Gay Marriage in Washington State is almost here.

B5C

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Gay-marriage-bill-passes-critical-vote-in-Washington-state-Senate-138539054.html


That is Sen. Ed Murray and his partner who now can't wait to get married.

Washington State Senate has passed the Gay Marriage bill: 28-21

Now it goes to the house for a quick vote and then to the governor for signage.

Once my governor signs the bill, still gay marriage will not be legal yet. The Bill will have to wait till June to see if there is enough signatures by the anti-gay crowd. If the anti group doesn't get enough signatures gays will be able to marry late in June. If the anti-crowd get enough signatures (120,000) it will be on November ballot to be up to the people to vote.

Telly03

So if a gay couple is married in Wash St., once it passes, then they are no longer married if they move to another state?

Dakini

So if a gay couple is married in Wash St., once it passes, then they are no longer married if they move to another state?

This is the $50,000 question, isn't it? How many states now allow/recognize gay marriage?

vinlyn

So if a gay couple is married in Wash St., once it passes, then they are no longer married if they move to another state?

Yes, and is not recognized by the federal government.

Zero

What's your position on this @B5C - for or against?

B5C

What's your position on this @B5C - for or against?

I am for Gay marriage.

B5C

So if a gay couple is married in Wash St., once it passes, then they are no longer married if they move to another state?

No the Defense of Marriage Act lets states ignore other states.


I believe that is in violation of our US Constitution.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

vinlyn

So if a gay couple is married in Wash St., once it passes, then they are no longer married if they move to another state?

No the Defense of Marriage Act lets states ignore other states.


I believe that is in violation of our US Constitution.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Hmmmm...and yet many, many, many laws are on a state by state basis.

vinlyn

I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first.

B5C

I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first.

What civil unions are:

vinlyn

I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first.

What civil unions are:

That's one ill conceived viewpoint. Another is that all gay people would benefit from civil unions, which are more passable in many states.

And you need to note what I actually said: "I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first." A slow evolution is better than no evolution.

B5C

The problem some states still don't recognize civil unions from other states. It does not change a thing.

Also note I never heard my gay friend to her partner and say "Will you civil union me?"

Raven

I look forward to the day when the future generations look back in awe on the old days when gay humans were treated like second-class citizens.

vinlyn

The problem some states still don't recognize civil unions from other states. It does not change a thing.

States without gay marriage don't recognize gay marriages from states that do, either. Irrelevant.

Dakini

Good going, B5C. You've really done some good research. Recognizing marriage contracts from other states is like recognizing drivers' licenses from other states. Some states allow 14-year olds to have a license. And now, Congress requires concealed weapons licenses to be recognized nation-wide. Interesting which way the selectivity cards fall.

But you still haven't answered my question; what other states have gay marriage? Hawaii? Didn't MA pass a gay marriage law, or was it repealed? What about California?

B5C

But you still haven't answered my question; what other states have gay marriage? Hawaii? Didn't MA pass a gay marriage law, or was it repealed? What about California?

Oops:

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia has gay marriage on the book.

Hawaii is only civil unions.

California had gay marriage for a few months until the Mormons and Catholics came in end spend MILLIONS of dollars on Proposition 8. Proposition 8 adds an amendment to the state's Constitution to make marriage only a man and woman.

federica

civil unions are just another name for marriage outside church.... so I think the UK is en route to abolishing any differentiation between the term 'marriage' and 'civil union'.

also in the UK:

Religious bodies
At their Yearly Meeting in 2009, the Quakers decided to recognise opposite-sex and same-sex marriages equally and perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, making them the first mainstream religious body in Britain to do so. Under the current law, registrars are not allowed to legally officiate a marriage between same-sex couples but the Quakers stated that the law does not preclude them from "playing a central role in the celebration and recording of same-sex marriages” and asked the government to change the law so that these marriages would be recognised.[38][39]

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Arjquad

So if a gay couple is married in Wash St., once it passes, then they are no longer married if they move to another state?

This is the $50,000 question, isn't it? How many states now allow/recognize gay marriage?

12 states recognize it but not sure if they are marriage or unions.

Zero

Dont think the UK will abolish the distinction between marriage and civil partnerships - There are 3 laws, England and wales (the main system), Scottish Law and Republic of Ireland - Scotland may do it just to get up the nose of the English! But overall, English law is seen as the superior system.

Legislation has its challenges - policy is based on popular politics so if gay marriages are not allowed, it is because the majority political bias is against it - the blame lands on the people and religious institutions.

The current compromise is an attempt by the State to move against popular opinion and religious doctrine - the staus of 'marriage' has both legal and religious (thus cultural) significance - thus, it is impossible to allow gay marriage (as the underlying doctrines supporting the notion of marriage will not support it).

The only logical compromise is for the state to recognise a 'union' on par with marriage - but this status could not be a marriage therefore it is a union or partnership recognised only by the state (and not offending religious beliefs) called a 'civil parnership'.

I cannot see any benefit or readily realisable result in challenging the state's support of the notion of same sex union within a state recognised institution - the alternative would be for the state to dictate religious expression which is undesirable.

It seems to me that one way for the people to deal with this issue is for heterosexual couples to enter civil partnerships rather than marriage - if enough people do this, marriage itself will be marginalised as a metaphorical 'union of bigots'!

By looking to our hearts, sometimes we can lead a path for the world to follow.

person

I think if government is going to sanction marriage for straight couples they should do it for gay couples as well, and I suppose if consenting adults is the standard then that would also include polygamy.

Having said that though, I don't feel that government should be in the business of marriage at all, marriage is a religious doctrine, and making churches that don't accept the idea of non-traditional marriage accept it is an imposition of state onto church.

If you ask me the solution should be that government only does civil union for all, after a couple does the legal contract then they can seek out a church to recieve a religious marriage. This would allow all couples to be treated equally under the law while still allowing religious institutions to define marriage however they wanted. I'm sure there would be plenty of churches around that would recognize gay marriage for those wishing that step.

Zero

@person - thats a solid solution right there... nice one.

Dakini

If you ask me the solution should be that government only does civil union for all, after a couple does the legal contract then they can seek out a church to recieve a religious marriage. This would allow all couples to be treated equally under the law while still allowing religious institutions to define marriage however they wanted. I'm sure there would be plenty of churches around that would recognize gay marriage for those wishing that step.

Yes.

Raven

@person I have to disagree. When Mr Raven and I get married, we most likely won't have a religious ceremony because neither of us are overly religious and we come from different religious backgrounds anyway. Why should we have a "civil union" and church-goers get a marriage? Are church-goers somehow more special than the rest of us?

Religious institutions need to butt out. I have no problem with churches not wanting to marry two people of the same sex - that's in line with their doctrine, and it's their house. However, I don't think these institutions should have the right to decide for the rest of us. Separation of church and state is necessary in multicultural countries.

Dakini

Whoa, whoa. A marriage by a Justice of the Peace is still a marriage, why wouldn't it be? Lots of people go that route. Who cares about churches and God and all that stuff?

It's interesting--in Tibet marriages were civil affairs. In the West, though, Western Buddhists like to ask their lama to officiate, so the lamas have adapted.

Ship captains can perform marriages, and those aren't any lesser in status than anyone else's marriage.

vinlyn

Whoa, whoa. A marriage by a Justice of the Peace is still a marriage, why wouldn't it be? Lots of people go that route. Who cares about churches and God and all that stuff?

It's interesting--in Tibet marriages were civil affairs. In the West, though, Western Buddhists like to ask their lama to officiate, so the lamas have adapted.

Ship captains can perform marriages, and those aren't any lesser in status than anyone else's marriage.

As to who care about churches and God and all that stuff...well, lots of people do care, hence the political problem.

Dakini

Political problem? I'm not following this. Isn't the push for change about states recognizing gay marriage (however that may come about: on board ship or in a state office, or wherever), not churches?

vinlyn

Yes. The problem is that the issue is decided in the political realm of state governments.

Dakini

What does that have to do with Raven's perception that a union by the Justice of the Peace is somehow lesser than one brought about by a priest?

vinlyn

Oh, I see what you're asking.

I think that's very much a function of personal perception. In America, at least, a big church wedding is -- for many, if not most people -- a very big passage in life -- birth, adulthood, marriage, death. But for others, like me, I would rather not have it.

Dakini

Hawaii is only civil unions.

I guess I missed a couple of points on this thread. Apparently Hawaii doesn't recognize church weddings for gay couples? What??

And I notice our OP, B5C, like Raven, also thinks civil unions are chopped liver. Could one of you two explain that to me please? Is it about the pomp and circumstance of the Church wedding? Because AFAIK, legally they carry the same weight. Maybe I'm looking at this too legalistically...? :scratch:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
edit: Oh, oh, wait, I get it. It's about the holiness of the union, as if these unions aren't appropriate for a house of the Lord, for God's approval or something. So religious partners want the right to have all the bells and whistles all religious couples are entitled to.

*whew* :crazy: I'm really out of the loop on the religion thing, sorry, folks.

vinlyn

I don't think it's quite so much the pomp and circumstance, as it is the rite of passage.

Dakini

I'm catching on. But how sad that the ceremony marking the rite of passage should be confined to the church. What about a fancy wedding in someone's home, or renting a hall by the Justice of the Peace's office? Why have we given so much power and symbolism to the church?

zombiegirl

I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first.

What civil unions are:

That's one ill conceived viewpoint. Another is that all gay people would benefit from civil unions, which are more passable in many states.

And you need to note what I actually said: "I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first." A slow evolution is better than no evolution.

This is actually quite apt because there is a reason that "separate but equal" does not work. I think we learned that, didn't we? By defining one thing as "this"(marriage) and one thing as "that"(civil unions), states can therefore write unequal regulations distinguishing between them into their legislatures.

For example: Insurances are required to extend benefits to the partners of married couples, but not those of civil unions.

If they aren't the same thing... they aren't the same thing.

vinlyn

I'm catching on. But how sad that the ceremony marking the rite of passage should be confined to the church. What about a fancy wedding in someone's home, or renting a hall by the Justice of the Peace's office? Why have we given so much power and symbolism to the church?

All of those are leading possibilities.

Dakini

For example: Insurances are required to extend benefits to the partners of married couples, but not those of civil unions.

No, wait, it can't be that cut-and-dried. How are we defining "civil union"? Anyone married by a Justice of the Peace is married, period. They get to put their partner on insurance like anyone else. They can, they do, they always have. So this makes me wonder: has a special category been created just for gay marriages? A dog-house sort of category? I apologize for being so out of it on this detail.

Thanks for chiming in and explaining, ZG.

vinlyn

I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first.

What civil unions are:

That's one ill conceived viewpoint. Another is that all gay people would benefit from civil unions, which are more passable in many states.

And you need to note what I actually said: "I think a better path is to settle for civil unions first." A slow evolution is better than no evolution.

This is actually quite apt because there is a reason that "separate but equal" does not work. I think we learned that, didn't we? By defining one thing as "this"(marriage) and one thing as "that"(civil unions), states can therefore write unequal regulations distinguishing between them into their legislatures.

For example: Insurances are required to extend benefits to the partners of married couples, but not those of civil unions.

If they aren't the same thing... they aren't the same thing.

When I was a middle school principal, we certainly didn't have to deal with the issue of gay marriage. But we often had to deal with issues where we had to look at both:
a. what is ideal
b. what is do-able

I saw some principals that rushed into "what is ideal", and ended up setting whole goals backwards.

It is interesting that you point out "separate but equal". For several years I worked in Prince Georges County, Maryland, which was a school district which had court ordered school busing after the "separate but equal" system was found to be grossly unequal. For example, Black schools got the out-of-date textbooks after the White schools were done with them; White schools had libraries, Black schools did not.

Then I went to work in Fairfax County Schools in Virginia. There was a point in the country's history when they actually closed the school system completely, rather than integrate.

So those examples are why I think sometimes you do what is do-able or within reach now, and later make further evolutionary steps to the desired goal.

zombiegirl

@Dakini I meant that merely as an example of what a state COULD do. There's no reason that they couldn't make different definitions like that, and of course, 'civil unions' might involve some straight people as well... I have no idea what sort of distinctions they might make if civil unions became a reality instead of gay marriage, but I do know one thing, whether they make the option available to straight couples or not... only gays would be excluded from 'marriage'

@vinlyn Thanks for the interesting story and I actually don't disagree with you. I used to support civil unions over gay marriage with the thought that if heterosexuals wanted to define 'civil unions' as non-religious, that's fine... I don't care. But you know... I'm just sort of tired of this crap. In my short life (26 years) I have seen such great strides within the gay movement and now, I don't want to settle. Opinions are really changing so quickly and I know that one day gay marriage will be real. I have faith in that. When Hillary Clinton gave her speech to the UN earlier this year, urging them to recognize gay rights as human rights, she said, "Be on the right side of history." And I thought... holy crap. She knows it, I know it, a lot of other people know it... This is the way we're headed.

Maybe I'm wrong... maybe I should think baby steps... but I'm just tired of being a second class citizen and I feel like supporting civil unions means that I agree that I am.

zombiegirl

Just as an fyi, my mom says I'm too idealistic as well...

vinlyn

Maybe I'm wrong... maybe I should think baby steps... but I'm just tired of being a second class citizen and I feel like supporting civil unions means that I agree that I am.

I understand completely.

person

@person I have to disagree. When Mr Raven and I get married, we most likely won't have a religious ceremony because neither of us are overly religious and we come from different religious backgrounds anyway. Why should we have a "civil union" and church-goers get a marriage? Are church-goers somehow more special than the rest of us?

Religious institutions need to butt out. I have no problem with churches not wanting to marry two people of the same sex - that's in line with their doctrine, and it's their house. However, I don't think these institutions should have the right to decide for the rest of us. Separation of church and state is necessary in multicultural countries.

Maybe, the problem is with how one defines marriage. The side that wants to ban gay marriage considers marriage a religious institution given by God. A civil union in my idea would simply be the legal contract recognized by the state. For the wedding ceremony a couple could do anything they wanted, a small ceremony on the beach with just close family and freinds or the big church wedding with 500 people.

I guess what I'm saying is that 'marriage' should be decoupled from the union of a couple and given back to the church. Without the religious blessing its just a word.

Zero

Change comes slowly - arguing with God is challenging - christianity is very clear on homosexuality - the State should not dictate what people believe.

I'm still with @person - that solution works perfectly - also I am with my own interim step by step in that the more heterosexual couples who go for civil partnerships, the more the divide will be evident and the State then takes more notice.

Rather than being frustrated - so much better to do little things to push things in the right direction.

Its clear that people attach special significance to 'marriage' - it will take many generations to change that.

vinlyn

Maybe, the problem is with how one defines marriage. The side that wants to ban gay marriage considers marriage a religious institution given by God. A civil union in my idea would simply be the legal contract recognized by the state. For the wedding ceremony a couple could do anything they wanted, a small ceremony on the beach with just close family and freinds or the big church wedding with 500 people.

I guess what I'm saying is that 'marriage' should be decoupled from the union of a couple and given back to the church. Without the religious blessing its just a word.

For many who approve of the DOMA, that is exactly how they feel. That is why I believe that first going for civil unions eliminates at least some of the opposition.

Theswingisyellow

I have a few questions:
When did marriage become a state or a federal issue?
What happened to our freedom?
Why would one require the consent of the government to whom one could marry?

Dakini

Maybe, the problem is with how one defines marriage. The side that wants to ban gay marriage considers marriage a religious institution given by God. A civil union in my idea would simply be the legal contract recognized by the state. For the wedding ceremony a couple could do anything they wanted, a small ceremony on the beach with just close family and freinds or the big church wedding with 500 people.

I guess what I'm saying is that 'marriage' should be decoupled from the union of a couple and given back to the church. Without the religious blessing its just a word.

This is what I was saying above, but more concisely. Civil union AFAIK is the same for gay and for straight couples. Those who aren't into the whole church show get married by a Justice of the Peace and then fashion their own ceremony. People who buy into the idea that marriage is a religious institution are free to buy into it, the rest of us can leave them to their delusion, lol !

@swing One doesn't require the consent of the gov't as to who is allowed to marry. Gov't imposes that. And the church.

vinlyn

I have a few questions:
When did marriage become a state or a federal issue?
What happened to our freedom?
Why would one require the consent of the government to whom one could marry?

From Wikipedia: "Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[2] But marriage licenses were not required until after the civil war."

Many would argue that nothing has happened to our freedom. You are pretty much free to live and associate with whomever you wish.

Why consent of government? Social security benefits, and the like, immediately come to mind. Transfer of property to spouses after death, etc.

Zero

I have a few questions:
1) When did marriage become a state or a federal issue?
2) What happened to our freedom?
3) Why would one require the consent of the government to whom one could marry?

1) Its always been a state issue - going back there was greater cohesion between religion and state - it is only recently that the two are more divided.

2) Freedom??!!! hahaha.. good one - i like that.

3) Because the staus of marriage has legal as well as cultural / religious significance - as such, given that the state has delegated responsibility for legislation, they are involved - otherwise I'd marry my dog, set up a trust for him and pay myself a discretionary income from the trust - no tax unless he suddenly decided he wanted a job which is unlikely as he mainly likes to sniff his balls and noone is paying for that service... or would they??? hmmmm

B5C

It's official:

Pastor admits that there is 1 million dollars ready to fight the gays in Washington.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/kcpq-gay-marriage-opponent-weve-raised-1-million-already-for-referendum-20120202,0,1921327.story

Also note it's out of state. What is the chance that it's either the Mormons or Catholics this time?

vinlyn

It's official:

Pastor admits that there is 1 million dollars ready to fight the gays in Washington.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/kcpq-gay-marriage-opponent-weve-raised-1-million-already-for-referendum-20120202,0,1921327.story

Also note it's out of state. What is the chance that it's either the Mormons or Catholics this time?

Again, what's your point? There are a number of groups that are pro-gay-marriage and related issues that are also well financed.

Dakini

@B5C We need more input from you. Could you explain your view of why civil union isn't valued by the gay community? Don't be shy, let us know your thoughts on the topics and articles you're posting here.

B5C

Again, what's your point? There are a number of groups that are pro-gay-marriage and related issues that are also well financed.

It's an issue because it was the Mormon Church & the Catholic Church that spend millions to ban gay marriage in California. Also note that the Mormon Church required it's members to spend 10% back to the church. That is a boat load of money that one group has to fight an civil right.

B5C

@B5C We need more input from you. Could you explain your view of why civil union isn't valued by the gay community? Don't be shy, let us know your thoughts on the topics and articles you're posting here.

Because the gay community doesn't want civil unions. They want marriage. Also to homosexuals civil unions makes them feel like 2nd class citizens and weddings are only special to heterosexuals.

They want all or nothing and no middle ground. They are tired of the middle ground.