Gay Marriage Legal

[Greenday]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/t...couples/nmnRZ/

Texas Attorney General says it's totally okay for county clerks to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples due to religious beliefs and that he'll make sure they are protected with the state's lawyers.

How do we ban this guy from ever holding a public office job again?

[Anthony K. S.]

I found an interesting article on Politifact.com that gives you an idea of how difficult it is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

The U.S. Constitution has been successfully amended 27 times ... out of over 11,000 proposed Amendments since 1789.

Senate Historian Donald Ritchie told us that amending the Constitution is "an extremely complicated process" and an amendment "essentially only gets adopted when there's a broad national consensus on the issue."

Ritchie also stated that while passing a Constitutional Amendment is extremely rare, proposing one is quite common.

Most proposals aren't inspired by a broad national consensus, however. The motivation for introducing a constitutional amendment is often political. "Every time the Supreme Court makes a ruling some member of Congress doesn't like, someone pushes for a constitutional amendment on the matter," Ritchie told us.

Just out of curiosity, I ran the numbers :

11,372 proposed Amendments, during the 222 years between 1789 and 2011 (when this article was written) ... That's an average of one proposed Amendment per week.

As for the "broad national consensus," a solid 60% majority of Americans now favor legalizing same-sex marriage. For opponents of same-sex marriage to get the support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures ...

I honestly don't see it happening. They've already tried several times without success, and public support for legalizing same-sex marriage has only been growing.

One more thing. This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but I found this passage interesting :

The day after the Supreme Court ruled flag burning to be protected speech in 1989, U.S. Rep. Michael Bilirakis, R-Fla., introduced an amendment outlawing desecration of the flag. Amendments to ban flag burning have been introduced in every session of Congress since, spanning more than two decades.

Not too long ago, I was reading (with morbid amusement) the Comments section of a Young Turks video about the confrontation between an Air Force veteran named Michelle Manhart and a group of protestors who were walking on an American flag.

There were quite a few people claiming that it is illegal to trample on a flag the way the protestors were doing, and punishable by a fine or up to a year in prison. Therefore, they said, the police should have arrested the protestors.

In response, several people explained that the federal and state laws that prohibit flag desecration have been null and void ever since 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas vs. Johnson that damaging or destroying a flag was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Most of the commentors did not argue the point, but there were a few who kept insisting that it was a crime to desecrate an American flag.

One person wrote, "You are forgetting about a very important federal law, the Flag Protection Act of 1989" ... Um, well, that law might be easy to forget, seeing as how it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1990 - United States vs. Eichmann - and thereby rendered unenforceable.

This same person then cited Federal Law 18 USC Section 700 - which is also null and void under Texas vs. Johnson - and then spoke of how the House of Representatives approved a Constitutional Amendment in 2003 to ban flag desecration. When somebody replied that that proposed Amendment was defeated in the Senate (and has been defeated every other time it was ever proposed), the person simply replied, "It passed, pal" - as if passing the House of Representatives was all that it took, never mind that it failed to pass the Senate and was never sent to the state legislatures for ratification.

There was another person who kept saying that it was a crime to desecrate a flag, even after being repeatedly told about the Supreme Court rulings on this. This person never really explained how it could still be a crime after the Texas vs. Johnson ruling. He/She just kept insisting that the law was still on the books (which is technically true, since Congress never bothered to repeal the law after it was nullified by the Supreme Court), and calling people "idiots," "morons," "retards," and other charming names for saying otherwise.

One commentor, who had been very persistent in explaining the truth, finally seemed to give up and said :

You can continue to insist, "It's a CRIME to desecrate a flag, and you can go to jail for it."

But no matter how many times you say that, it won't make it true. Those laws you are clinging to have been null and void for over two decades. Denying that won't do you any good.

But, hey, if you want to continue living in a fantasyland where something is illegal just because you think it SHOULD be, be my guest.

I was just morbidly amused at how some people will irrationally cling to an idea even in the face of all the facts and evidence to the contrary being presented to them.

[Gravekeeper]

I was just morbidly amused at how some people will irrationally cling to an idea even in the face of all the facts and evidence to the contrary being presented to them.

I would be morbidly amused, but too many of the people in question have been voted into positions of political power. ;p

[s_stabeler]

it should also be noted that one of the successful amendments was reverting an earlier amendment (18th amendment ( prohibition) by the 21st amendment) so those two probably shouldn't count.

but yeah, i expect them to try- I equally expect ti to fail.

oh, and if the Texas Attorney general thinks he can override the Supreme Court, he's going to get a nasty surprise.

[Ginger Tea]

Personally I don't believe in marriage, least not as anything other than a tax break.

Living in sin is just as valid and once was easier to get out of unlike a divorce until common law wives got similar or the same rights as wedded wives when it came to splitting up.

It's great that most of the west is moving towards the same rights for everyone to marry anyone (within legal reasoning) some countries might be more progressive than others, I just have not looked too deep into the issue as, like I said, I don't care for it at all.

I've seen photos of church info boards saying "I'm sorry if gay marriages diminish your 3rd marriage."

Male, Female, straight, Gay, Lesbian, Pre or Post op, if you want to get married I wont stop you, I have no reason to, unless you are dead set on marrying me (but that's only cos I'm not in the market for a relationship let alone anything else.)

the whole Luke Leia question, biologically they would be incestuous but if they never found out the truth it would be morally OK.

Brady Bunch or other step siblings (depends on the age of introduction) biologically not incestuous but morally ambiguous depending on individual circumstances.
Raised at birth it's seen as the same as biological siblings and icky to the world.
Both are 13 at the time their respective parents got together (and actually got married making them step siblings (of any gender)) then it could be a case of the two were class mates and could have started a relationship but does that mean their parents wedding puts the kibosh on theirs?

What of the other two parents? what if they married again and their stepchildren are now step brother/sister to you, you don't live with them, there is no raised from the crib aspect, you might not see them till you are in your twenties due to one parent moving away.

I've not needed to look into the legal ramifications of "wedded bliss", should you have two siblings and one marries someone from a family would the other be able to legally marry their in law? I say they should if they so wish to, else it seems to be calling dibs.

So full or 99% marriage equality I'm all for other people to exercise their right to wed whomever they wish, so long as both are of age and it's mutual consent.

Would anyone in a same sex partnership take up the tradition of taking their partners name? If so how do they decide?

It's not unheard of for a wife to keep her 'maiden name', but rarer still for the husband to take hers. But in both cases we get Mr and Mrs Smith, but it's no big deal for a couple to retain their respective names and be Mr Smith and Mr Jones.

So next big question is

When will the first same sex divorce take place?

[Anthony K. S.]

When will the first same sex divorce take place?

Do you mean under the new Supreme Court ruling?

If you're talking about same-sex divorce in general, that has already been happening for years, ever since the first individual states legalized same-sex marriage.

Huffington Post - "Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples"

Note the date on the article - November 10, 2011. Same-sex divorce is nothing new. Nor is it anything unexpected, any more than divorce for heterosexual couples.

[Lindsay B.]

I came across this video, which was uploaded onto YouTube on June 26, the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling on Obergefell vs. Hodges. I just wanted to share it with all of you ... Watching it actually made me cry.

#ProudToLove - Celebrating Marriage Equality and LGBT Pride Month

YouTube Spotlight :

YouTube is #ProudToLove the LGBT community and marriage equality.

Over the last 10 years, everyone from moms to presidents have uploaded videos in support of LGBT awareness, to stand up against bullying and discrimination, and to say together, as a community, that marriage equality matters.

That's why we are so excited by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to recognize the constitutional right of all couples to marry. In recognition of Pride Month, and of this historic decision, we want to celebrate the many individuals and communities that have helped inspire change.

May I make a suggestion? Don't read the Comments.

[Kheldarson]

And Kentucky has made the first call out: http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/K...vice=phone&c=y

So...round 2, fight?

[s_stabeler]

actually, this is just a couple of court clerks in Kentucky- they'll resume issuing licenses as soon as it's confirmed they have to or lose their jobs. ( it isn't religious discrimination, incidentally: issuing marriage licenses is a part of their job, so if they refuse to issue any, that is a job performance issue)

[Kara_CS]

Not even just that, there are still states where it's legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. So gay couples in, say, Utah could get married then show up to work and get fired for being gay then come home to find out they are being evicted for being gay.

Yes and no. I expected a lot of problems when I moved to Utah a couple years ago because I had never heard anything good from the LDS cult, but it's not so bad. Of course, I live in the SLC area, and being the most liberal city and county in the state, there are ordinances in place for employment, lending, and housing that protect sexual orientation and gender identity. So it really depends on where you live.

[Gravekeeper]

May I make a suggestion? Don't read the Comments.

Oh ho ho. Forget the comments. Try to watch this without throwing up a little in your mouth.

For reference, this is a video a Catholic group put out that mimics the "It gets better" videos except it features people "coming out" against gay marriage.

[Lachrymose]

After you watch that one, have a laugh and watch this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1UxAH9FMY0

It's a parody of the Not Alone one.

[Cia]

My home county of Pennington became the first county in South Dakota to issue a same-sex marriage license. \0/ http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/loc...e0576941c.html

For the county clerks in other States who refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses simply because "it goes against my religion" - enjoy standing in the unemployment line.

[Mr Hero]

I'm one of the few people who still defines marriage as between a man and a woman. And boy have I been called hateful for that opinion!

[Canarr]

I'm one of the few people who still defines marriage as between a man and a woman. And boy have I been called hateful for that opinion!

Hateful? Depends on how you react to married people not meeting your definition. But bigoted and ignorant? Sure.

Marriage, as defined by law, is a legal institution. It grants certain legal and social rights to the people in it (better tax status, inheritance, hospital access to injured or sick partners...).

Denying access to rights to a subset of your population based on the gender of their partner is wrong, plain and simple. It is discrimination due to sexual orientation.

Of course, if you don't want to call it "marriage" if it's between two people of the same gender, no one can stop you. Call it "civil union", or whatever. Just don't be surprised if people think less of you for it.