Anti-gay lesiglation passed in many states as the US elects first Black President

Amnesiac_ie

It appears the proposed ammendment to ban gay marriage in California has passed.

On the night America elected its first Black President there were other blows to gay rights in Arizona, Arkansas and even newly-blue Florida.

Obama courted LGBT votes throughout the campaign, and though not a supporter of gay marriage does appear to be genuinely supportive of civil unions and much greater protection for LGBT people.

Amnesiac_ie

Joseph Galliano comments on Obama's acceptance speech and its reference to gay Americans.

philologos

I wouldn't consider it anti-gay. In many of the states you have mentioned particularly in California, they have civil partnerships. I don't see the reason or the need to define it as "marriage".

Amnesiac_ie

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055415266

That's a thread in After Dark about this very issue.

The sole reason for Proposition 8 was to repeal the Supreme Court decision which has allowed tens of thousand of gay Californians to marry their partners this year. It can't be defined as anything but "anti-gay."

And those Californian gays feel the same way and they're hoping to strike down the verdict on a legislative technicality.

I wouldn't consider it anti-gay. In many of the states you have mentioned particularly in California, they have civil partnerships. I don't see the reason or the need to define it as "marriage".

Did you see the need to deny the right to marriage that the Supreme Court had previously extended to gay people? If not, why bother drafting Proposition 8 and spending $70 million campaigning to have it passed?

Boston

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't consider it anti-gay. In many of the states you have mentioned particularly in California, they have civil partnerships. I don't see the reason or the need to define it as "marriage".

Simple question, would you choose civil partnership over marriage? If the answer is yes, then your comment is fair, if the answer is no then you're a hypocrite.

philologos

Yes I would propose civil partnerships.

Boston

You plan on hooking up with multiple women? Whats this partnerships business? I'm asking you, would it make any difference to your whether you had a marriage or a civil partnership to the person you personally wish to spend the rest of your life with?

philologos

At a civil law level if I had a partnership I personally wouldn't mind as long as I had a church wedding also. However, I'm nowhere near that point

Boston

Jesus H Christ man, you're already putting caveats into your statement.

"From a purely legal contractual stand point, I wouldn't mind a civil partnership, once I was still able to have the wedding I wanted of course".

jady88

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes I would propose civil partnerships.

Why? Why not marriage? I thought marriage was supposed to be about love not sex so why is sex the defining point?

Boston

jady88 wrote: »

Why? Why not marriage? I thought marriage was supposed to be about love not sex so why is sex the defining point?

Who told you that? Marriage is exclusively about banging out little catholics who aren't bastards.

Iago

Boston wrote: »

Who told you that? Marriage is exclusively about banging out little catholics who aren't bastards.

Ever so slightly cynical are we??

Personally I would prefer that people of all sexual orientations and cultures were free to choose the type of partnership/marraige/commitment they felt was applicable to their relationship. Just as marraige was the commitment I felt was applicable to my relationship, however I wouldn't feel any less fulfilled if I was just co-habiting or in a civil partnership.

Ultimately I don't believe this fight is about marraige or non-marraige, it's about the freedom and rights to have the proctection of and options pertaining to straight couples both from a legal and financial perspective. Eventually the world will come around to that way of thinking, but as has been shown by the fight for recognition of women and african americans/ethic populations in other countries, the world revolves very slowly.

It's a sad state of affairs, but at least there is change happening, if only in small bursts.

Amnesiac_ie

The Irish Times reported today on the legal challenges to the Proposition 8 vote.

California gay-marriage ban faces legal challenge

California's Supreme Court has agreed to hear a legal challenge against the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage and to let the ban stand in the meantime.
A decision by the same court in May opened marriage to same-sex couples in the most populous US state, one of a handful of states, provinces and mostly European countries where such unions are recognised.
When state voters passed the ban on November 4th, social conservatives celebrated, but nationwide protests by gays and other ban opponents since then have given the debate new life.
Some 52 per cent of voters agreed to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
"I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will affirm that separate is not equal," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. He has compared the fight for gay marriage to the 1960s civil rights battle against majority-tolerated segregation.
"This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California," said Andrew Pugno, counsel for the gay marriage ban proponents, who also wanted the matter settled in court.
About 20,000 same-sex marriages may hang in the balance, since the court asked for arguments on whether the ban, Proposition 8, would affect unions between the May court ruling and the November election.
Those marriages have been seen as being in legal limbo, despite state officials including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger saying they should stand.
Gay advocates argued that Californians could not strip a right from a minority with only a majority vote - the constitutional amendment process followed for Proposition 8. A more rigorous process called a constitutional revision was required, they argued.
The court said it would hear arguments on the amendment process, the effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex marriages before the election, and on whether the amendment violated the state's separation-of-powers doctrine.
The court in a 6-1 decision asked all sides to work quickly and said oral arguments could be held as early as March 2009.
The court case pits two fundamental concepts of US democracy against one another, with gay marriage advocates saying the proposition would open the doors to systematic repression of minorities and opponents saying courts must recognise the will of the people under separation of powers doctrine.
Trend-setting California is divided over the issue, with cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles more open to gay marriage, and inland valleys, often compared to the socially conservative Midwest, against it.

dlofnep

I find it absolutely ridiculous that this nonsense is still going on today. We've made so many progressive strides in civil rights over the years, but we still can't find it within ourselves to let gay people get married? Dr. Pepper man. What's the worst that can happen? God forbid someone might actually lead a happy life, marrying the person they love - regardless of their sex.

It's time the world grows up on the issue. The gay community should rile up a big activist movement.. Like the Black Panthers. Maybe the Pink Panthers? (Joke, don't shoot!)

hot2def

nothing quite like kicking the next minority over....

Cronus333

The LGBT vote was about the only one that McCain went up in nationally....