Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



Updated June 26!



[T]he reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.


What's left?
After June we get to bang our heads against the wall over employment, housing, and other rights. ENDA (federal employment non-discrimination act) has been scrapped and activists are working on a broad omnibus bill. Obviously it will be off the table with a GOP Congress.

News Sources

Chris Geidner: By far the best reporter on LGBT legal news.
Equality on Trial: Short news updates and links to stories. Video posts frequently use headlines that overstate the scale and immediacy of events.
Metro Weekly: Geidner's old home. LGBT magazine out of DC.
Equality Case Files: Extensive collection of legal filings and decisions.
SCOTUS Blog: Not marriage-focused, but a useful resource to explain procedure and precedent in Federal court.


US Supreme Court cases in the most readable format

Romer v. Evans (1996): States may not ban local governments from passing non-discrimination ordinances.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003): Sodomy bans are unconstitutional.
United States v. Windsor (2013): DOMA Section III is unconstitutional. Federal government must recognize same sex marriage.
Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): Prop 8 backers lack standing to defend its constitutionality. District Court ruling to strike Prop 8 must be followed.

UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jun 26, 2015

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Midelne
Jun 19, 2002

I shouldn't trust the phones. They're full of gas.
Lifetime Washington resident, was pleasantly surprised to see how smoothly the passing of our recent marriage equality bill went. One week the governor was giving a speech about how she had abruptly decided that marriage equality was an important issue, and it seemed like only a couple weeks later the signed bill is posted on her Facebook profile without any real hullabaloo.

I am pretty entertained that Section 3 (Definition of Marriage fulltext) amends a law to change some text that originally (pre-SB6239) read:

quote:

It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son.

and was changed (by SB6239) to read:

quote:

It is unlawful for any person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

all the way back to the old, long, unnecessarily-specific Bible-style text. I'm really not sure what loopholes the initiative-writers believe themselves to be plugging with that one. Ends up looking like they just want to totally erase SB6239 from existence, without regard for the actual effect of the individual pieces of the bill.

Pornographic Memory
Dec 17, 2008

Midelne posted:

Lifetime Washington resident, was pleasantly surprised to see how smoothly the passing of our recent marriage equality bill went. One week the governor was giving a speech about how she had abruptly decided that marriage equality was an important issue, and it seemed like only a couple weeks later the signed bill is posted on her Facebook profile without any real hullabaloo.

I am pretty entertained that Section 3 (Definition of Marriage fulltext) amends a law to change some text that originally (pre-SB6239) read:


and was changed (by SB6239) to read:


all the way back to the old, long, unnecessarily-specific Bible-style text. I'm really not sure what loopholes the initiative-writers believe themselves to be plugging with that one. Ends up looking like they just want to totally erase SB6239 from existence, without regard for the actual effect of the individual pieces of the bill.

I guess somebody wanted to allow homosexual incest.

Tujague
May 8, 2007

by LadyAmbien
Once again, New Mexico fails to either make me proud or enrage me. We have a vaguely tea-partyish Republican governor lady and a various-shades-of-blue Democratic majority in the Roundhouse.

This makes me want to ride around the mission in circles firing my pistol in the air.

Space Gopher
Jul 31, 2006

BLITHERING IDIOT AND HARDCORE DURIAN APOLOGIST. LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS SHIT DON'T STINK EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW IT DOES BECAUSE I'M SUPER CULTURED.

Midelne posted:

Lifetime Washington resident, was pleasantly surprised to see how smoothly the passing of our recent marriage equality bill went. One week the governor was giving a speech about how she had abruptly decided that marriage equality was an important issue, and it seemed like only a couple weeks later the signed bill is posted on her Facebook profile without any real hullabaloo.

I wouldn't say that until November. The bill made it through the state legislature smoothly enough, but the R-74 fight is going to be loving brutal. They're going to be bringing in out-of-state money by the truckload. 2012 will be the definition of "interesting times," with weed legalization, gay marriage, the McKenna/Inslee showdown, and the new districts all on the ballot.

As far as the legislative stuff is concerned, make no mistake: it only went so smoothly because there's been five or six years of groundwork. Jamie Pedersen and Ed Murray have been keeping a close eye on whip counts for years, and I'm sure the governor called both of them up for a little chat before she decided to make a public push for marriage equality. There was still a bit of uncertainty in the Senate, as well; the NOM was threatening any Republican who voted yea with $250,000 to any anti-gay primary challenger that might step up. It'll be interesting to see whether they throw a million bucks after that promise, or shove it into the referendum campaign instead.

I think you're mistaken on the bit about the wording of the law, though. You linked to the old state DOMA. The bill as signed by the Governor actually removes the laundry list of relatives and replaces it with the simpler version. SB 6239 is the gay marriage law.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



Tujague posted:

Once again, New Mexico fails to either make me proud or enrage me. We have a vaguely tea-partyish Republican governor lady and a various-shades-of-blue Democratic majority in the Roundhouse.

This makes me want to ride around the mission in circles firing my pistol in the air.
There's nothing bad about being in the boring middle when 2/3 of the country has reactionary bans that will take years to repair. Nothing bad can happen in New Mexico unless Republicans get control of both houses, and they only netted 2 seats in 2010.

It is weird though. There were enough conservative Democrats to twice kill a domestic partnership bill in committee, but not enough to pass a constitutional ban.


e:
If there's anywhere to be optimistic about marriage on the ballot it's Washington. We won in 2009 with a 112,980 vote 6.3% margin. Marriage is always harder to win than domestic partnerships but it's a presidential election, there's been 3 years of progress, 3 years of kids turning 18, and 3 years of the oldest voters dying off.

UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Feb 21, 2012

Spatula City
Oct 21, 2010

LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING
Speaking as a Washington resident, I think that not only will the gay marriage bill be upheld, but Rob McKenna's opposition will be key to Inslee's victory.

The Macaroni
Dec 20, 2002
...it does nothing.
I'm getting fired up for the voter referendum that will likely hit Maryland later this year. As the OP says, it's critical to spread the word that if you support marriage equality, do not sign any petitions. Don't have links handy, but in other states there's been documented evidence of anti-gay-marriage supporters fraudulently collecting signatures by lying about the wording or intent of the petition text. Assuming the law passes the Maryland Senate, no further action by the public is needed to keep gay marriage. (Edit: aside from voting NO on a proposition. I meant that no petition is needed to keep gay marriage--any petition would represent an effort to stop gay marriage)

The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 21, 2012

Mrit
Sep 26, 2007

by exmarx
Grimey Drawer

Spatula City posted:

Speaking as a Washington resident, I think that not only will the gay marriage bill be upheld, but Rob McKenna's opposition will be key to Inslee's victory.

McKenna is a slimy bastard who lately has been acting like a Republican in the South vs a more moderate one in Washington State. He will lose once Inslee gets some ads out there.

ComradeCosmobot
Dec 4, 2004

USPOL July

Tujague posted:

Once again, New Mexico fails to either make me proud or enrage me. We have a vaguely tea-partyish Republican governor lady and a various-shades-of-blue Democratic majority in the Roundhouse.

This makes me want to ride around the mission in circles firing my pistol in the air.

New Mexico is actually kind of an interesting case, because it's not actually de-jure illegal to transact same-sex marriages there (it's just that they are de-facto illegal and unrecognized by the state).

As a result, New Mexico actually holds the curious title of being the second state in which same-sex marriages were issued, and the state in which the oldest non-void (i.e. still legally in effect) same-sex marriages in the United States were effected (as the San Francisco marriages were eventually ruled to have been legally void from inception). On February 20, 2004, after San Francisco started issuing the first licenses for same-sex marriages, and before Massachusetts's Supreme Court ruling took effect, Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap (a Republican!) issued about 66 marriage certificates to same-sex couples before Patricia Madrid (a Democrat) ordered them to stop.

Furthermore, a 2010 divorce case between one of the married couples found that the 2004 marriage, in and of itself, was not void (and thus was subject to standard divorce proceedings), even though a district judge in 2004 had ruled that marriage licenses in and of themselves could not be issued by Sandoval County.

quote:

Dunlap may have been negligent or mistaken, Singleton said, but the licenses she issued are "not void from the inception, but merely voidable." The judge said that under state statutes, the only type of marriage that might be void from the beginning would be an incestuous one. Dunlap's same-sex marriage licenses were never invalidated because the matter was never litigated to its conclusion after former Attorney General Patricia Madrid persuaded Dunlap to stop issuing them.

That said, this is not to say that public opinion in NM is absolutely going to provide for same-sex marriage in the near future. (45% in favor, 43% against).

ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Feb 21, 2012

Tujague
May 8, 2007

by LadyAmbien
Now that you mention it, I do remember that little throw-down. That was so long ago in gay-marriage years that it slips my memory, but still, look how forward-thinking we are! I guess this is the upshot of the cherished Republican ideal that whatever values or definitions got farted into your skull one Tuesday morning should be the law of the land!

Hot drat, that makes me want to listen to some mariachi music and eat a huge plate of pork, cheese, grease, and chile!

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003
The United States of America: Granting equal rights, piecemeal, over a period of decades :patriot:

But for seriously, I hope it just hits a tipping point of acceptance and starts to flow down like freedom water from the heavens.

I've literally never heard a logical reason for not granting gays full and equal rights to marriage. There isn't one. The stalling on this is sickening. It's just petulant children digging their heels into the dirt.

UnfortunateSexFart
May 18, 2008

𒃻 𒌓𒁉𒋫 𒆷𒁀𒅅𒆷
𒆠𒂖 𒌉 𒌫 𒁮𒈠𒈾𒅗 𒂉 𒉡𒌒𒂉𒊑


edit: stupid post

UnfortunateSexFart fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Mar 31, 2012

ANAmal.net
Mar 2, 2002


100% digital native web developer

ANAmal.net posted:

I feel like kind of an idiot for not even knowing Maryland had a marriage equality bill in the house until I heard that it passed, but I'm pretty happy about it just the same. I've lived in this state a long time, and never really liked it very much, but passing that law would change my mind.

Quoting myself from February because I'm just so goddamned proud to live in a state that did this, and to have voted for it.

ANAmal.net fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Nov 7, 2012

twerking on the railroad
Jun 23, 2007

Get on my level

ANAmal.net posted:

I feel like kind of an idiot for not even knowing Maryland had a marriage equality bill in the house until I heard that it passed, but I'm pretty happy about it just the same. I've lived in this state a long time, and never really liked it very much, but passing that law would change my mind.

This is all you need to know about marriage equality in Maryland: Pass it or Omar comin'!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJmvw7O-g4&feature=player_embedded

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
Has any attempt been made to force states to recognize gay marriage under the Loving v. Virginia test? It seems rather obvious.

fart simpson
Jul 2, 2005

DEATH TO AMERICA
:xickos:

Loving Life Partner posted:

I've literally never heard a logical reason for not granting gays full and equal rights to marriage. There isn't one. The stalling on this is sickening. It's just petulant children digging their heels into the dirt.

Well, there is the argument some people make for the abolition of all marriage, which is at least internally consistent. But I guess that would still be granting equal rights, if nobody could marry.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



Nevvy Z posted:

Has any attempt been made to force states to recognize gay marriage under the Loving v. Virginia test? It seems rather obvious.
There's no case law showing homosexuals are a protected class and SCOTUS could make a terrible ruling and set everything back, so nobody has really tried that. Plus SCOTUS is traditionally slow to act so it is good policy to pass state marriage laws because it will help sway the justices.

The only serious federal lawsuits backed by the LGBT legal orgs have gone after DOMA section 3 with the goal of winning federal benefits for married couples but not winning the right to enter a same sex marriage in states that forbid it.



Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee passed the marriage bill 7-4.

iceyman
Jul 11, 2001

Read today that the Prop 8 Proponents indicated that they will opt for a rehearing by the entire 9th District.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



Progress in the New Jersey lawsuit.

quote:

[A] New Jersey Superior Court today reinstated the federal equal protection claim in Lambda Legals case seeking marriage equality...
"Having both a state and federal equal protection claim will only make our case stronger."
No ETA on when the hearing will take place.

Prop 8 backers ask for en banc review instead of going directly to a SCOTUS appeal.

quote:

If a majority of the 9th Circuit's 25 actively serving judges agree to reconsider the case, it would be assigned to a panel that includes the chief judge and 10 randomly selected judges. Schacter, however, said the 9th Circuit does not often reverse the decisions of member judges
The stay is not being lifted (no new marriages) and I would bet against any significant change in the ruling should the review take place.

Wolfy
Jul 13, 2009

Cocks Cable posted:

Read today that the Prop 8 Proponents indicated that they will opt for a rehearing by the entire 9th District.
Just a minor note, the 9th circuit is so big it will be a panel of 11 judges chosen at random. So there is a slight chance they may make a change if they get incredibly lucky. Let us not forget though, the 9th is full of liberal activist judges so fat chance.

BattleMaster
Aug 14, 2000

MeramJert posted:

Well, there is the argument some people make for the abolition of all marriage, which is at least internally consistent. But I guess that would still be granting equal rights, if nobody could marry.

As an LGBT person, I think that removing the legal ability to join two couples from religious figures would be a fine compromise. That way, people can have their preferred religious ceremony, or not, but at the end of the day they'll have to go to City Hall to file for the legal rights.

Paul MaudDib
May 3, 2006

TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Cocks Cable posted:

Read today that the Prop 8 Proponents indicated that they will opt for a rehearing by the entire 9th District.
This doesn't mean the facts of the case, i.e. harms caused to traditional marriage, will be re-done, right? Because if not, this case is pretty drat airtight.

ComradeCosmobot
Dec 4, 2004

USPOL July

Paul MaudDib posted:

This doesn't mean the facts of the case, i.e. harms caused to traditional marriage, will be re-done, right? Because if not, this case is pretty drat airtight.

No. The findings are only based on the original case. It's now in the ninth circuit's court to decide if they want to hear the case. If so, the stay will drag on for another 6-12 months as the en banc panel basically rehears everything the three-judge panel did.

Worst case, 9th and SCOTUS refuse to hear any appeal, and California (and California alone) gets same-sex marriage back. Really, the narrow holding of the ninth circuit (so far) is the troubling bit, as it effectively gives SCOTUS grounds to pull off a 5-4 decision upholding same-sex marriage (effectively) EXCLUSIVELY in California, rather than applying it nationally.

Midelne
Jun 19, 2002

I shouldn't trust the phones. They're full of gas.

Space Gopher posted:

I think you're mistaken on the bit about the wording of the law, though. You linked to the old state DOMA. The bill as signed by the Governor actually removes the laundry list of relatives and replaces it with the simpler version. SB 6239 is the gay marriage law.

I think we both know what's going on, but I think I wrote it out confusingly. I know which one is concise and which one reverts to the wordier version. We can, presumably, both agree that it is a pretty dumb reversion in wording regardless of ideological position.

babies havin rabies
Feb 24, 2006

BattleMaster posted:

As an LGBT person, I think that removing the legal ability to join two couples from religious figures would be a fine compromise. That way, people can have their preferred religious ceremony, or not, but at the end of the day they'll have to go to City Hall to file for the legal rights.

Nobody is saying that priests should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, it's a strawman used by conservatives as otherwise they have no way to connect marriage equality to a violation of their religious freedom. Also, some people really don't realize that marriage through the church and marriage through the State are two completely different and seperate institutions with distinctly seperate meanings and duties. Marriage through the State does not create (or even imply) a bond in the eyes of God and marriage through the church doesn't mean you get to share a tax form. Conservative Christians either believe or try to argue that they are the same institution. If that were the case it would not only violate the 1st Amendment, but violate the word of their God as well.

Why would (openly) gay people belong to a church that wouldn't marry them in the first place?

babies havin rabies fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Feb 22, 2012

Xiahou Dun
Jul 16, 2009

We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.



I think they just meant to make it explicitly different in word choice, i.e. make all State "marriages" explicitly be civil unions without any restrictions and having a religious service having no legal authority. It's not much different than it already is, and I always supported it just as a Separation of Church and State issue ; however, if it helps Marriage Equality, that'd be pretty loving rad.

As someone who lives in a state that already has passed legislation (New York), what exactly can I do besides the obvious getting the word out and trying to get friends in other states to vote?

By the way, I was at a Folk Music Festival when it passed here, and it was loving amazing. Just imagine what a large amount of LGBTQ and LGBTQ friendly people who already had music, dance and large amounts of alcohol lined up would do. (It owned.)

BattleMaster
Aug 14, 2000

All I was saying was that I don't think religious figures should have any sort of legally binding power. At least, I was under the impression that priests were able to hand out licenses, is that not how it works?

babies havin rabies
Feb 24, 2006

BattleMaster posted:

All I was saying was that I don't think religious figures should have any sort of legally binding power. At least, I was under the impression that priests were able to hand out licenses, is that not how it works?

Clergy are almost always marriage officiants as a matter of practicality, but anybody can become a marriage officiant by jumping through a few hoops. My high school ancient history teacher is a marriage officiant, and has legally married more than one couple.

Riptor
Apr 13, 2003

here's to feelin' good all the time
My dad got certified to perform my sister and brother in law's wedding :3:

Harik
Sep 9, 2001

From the hard streets of Moscow
First dog to touch the stars


Plaster Town Cop
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/22/430779/breaking-bush-appointee-finds-doma-unconstitutional/?mobile=nc

quote:

Moments ago, Judge Jeffery White of the District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitutions equal protection clause in a case brought by Karen Golinski. Golinski, represented by Lambda Legal, was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. White was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush in 2002. The decision represents a serious setback for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), whose Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) defended DOMA after the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the law. Read the full opinion here. (HT: GinnyLaRoe)
Although the decision was due to healthcare discrimination, the office of personell managment (OPM) disputed it by citing DOMA, and lost.

The opinion is fairly long and I haven't finished reading it yet:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/doma-opinion.pdf

Edit: Are these normally resolved under rational basis or heightened scrutiny? From my reading, this appears to update precedent for the 9th circuit that sexual orientation falls under heightened scrutiny, since the last binding case was settled on rational review basis.
code:

           5.       Application of Heightened Scrutiny to Justifications Proffered for DOMA.
19         Under heightened scrutiny, the proponents of the statute must establish, at a minimum,
20 that the classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective. Clark,
21 486 U.S. at 461. Moreover, under any form of heightened scrutiny, the statute may only be
22 defended by reference to the actual legislative bases advanced to legitimate the statute or the
23 actual [governmental] purpose, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.
24 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 535-36 (1996). The Court notes that the historical
25 background of the decision to enact legislation and the specific sequence of events leading up
26 to the challenged decision may shed light on the decisionmakers purposes.
...
26        The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its
27 passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as
28 applied to Ms. Golinski.

Harik fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 23, 2012

Axelgear
Oct 13, 2011

If I'm wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. It happens pretty often and I will try to change my opinion if I'm presented with evidence.

babies havin rabies posted:

Nobody is saying that priests should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, it's a strawman used by conservatives as otherwise they have no way to connect marriage equality to a violation of their religious freedom.

I think a lot of the issues come from things like the Ocean Grove incident in New Jersey.

babies havin rabies
Feb 24, 2006

Axelgear posted:

I think a lot of the issues come from things like the Ocean Grove incident in New Jersey.

Personally, if it weren't for the Association taking public money, I would disagree with the judge's ruling. Nice that conservatives conveniently overlook the fact that the Association voluntarily compromised their tax-exempt status.

TheShadowAvatar
Nov 25, 2004

Ain't Nothing But A Family Thing

Mrit posted:

McKenna is a slimy bastard who lately has been acting like a Republican in the South vs a more moderate one in Washington State. He will lose once Inslee gets some ads out there.

What no Dino Rossi to kick around this election season? I was looking forward to him losing another election in Washington and threatening to drag out the process kicking and screaming :allears:

I may find myself dissolutioned with Obama but I will probably donate to the pro-gay marriage bill if I can find the money for it, it's about time Washington.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



PPP released its first poll of the potential Washington referendum. PDF


Nothing shocking in the crosstabs.

Make sure your friends have their address updated so they can vote by mail in November.
Nagging supportive people into voting is much easier than changing the minds of people who oppose marriage equality.

size1one
Jun 24, 2008

I don't want a nation just for me, I want a nation for everyone

babies havin rabies posted:

Clergy are almost always marriage officiants as a matter of practicality, but anybody can become a marriage officiant by jumping through a few hoops. My high school ancient history teacher is a marriage officiant, and has legally married more than one couple.

The hoops are pretty basic, at least in some places. I was legally married by a friend who became a minister online. Our ceremony was literally him making an exaggerated fist pump. We had zero issues getting our marriage certificate or a permanent residence visa for my wife using it. Our only problem was that a gay friend boycotted the wedding out of protest. (we weren't hurt in the least).

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003
I think the thing that has come to bug me most about the religious sect chiming in on this issue is the fact they do so from this righteous minority that conjures up the idealized version of Christianity or Catholicism, where it is one man, and one woman joined in holy matrimony until death do they part. It doesn't fit anywhere into the real world, and they use it as a bludgeon against these poor gay people who just want to enjoy equal rights.

Lets get some demographics on the number of professed Catholics/Christians who have never cheated on their spouses, gotten a divorce, or otherwise violated the tenets of marriage that they purport to care about above all other things, these are the people who come from a righteous place that I can at least respect. The rest, they're voting for an ideal that is so divorced from reality, like they're championing how they want a fairy tale to end rather than anything that resembles the real world and the real people who inhabit it.

Toss out all the votes and opinions from the most flagrant hypocrites who have no claim to the issue, since they already made their stance known through their actions, then lets see how the numbers roll out, we can probably wrap this up in a couple years.

TheShadowAvatar
Nov 25, 2004

Ain't Nothing But A Family Thing

UltimoDragonQuest posted:

PPP released its first poll of the potential Washington referendum. PDF


Nothing shocking in the crosstabs.

Make sure your friends have their address updated so they can vote by mail in November.
Nagging supportive people into voting is much easier than changing the minds of people who oppose marriage equality.

The King and Pierce County airwaves are going to be filled with just such a message. I wonder if Republicans here feel the same way that Democrats do in the deep south, disenfranchised because they have to overcome such a large base opposed to their ideals.

Kinda makes me smile.

FakeEdit: Spelling

babies havin rabies
Feb 24, 2006

Loving Life Partner posted:

Lets get some demographics on the number of professed Catholics/Christians who have never cheated on their spouses, gotten a divorce, or otherwise violated the tenets of marriage that they purport to care about above all other things, these are the people who come from a righteous place that I can at least respect. The rest, they're voting for an ideal that is so divorced from reality, like they're championing how they want a fairy tale to end rather than anything that resembles the real world and the real people who inhabit it.

These people don't exist. There is nobody on Earth who is a perfect spouse. Sins committed in the heart are as severe as sins committed in the act, this is a teaching both found in the Bible (stated by Jesus) and something that is taught as a very basic tenant of modern evangelical nondenominational Christianity. If you've ever had a sexual thought about a person who is not your spouse, you have committed adultery in the eyes of God.

The fact that the above is a very widespread, current teaching of modern American Christianity makes it that much more transparent that opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals is founded in bigotry and hate, not in Christianity.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?

BattleMaster posted:

As an LGBT person, I think that removing the legal ability to join two couples from religious figures would be a fine compromise. That way, people can have their preferred religious ceremony, or not, but at the end of the day they'll have to go to City Hall to file for the legal rights.

To add more to the discussion, this is about controlling what is seen as "normal". After reading Navigating Interracial Borders, a book about interracial relationships and how society views them, the author shows that Americans use marriage as a method to constitute what is normal. Its the reason why interracial marriages are frowned upon in the United States and why many religious conservatives are fighting so hard to keep gays from getting the right to marry.

  • Locked thread