Gay marriage legalized in yet another state

[Don't care]

Connecticut's supreme court has overturned the state ban on same-sex marriage.

It joins Massachusetts and California as the third state to do the same.

For the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7664780.stm

[De Selby]

Connecticut's supreme court has overturned the state ban on same-sex marriage.

It joins Massachusetts and California as the third state to do the same.

For the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7664780.stm

The prohibitions on gay marriage are probably going to be overturned in every state within 10-20 years.

[MicroBalrog]

3 down. 47 to go.

[Perd Hapley]

There are prohibitions on gay marriage? 

[De Selby]

There are prohibitions on gay marriage? 

Yes, in most states.  The laws that banned any homosexual contact are still on the books in most too, but were rendered unenforceable in 2003.

[Perd Hapley]

So, homosexuals in most states can't have wedding ceremonies?  Or live together?  Or call each other husband/wife? 

[vaskidmark]

So, homosexuals in most states can't have wedding ceremonies? Not ceremonies that count for anything Or live together? They can still do that Or call each other husband/wife?  They can call each other "Al" if they want to, but for legal matters calling each other husband or wife does not count

As most of us know, the issue is not over civil affairs [sorry, but the pun was not intended] but is about money - who can inherit it, who can claim benefits derived from one or the other being paid a wage/salary, etc.  I have not heard anyone touting the husband/wife immunity from forced testimony as a reason to move the issue forward.

What concerns me about the entire issue is that several states (including Virginia where I am) have passed laws saying that the state will not recognize that official act of another state.  Seems to violae the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, but not too many jurists seem to be bothered at all by that.

The (to me) funny thing is that courts have held for many years that homosexuality is not a bar to adoption or foster parenting, or for decisions regarding settling child custody disputes.  But apparently there are still some folks out there who must be thinking that if they are allowed to marry they will procreate  and then we will be up to our armpits with THEM.

Where is the cluebat when you need to swing it at someone?

stay safe.

skidmark

[De Selby]

So, homosexuals in most states can't have wedding ceremonies?  Or live together?  Or call each other husband/wife? 

Well, I suppose they can call it a marriage, but it's not a marriage the same way heterosexual couples get married.  You can call your small business ventures "non-profit churches" too, but that doesn't make them actually non-profit churches. 

I have not heard anyone touting the husband/wife immunity from forced testimony as a reason to move the issue forward.

That is an extremely interesting question you have raised there.

[Manedwolf]

3 down capitulated to the leftist homosexual agenda. 47 to go still resisting.

FTFY.

[MicroBalrog]

FTFY.

Well, even a blind, leftist sow finds an acorn once in a while.

[Manedwolf]

Well, even a blind, leftist sow finds an acorn once in a while.

Pigs also dig up some pretty disgusting things and think they're perfectly alright to consume.

[Perd Hapley]

3 down states that have reached the logical end of the race=sex=age=sexual orientation nonsense. 47 to go.

Fixed it better for you. 

[MicroBalrog]

Fixed it better for you. 

Elaborate for me, please, what possible problem could allowing gay people to inherit each other and get the same tax breaks as straight people have?

[Manedwolf]

Elaborate for me, please, what possible problem could allowing gay people to inherit each other and get the same tax breaks as straight people have?

For one, it forces every small business owner into an de facto acceptance of that lifestyle, regardless of the small business owner's beliefs. If said small business owner made even a single peep about not wanting to cover someone's "husband" or "wife" with their policies, they'd be sued so hard they'd probably lose their entire business.

Just also wait for the first lawsuit by someone not hired by a business "because they listed their gay spouse on their resume and that MUST be OMG DISCRIMINATION". Or fired for incompetence, likewise. "I listed my 'spouse' on my contact form, that's why I got fired, sue!!!"

It'll happen, and it'll happen quick.

Acceptance, endorsement by all, or you're taken to court one way or another. That's the longterm agenda.

This is also a serious slippery slope. What's next?

[MicroBalrog]

Why would anybody request that a spouse be listed on a resume, gay or straight? How is the name, nature, or quanity of my spouse(s) relevant to my ability to do my job? [Unless i'm applying to be a priest]


Has this stuff happened in the European countries where they have gay marriage? I know that Israel recognizes gay marriage for the purpose of legal benefits (though they won't write 'married' on your ID), and yet we have none of this stuff you describe.

These are genuine questions - I just don't know, either way.

This is also a serious slippery slope. What's next?

Explain, please.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

buisness won't like paying for the extra benefits. they do have to be paid for by someone

[Manedwolf]

Why would anybody request that a spouse be listed on a resume, gay or straight? How is the name, nature, or quanity of my spouse(s) relevant to my ability to do my job? [Unless i'm applying to be a priest]

Alright then, employee contact form. Emergency contact, relation, etc.

I expect a very short time till an incompetent employee, fired, uses that to claim discrimination, especially if the business owner is (gasp) active in a church or something, because that means they're a bigot to the left.

Also, tell me. What has been the fate of EVERY civilization that took decadence to the point that they publically accepted near-institutionalized homosexuality in every way?

Let's just keep following the Greeks, then. Next on that agenda, if you follow the historical precedent would be, oh, yeah...NAMBLA getting public acceptance.

Has this stuff happened in the European countries where they have gay marriage?

You mean the crumbling ones, where the economy is failing as people keep institutionalizing more and more reasons why companies can't fire someone?

[Don't care]

For one, it forces every small business owner into an de facto acceptance of that lifestyle, regardless of the small business owner's beliefs. If said small business owner made even a single peep about not wanting to cover someone's "husband" or "wife" with their policies, they'd be sued so hard they'd probably lose their entire business.

Just also wait for the first lawsuit by someone not hired by a business "because they listed their gay spouse on their resume and that MUST be OMG DISCRIMINATION". Or fired for incompetence, likewise. "I listed my 'spouse' on my contact form, that's why I got fired, sue!!!"

It'll happen, and it'll happen quick.

Acceptance, endorsement by all, or you're taken to court one way or another. That's the longterm agenda.

This is also a serious slippery slope. What's next?

A civil action? Possibly.

However, it is a civil action without a codified cause of action, because homosexuality, et al variations, is not a protected class and should be ruled frivolous as such.....unless any number of specific states have seen to pass legislation on their own, and have jurisdiction in the matter.

[MicroBalrog]

Also, tell me. What has been the fate of EVERY civilization that took decadence to the point that they publically accepted near-institutionalized homosexuality in every way?

Rome? Ruling the known world for at least three hundred more years. They had t3h gay sexx0r in Caesar's legions, and they went on to establish the world's greatest empire, and then to rule the impertinent, straight-laced Jews with an iron hand.

Sparta? You know, the guys who fought in the Thermopilae and saved Western civilization, and then proceeded to beat up the Athenians?

The Macedonians? The guys who established not one, but two, two, TWO awesome empires?

Under this argument, gay sex is the road to world domination. America must immediately cut it with the social conservatism and make with the gay orgies. Preferably outdoor gay orgies, for the added world domination factor.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the heck you say!  sexual orientation has been protected for quite a while

[Don't care]

Man, did I open a can of worms when I posted this thread.

Start playing nice people.

[Don't care]

the heck you say!  sexual orientation has been protected for quite a while

Protected classes of people

    * Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Civil Rights Act of 1866
    * Ethnicity
    * Religion or sect - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    * Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    * National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    * Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
    * Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
    * Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
    * Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
    * Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    * Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
    * Genetic Information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

[De Selby]

Acceptance, endorsement by all, or you're taken to court one way or another. That's the longterm agenda.

This is also a serious slippery slope. What's next?

I'll tell you what's next-they might even be allowed places on television, as teachers in our schools, and [gasp!] as elected officials wielding power over our social institutions!

Seriously, if you're committed to a state that lets people choose how they will live, and that does not moralize, forcing businesses to accept homosexual employees' lifestyles is no more onerous than forcing them to accept marriage and child birth via legal regimes like the FMLA.

If strict prohibitions on homosexuality had any correlation to national greatness, there would now be a superstate stretching from the gulf to Pakistan.  The arguments about the ancient empires (all of which lasted for centuries longer than America has been around) are meaningless in this debate.

For my part, I reject the existence of a "gay" as opposed to "straight" identity-the question here is a matter of what we do as individuals, not what we are.  

[Manedwolf]

Rome? Ruling the known world for at least three hundred more years. They had t3h gay sexx0r in Caesar's legions, and they went on to establish the world's greatest empire, and then to rule the impertinent, straight-laced Jews with an iron hand.

Um. The Jews are still around. The Romans aren't.

And the level of deprativity the Romans reached, with the series of emperors collecting little boys, that what you want to aim for?

I'll tell you what's next-they might even be allowed places on television, as teachers in our schools, and [gasp!] as elected officials weilding power over our social institutions!

Like Barney Frank? Which part has more appeal in lawmakers, I wonder, his gay prostitution ring thing, or the hard-left politics that sort usually cling to?

[MicroBalrog]

Um. The Jews are still around. The Romans aren't.

What's your point? That America is going to collapse after 300 years of greatness and ruling the world?

And the level of deprativity the Romans reached, with the series of emperors collecting little boys, that what you want to aim for?

Which of the Roman Emperors collected little boys? I don't remember that from my Svetonius. Besides which, I'd say the key corrupting factor was slavery, but that's a whole different fish altogether.