Proposition 8 discussion continued

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yes-and that's why the ppl of Calif have spoken out including 70% of the voters of African descent.


They agree as the majority of Americans agree that:


Marriage is based on the gender of the 2 parties partcipating.

<>
 
Yes-and that's why the ppl of Calif have spoken out including 70% of the voters of African descent.


They agree as the majority of Americans agree that:


Marriage is based on the gender of the 2 parties partcipating.

<>

Yes, the majority is always right... I have a feeling if there was a vote to make it harder to divorce it wouldn't pass, for they don't care about the sanctity of marriage if it might effect them. I also have a feeling if the same group of people were polled they wouldn't accept Mormonism as a Christian religion.
 
They more or less already have but we're ok with our standing with Christ as the founding principles are His and it is His Church we are members of-no matter what Older Man Made Theologicaly Interpreted christian Faiths may think.

Gays should look at it that way, if they feel their sexuality is their truth then they should fight for the privileges that they want in those unions.



<>
 
Gays should look at it that way, if they feel their sexuality is their truth then they should fight for the privileges that they want in those unions.



<>

And if this is truly about the definition of marriage then you should fight tooth and nail for stricter divorce laws... but we all know this won't happen.
 
So I guess all the straight people who get divorced don't hold the institution in high esteem either. Or is there just a double standard?

Landmark Jamaica Plain gay couple calls it quits
By Laurel J. Sweet | Tuesday, February 3, 2009 | Home - BostonHerald.com

The Jamaica Plain lesbians whose passionate love led to the groundbreaking legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have called it quits and filed for divorce, the Herald has learned.

But one-time international gay icons Hillary and Julie Goodridge, who share custody of their 12-year-old daughter, Annie, are less eager to be poster partners for gay divorce. Their case, filed Thursday in Suffolk Probate and Family Court, is impounded.

“I wish I could talk them into staying together, but I don’t see how. They had a great thing going. I love Julie, and I always will,” said Hillary’s mom, Ann Kiernan Smith, 82, of Florida, who believed the couple would outlast their critics.

“I guess because Julie and Hillary made headlines, people will pick on it,” Smith lamented of the breakup. “I don’t think sex has anything to do with it. If (marriage) is what Hillary wanted, I was proud of her.”

The Goodridges’ landmark lawsuit famously persuaded the state Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 to make Massachusetts the first state to recognize same-sex marriage. Last week, they became one of 168 couples to file for divorce in Suffolk County in January.

Neither Hillary Goodridge, 52, director of the Unitarian Universalist Funding Program, nor Julie Goodridge, 51, an investment adviser, responded to requests for comment yesterday. The couple wed in May 2004 after nearly two decades together.

A source close to both women said Hillary enjoyed the limelight of being a pioneering gay activist and was always interested in trying new things, while Julie was more reserved.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a conservative public policy group that fought to repeal gay marriage, pounced on news of the Goodridges’ split.

“Divorce is a very painful issue, but I also can’t help but reflect on the pain this couple has caused on the commonwealth and the nation to redefine marriage. And now they’re getting divorced? It doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Mineau said.

“Obviously, they don’t hold the institution in very high esteem.” :rolleyes:

High-profile Boston divorce attorney Gerald Nissenbaum - who does not represent either woman - said just as when a sick child might keep a heterosexual union intact for a time, it’s possible that when the Goodridges’ shared goal to legalize same-sex marriage was accomplished, the steam went out of the relationship.

“Every day, every meal, it had to have consumed their lives,” said Nissenbaum, who is also a Herald columnist. “Any perceived dissatisfaction with each other was swept aside because they were a symbol.

“Whenever there’s a cause that keeps people together, once the cause is over, in my experience, there’s a high rate of dissolution of the relationship,” he said. “It’s sad, but it’s real. And what a surprise: Gay people are like everyone else.”
 
it could have been worse

he could have been a tobacco user and a libertarian :no: :down:



i had a mild meltdown at someone this weekend because they were sneaking smokes. this was at a wedding, there was alcohol involved.

the reason i freaked out is because i know the lengths that this person has gone to in order to quit, and i was very frustrated to see their hard work go to waste.

pot is not addictive. nicotine is. there is a very, very big difference.
 
I laughed reading that article. Seriously? We're going to get all "oh my god how could he let us down like this?!?" over some pot?



after talking with my dad about it, i have slightly different feelings. it's not that he smoked pot, it's that he got caught. it's that a 10 year old age group swimmer who dreams of being like Mike and going to the Olympics one day has just had his hero kicked down a few notches. i do think role models matter for kids when they are young and working hard in a specific area -- art, music, sports -- and it's nice if they can have uncomplicated aspirant models to emulate.

and to tie this back to the thread, it's similar to the couple in question. of course they are real people, and it doesn't surprise me that once the pressure is off -- like the pressure that was on Mr. Phelps -- that they decompress and wonder just who the hell they are. i bet you Michael has no idea who he is and is something of a lost boy with a whole lot of money and fame. i bet you something similar happened to this couple. it's like when people's kids grow up and mom and dad suddenly look at each other and wonder just who it is they've been married to for the past 18 years.

but, anyway, time for dinner.
 
WSJ

By TAMARA AUDI

This week, California's gay-marriage battle returns to the national spotlight.

The state's Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Thursday on whether an amendment passed by voters in November banning gay marriage should stand.

The measure, Proposition 8, passed by a narrow margin after donors across the country poured tens of millions into campaigns for both sides. The law changed the state's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman and overturned a May 2008 Supreme Court ruling that had legalized gay marriage in the state.

The National Center for Lesbian rights, and other gay-rights groups, immediately petitioned the Supreme Court to invalidate the law, arguing voters can't take away what they say is an essential right. That constitutes a revision, not an amendment, to the state's constitution, gay-marriage advocates argue.

Prop 8 passed as an amendment. But a revision of the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

Opponents of gay marriage argue that the government must heed the will of the people, even if the "substantive result of what the people have wrought is deemed unenlightened," according to the opposition's brief.

Gay-marriage advocates also contend that Prop 8 is invalid because it violates the state's separation-of-powers doctrine by taking power to enforce the constitution's "equality command" away from the courts.

Thousands of homosexual couples married during the short time gay marriage was legal in California, and the status of those unions also is being questioned now that gay marriage is illegal. The court will hear arguments from both sides on whether those marriages should be invalidated or upheld.

After the court hears the arguments, it has 90 days to issue a written opinion.

Dozens of religious and civil-rights groups on both sides have filed briefs in the case.

Kenneth Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General famous for leading the Monica Lewinsky inquiry, is representing those seeking to uphold the ban on gay marriage.
 
Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs

Call Marriage Act discriminatory

By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | March 3, 2009

Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages plan to file a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died - one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds - said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The complaint is being filed in US District Court in Boston.

The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.

"It hurts," said Dean T. Hara, who was married to Studds from May 2004 until the retired congressman's death in October 2006, as he discussed the federal government's denial of a $255 lump-sum death payment and thousands of dollars in benefits as the surviving spouse of a retired federal employee. "But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."

Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time - said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.

"This is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and in all likelihood will go to the Supreme Court," she said.

If the plaintiffs win, she said, it would not extend same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts and Connecticut, the two states where it is legal.

But it would dismantle a federal statute that affects more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits, and it would be a huge victory on symbolic and practical levels for supporters of same-sex marriage, according to legal specialists.

"We've got this major federal statute that inflicts really substantial harm on very large numbers of gay people just for being gay people," said Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor. "The federal government declares to these people that it regards their marriages as worthless and would not give those marriages the protection and recognition that it gives to all other marriages. It's quite significant if that is invalidated."

A handful of federal agencies and officials are named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for President Obama, who has spoken of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but does not support same-sex marriage, said the White House had no comment.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the lawsuit represents the latest effort to export gay marriage to other parts of the country. He noted that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, known by its acronym GLAD, has a "Six by Twelve" campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012, and he said some gay-rights groups want a federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

But the tide of public opinion is strongly against them, he said. Voters in 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Mineau said, including California, which in a November referendum overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had recently given gay couples the right to marry.

"There's no doubt that the desire of the citizens of America . . . is that marriage is to remain one man and one woman, and that's what the intent of DOMA is as well," he said, using the acronym for the federal law.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it appeared increasingly likely that some state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.

Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Same-sex weddings began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, and about 10,000 couples have married. Two years later, GLAD quietly began surveying couples to determine whether they wanted federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.

Among those who say they have been discriminated against are Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, a Bridgewater couple who have been together nearly 30 years and married four days after same-sex weddings began. They have two children.

Gill, 51, who has worked for the Postal Service since 1987, has repeatedly tried to put Letourneau on her health insurance plan, but her employer has rejected her applications, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Letourneau, 47, has health insurance through her employer, Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice, but the couple estimates that it costs them $800 more a year than it would if she could be on Gill's plan.

"I feel like I am not being treated the same as my other married co-workers," Gill said. "I earn those same benefits as my co-workers, yet I'm not allowed to use them."
 
If that ^ case gets heard by the Supreme Court I am fairly certain it will lose.

Most likely 6-3 or even 7-2. I am not saying that I want it to lose. I am saying that with the current court make up, that is how I see the vote going.

I also believe there will be a day, perhaps as soon as 15 -20 years that it will be viewed as unfair and bias as the "separate but equal' laws were upheld and later overturned by subsequent courts.
 
Back
Top Bottom