A 60-something Baby Boomer's views on politics, pets and life.
State by state we are changed our country. That's 4 already. DC voted to recognize Gay marriages today too. So that was another big step. Not to do them but to recognize them if they are done somewhere else.. at least it is a step... next step will be them starting to do them .. but I think they have to become a state first and have rights...lol
New York has also said they would recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. I'm sure New York will be on the short list of states that will soon have same-sex marraige.
Yes, I think like I said state by state we will change the country.. and that is what Pres. Obama said should happen.. rather than try to fight it in Federal Court or try to get a law passed in Congress, which he felt would not get done and just be a hard fight, he thought this would be the best way.. people thought this was him saying he was strongly against it, but I really think it was parsing words more than anything. He was for a Federal Civil Union, but state by state marriage laws.
Personally I think marriage should be left to the churches. They could call all marriages sanctioned by the government "civil marriages" and then the churches could designate theirs differently - "sacred marriages" or some such. This is why we have separation of church and state after all. I agree Obama isn't really against it, it is semantics and he is letting it happen in a gradual way that he feels is more effective.
At Mudflats in AK where I go a lot there is a lady from France, she says all marriages are civil unions so to speak in that they are done by a justice or civil authority, then if you want a church wedding you make that arrangement with your local clergy.. what's wrong with that.. it sure sounds like the best idea to me.. keep the church out of it unless you really want it.. and like I said.. do this just like we are state by state.. then when enough states pass it.. we can do the entire country.. but we have to get the majority of the states first.
I was just talking to one of my sons about this. We both think it is great. I would like to see a movement across the country. The repugs must be pissed. They are getting militant. I wonder what is going to set them off. They already want armed revolution against Obama!
Annette, I agree. It's the right way to go and makes a lot of sense to have civil unions be what the state does and churches can do what they want; some will sanctify gay marriages and some won't. But this way everyone has equal opportunity.Patriot, I agree, let's hope this does keep going across the country. I think the GOP is beside themselves...Jon Stewart had a great bit last night explaining it to the GOP - that they lost and that's why they're in the minority and it's only been 3 months so get over it!
The states rights approach to gay marriage equality is flawed and will result with a crazy quilt of one state treating a gay or lesbian couple fairly, while the state next door treating the same couple like criminals. States rights is really a cop out, in my opinion.In a perfect world, gay marriage equality needs to come from on high and that means the Federal government approving it for all 50 states and territories. This would mean the 1,300 Federal benefits straight couple immediately receive upon entering into this legal contract, would be conveyed to gay and lesbian couples too.That's the power of the Supremacy Clause.
Christopher, you're right, in a perfect world that is what would happen. But it's not a perfect world, and I think that's why the state by state approach is wise - for now. I do think at a certain point there will be a Supreme Court case that brings this to a federal level, similar to Loving vs. Virginia for interracial marriage. It's just a matter of time. As it is, there seems to be momentum building, with two states legalizing same-sex marriage in one week now, and Paterson deciding to re-introduce a gay marriage bill in New York as you just posted about. For awhile there will be a crazy quilt, but eventually it will be one big blanket! ;-) I would love to see a Supreme Court decision that covered the whole country at once but with the current Court, without more states supporting it, a case might be risky.
Evolution, baby! You can't stop that big ole wheel of progress and change. The GOP is putting up a flailing screaming fight, but they can't stop the wheel of love and humanity. They'll win a few battles but ultimately the war will go to the forces of unity and brotherhood.
I really hope each state will pass its own legislation from now on, but I know many red states will resist.My hope is either a SCOTUS decision or an amendment to the Constitution. If it were an amendment to the Constitution, only 38 states would have to ratify it.
Agree, and I hope that there will be a Constitutional amendment to change this for good. At some point it will be necessary, both to repeal the federal DOMA legislation and to make the remaining red states do the right thing.
It is a bit of good news & a step in a positive direction.I had heard it mentioned now is NOT the time to present it to the Supremes, because they are right wing heavy. Chances are Obama will need to make some appointments to the Supremes, then we would have some liberal/progressive balance. I'll call any advance in restoring civil rights & equal rights something to celebrate.
Fran, that is my concern - let's hope Obama has the opportunity to appoint at least two judges. Unfortunately some of the oldest ones are the ones that are the most liberal so at first he may only have the opportunity to replace liberal with liberal, and it may still be awhile before a conservative judge steps down. (Isn't Clarence Thomas getting old enough to retire yet???) And Roberts, unfortunately, is younger than I am! ;-)
You & me both wish it were time for 'ol Clarence Thomas to step down. Where did they dredge him up from???Looks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be the first to step down. I sure hope they already have a committee scouring the country for best of Supreme court candidates..... and have them completely vetted please!Meanwhile-- Yay Vermont! May your wedded bliss for all live happily ever after!
Vermont is cool as a state.Hey, I've tagged you for another meme. Bwhahahaha!
the only way to avoid the patchwork of laws is for a federal statute to come down -- and overturn the constitutions of the 26 or so states that have banned this..i will never understand this - why the tide of resentment against gay marriagenever mind - i do, it is called unadulterated hate and bigotry.for all those against marriage equality- one day i hope you lose some rights.
Fran, agree, I hope whoever gets picked to replace Ruth has perfect credentials.Liberality, thanks, it will give me fodder for this week!DCap, that's what it is - bigotry pure and simple. What really gets my goat is when "defenders of marriage" try to use the old excuse that it's "for the children" and that children should have a mother and a father. Please - as if our heterosexual families all have mothers AND fathers? Or that all marriages exist just to have children? Or that society benefits somehow by denying gay couples the stability and happiness of marriage? It's all a complete crock, designed to cover up the evil, bigoted attitudes underneath.
Post a Comment