Gay Marriage Updates By State

[metta]

NOM Targets Rhode Island


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/11/NOM_Targets_Rhode_Island/

 

[Kulindahr]

Catholic Lawmakers Backing Gay Marriage

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/catholic-lawmakers-backing-gay-marriage

On the other side of the planet, Australian Cardinal George Pell weighed in on national legislation when he told the Sunday Telegraph that it was “incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they’re as good a Catholic as the Pope, then voting against the established Christian traditions”.

Uh-huh.

Of course of Roman Catholics that's true -- they have a tradition of thinking it's the business of the Church to tell people what to do. Despite a couple of papal bulls affirming the separation of church and state, they continue.
Of course that was to be expected, with a pope who doesn't know what the Gospel is (though he's hardly alone in the line of popes on that), a throwback to the seventeenth century. A real pope would be explaining that what is God's is God's, and what is Caesar's is Caesar's, and the two are in different realms, and the Church isn't called to be telling Caesar what to do with what is Caesar's.

 

[metta]

Supreme Court To Conference Friday On Gay Marriage Ballot Initiative Petition

http://dcist.com/2011/01/last_stand_nears_for_harry_jacksons.php

 

[metta]

Maryland set to expand gay rights, same-sex marriage


http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/12/maryland.same.sex.marriage/

 

[Kulindahr]

Supreme Court To Conference Friday On Gay Marriage Ballot Initiative Petition

http://dcist.com/2011/01/last_stand_nears_for_harry_jacksons.php

I hope they rule in a way that will just kick the Bishop in the ass. He's definitely a throwback to when bishops told rulers what to do, and he needs to be told firmly that this is the twenty-first century, not the sixteenth.

 

[scream4ever]

Okay, everyone take a sign of relief

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/12/New_Hampshire_Gay_Marriage_Safe_For_Now/

I was sure it would fail to reach a veto proof majority, but this is even better.

As for Maryland, they have sufficient votes to bring it out of committee and from there it will easily pass with majority support.

 

[scream4ever]

^^^It's a no brainer that a senate with a 3/4 Democratic majority in a decently liberal state can easily reach majority support for gay marriage.

 

[metta]

Civil Union Talks Resume in Hawaii


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/13/Civil_Union_Talks_Resume_in_Hawaii/

 

[scream4ever]

"There could be a few changes of heart, but I don't want the equality folks to take anything for granted. I think they should be prepared to approve a civil unions bill in case they can't achieve marriage equality this session."

Agreed

 

[scream4ever]

Also in a sense similar to the Republicans dropping the repeal of gay marriage this year in New Hampshire as an issue, my local paper had an article about social conservative pieces of legislation Wisconsin Republicans were introducing. It listed many, yet did not mention repeal of the domestic partnership legislation.

 

[metta]

IA: Supreme Court Justice to Meet With Gay Equality Foe

"This court thinks they're smarter than nature," Hurley says. "...In the opinion, the justices said that they're holding the constitution up to an evolving standard and our view is that some things, like marriage, are transcendent."

Hurley says the judiciary needs to be "subordinate" to not only the other branches of government and to the people, but to the laws of nature. "Sodomy was called a crime against nature for centuries," Hurley says.

http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/01/16/chief-justice-to-meet-critic-of-courts-gay-marriage-ruling/

 

[metta]

Gay Marriage Ban Introduced in West Virginia Senate

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7327&MediaType=1&Category=26

 

[metta]

Tea Party Rally Focuses In Gay Marriage In Iowa

http://www.kcci.com/news/26506682/detail.html

 

[Kulindahr]

IA: Supreme Court Justice to Meet With Gay Equality Foe



http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/01/16/chief-justice-to-meet-critic-of-courts-gay-marriage-ruling/

Moron.

Interracial marriage was considered "against nature" for centuries, too.

Dark-skin people eating at the same table as pale-skin people was considered "against nature" for centuries, too.


Branstad should appoint three justices who are virtual clones of the ones the bigots tossed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gay Marriage Ban Introduced in West Virginia Senate

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7327&MediaType=1&Category=26

I almost hope that passes. If the Prop 8 case dies where it is, Boies and Olson could head for W Va.

 

[hotatlboi]

Tea Party Rally Focuses In Gay Marriage In Iowa

http://www.kcci.com/news/26506682/detail.html

35 people?

I'm pleased by that abysmal turnout.

 

[arpeggi]

35 people?

I'm pleased by that abysmal turnout.

Haha, same here. Mr. Anti-gay Iowa himself, Bob Vander Plaats, is calling for the remaining justices to resign, threatening them with impeachment proceedings if they don't. I keep hearing things like, "The people of Iowa have spoken!" in regards to gay marriage, as though their anti-retention tirade was proof.
However, even many conservatives are saying that the retention vote results were enough and they don't really want to put Iowa through more anti-judge nonsense. They got their witch-hunt.

 

[metta]

US Supreme Court Rejects DC Anti Gay Marriage Appeal

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/...appeal-by-dc-marriage-equality-opponents.html

 

[Kulindahr]

IMO...Gay Marriage is and should be a state/local issue.

I find that people asserting this argument are almost invariably trying to oppose some aspect of human rights.

Folks that don't one one state to recognize concealed carry licenses/permits from other states appeal to "states' rights". Folks who favored slavery used to claim "states' rights". And more.

"States' rights" does not apply when what's at issue is an individual right. States have no authority to restrict individual rights. The laws against interracial marriage were immoral, and laws against anything but "traditional" marriage are immoral. When the states are passing laws that are immoral, it is the duty of the federal government to kick them in the ass and get them in line.

"States' rights" might be legitimately invoked when a state is granting citizens more liberty than does the federal government, e.g. were California to totally decriminalize marijuana. But it cannot be invoked to defend less liberty, because the states have no authority to restrict rights: rights reside with the people.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes...your link does explain a lot. The "Suspect Classes" section explains it very well. SCOTUS will not recognize "gay marriage" as a civil right. DOMA stands. Until the States and Congress pass an amendment. I'm not discriminating, only telling it like it is.

It has already recognized marriage as a right -- that's all that's needed.
And freedom of association is a right. DOMA violates that, and does so by invoking a religious standard -- so DOMA is twice unconstitutional right there.