Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Rowan]

I don't understand why the people would change their votes on essentially the same bill.

[Lunar]

I don't understand why the people would change their votes on essentially the same bill.

Only one person changed his vote, as far as I know [the gay Republican].  The rest of the change is from people who previously didn't vote now voting against it.

[Holmes]

Apparently about 10 of our votes didn't show. The other side was prepared.

The bill is NOT dead. They voted by a lot to keep it alive. The conference starts Wednesday. The final votes are probably June 3. There's two weeks.

[Holmes]

TOTALLY UNEXPECTED! The New Hampshire State House voted against protecting churches, NOM is SO HAPPY! It was a victory against religious freedom!! That's what they're all about! Now we gotta write all about it on the Nation Review Online Blogs and orgasm all over until they pass the bill for good in two weeks!

These people are delusional, but oh well. They're actually helping us immensely. Congrats on delaying the inevitable by 2 weeks.

[Lunar]

Lynch still has to sign it though.........

[Holmes]

He can't sign a bill that both chambers don't agree on?

And lol, Republicans introduced a bill in Congress that wouldn't let them allow same-sex marriage. sigh @ them. Politico says Boren introduced it and put an R beside his name, let's make that stick.

[Holmes]

I think prop 8 will be overturned tomorrow, and if it is, I'm gonna be taking a break from tracking this battle for a while(except to learn what happens in New Hampshire). Some people would be furious if it was overturned(not that it affects them anyway) and I don't wanna read what they have to say. And if I were in California right now, I probably wouldn't even go out too much either. But 90% of Santa Cruz is awesome anyway but still.

I know I sound paranoid but yeah.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Prop 8 upheld.

[Nhoj]

looks like the marriages that happened before the ban will stand. i guess its pretty much the decision most expected.

[Holmes]

Cool, so now there's also a seperate class of priviledged gay couples in California too.

[RI]

Did anyone really expect anything different?

[Verily]

Did anyone really expect anything different?

No. But it's a bad ruling: one that definitely causes far more legal issues than it solves. In a legal sense, I would have been much happier with annulling the marriages than with this new legal limbo.

[Holmes]

Me, actually. But now I know to never believe the Supreme Court when they say that my unalienable and fundamental right to a pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Californian constitution.

I don't care if they say that they still think I deserve the right in their dissent or opinion. I'd rather they not. I spit on them.

[Lunar]

Cool, so now there's also a seperate class of priviledged gay couples in California too.

Really weird about that.  They can't get divorced and remarry though.

It will make an interesting public and legal standpoint going forward to compare a couple that wants to get married and can't to one that is already married and asking what the difference is between them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The opinion goes to great lengths to make explicitly clear that the only thing Proposition 8 affected was the use of the word "marriage" by the State of California and that save for that an "officially recognized family relationship" must be the same whether it is a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship under the Constitution of California.

Looks like California is in for a good bit of "sound and fury, signifying nothing" as the idiots on both sides get ready for more initiatives in 2010.

[Holmes]

Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, today announced plans to introduce a bill that would offer "full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania." The measure also would recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

"There has never been a more propitious time for Pennsylvania to embrace equality and enshrine the civil right of all Pennsylvanians to marry," Mr. Leach said.


... I know I said I would take a break for a while after the decision but. Looks like no. The bill will go nowhere soon probably, but debate has now begun and interest is sparked.

[Keystone Phil]

And it won't go far. Not surprising that Daylin Leach - one of the most left wing members of the entire legislature - is responsible for this.

By the way, do some research on the guy. He's...uh...interesting.

[Holmes]

Perhaps another night, I'm holding off calculus studying as is...

I'm sure Pennsylvania will remain in the status quo for a while, unless... I dunno. New York and New Jersey need to do it first, and a few election cycles need to pass too. Then again, 3 years ago, saying it would happen in New Hampshire in 2009 when Democrats were a small minority in the legilsature was laughable.

[justfollowingtheelections]

i assume most of you already know this, but to me it was rather interesting:

[Marokai Backbeat]

New England loves freedom.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think Sen. Leach would have greater success of accomplishing something on this issue if he went for the more achievable goal of some sort of civil union that Pennsylvania would recognize.  Of course, if he does find that to be an acceptable interim goal, introducing a same-sex marriage bill might be intended to allow him to get a civil union as a compromise.  I'll leave it to the Pennsylvanians to debate whether a civil union bill has any chance of passage in their State.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The most interesting thing to me at least about the map is that so many states ban not only gay marriage but civil unions as well.  I guess it isn't really about the sanctity of marriage after all

[Tender Branson]

Rhode Island (Brown University, May 18-20, 593 registered voters)

Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?

60% Support
31% Oppose

Would you support or oppose a law that would allow civil unions for same-sex couples?

75% Support
17% Oppose

Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed legally to marry, should be allowed legally to form civil unions but not marry, or should not be allowed to obtain legal recognition of their relationships?

55% Should be allowed legally to marry
22% Should be allowed legally to form civil unions but not marry
15% Should not be allowed to obtain legal recognition of their relationship

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2009/05/survey

Another state/country (along with Austria), where backwards Catholic politicians are blocking the will of the progressive citizens ...

[MK]

Hetero marriage is better for our society therefore "gay" marriage secures nothing in terms of progressing the human race.    It's been proven that a child raised in a father(man)/ mother (woman) household fairs better then one who's not.    Theres no way two males for example can accomplish this.     This my case against gay marriages.

But hetero marriage is already one foot in the grave, So why fight over a already sinking ship known as our society?   You guys will eventually get your way and it won't be pretty.   By then I hope to be dead and buried.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hetero marriage is better for our society therefore "gay" marriage secures nothing in terms of progressing the human race.    It's been proven that a child raised in a father(man)/ mother (woman) household fairs better then one who's not. 

I'm interested in seeing that 'proof.'