Gay Marriage Updates By State

[hotatlboi]

However...if 2/3 of Congress and 38 States amends The Constitution to specifically allow gay marriage

Such an action is not necessary.

TIt is completely constitutional within the enumerated rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Freedom of association isn't a right. That's a presumption, not a right. And it would include all other associations as well...if someone hangs with thugs...then by association, they are a thug? I don't think so. That's not right nor a right!

Of course it's a right: I own myself, I get to decide with whom I'll associate.

If someone wants to hang with thugs, that's his choice -- he's free to associate with them. Why you think it would make him a thug I don't get -- does hanging with heterosexuals make me straight? does hanging with farmers make me a farmer?

Freedom of association is as much a right as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble.

I find it hard to correlate your "religious standard" to DOMA. Perhaps from a Creationist viewpoint it would make some sense...I guess But would be a far stretch to even do that.

DOMA is based on religion. The proponents will lie all day about it, but that's what they mean. When they use the lying term "traditional marriage", they mean "the way my preacher told me".

As a federal judge has already ruled, religious viewpoints are not a sufficient basis for a law and do not constitute a state interest. DOMA has no other foundation than religious viewpoints -- and a narrow, sectarian one at that.

If DOMA was "twice unconstitutional", don't you think it would have already been turned over and/or repealed? If DOMA is ever repealed, it doesn't automatically mean that gay marriage will be a constitutional right. It will re-open a pandora's box of monumental proportionate legal battles and will eventually wind up at SCOTUS and as it now stands....be an unrecognized suspect class.

No "suspect class" issue need be involved. It would be up to the state to show why there is a compelling state interest that requires limiting this particular form of freedom of association to one man and one woman, and how awarding privileges and benefits to a privileged class promotes any social benefit.

The burden of proof for the validity of government-imposed institutions must rest on the government which imposed them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.

By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal
government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.

And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The principle is already established that when a law like this is challenged, the government has to show a purpose behind distinguishing between people. By passing DOMA, the U.S. government officially created a disadvantaged class -- and it's up to them to defend that.
There are no grounds on which they can do so.

 

[metta]

Marriage Bill Comes to Maryland Next Week

I hope that JockBoy87 has a hubby ready to get married.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/20/Marriage_Bill_Comes_to_Maryland_Next_Week/

 

[metta]

Gay marriage legislation filed in Maryland General Assembly

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/01/gay_marriage_legislation_filed.html

 

[metta]

A first look at Maryland's 'protect marriage' team: Gays 'hate the Lord', 'defy God'



http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_yo...aryland-team-gays-hate-the-lord-defy-god.html

 

[metta]

Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief Defending Traditional Marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ffml0120.htm

 

[hotatlboi]

Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief Defending Traditional Marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ffml0120.htm

Ah that Roy Moore, such a religious nutcase.

You may remember he became somewhat famous in 2003 for being removed from the Alabama Supreme Court after he refused a court order to stop displaying a huge statue the 10 commandments at the courthouse.

 

[Kulindahr]

Roy Moore and Foundation for Moral Law File Brief Defending Traditional Marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.earnedmedia.org/ffml0120.htm

He could hardly have said better why DOMA is unconstitutional. His own words:

"Marriage was defined by God at creation as between a man and a woman and no rhetoric or judicial gymnastics can alter that. Congress simply recognized that immutable, self-evident truth when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act."

In other words, the Defense of Marriage Act is establishment of religion.

Thank you, judge Moore.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

He could hardly have said better why DOMA is unconstitutional. His own words:

"Marriage was defined by God at creation as between a man and a woman and no rhetoric or judicial gymnastics can alter that. Congress simply recognized that immutable, self-evident truth when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act."

In other words, the Defense of Marriage Act is establishment of religion.

Thank you, judge Moore.

Not only that, he also said it's redundant. Which it is.

 

[scream4ever]

The later the bill is passed the better, to give opponents the least amount of time as possible to start a petition campaign. The last day of the session (which is at some day in April I forget) would be ideal. Unfortunately the number required is quite small, something like 3% of the voters in the last election which turns out to be about 55,000. Maryland requires the signatures to be collected in two stages, the first of which is only a few weeks after the session adjourns. However NOM has clandestinely waded into and infiltrated the state and I have no doubts they have the resources and the will power to gather what they need for a referendum campaign. When the issue heats up they will come out of the woodwork and hit the ground running. Honestly I don't think Maryland is liberal enough right now, but that doesn't mean we won't keep trying until we get what we deserve. Yes, I have a partner I am serious with now and we are planning a future together. At the moment we are looking at townhouses and will have the right to a limited domestic partnership, which includes basic medical and tax rights. Hopefully we will be able to marry in our own home state when such time arrives. A consolation is the state government's favorable legal opinion regarding state recognition of such marriages. As of yet I think this is still untested in court. If necessary we are still able to go down to DC just an hour away.

Some are saying that a referendum may not even happen in Maryland. Isn't the window of time much smaller then it was in Maine?

Also, November of 2012 is a long ways away, and I expect public opinion to shift even further to our side (thanks in part to the repeal of DADT!).

 

[metta]

Opponents of anti-gay-marriage bill rally in Casper

"Protect our people like we protect guns"

http://trib.com/news/local/article_7ffb5f11-36ea-571f-84f8-0714c32ee4d1.html

Tell Wyoming State Representative Rep. Owen Petersen he is wrong opetersen@wyoming.com call 307-782-6378, Fax 307-782-6378

 

[Kulindahr]

It's an interesting argument that they need to square outside issues with state law, or the other way around. But they could do that equally well, and better in line with "less intrusion", by abolishing the state's definition of marriage, or replacing it with "a contract between consenting individuals".

 

[scream4ever]

I'd say when polls are solidly in the mid 50's we can be confident, which is probably less then 5 years away.

The demographic shift in Maryland is probably caused by more people moving out to the DC suburbs (which are very liberal by suburban standards).

 

[metta]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-1MbDR0nyM&feature=feedu[/ame]

 

[metta]

Please help out RI and sign this petition which goes straight to our legislators!! Regardless of where you're from you can sign this!! Thanks so much.

http://www.change.org/petitions/view/legalize_same-sex_marriage_in_rhode_island

 

[safeluz]

The United states has still a long way to go in this matter. I hope more states alow same sex marriage in 2011!

 

[hotatlboi]

Seriously doubtful for NY imo.

 

[metta]

Marriage Opponents to Keep Fighting Against Equality in D.C.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/01/marriage-opponents-to-keep-fighting-against-equality-in-d-c/

I hope that the supreme court will see all of this and recognize how ridiculous this all is. It makes a mockery of marriage and commitment.

 

[hotatlboi]

I hope they get fined for frivolous lawsuits/filings.

Enough is enough! The legal system is already extremely strained and cluttered these days. We don't need some fringe lunatics exacerbating the problem over their outdated ideology.

Um, the article states that their legal avenues have been exhausted (Supreme Court denied them).

It says they are trying legislation now (of course that has no chance at least until the next election).