I can't believe no one else has brought this up yet, so...

[Shattered Soul]

Originally posted by sycamore
From MSNBC:

Entering a national debate over gay marriage, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said he would have "no problem" with Cook County issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city. Daley's views came as President Bush said he was "troubled" by San Francisco’s same-sex wedding spree.

Daley urged sympathy for same-sex couples because "they love each other just as much as anyone else."

Chicago mayor Daley also dismissed a suggestion that marriage between gay couples would undermine the institution. "Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don’t tell me about marriage," he said. "Don’t blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community."

Hear, Hear!

[Happy Monkey]

Could the Republican effort to make this a campaign issue bite them on the ass? I really hope so. I want to have faith in the decency of our country.

[Griff]

I heard a proposal I really liked recently. We should make all state "marriages" into civil unions.

[elSicomoro]

Here comes the Terminator...

But I think Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay got it right yesterday (from the above link):

Conservatives have filed lawsuits in a bid to stop the same-sex wedding spree in San Francisco, but on Friday, Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order, saying conservative groups failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm.

The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.

Gay marriage is coming nationwide, IMO...you can either try and keep putting up roadblocks, or just get the bitching out of your system, let it go and move on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Griff
I heard a proposal I really liked recently. We should make all state "marriages" into civil unions.

I don't follow? You mean instead of a paper saying "marriage certificate" or "marriage license" they will say "civil union license"?
I'm sure there's a lot of people in marriages that would prefer to have a civil union.

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
.....Gay marriage is coming nationwide, IMO..

If the supporters of GM would use the incremental approach it might be more beneficial to the cause. If they could hold their ground and be temporarily content with civil unions this whole issue could be much less heated.

From my research, it is primarily the older voters (60+) that make up the majority of the opposition. While the Reps do indeed hold more voters opposed to GM, there is also a substancial number within the Dem party that are opposed. The younger crowd (30 and under ) generally has the most support. So, how long would it take to increase the numbers in the young group to overpower the older group? Maybe 10 years? Maybe less.

This strategy seems much more logical to me, and I am totally against GM. The current political makeup shows that the majority of Americans are against GM too. Why do the supporters of GM want to force this issue now.....when they do not own the majority.....when they could very easily win through attrition in the near future? It seems to me that they are effectively saying "FUCK YOU", we dont care if the majority are opposed or why.

It might be logically argued that it doesnt matter what the current supporting or opposing sides makeup as a voting total, that this is an issue of constitutional law. But at the same time, if this is the case, then why not let the legal system step gradually toward a solution that fits into all the tangent issues of GM. Why make this such a devisive issue that may very well lead to another constitutional ammendment when the battle could be won by not battling?

[opinion]Because the supporters are forcing this issue in response to their dislike of the religious aspect of the opposition, without looking at the tangent unintended consequences that have absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with re-establishing precedence and policy throughout the states that deal with divorce, child custody, and illegal discrimination. Without looking at the train wreck of lawsuits and fusterclucks and confusion that would be instantly created by legalizing something that stretches into every nook and cranny of the society. [/opinion]

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by slang


If the supporters of GM would use the incremental approach it might be more beneficial to the cause. If they could hold their ground and be temporarily content with civil unions this whole issue could be much less heated.

There may be something to that. However, the wording of the current constitutional amendment being flacked also bans awarding the "legal incidents [of marital status]" on "unmarried" couples. That pretty much kills the "civil union" concept, doesn't it.

[wolf]

Depends on how "civil union" is defined. But it would kill the notion of "common law" marriages.

[Undertoad]

That slow acceptance is why they really want to amend the Constitution. A ruling can be changed, a law can be changed, an amendment is much much more serious. This is an attempt to "lock in" their view of the culture war before it's too late.

Which is, in turn, a really terrible abuse of the Constitution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Slang, the rush may be because many of the partners are dying and don't have time to wait. Maybe?

[slang]

Originally posted by SteveDallas
..... also bans awarding the "legal incidents [of marital status]" on "unmarried" couples. That pretty much kills the "civil union" concept, doesn't it.

As I understand the situation, the ammendment is only gaining momentum because of spectacles like that in SF.

So what you are saying is that the ban would affect the current gay and hetero civil unions? Thats not a real issue with the heteros, they could just get married. Problem solved. As for the gays, why would they press the issue that drives the amendment that would ban their civil unions.

I must have missed your point SD.

Originally posted by wolf
Depends on how "civil union" is defined. But it would kill the notion of "common law" marriages.

I thought that "common law" marriages were waning in legal authority and occurance. Was that just in Pa? I know I heard something about how they were no longer valid.

Originally posted by Undertoad
That slow acceptance is why they really want to amend the Constitution. A ruling can be changed, a law can be changed, an amendment is much much more serious. This is an attempt to "lock in" their view of the culture war before it's too late.

Which is, in turn, a really terrible abuse of the Constitution.

So what you are saying is that the slow acceptance would be counteracted by an amendment that would not have widespread support without Newscom making the spectacle of defying the system in Ca? Why would he issue the licenses then? To defeat his own cause?

It would also only be a real abuse of the Constitution if the amedment was illegally passed ( like maybe......the 16th ). But then again, I can see your point with this particular example because even though it's been shown to be faulty, so much of our gov't was built upon it, it doesnt really matter whether it is legal or not. It's here to stay.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Slang, the rush may be because many of the partners are dying and don't have time to wait. Maybe?

I personally think the Gays feel they have the support for GM they need, after a long series of battles in public opinion and the courts, to overturn a stigma they have been under for so long.I dont buy the whole "marriage benefits" aspect. They are understandably pissed to have been slighted for so long and they are making a statement.

[Elspode]

I also like the idea of a civil union replacing government-sanctioned marriage. I mean, the present legal situation causes gay couples to have to hold "commitment ceremonies", handfastings and the like if they want some sort of religious/public/spiritual aspect to their unions (my wife has performed many of these ceremonies as a High Preistess). Why shouldn't Christians and others share this experience? Then, all couples would be equal under the law of the land, and they could be sanctified according to whatever religious point of view they choose.

More separation of Church and State is a good thing, IMHO.

[Undertoad]

Originally posted by slang
So what you are saying is that the slow acceptance would be counteracted by an amendment that would not have widespread support without Newscom making the spectacle of defying the system in Ca? Why would he issue the licenses then? To defeat his own cause?

His particular cause is that of being a popular politician echoing the sentiments of his constituencies. He is ensuring his own popularity. Just like Moore did in Alabama with the ten commandments. Neither one of them will lose any election in the near future. Both are aware of the legal underpinnings but will use the situation to advance their own cause. Both actions are spun by their supporters as important civil disobedience.

It would take a really sophisticated movement to understand the nuances of which way to play this one. The parties can define their actions a little bit, but movements can't.

It would also only be a real abuse of the Constitution if the amedment was illegally passed ( like maybe......the 16th ). But then again, I can see your point with this particular example because even though it's been shown to be faulty, so much of our gov't was built upon it, it doesnt really matter whether it is legal or not. It's here to stay.

I think it's an abuse of the Constitution because amendments should not be used to remove rights, only to affirm them. Aside from the 16th, I think the only other amendment that attempted to remove rights was prohibition.

The deepest possible danger is that the US no longer be seen internationally as the protector of rights, no longer seen as a positive place for free minded individuals to choose to live, and therefore lose its ability to attract the best and brightest of other cultures.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The deepest possible danger is that the US no longer be seen internationally as the protector of rights, no longer seen as a positive place for free minded individuals to choose to live, and therefore lose its ability to attract the best and brightest of other cultures.

It's sure hard to attract the best and brightest when the jobs are going to where we're trying to attract them from.

[warch]

I heard some funny conservative comentator, I forget who, just flummuxed by these gay marriages- the damage, the worst damage he could muster "we'll turn into Denmark!" "Do you want to live in Denmark?!"
Well, I'd certainly visit...now Amsterdam, I could live there...at least a while.

Its exciting to me this disobedience, this civil rights movement. People are tired of waiting to enjoy their rights. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.