Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
In his brief for the defense on why the law should only recognize marriages between opposite-sex couples, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under George W. Bush, wrote that traditional marriage laws “reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies … Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society.”

This problem has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. I do think straight people need to be more responsible with who they sleep with so they don't have children when they are not ready or with someone unreliable.

Also, some gay or lesbians have out-of-wedlock pregnancies before they fully realize they prefer someone of their own gender. It's not like they are totally immune to such problems.

But leave this out of the same-sex marriage argument.
 
"I don't support same-sex marriage in spite of being a conservative, I support same-sex marriage because I am a conservative." - David Cameron.

:up:
 
spinning forward ...

Ill. Senate committee approves same-sex marriage bill
February 5, 2013 | 3 Comments text sizeprintemailtranslate
By Michael K. Lavers on February 5, 2013

An Illinois Senate committee on Tuesday approved a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the state.

The 9-5 vote in the Illinois Senate Executive Committee came nearly a month after state Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and gay state Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) reintroduced bills in their respective chambers that would extend marriage to gays and lesbians. The aforementioned committee on Jan. 3 voted to advance a same-sex marriage bill, but lawmakers did not take up the proposal before the end of the 2012 legislative session.

President Obama, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Illinois Republican Party Chair Pat Brady are among those who have urged legislators to back the measure.

“It was amazing,” Equality Illinois CEO Bernard Cherkasov told the Washington Blade after the vote. “Not only did the bill pass with even stronger support than last time, but the opponents kept tripping over their nonsensical arguments. Significantly, not a single senator argued that same-sex couples did not deserve the freedom to marry. We have come a great way.”

“The day when loving, committed same-sex couples in Illinois can marry feels imminent, and Lambda Legal is energized by this vote,” Jim Bennett of Lambda Legal added. “Our state is ready to become the tenth state where same-sex couples have the freedom to marry, and we urge people across the state to call their senators and urge them to vote in favor of the bill when it comes to a vote as early as next week. It’s just time.”

Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) told the Sun-Times on Feb. 1 that he would like to schedule a vote on the proposal in the full chamber on Valentine’s Day.

Ill. Senate committee approves gay marriage bill | Gay News | Washington Blade - America's Leading Gay News Source
 




spelled out perfectly:


However, in the years since Massachusetts and other states have made civil marriage a reality for same-sex couples, amici, like many Americans, have observed the impact, assessed their core values and beliefs, and concluded that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples who wish to marry. Rather, we have concluded that the institution of marriage, its benefits and importance to society, and the support and stability it gives to children and families are promoted, not undercut, by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples.
 
eastwood-chair.jpg



Clint Eastwood to Supreme Court: Drop California's ban on same-sex marriage - U.S. News
 
It’s time to overturn DOMA
By Bill Clinton,

The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.

Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.

When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.

Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’ ”

The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor, and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.



Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA - The Washington Post
 
Second reading of New Zealand's gay marriage bill passed 77-44, a decline of only three votes since the first reading. Now it goes into committee before its third reading, and unless something drastic happens there, it should pass. :up:

I'd just like to point out here that we have a conservative government at present too. And the other minor right wing parties in parliament are also voting for it, with the exception of New Zealand First - shameless populists whose only voters are angry old people in Tauranga. The ACT Party, for instance, are actually living up to their talk about opposing big government and intrusions on individual freedom in all its forms. Republicans, take notes.
 
Second reading of New Zealand's gay marriage bill passed 77-44, a decline of only three votes since the first reading. Now it goes into committee before its third reading, and unless something drastic happens there, it should pass. :up:

I'd just like to point out here that we have a conservative government at present too. And the other minor right wing parties in parliament are also voting for it, with the exception of New Zealand First - shameless populists whose only voters are angry old people in Tauranga. The ACT Party, for instance, are actually living up to their talk about opposing big government and intrusions on individual freedom in all its forms. Republicans, take notes.

That's great news. :up:

Same-sex marriage is inevitable in the United States, I think. I just wish it would happen sooner rather than later.
 
:up: Great news indeed. Seems like the ball is rolling quite fast now, should be only a matter of time before most 'western' countries start to accept it. I figure either Italy or the US will be last. Italy as it has the Vatican lobby... unless the new pope suddenly is very modern, lol.
 
I don't know. Australia is pretty far from legalising it sadly and if the election goes the way of the polls in September we'll be going even further backwards.
 
Hey Cobbo, do you watch an Australian show called Q&A? I watched one recently on youtube with Lawrence Krauss. Was pretty good
 
Colorado has passed a Civil Unions bill, Minnesota took a step toward legalizing SSM, though we'll see. Should pass eventually there.
 
I don't know. Australia is pretty far from legalising it sadly and if the election goes the way of the polls in September we'll be going even further backwards.

Yeah, I'm worried that Australia's pretty far off - even if Abbott's been making more conciliatory noises lately. Reeks of an election stunt, but if he did permit the Coalition a conscience vote, there might be a chance, especially if the ALP comes around. The problem within the ALP is that a couple of powerful right-wing unions have leaders (who are completely out of touch with their members) who vehemently oppose gay marriage and are making life difficult within the ALP party ranks. The ALP's already had a couple of damaging splits, in World War I and in the 1950s, so they don't want it to happen again. But these knobheads should retire or die fairly soon and stop holding the party hostage to their bigotry.

The Aussie and Kiwi parliaments right now are a stunning contrast, especially since Australia has normally not been far behind New Zealand when it comes to progressive legislation. I suppose it indicates that New Zealand's right wing at the moment is more defined by economic ideology while Australia's has a greater emphasis on social conservatism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom