|
I would be fine with a thread title change to Gay Marriage if people are going to continue thinking loving polygamy counts as Marriage Equality and is therefore a reasonable discussion topic here.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
I feel like a polygamy derail was told to go elsewhere last summer. The phrase "marriage equality" is pretty universally recognized as meaning same-sex marriage. Edit: I love this thread as a source of news and analysis of court decisions, but I do think it is one of the most unintentionally offensive on the forums. Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 19:27
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Marriage equality has fuckall to do with men wanting to take multiple wives. It's a stupid derail and has nothing to do with the fight that's going on in courts and in the public across the country. Yeah, but what about if a bunch of lesbians or gay dudes want the right to get married polyamorously? Seems like you only care about some kinds of marriage and not others. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Yes the union of two people. We don't need to get all tumblr up in here. The lesbian coven issues belong somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Some Michael Brown "The Line of Fire" Christian radio thing is playing on the radio of a coworker who's computer I'm fixing. The guy is begging people to argue against his slippery slope arguments at (866) 348 7884 right now, if you're bored.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I'm following Indiana's HJR3 debate on Twitter, and the House apparently voted to remove the second sentence of the amendment. They are saying that this means it will likely not go to the ballot in November. I did a quick Google search, and the second sentence basically banned civil unions and domestic partnerships as well ("union substantially similar to marriage"). Maybe the Indiana GOP saw what happened with Arizona's amendment, or maybe they realize they're losing this battle. It would be lovely to see this amendment crushed, though (and the ensuing NOM/conservative tears).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
As I understand, it does not go to a referendum because it must go through the legislature twice unchanged before it can be put on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Hello Towel posted:As I understand, it does not go to a referendum because it must go through the legislature twice unchanged before it can be put on the ballot. The Indiana House has amended HJR-3. They have yet to take a vote on HJR-3 itself. The Senate has yet to even have a committee hearing. The Senate can amend it, pass the "old" version, or whatever. If it passes the Senate (it will), then it'll go to conference. And since the majority leaders control conference committees, they can change it to however they want and then it goes back to the respective houses for votes on that. Make no mistake: HJR-3 being amended is a good first step, but it is far from dead. An excellent summary on how this all can go from here is from the Indiana Law Blog: http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/01/ind_law_problem_1.html Tonight was 2nd reading, where amendments are done. Tomorrow night will be 3rd reading and voting on the final passage for the House. Then it gets sent over to the Senate. notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
I like to lurk read this thread, and that polygamy derail seemed relevant because it was mostly people explaining why polygamy is in fact an entirely different thing to allowing same sex marriage. Those are useful things to know for when you're debating against someone who tries to equate the two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:The Indiana House has amended HJR-3. They have yet to take a vote on HJR-3 itself. Yeah, I realized that I phrased my post badly. I knew it isn't dead, but amending it makes it more difficult to get it on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:I like to lurk read this thread, and that polygamy derail seemed relevant because it was mostly people explaining why polygamy is in fact an entirely different thing to allowing same sex marriage. Those are useful things to know for when you're debating against someone who tries to equate the two. Fair enough, but people can make a new thread going forward instead of bringing it up again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Pence is wanting this to go through to the voters badly right now. He will twist arms and offer backroom favors if he has to because he knows that by 2016 the tide will have shifted (statewise and Nationally) and Democrats will be out voting in full force for a presidential election. He's hoping that this year he'll get more support from midterm referendum votes (e.g. Tea Party). Edit: Two dozen Republicans crossed party lines. Final vote for removal of the second sentence is 52-43. Pence is probably livid Spiffster fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
katium posted:(and the ensuing NOM/conservative tears). NOM is already whining about this latest assault on the sanctity of marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
I've never been convinced this was a good idea for turnout. A massive statewide campaign on marriage can't help the GOP run up the score. 2014 only made sense because it is the last possible time to pass the ban. Midterm voters are older and more conservative. Non-voters are younger and more liberal. The side supporting marriage equality will have more money and activists. Where do conservatives think that money and effort would go and what effect do they think it would have? The GOP should be happy with generic midterm turnout rather than making a huge bet that no amount of advertising can get young people to show up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:I've never been convinced this was a good idea for turnout. A massive statewide campaign on marriage can't help the GOP run up the score. 2014 only made sense because it is the last possible time to pass the ban. The theory is that it is good for Democratic turnout in what is normally a bad time for Democrats. There are three state-wide offices up for election, all held by Rs, that the Ds would love to get and would love to have Freedom Indiana register 100,000 voters, most of whom would vote Democrat. It could make those state wide races not necessarily go blue, but be a lot more competitive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Back at Indiana, South Bend city councilman Henry Davis Jr Decided to post a picture of a man having sex with a dog to raise awareness against gay sex and the repeal of DOMA... Wait... what?!  queerty posted:The photo in question has vanished from Davis’ page, and there are no screengrabs. And to be clear, we wouldn’t post it even if there were, because unlike certain members of the South Bend City Council, we do not traffic in photos of animal sexual abuse. Pup play with consenting human adults is great fun! Sex with animals is not okay. City Councilmembers please make a note of it. Full article here. This is not only bizarre just for the fact he did what he did, but South Bend was one of the first city's to be AGAINST the HJR-3 Measure... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
I'll bet Google or Yahoo has some pretty interesting records about the internet searches that guy does...
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Either that or he seriously misinterpreted what "bears" are
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Meanwhile, Back at Indiana, South Bend city councilman Henry Davis Jr Decided to post a picture of a man having sex with a dog to raise awareness against gay sex and the repeal of DOMA... Wait... what?! While the councilman's behavior is heinous, "where did he get this, is he some kind of dog raper?" is a really dumb and disingenuous question. You can probably find 1000 dog sex pictures just by typing "dog sex pictures" into google and waiting for the results to load. The way to rebut a man accusing you of being dog rapers is not to say "no you're a dog raper!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Interesting bill coming out of Utah: HB87: "Gender Amendments". It's effectively the complete opposite to California's AB1266. Here's the money shot:quote:(9) (a) "Gender" means the either male or female phenotype designation of an individual as documented by: The marriage ban is one of the laws affected, which basically means that if you're trans, effectively same-sex marriage will be legal, but with the downside of not being able to attain any legal recognition of your gender. It's a notable departure from the Australian case Re Kevin and European Court of Human Rights case Goodwin v. United Kingdom, both which were decided in the early-2000s, which stated that trans people had an effective right to legal recognition of their own genders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
That looks to be a much broader bill than the contrasting California bill. They'd seem to be trying to preempt other changes by replacing 'sex' with 'gender' everywhere in the statutes while keeping the same effective definition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
The use of the term "phenotype" is kinda odd to me. I know they're trying to get around the "is it a person's sex or gender" issue with science-speak, but just because someone expresses a penis does not mean that they are internally male in every way. It's just a more complicated way of saying a person's "biological sex" and still wrong VVVV The No True Cis-man fallacy CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
You'd think at some point it would occur to these people just why they're continually forced to play finer and finer semantic games with their legislative language.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
In other semantic games news, a Hawaii judge ruled "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples" does not mean they have no other power to regulate marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Scotland's expected to legalize gay marriage Tuesday, which would make them the 17th nation to do so. The earliest marriages could take place is July, depending on if legislation to move the date of effect up passes as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Been working a lot the past few days so sorry about the lack of Indiana updates, but Friday, Governor Mike Pence has come out against the recent action by the House to remove the second sentence in the HJR-3 bill. If it stays removed the amendment would not be up for a vote during the upcoming midterm election and would have to be approved under the same language during the next legislative session. Pence is not pleased by this one bit.Kokomo Tribune posted:“Let me say I support traditional marriage,” Pence told WISH-TV’s Jim Shella in an interview aired Friday, “and I expressed support for the resolution that the legislature passed during the last session and considered at the outset of this session.” Full story here where Pence goes on to say that he just wants it over with and done this year. Which is strange considering that it would immediately lead to the state being taken to courts. Nice try anyway 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Scotland passed the bill 105-18. Bill still needs to be signed, but they will be the 17th nation with legal gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Indiana Senate has confirmed that the next hearing on HJR-3 will take place on Monday at 1:30 EST after the regualar session agenda ends. Plenty of Time for Pence to try and convince the senate to undo what the house did sadly 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Is defeat in Indiana more likely this year with the civil union ban intact, or two years from now with only the ban on marriage? To me it seems more risky to push something that bans civil unions and domestic partnerships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Is defeat in Indiana more likely this year with the civil union ban intact, or two years from now with only the ban on marriage? To me it seems more risky to push something that bans civil unions and domestic partnerships. I believe the GOP is realizing that it's becoming a now or never scenario if they want to get this on the books. They would rather make an attempt now with the riskier language during a midterm referendum when they have GOP pissed and wanting to stick it to Obama one last time than attempt a 2016 ballot attempt when Democrats are out in full force. Plus with the ever changing tide for people being for marriage equality, give it two years and the measure would fail even if it wasn't an off year. This may be their final chance and Pence is not going to let it slide by
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
ACLU is suing Scott Walker and challenging Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban.Milwaukee Journal Sentinel posted:The latest lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Madison, argues Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process and equal protection under the law. Full article here. As a Wisconsinite, I didn't know that if I went to Minnesota (or soon Illinois!) and got married I could be put in jail for 9 months when I come back home. I really need to get out of this state for various reasons, but thats definitely a big one. Possibly my top reason. Multimedia Cocoon fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Is defeat in Indiana more likely this year with the civil union ban intact, or two years from now with only the ban on marriage? To me it seems more risky to push something that bans civil unions and domestic partnerships. It depends on who you talk to. There's some Republicans who fear that this amendment on this year's ballot could drive up Democratic voting. Because the facts are that while Freedom Indiana is non-partisan, the non-voting and sometimes-voters they'll be driving to the poles and registering aren't gonna be leaning right. And if those state-wide offices could get a boost in their base, the Ds could have a shot at Auditor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer. And maybe that'd cause a few House seats to flip as well. On the other hand, this is Indiana and not Minnesota and there is a sizable Moral Majority type crowd going on here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:On the other hand, this is Indiana and not Minnesota and there is a sizable Moral Majority type crowd going on here. People usually rank Indiana as "more conservative" than Minnesota, but what about Arizona? They voted down a ban that included civil unions, and that was eight years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:People usually rank Indiana as "more conservative" than Minnesota, but what about Arizona? They voted down a ban that included civil unions, and that was eight years ago. Arizona falls more into the libertarian conservative mold (similar to other conservative states west of the Rockies) compared to the social conservatism found in the South. It's more about the guns than the gays. I've lived here for almost 30 years and I can say that even among the religious people (even Mormons, especially those under 35) the mindset is basically that the government shouldn't have a say in how two consenting adults choose to pair off. There are obviously loud exceptions to this rule, but not enough of them to pass a state ban apparently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Multimedia Cocoon posted:ACLU is suing Scott Walker and challenging Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:What's the deal with this jail thing? First I've heard. It's Wisconsin's version of the Uniform Marriage Evasion Act. It's basically a set of laws passed in the early 20th century in several states, possibly to support anti-miscegenation laws in those states which had them (or possibly to dodge Gin marriage laws; it's unclear). Romney used a similar law to try to prevent out-of-staters from gay marrying in Massachusetts.. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Multimedia Cocoon posted:ACLU is suing Scott Walker and challenging Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban. It looks like no one has actually been prosecuted under that law though, and I can't imagine they would for something like an out of state gay marriage as there isn't currently a way to compel the state to recognize the marriage that would have otherwise been invalid if performed in-state. If some mechanism existed whereby people could go to other states, get married, and then force Wisconsin to recognize those marriages and provide whatever associated benefits come with that legal recognition though they could not have been granted under state law, sure, alright maybe they'd try if they were feeling particularly assholish, but I can't imagine that would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Also, Texas case oral arguments next week. Wonder how long it will be before a decision is made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
I've always found it to be completely bonkers that it is legal for states to not recognize a same sex marriage from another state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:I've always found it to be completely bonkers that it is legal for states to not recognize a Edited this for you. It's legally a marriage, no qualifier 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
cruft posted:Edited this for you. It's legally a marriage, no qualifier Yes, but the only kind of marriage it's legal to not recognize is a same-sex marriage, hence the qualifier is necessary in that clause.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:19
|
|