Gay marriage (Not a flame fest)

[foreigncorrespondent]

I was reading an article this morning about the move here in Australia to have gay marriages approved (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2003nov01_f.html) I still don't know if the article was meant to be pro gay or anti gay. LOL

Anyway, it raised some really interesting questions. Mentioned the Canadian couple that got turned back at the border with the U.S. when they tried to enter the U.S. and a legally married Canadian couple.

It also talked about how a couple could go to Canada get married and then come back home to Australia, take it through the courts and force Australia to recognize same sex marriages. So I was wondering if anyone has been trying this in the U.S. yet?

If you know of any articles or anything could you please send them my way? I am of course very interested in the issue of gay marriage in both Australia and the U.S. because they are Sapphocrat's and my countries.

Thanks

FC

[Clark Can WIN]

1. Interestin Question

I'll admit I don't know as much as I should about the GLTB community. I just know that I find it insane that any person should be denied the rights available to others based only on who the love.

That's just stupid.

I know here in America, since the USSC has refused to decide the issue, it is considered a states issue. This leaves everything in chaos basically. Again, stupid.

[Ediacara]

2. We have thought about it

We, being my partner and I..... We came to the conclusion that it would be a fun trip, but ultimately not worth the trouble (just to get married), since there is no reason for a US court to recognize the marriage license. Plus, we are awaiting The Massachusetts Supreme Court's decission on legalising gay marriage.

If the Mass court says yes, then it would be a hell of a lot easier to try to force Montana to recognize our marriage (interstate commerce clause of all things!), than to try to get them to recognize a BC marriage license.

But in the end.... We already got married, and had a ceremony and stuff, we have rings, and even got a bread machine. My partner's employer has domestic partner benifets, and soon enough I'll be off to grad school and we'll be moving to a civilized state :-) A marriage license is just a piece of paper, and right now... well we're not exactly rolling in dough, and don't have to worry about inheretence or anything, although I suspect we'll set up a power of attourney in the next few years.

[Clark Can WIN]

4. But the point is...................

Why the hell should you have to go through all that? Just to secure the same rights any hetero couple can inside of 15 minutes in Las Vegas?

Right. Like so many people make good decisions about life partners there.

[Ediacara]

6. why go through all what?

Going to get a marriage license while on vacation?

Believe me, the actual WEDDING was far and away the most difficult hurdle in getting married. Getting a peice of paper from a judge is nothing.

Plus, most married couples who are in it for the long haul see a lawyer for estate planning eventually.

I'm married as far as I'm concerned, as far as my family is concerned, as far as my friends are concerned. If Judy Martz doesn't want to think of me as married, well, she can go wallow in her own puke for all I care.

[Clark Can WIN]

7. What I mean is this..................

When hubby and I got married, we went to the courthouse to get a licence.................8 to 12 minutes............... called a judge in another town........... 3 minutes.............met him at a park and handed over a check........... 30 seconds.

This was in Nebraska for cryin out loud. Instantly we had survivor rights and child custody rights and hospital visitation rights and a whole bunch of others too.

BOOM. Just like that.

Are you against commited couples having the opportunity to enjoy the same rights based on their genders?

You are right about a marriage taking place in the heart, most definately. But anyone whould be able to enjoy the same rights in a commited relationship. That's how I feel.

[dsc]

3. I wouild imagine there are cases in the works

in many states. But currently well over 30 states have mini DOMA's and there is DOMA itself, which would seem to preclude this strategy to a great extent. One possible thing though is that most DOMA's are laws not constitutional amendments and thus could be over ridden by sympathetic courts. I would try Vermont first and see what Mass does next. After that I have no clue where else to try.

[mermaid]

5. Not A Good Strategy

Most states in the U.S. have DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) laws, designed so that states are not forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they may be legal. Of course, the constitutionality of these DOMA laws has yet to be tested, and I doubt they could stand up to such a test. The Repukes obviously think this, too, or they would not be attempting to pass a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing all marriage except between one man and one woman,even going so far as to FORBID individual states from recognizing same-sex marriages.

So much for the "state's-rights Repukes, eh? They will scream abiut states' rights and local control, unless it impedes their agenda, in which caase, they will trample all over states' rights. such was well-demonstrated in the whole "Faith-Based Initiative" fiasco, whereby it would allow faith-ased organizations to recieve Federal dollars to run charities, and not be required to adhere to local non-discrimination laws.

I assume, since the states that have DOMA laws do not require them to recognize as legal marriages performed in other states (a violation of the 14th Amendment, IMHO) I assume that would also extend to marriages performed in other countries.

Besides, since when has international cooperation and respect been a part of this Administration?

I suspect any legal same-sex marriage performed in Canada would not be upheld in the U.S. under the DOMA laws of the state in question. Unless the Repukes manage to get their Amendment passed. And don't laugh, I think it is possible they could, with the current attitude in the U.S.

But a marriage performed in Canada, not recognized then in the U.S. under DOMA laws may well set the stage for a supreme Court ruling. But, as packed with conservo-creeps as the court is now, I'm not sure we want a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Incidentally, it takes 2/3 of both chambers of Congress to get an Amendment to the Constitution to the next stage, which is ratification by states. It then needs 2/3 of states to ratify it for it to become a part of our Constitution.

With the current Repuke control of both houses, I can see enogh linguine -spined moderate Dems scared of losing votes for failing to support such an Amendment, and it thus getting to the level of states' ratification. and I can see the pressures brought to bear on states governments by conservo-creeps to ratify...and since many states have been gerrymandered to conservo-creep control, it is not impossible for 38 states to ratify such an Amendment, given that over 30 states have the aforementioned DOMA laws.

My personal response to the proponents of various "Defense of Marriage" proposals has always been to turn it back on them, and ask how hetero marriages are in any way harmed by allowing same-sex couples to marry? And if any CHURCH doesn't want to recognize such a marriage, they would not have to. I suspect any church that would not recognize such a marriage is not a church any self-resecting GLBT person would want anything to do with, anyway, so who gives a crap if the Southern Baptist Church doesn't recognize my same-sex marriage...especially if my government does, and my own Unitarian Universalist Church does? Who cares what the Baptists think, anyway, right?

The second point I like to make is that I think the ability for people to divorce and remarry, time and again, often at the drop of a hat, does far more to harm the sanctity of marriage than does allowing a same-sex couple to marry even ONCE. They usually have no intelligent, or even coherent response to these arguments.

Sorry I ran on so long, but it is a subject on which I have many thoughts...given that I am a transsexual, this is a serious issue for me. After all, in my own state of Texas, for example, as current law would have it...in Austin I can marry a man. In San Antonio I can marry a woman. Because of the Littleton v Prange case in the 4th Circuit of Texas, covering the San Antonio area, ruled that Littleton was, for purposes of marriage, a man...rather than the woman she had become. whereas austin currently does not have a ruling, and so I would assume in Austin a post-op TS, like myself, could then marry a man, but not a woman.

And in New Jersey, for purposes of marriage, a post-op male-to-female TS is a woman, and the case law pertaining to it goes back to 1976, JT v MT.

So, there are lots of loopholes here in what exactly...or how exactly does one determine who is a man, and who is a woman?

There are documented cases of intersex people, whose chromosomes fit neither the normal "male" nor "female" setups of 46XY and 46XX respectively. I refer to Kleifelter Syndrome patients and Turner Syndrome patients here.

Additionally, there are documented cases of women who bear the male chromosome pattern, which is why the International Olympic committee no longer uses chromosome testing for qualification to compete as a woman. So chromosome branding of gender is not viable...what do you do with legally married couples who suddenly discover chromosomal anomalies that they never knew they gad, like Billie Jean King?

Does every marriage license issued in the U.S. then require an expensive chromosome test? And what of hermaphrodites, or intersexed people? Are they allowed to marry both, or neither?

So we go to external genitalia. Does that become the benchmark by which we decide who is what gender? If that were the case, Littleton v Prange would have had a different outcome. And a post-op TS could then marry someone of the opposite of their new gender only. Again, where does that leave hermaphrodites who elect to not have corrective surgery done? to say nothing of non-op TS's who merely live as members of the opposite birth gender, and never get or desire surgery, but may take hormones? what to do with the person who presents such, possessing a penis and breasts? Is that a man or a woman?

So we go to birth genitalia. Again, what to do with hermaphrodites? Are they allowed to marry both or neither?

See?

There's no real good way to define who is what sex, and, until they can do this, all these anti-same-sex marriage laws are really up for serious question....

[foreigncorrespondent]

8. I understand what you are saying...

...but this is why I don't understand DoMA.

I mean, I know what it is all about, being a lesbian in a relationship with an American citizen, I have to know what it is all about, after all, the U.S. one day could very well be the country I end up settling in with Sapphocrat. But I mean, the U.S. has always recognized marriages from Canada, true or not? Now DoMA (as you mentioned) helps states to not recognize same sex marriages from other STATES, but says nothing about other countries? So if this is true, then ultimately the U.S. has no other choice but to recognize same sex marriages from other countries. Which of course in turn sets the gates wide open for a possible law suit being filed in the U.S. to recognize same sex marriages performed in that country.

Sorry about it being long and drawn out, but this is one subject which has truly caught my attention lately, and I am actually running things through my head as I type. LOL

I guess what I am saying is, hasn't the repukes actually set themselves up for failure? Meaning the U.S. will have no choice but to legalize same sex marriages, or else it is going to face huge lawsuits from citizens from other countries which have legalized same sex marriage.

[mermaid]

9. The Fallacy of Your Argument

The situation you describe will set up a possible hearing at the Supreme court level. Being as packed with conservo-creeps as it currently is, we are sure to lose that battle. Never mine that what they are doing is unconstituional...since when did the Constitution matter to the right wing? when it impedes their agenda, they will casually toss aside the constitution...witness the PATRIOT Act, among others...to say nothing of the unconstitutional DOMA laws being passed on state levels, in violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically the interstate commerce clause.

And, I also argue that, since the DOMA laws allow states to refuse to grant legality to same-sex marriages performed in other states, they will interpret that to mean other countries as well. And THAT is what will set up the Supreme Court battle that we will probably lose.

To the current Supremem Court, it's ideology is more important than the Constitution. It must be, or this country wouldn't be in the mess we are in!

[camero]

10. We should get the state out of marriage

But we should let the state sanction civil unions of just about any sort (more heterosexuals are rejecting marriage in favor of living together) for tax and insurance purposes.

Marriage is a sacrament of the church and not the state and could be argued as to be a violation of the seperation of church and state.

[kyrasdad]

11. I always figured that gay marriages

would be a possibility in my lifetime, I just figured I would be too old to care by the time it happened. Now, I'm not so sure... Yeah, 40 might be dead in gay years in some circles, but I'm beginning to think that if I might be interested in settling down again, then a marriage recognized by "the state" could be possible. Reason being... Even some repugs are beginning to think that it is the last bastion of discrimination. Not that they agree with it morally, but by doing what "real" repugs do... follow the Constitution... equal protection and representation...

So who knows, it might come to pass, but to get there is going to be a nasty battle, no matter what.

[Silverhair]

12. What about group marriage?

Whey should the state limit marriage to just two people? What about the numberous countries were group marriages are legal? What happens to them if they come to the U.S.? Whoe says three people, or more, can't love one another?