Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Crunch Buttsteak posted:

Anti-gay marriage groups have been repeating this as much as they can over the past few years, because this perception helps their cause. It's partially an attempt to pit gays against racial minority groups - which is one of NOM's explicit goals; evidently they've never considered that black people and Hispanics can be just as gay as white folk - and partially a shield that they can use against criticism. "What do you mean, our views are prejudiced? Black people agree with us!"

To wit, "I'm not homophobic, some of my best friends are black!"

# ¿ May 18, 2012 22:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:06

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Wouldn't it be pretty simple to get same-sex marriage legalised judically in New Mexico on that basis? I can't think of a defence the state could use to deny same-sex couples equal benefits or marriage (as there's nothing on the statute books) and it's a pretty gaping equal protection violation (even for marriage equality standards) if they tried.

# ¿ May 20, 2012 18:55

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

skaboomizzy posted:

Loving vs Virginia isn't even 50 years old yet. You could tell a lot of people in their 20's that inter-racial marriage was illegal in some states that recently and they might look at you like you just grew a second head.

I predict that by 2040, gay marriage will be legal in 40 or more states and the ones that fight it will be seen as ignorant backwaters. Demographics back me up on this, lots of the people opposing marriage equality will be dead by then. Civil unions wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but they'd only be a stepping stone toward actual marriage equality. I'm in my 30's and I believe I'm going to live to either see every state accept it or see a ratified Constitutional amendment forcing them to do so.

I could see an expansion of the Loving ruling by the mid twenties as more likely than constitutional amendments, going on the assumption that Perry will only apply to California. In such a case, I believe the next five years will be getting rid of the constitutional bans. Marriage equality at this point is more popular in the polls than interracial marriage was at the time of Loving (Gallup's May poll had marriage equality at 53%. For comparison, interracial marriage was only at 48% in 1994.)

# ¿ Jul 19, 2012 10:08

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Tweet of the night. :unsmith:

# ¿ Nov 7, 2012 07:11

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

I think Scalia's comments on how he would have to rule on same-sex marriage stem from his dissent in Lawrence that basically said "if we accept gays are a suspect class, then it follows from Loving that same-sex marriage is a right". However, dissents are obiter dictum, and, given the chance, he would overturn Roe... I don't think you should look too much into it.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2012 09:00

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

resurgam40 posted:

By the way, did everyone hear? The APA has stricken "gender identity disorder" from the Manual of Mental Disorders. That's right; you are no longer officially insane if you are transgender. Not quite a marriage equality issue, but I thought I'd share. A small victory, but an important one.

Nope, we're just sexual deviants instead. gently caress Ray Blanchard.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2012 21:23

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

DurianGray posted:

I'm not saying that this Blanchard guy isn't a piece of poo poo, but the DSM IV and (most likely) the the DSM 5 does have an additional criteria for a paraphilic disorder diagnosis that says "It causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of life". I'm pretty sure that without meeting that criteria paraphilias don't actually count as disorders. So basically, you can cross-dress, be a furry, or gently caress cars all you want and it's not a disorder until it becomes a problem in the non-sexual areas of your life.

Glitterbomber posted:

I like how it sounds like the new super umbrella could cover a woman wearing pants while she has sex or something. Blanchard is really just a puritan era time traveler isn't he?

I'm replying to both in the same reply because they're linked: Blanchard, like most "experts" on gender identity issues, is a complete shitbag. In particular, he's been pushing his own pet theory of "autogynephilia" (that trans women are more receptive to the idea of having sex as women) for decades.

The thing is, though, transvestic disorder is effectively completely redundant to gender dysphoria, as the significant impairment that trans women get when dressing in their preferred gender's clothing is a result of social pressure plus dysphoria-fuelled anxiety.

In that context, the only reason I can see for including transvestic disorder in DSM V is so Blanchard can make his pet theory official.

It's not surprising. The appointment of both he and Ken Zucker (a leading voice of GID in children, supports reparative therapy) to the gender and sexual disorders working group were criticised by the National Gay & Lesbian Taskforce for that exact reason.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2012 01:32

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Incidentally, across the pond...

"Gay marriage plans offer 'quadruple lock' for opposed religious groups posted:

The culture secretary, Maria Miller, has prepared herself for a year-long battle to introduce same-sex marriage, with the first ceremonies due to take place in 2014.

On Tuesday she sought to reassure Tory MPs that religious groups would not be obliged to conduct the ceremonies, vowing a triple legal guarantee that the European court would not be allowed to interfere, and in the case of the Church of England, a quadruple guarantee or lock.

Tory sources claim 60% of party MPs support the proposals, with 40% opposed or planning to abstain until they have seen the details of the legislation.

David Cameron has given his MPs, including all government members, a free vote. The bill will be introduced in the Commons in January, but be carried over in the next parliament and complete its passage by the end of 2013. Conservative sources are confident the proposals will carry through the Lords without excessive problems.

But in a sign of the passions raised by the issue for those who fear the proposals represent a threat to the current definition of marriage, the consultation, issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the summer, has elicited 228,000 responses. Of these, 53% agreed that all couples, regardless of gender, should be able to have a civil marriage ceremony. In addition, mass petitions were received.

In a bid to assuage Tory MPs' fears that religious groups may be forced to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies due to an intervention by the European convention on human rights, Miller promised a quadruple lock.

This lock will:

� Ensure the legislation states that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.

� Provide an opt-in system for religious organisation who wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples.

� Amend the Equality Act 2010 to reflect that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for that purpose.

� Ensure that legislation will not affect the canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales.

The Church of England had warned that canon law could not conflict with government statute, but Miller said parliament was supreme and could state that church canon law could be different from statute.

The proposal points out that "in the past the legislature has sought to avoid conflict with canon law position by the use of exemption and conscience clauses so that the church might take a position in conscience that is consistent with teaching on the nature of marriage".

Religious groups that wish to opt into holding same-sex ceremonies include the Unitarian and Quaker churches, but Miller said individual church ministers would be free to opt out. Equally, if a Church of England vicar wished to hold a same-sex marriage at a time when the church was opposed to such marriage, that ceremony would not be recognised in law.

Miller refused to be drawn on whether she thought the Church of England should recognise same-sex marriages, saying it was a matter for the church. She has criticised the church for failing to support female bishops.

The proposals oppose extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Adultery will be allowed to be a cause for divorce in same-sex marriages, but non-consummation of marriage will not.

The existing 50,000 civil partnerships will be capable of conversion to a full marriage for a fee of around �100. There will be no time limit on these conversions and couples will be able to have a ceremony on conversion if they wish.

The proposals insist that within schools "� teachers, particularly in faith schools, will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman while acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same-sex couples to get married".

It adds that teachers "should ensure their personal beliefs are not expressed in a way that exploits pupils' vulnerability or involves discriminating against them".

"Every school is required to ensure pupils are not taught anything that is inappropriate to their age, religious or cultural background. This will not change and pupils will continue to receive broad and balanced advice on marriage."

In her statement to MPs, Miller admitted that "for some this was a reform too far". But, she said, in each century parliament had acted to ensure marriage remained relevant and meaningful, and it would be wrong to ban religions from conducting same-sex marriages if they wished to do so.

Miller said she was 100% clear that if any church, synagogue or mosque did not want to conduct a marriage, it would not have to.

She admitted the law was complex, but that was no excuse for "misunderstanding the facts" and pointed out that the European convention on human rights put beyond doubt the protection of religious organisations from conducting same-sex marriages against their wishes.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 17:41

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

The question really isn't whether the pro-equality side will win, it's on how narrow the ruling will be. I could see a majority opinion saying "removing rights is wrong" and a concurring opinion not signed on by the majority saying "marriage equality is a right".

# ¿ Dec 12, 2012 01:48

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

UltimoDragonQuest posted:

Even the liberal New Republic!

Interracial marriages didn't have majority support until the 90s. Were black people political losers who ran to mommy, then?

# ¿ Dec 12, 2012 19:55

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

rypakal posted:

This isn't really true. By the time the Court deciding Loving, only 16 states made interracial marriage illegal. So they were following the majority of the states. They passed up some cases in the 50's right after Brown because there hadn't yet been this movement in the states. That said, I would be perfectly content with a full victory decisions from the SC. I don't expect it, but I won't complain.

I'm going by popular view, not state-by-state. Gallup didn't see majority support until about 1994.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2012 20:23

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

evilweasel posted:

Majority support as in approving of it or majority support as in not approving of it being illegal?

The question is, I believe, "do you approve or disapprove of marriages between whites and coloured people?" Still in the high-forties in 1992, IIRC.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2012 21:02

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Speaking as a trans woman I have concerns that, along with him not talking about trans people, it'll perpetuate the myth of Stonewall being a white middle-class gay riot. :smith:

# ¿ Jan 22, 2013 00:38

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

In British news, The Equal Marriage Bill will be published tommorow in advance of the parliamentary debate on February 5th.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 01:33

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

For what it's worth, I don't think the bill published tommorow will be the one eventually passed. I know the Lib Dem in committee is pushing for some amendments.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 03:02

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Crameltonian posted:

Didn't know about that, any idea if they're trying to make it better or worse? I doubt they'd try to sabotage it at this stage but I don't exactly trust the Lib Dems not to gently caress everything up.

Section 5, relating to the trans aspects of same-sex marriage, is definitely going to see some amendments being put forward. It's way short of what the Lib Dems wanted, especially as Lynne has been talking about forced divorce of trans couples for months. There may be push to get opposite-sex civil partnerships, also Lib Dem policy, legalised too.

As far as I'm aware, the Lib Dem on the scrutiny committee is supposed to be Julian Huppert. If that's still the case, that's good news, as he's got his finger on the pulse when it comes to LGBT issues, especially trans issues. He kinda has to be, when the two trans members of his party's LGBT+ working group executive are also his constituents.

TinTower fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jan 26, 2013

# ¿ Jan 26, 2013 05:08

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Crossposted from the UK megathread:

I've done my own analysis of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill. The summary is that it's okay in the abstract but could do much better. Also, it majorly fucks over some trans couples: Sarah Brown and her wife can't get their 2001 marriage back under the bill; your spouse can delay you getting a full GRC if they don't consent to the marriage continuing; and couples in civil partnerships can't keep their civil partnership if only one of them transitions (it's either dissolve it or upgrade it to a marriage).

# ¿ Jan 27, 2013 19:19

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill gets its second reading in the House of Commons today, which is the most important stage of the bill as passage indicates support in principle. There's oral questions, a ten minute bill on load-bearing walls, then the debate should start at 1pm GMT and continue through until about 7pm.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 10:12

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Same-sex marriage passes its second reading in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom 400-175. :siren:

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 20:18

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Labour actually opposed same-sex marriage in 2004, not sure if S'onewall (who have always been the glitterati of the Labour Party, really) had a say in that. It's evident in the committee stages of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, where they opposed a clause allowing a person who is transitioning to keep their marriage as it would mean (a somewhat small number) same-sex marriages. Kinda takes the wind out of the sales of that David Lammy speech. :smith:

# ¿ Feb 13, 2013 04:20

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxdoOs1-DEc

Stop it, storm!

# ¿ Feb 14, 2013 23:38

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Crosspost from the UKMT:

There's more amendments to the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill, and here's what they actually mean:

New clauses

Amends the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to change the definition of civil partnerships to encompass all couples.
Conversely, removes the restriction on mixed-sex couples of entering into a civil partnership.
Amends the Marriage Act 1949 to allow faith/non-faith charities, most notably the British Humanist Association, to conduct marriages.

New schedules

Makes consequential amendments to the Marriage Act 1949 to allow humanist weddings.

Amendments

Amends the Title of the Bill to make reference to humanist or faith weddings.
Directs the Lord Chancellor to make provision to allow the Church of Wales to marry same-gender couples if they opt-in, by changing a "may" to a "shall".
Directs that provision to amend legislation, by changing another "may" to a "shall".
Amends the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to remove a spouse holding a gender recognition certificate being grounds to annul a marriage.
Amends Schedule 5's amendment to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, to remove the spousal veto to gender transition in the Bill as proposed. (i.e. it removes the spousal veto in the bill as introduced)
Amends the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to remove reference to a section of an act that Amendment 5 removes. (I don't blame you if you get cross eyed at this point)
Allows couples whose marriage was dissolved under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and converted to a civil partnership to retroactively restore their marriage to the original date.
Gives the Registrar General the power to issue replacement marriage certificates and birth certificates where details of either party to a marriage or birth has changed.
Amends Clause 2 to allow religious organisations to compel its ordinates to bless a same-sex marriage if it so wishes to; the bill as introduced would have made it unlawful for religious organisations to discipline someone for refusing to take part in a marriage, in spite of the Genuine Occupational Requirement exceptions in the Equality Act 2010. This is in response to the Quakers and Unitarians saying in committee that this part of the bill was defective.
Makes only civil same-sex marriage legal. Wrecking amendment.
Allows registrars to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage, overruling Ladele v London Borough of Islington. Wrecking amendment.
Removes the right of marriage-conducting organisations to conduct same-sex marriages under their premises. Wrecking amendment.

New Clause 3, New Schedule 1, and Amendment 1 incorporate the Marriage (Approved Organisations) Bill before the Lords into the text of the bill. A lot of the legwork on this (everything but Amendments 2, 3, and 10 through 12) was done by Dr Julian Huppert (with several other MPs from all three of the major parties co-signing the mixed-sex civil partnership and humanist marriage amendments), with the Amendments 2 and 3 being proposed by Chris Bryant and Kate Green. Amendments 10 through 12 were proposed by David Burrowes and Tim Loughton, who both voted against the bill at Second Reading.

I'll have a look at the bill memoranda later and comment on them.

TinTower fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Feb 15, 2013

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 22:15

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

OMGVBFLOL posted:

The Citizens United breif on Prop 8 is basically just "Loving/Virginia doesn't apply because discrimination against homosexuals doesn't deny their humanity" (what the flying gently caress?), "homosexuals have achieved high positions in government, so oppressing ordinary gays is okay" (we need systemic oppression to fight the Gayluminnatti ) and just flat-out calls all other applicable precedent wrong and in need of re-evaluation.

I knew to expect some hosed up, stupid poo poo, but drat.

Number of black people in Congress in 1967: 6 Representatives, 1 Senator
Number of LGBT representatives now: 6 Represenatives, 1 Senator

Well then.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 05:33

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Yeah, they're gonna get a lot of flack if they refuse cert on the Nevada case after granting it to Perry.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2013 17:45

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

Though that was also back when homosexuality was only recently (~5 years prior) removed from the DSM and replaced with "ego-dystonic homosexuality", which was more or less a diagnosis of "closet anxiety". Really, the prejudice bar just keeps shifting to some new "acceptable" target*: if it's no longer a capital offense to be gay, they're mentally ill; if they're not mentally ill, they're propagating a plague; if they're not plague rats, they're pedophiles...who knows what new frontier of demonization will be fought in the future!

* Except, of course, for groups like the FRC and AFA, who I have to say again, have had high-ranking members literally state that gays caused the Holocaust.

Nowadays this sort of rhetoric is aimed towards trans people a lot instead (for example, the Coy Mathis story - for gently caress's sake, she's six, not a rapist). While the move from GID to gender dysphoria was modelled in such a way to resemble the depathologisation of homosexuality, some fuckwads snuck in a diagnosis pathologising any trans person who strayed from the standards of their gender as perverted. Worst still, they either would've been directly affected by the DSM-II back in the early seventies (James Cantor, gay man), or have written at odds on how homosexuality in the DSM was always prejudicial (Ken Zucker, criticised Spitzer's infamous reparative therapy study while advocating the same for trans kids). :sigh:

# ¿ Mar 18, 2013 22:56

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

showbiz_liz posted:

A friend of mine posted this, which sort of took away the fun:

"It's really nice to see all these statuses and pictures in support of equality this morning. But I just hate that people are using the Human Rights Campaign logo.

HRC is both the largest and the least effective gay advocacy organization in the country. Its leadership actually argued AGAINST filing this very lawsuit being heard today over CA's gay marriage ban. They considered it too radical. Too much too soon.

It's an old story. The activists drag these big DC groups kicking and screaming all the way to the finish line whereupon they raise gobs of money by saying it was their idea the whole time. Oh well...

Sorry for the inside baseball. It just bothers me, that's all."

Sounds exactly like Stonewall over here, but at least HRC cloak their transphobia...

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 19:45

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

It's probably going to put an increased amount of pressure on Stormont to legislate for equal marriage, as it would otherwise mean that a lot of Northern Irish couples will be making trips to either Liverpool or Dundalk.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2013 02:48

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Can someone explain the pocket recording thing from Delaware to me?

# ¿ May 9, 2013 19:56

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

The UK is having its report stage and third reading over the next two days; the UK thread is here.

# ¿ May 20, 2013 12:24

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Five minutes until the debate on the Marriage Bill amendments here in the UK starts. Kinda nervous. :ohdear:

# ¿ May 20, 2013 16:24

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Torrannor posted:

Mostly for trans issues if I understand correctly, however pitiful these protections might be in Britain (and shows how bad it is on the continent). But you should ask the people in the UK marriage equality thread, TinTower is fantastic and can probably answer all your questions.

No problem, I follow this thread. The Gender Recognition Act is one of the better acts to do with gender recognition, but really, it's with all the legal waffle that comes from civil servants. As such, there are awful parts of the bill, such as the really controversial part that forces couples to annul their marriages prior to obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Protections have been further weakened by equality legislation allowing discrimination on the basis of transgender identity in the provision of services if it reaches a "proportionate and legitimate aim", which includes (and was probably written with in mind) rape shelters.

Worst still, the civil servants drafting the trans parts of the Marriage Bill were the ones who wrote the Gender Recognition Act. And the bill also has problems, especially now that a spouse has a veto on gender recognition. Several trans activists tried, and failed, to get the civil service to support the amendments. They failed. Despite Julian Huppert's best efforts in the chamber today. The words Helen Grant were saying today were nearly word for word what the civil servants told her to say.

# ¿ May 22, 2013 03:14

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

The British response is awesome, though (emphasis mine):

Restatement of UK Scouting's position on sexual orientation posted:

There has been coverage in the media of the recent decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay young people to be members of their organisation, but to exclude adult gay volunteers.

We would like to restate our own, very different position with regard to this issue within The Scout Association in the UK, through the following statement:

'We know that each National Scout Organisation within our World Scout Movement is an independent organisation that delivers a programme designed to meet the needs of the communities in the country in which it operates.

'Those communities will judge the relevance and appropriateness of each organisation's policies by joining or not joining that organisation.

'In the UK we have a very clear policy and practice that welcomes adults and young people (boys and girls) irrespective of their sexual orientation. We are proud that we have had this approach in place for many, many years.

'We believe that this reflects the needs and wants of the communities in which we operate. Our view is that sexual orientation should not be a bar to membership of the UK Scout Association.

'We believe that discriminating against an individual simply on the grounds of his or her sexuality is inappropriate, and is contrary to our interpretation of the inclusivity and values of Scouting.

'In the UK, our Scout membership has seen significant and sustained growth over the last eight years of youth and adult volunteers. We have been pleased to support Pride events and we openly welcome LGBT and heterosexual young people, volunteers and supporters who wish to join our Movement.'

# ¿ May 25, 2013 01:49

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

I remember when Boehner once opposed hate crime protections for LGBT folk because it's not an immutable characteristic, whilst simultaneously supporting hate crime protections for religious hate crime, which, although I support those protections, aren't as immutable as sexuality or gender identity.

# ¿ May 25, 2013 22:34

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

VirtualStranger posted:

You know how Delaware legalized marriage equality over a month ago? Well as of yesterday they've also passed the "Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Act".

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/19/2184881/breaking-delaware-legislature-passes-transgender-nondiscrimination-act/

Hopefully it'll pass in Maryland too, but it's unlikely due to relative power of a rather infamous "feminist" lawyer who also works for loan-sharks. :smith:

# ¿ Jun 20, 2013 18:58

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Sweeney Tom posted:

Paperwork has been filed to put gay marriage on the Florida 2014 ballot. The state has 7 days to approve it. The most recent poll (from March) shows 74% of Floridians support either gay marriage or civil unions. The last poll that focused solely on marriage equality in December showed that 45% supported legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

In other news, Ireland's government has committed to a marriage equality vote next year, according to Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore. As of late last year, two thirds of Irish citizens support marriage equality.

The Ireland thing will be interesting, as the political class on the island is way more religiously conservative than the population (especially when it comes to abortion and LGBT rights). Northern Ireland will be on very shaky ground if they don't legalise same-sex marriage, and if Ireland got there first, it'd probably mean a lot of border marriages too.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2013 22:59

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

While marriage is currently working its way through Parliament in England and Wales, Scotland have yet to start. So the Equality Network have released the best campaign video. :3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p6FLflRYYE

# ¿ Jun 24, 2013 06:12

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Pfirti86 posted:

Is there any reason to suspect the Queen might withhold given her religious convictions or conservatism? It's happened before in other countries with monarchies.

Nope. The last time Royal Assent was withheld after an Act was passed by Parliament was in 1708 (regarding the Scottish militia). Nowadays, witholding assent works like filibusters currently do in the US Senate: the Queen says to ministers that she won't assent to a bill, after which Parliament drops it (last major time that happened was in 1999 regarding the power to declare military action against Iraq, on advice by the government). Even then, it only happens if it affects her reserve powers or in times of extreme emergency.

TinTower fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jul 16, 2013

# ¿ Jul 16, 2013 21:51

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Alchenar posted:

That's not really accurate - it happens when the Prime Minister asks her to. Every once in a while the government passes a bill and then doesn't enact part or all of the legislation.

The Queen 'on advice from her ministers' is just code for the government quietly deciding it doesn't want to follow through on something. She doesn't have any actual autonomy with regards to this decision.

The Queen doesn't even have a constitutional say in most cases; most bills have commencement sections only passing the section itself and Long Title on assent, then Statutory Instruments get passed to bring the rest of legislation into force (there's still some parts of the Equality Act the Tories haven't put into force). The only time she can even do the drop-the-bill-veto is when it affects her reserve powers, and then it's really a ministerial decision. Otherwise, the government will get a bill they don't like dropped by not giving it space in the parliamentary timetable.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2013 22:05

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

DreamShipWrecked posted:

"A community" as in a group of people. Not the LGBT group in all, just a crazy section. In the same way the Tea Party is not all Republicans.

Bad phrasing, I guess.

Still, there is a large segment of the LGB movement that's hostile to the trans movement, and it's historically very deep; see the GLF/GAA, HRC, Stonewall...

So your tea party analogy fits more than you know. :p

# ¿ Jul 31, 2013 20:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:06

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Poizen Jam posted:

I've got a question for the Americans or Brits in the audience. Up here in Canada, one of the biggest lobbying groups for gay and trans rights is one of our largest churches; the United Church of Canada. I feel their support has been a great boon for LBGT Canadians, often taking the wind out of the sails of much smaller and more bigoted churches who would claim it's against God's will. They've had a reputation for quite some time as a church that promotes volunteerism and helping the poor and disadvantaged, and showing compassion to all- gasp, almost Christ Like! But that's really neither here nor there. Here's my deal;

Are there any equivalent groups in America? So much of gay rights seems wrapped up in the discussion about what the bible has to say on it, and religious rights- what's to stop some particularly left leaning church from claiming they wish to marry same-sex couples (Like the United Church of Canada) and totally destroying the last argumentative bastion (RELIGIOUS RIGHTS!) that conservatives seem to have?

The Quakers (and especially the local meeting house) were instrumental in the early stages of lobbying for the bill here in the UK, especially when our largest gay rights charity refused to campaign for it because it would cost too much.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2013 20:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

«‹›3 »