try to force a state that does not recognize same sex marriage to do so, by challenging the other half of DOMA.

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #1683
  • Originally posted Friday, May 16, 2008 (6 years ago)

Hey, look at the Crazies! http://www.savecalifornia.com/

-Eff

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #1684
  • Originally posted Thursday, May 29, 2008 (6 years ago)

Slowly, it's happening! http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/29/nygay.marriage/index.html

"Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday."

-Eff

  • Joined 1/23/01
  • 4505
  • Post #1685
  • Originally posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 (6 years ago)

Take a look at your next brain scan.

Quote
Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

Full report.

  • Joined 1/27/06
  • 1400
  • Post #1686
  • Originally posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 (6 years ago)

That sounds about right. I remember hearing about a study years ago that the corpus collosum (sp), the part that connects the two hemispheres, is either bigger or more active (I forget which) in women and gay men than in heterosexual men. That would make sense with the finding at the end about the number of nerves connecting the two hemispheres in the brains of gay men being more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

  • Joined 2/7/01
  • 13635
  • Post #1687
  • Originally posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 (6 years ago)

But they're making a choice to have their brain hemispheres symetrical...

The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...

  • Joined 10/6/99
  • 8736
  • Post #1688
  • Originally posted Monday, August 18, 2008 (6 years ago)
  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #1689
  • Originally posted Friday, October 10, 2008 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "[url=http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story
www.courant.com[/url]"] High Court Grants Gay Marriage Rights Same-sex couples won the right to marry in Connecticut in an historic ruling by the Supreme Court today. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory. In a 4-3 decision released at 11:30 a.m., the majority wrote that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection." "Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

Woohoo! Go CT!

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #1690
  • Originally posted Friday, October 10, 2008 (6 years ago)

In accordance with my prophecy.

-Eff

  • Joined 1/16/01
  • 12597
  • Post #1691
  • Originally posted Friday, October 10, 2008 (6 years ago)

Unfortunately the crazies in California are currently winning the polling on Prop 8, which would change Cali's constitution to ban same sex marriage. The heavy funding for the bigots is provided mostly by the Mormon Church.

People think Cali is super liberal, and in the cities it is, but in the rural areas it's HELLA conservative, and with a large spanish-speaking (and mostly Catholic) population it's hard sometimes to get real progressive legislation passed.

So here's hoping Cali doesn't undo what the courts did earlier. It would set back the cause of marriage equality back by decades.

  • Joined 10/6/99
  • 8736
  • Post #1692
  • Originally posted Friday, October 10, 2008 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "FoolsRun"
Quoted from "www.courant.com"
High Court Grants Gay Marriage Rights Same-sex couples won the right to marry in Connecticut in an historic ruling by the Supreme Court today. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory. In a 4-3 decision released at 11:30 a.m., the majority wrote that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection." "Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
Woohoo! Go CT!

HOLY SHEISSE!!

  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #1693
  • Originally posted Friday, October 10, 2008 (6 years ago)

I don't understand the "courts overriding democracy" argument. The entire point of a court system, or at least of the SCOTUS, is to do things like protect minorities which the "democracy" would prefer to see punished.

  • Joined 6/28/06
  • 890
  • Post #1694
  • Originally posted Friday, October 10, 2008 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
Unfortunately the crazies in California are currently winning the polling on Prop 8, which would change Cali's constitution to ban same sex marriage. The heavy funding for the bigots is provided mostly by the Mormon Church.

I'm seeing more and more rallys in the bay area happening to educate people on the negatives of Prop 8. I'm also seeing more commercials that are in favor of gay marriage. I don't know if it's just my area though.

Are you seeing any ads for gay marriage down in LA?

  • Joined 1/16/01
  • 12597
  • Post #1695
  • Originally posted Friday, October 10, 2008 (6 years ago)

Oh sure, there's a ton of outreach. But the problem is not reaching people in LA or SF, it's reaching people in the rural areas and wealthy Central Coast who are really really conservative. It's also getting people out for the polls. Since CA is a reliable Obama state there isn't as much urgency in the liberal public to vote as there would be if CA were a battleground. So it's important to get all the Obama supporters out there as if this were Ohio or something, because that'll help the downticket propositions big time.

  • Joined 11/20/00
  • 16167
  • Post #1696
  • Originally posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
Unfortunately the crazies in California are currently winning the polling on Prop 8, which would change Cali's constitution to ban same sex marriage. The heavy funding for the bigots is provided mostly by the Mormon Church. People think Cali is super liberal, and in the cities it is, but in the rural areas it's HELLA conservative, and with a large spanish-speaking (and mostly Catholic) population it's hard sometimes to get real progressive legislation passed. So here's hoping Cali doesn't undo what the courts did earlier. It would set back the cause of marriage equality back by decades.

Orange County isn't rural, and it's very, very, very conservative. It's also made up of mostly educated, affluent middle to upper middle class people who vote.

Having grown up in OC, I never thought of California (outside of San Francisco) as liberal. I was always amazed it was a "blue" state.

  • Joined 1/16/01
  • 12597
  • Post #1697
  • Originally posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 (6 years ago)

We LA residents consider OC "rural." :)

  • Joined 7/20/99
  • 6220
  • Post #1698
  • Originally posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 (6 years ago)

Check out this commercial I saw on tv last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4

They're totally using scare tactics.

Oh and FoolsRun...

Quoted from "FoolsRun"
I don't understand the "courts overriding democracy" argument. The entire point of a court system, or at least of the SCOTUS, is to do things like protect minorities which the "democracy" would prefer to see punished.

I KNOW!!!! This is the most frustrating this about this Prop. Check out this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0DYf1pOolk

And here's a gem from our dear friend Newt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Q4V8WNF6k

What's so sad is they're counting on people not understanding the job of a supreme court so they can use this whole "overruling the people with their personal ideologies" statement as a way to make people feel better about voting for discrimination.

If this passes it will be a sad day in California. But by no means will the fight be over. I predict we'll just keep going round and round until we manage to stave off inequality for good. That may be in this election, or it may be years from now. sigh

  • Joined 1/27/06
  • 1400
  • Post #1699
  • Originally posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 (6 years ago)

This nonsense about a "ban" on same-sex marriages has to go. That much is clear.

Question: Are there civil unions in CA that provide gays with the same civil rights without calling it "marriage"? Personally, I don't care what the government calls it, as long as they give people their civil rights. Yes, it would be better if they would call it marriage, but I'll just settle for equal rights to start.

  • Joined 1/27/06
  • 1400
  • Post #1700
  • Originally posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth"
Check out this commercial I saw on tv last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 They're totally using scare tactics.

Ugh.

Quote
I KNOW!!!! This is the most frustrating this about this Prop. Check out this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0DYf1pOolk And here's a gem from our dear friend Newt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Q4V8WNF6k

Where does this idea come from that the government can then force the churches to perform same sex marriage? Nonsense! When I worked at a church, one of my co-workers tried that argument on me. Luckily, I knew enough not to bother to try and reason with her.

  • Joined 7/20/99
  • 6220
  • Post #1701
  • Originally posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 (6 years ago)

Actually, you should reason with people. They may still argue but some of it might seep in and allow for a more open mind down the line.

Religious institutions are obviously allowed to follow their beliefs without interference from the government (duh - that's a biggie in the, ya know, constitution). So it's a non-issue. Example: My father wanted to marry my step-mom in a Jewish ceremony. But she didn't want to convert. My father's rabbi said he couldn't perform the ceremony as it went against his beliefs and the beliefs of his congregation to marry an inter-faith couple. So my father went an found a rabbi who would. No biggie. And nobody had any issues with the government telling anyone they had to marry anybody.

It's an easy one to respond to so you should do it.

  • Joined 5/10/00
  • 3791
  • Post #1702
  • Originally posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 (6 years ago)

The one with Newt is fairly serious, but the other two are just down right silly.

  • Joined 1/27/06
  • 1400
  • Post #1703
  • Originally posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 (6 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth"
Actually, you should reason with people. They may still argue but some of it might seep in and allow for a more open mind down the line. Religious institutions are obviously allowed to follow their beliefs without interference from the government (duh - that's a biggie in the, ya know, constitution). So it's a non-issue. Example: My father wanted to marry my step-mom in a Jewish ceremony. But she didn't want to convert. My father's rabbi said he couldn't perform the ceremony as it went against his beliefs and the beliefs of his congregation to marry an inter-faith couple. So my father went an found a rabbi who would. No biggie. And nobody had any issues with the government telling anyone they had to marry anybody. It's an easy one to respond to so you should do it.

It was a while ago, so I may have mentioned the separation of church and state, but the way she framed her argument was "legalizing gay marriage will lead to blurring the lines between church and state." There was no way to win because she just wouldn't believe the truth. Trust me, there was no reasoning with this woman. Sister Gerrie and I tried on many other issues. Sister Gerrie had to reason with her much more often than I because she had to correct her info in the bulletin all the time. That woman has the patience of a saint. LOL ;)

  • Joined 7/21/05
  • 1308
  • Post #1704
  • Originally posted Tuesday, April 7, 2009 (5 years ago)

So now Vermont has become one of the states which have decreed same-sex marriage is legal.

Quoted from "The New York Times"
The step makes Vermont the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

Yet another drop in the bucket! :)

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #1705
  • Originally posted Tuesday, April 7, 2009 (5 years ago)

8 done!

-Eff

  • Joined 1/30/00
  • 6375
  • Post #1706
  • Originally posted Wednesday, April 8, 2009 (5 years ago)

My Vermonter mother just told me she sent the Governor a letter saying she was very disappointed in him for vetoing , and that she would not be supporting him any more because this is a human rights issue, not a moral issue. Go mom!

  • Joined 7/22/99
  • 2622
  • Post #1707
  • Originally posted Wednesday, May 6, 2009 (5 years ago)

Maine!!! http://tinyurl.com/c38cp3

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #1708
  • Originally posted Sunday, May 24, 2009 (5 years ago)

Getting better every day: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/24/gay.diplomats.benefits/index.html

-Eff

  • Joined 2/7/01
  • 13635
  • Post #1709
  • Originally posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 (5 years ago)

Quakers 'To Allow Gay Marriages'

Quote
One of the UK's oldest Christian denominations - the Quakers - looks set to extend marriage services to same-sex couples at their yearly meeting later. The church has already held religious blessings for same-sex couples who have had a civil partnership ceremony. But agreeing to perform gay marriages, which are currently not allowed under civil law, could bring the Quakers into conflict with the government. The issue of active homosexuality has bitterly divided other churches. But the BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the Quakers had been more prepared than other churches to reinterpret the Bible in the light of contemporary life. Religious commitment The Quakers - also known as The Religious Society of Friends - are likely to reach consensus on the issue of gay marriage without a vote at their annual gathering in York on Friday. They will also formally ask the government to change the law to allow gay people to marry. Quaker registrars, like rabbis and Church of England priests, have the authority to marry heterosexual couples on behalf of the state. But many British Quakers feel it is wrong to exclude a religious commitment from civil partnerships and want the right to marriage extended to same-sex couples too. The Quaker church has welcomed same-sex unions for more than two decades, allowing local groups to celebrate same-sex commitments through special acts of worship. But within Britain's Christian community more widely the issue of homosexuality has caused major confrontations. Most recently, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, told a newspaper that homosexuals should "repent and be changed".

The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #1710
  • Originally posted Saturday, August 1, 2009 (5 years ago)

That took forever. :D

-Eff

Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next > (1726 items total)