Which states are fighting same sex marriage ?

[gotsnowgotslush]

I was surprised to read, that attitudes are shifting-

March 27, 2013

Every county in the state [Wisconsin] but one (Dane) voted for the ban. [on same sex marriage]
(Wisconsin's 2006 marriage referendum)

VS

".... it seems plausible that in addition to the 42% who favor same-sex marriage, some of those 26% who back civil unions
in the poll would now oppose a referendum like the one that passed in 2006, which prohibited not only marriage but
"substantially similar" arrangements for same-sex couples.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...mesex-marriage-in-2006-qd9b221-200329861.html

 

[1sickbastard]

Instead of letting others define the debate in terms of whether same sex marriage should be legal or not, I'd like to ask a different question:
How is marriage any of the government's business at all?

 

[satindesire]

Instead of letting others define the debate in terms of whether same sex marriage should be legal or not, I'd like to ask a different question:
How is marriage any of the government's business at all?

It's really NOT the government's business at all. HOWEVER, they decided a long time ago that it was their business, so now we have to work within the parameters they've set.



So, now that we've gotten that out of the way,

I was surprised to read, that attitudes are shifting-

March 27, 2013

Every county in the state [Wisconsin] but one (Dane) voted for the ban. [on same sex marriage]
(Wisconsin's 2006 marriage referendum)

VS

".... it seems plausible that in addition to the 42% who favor same-sex marriage, some of those 26% who back civil unions
in the poll would now oppose a referendum like the one that passed in 2006, which prohibited not only marriage but
"substantially similar" arrangements for same-sex couples.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...mesex-marriage-in-2006-qd9b221-200329861.html

I'm personally really glad to see the shift towards human rights and equality in the last few years. I was talking about this in another thread just now with some friends, and we were discussing the fact that The Church is about to have a major reform. It's just a matter of time, the younger generations of people are striving towards equality and it's gaining so much momentum that it can't be stopped now.

It's a refreshing alternative to the hatred and bigotry that we saw from the last few hundred years, that's for sure. I long for the day that we don't have to worry about this anymore.

 

[fgarvb1]

I was surprised to read, that attitudes are shifting-

March 27, 2013

Every county in the state [Wisconsin] but one (Dane) voted for the ban. [on same sex marriage]
(Wisconsin's 2006 marriage referendum)

VS

".... it seems plausible that in addition to the 42% who favor same-sex marriage, some of those 26% who back civil unions
in the poll would now oppose a referendum like the one that passed in 2006, which prohibited not only marriage but
"substantially similar" arrangements for same-sex couples.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...mesex-marriage-in-2006-qd9b221-200329861.html

So was one of the Supreme Court Judges.

He asked a few awkward questions and reminded them of a few facts.

Regardless of what the media would have you believe this same sex marriage thing is Not a done deal or certain to win.

 

[John Doe]

It's really NOT the government's business at all. HOWEVER, they decided a long time ago that it was their business, so now we have to work within the parameters they've set.

No we don't.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Marriage is more complicated, than I thought it was.

I had blood taken for one test, before I married my Ogre Husband.
(This was before they knew anyone could get AIDS and HIV.)

(a) Parental consent not required if minor was previously married.
(b) Other statutory requirements apply.
(c) Younger parties may marry with parental consent.
(c) (2) Younger parties may marry with parental and judicial consent.
(d) Waiting period may be avoided
(e) Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child.
(f) Parties must file notice of intention to marry with local clerk.
(g) No age limits
(h) When unmarried man and unmarried woman, not minors, have been living together as man and wife,
they may, without health certificate, be married upon issuance of appropriate authorization.
(i) Venereal disease and rubella (for female)
(j) Residents, before expiration of 24 hour waiting period; non-residents, before expiration of 96 hour waiting period.
(k) Parental consent and/or permission of judge required.
(l) Unless parties are 18 years of age or more, or female is pregnant, or applicants are the parents of a living child born out of wedlock.
(m) Rubella for female; there are certain exceptions, and district judge may waive medical examination on proof that emergency exists.
Applicants must receive information on AIDS and certify having read it.
(o) Judicial consent may be given when parents refuse to consent.
(p) Venereal diseases; test for sickle cell anemia given at request of examining physician.
(q) Any unsterilized female under 50 must submit with application for license a medical report stating whether she had immunological
response to rubella, or a written record that the rubella vaccine was administered on or after her first birthday.
Judge may by order dispense with these requirements.
(r) If parties are at least 16 years of age, proof of age and consent of parties in person are required.
If a parent is ill an affidavit by the incapacitated parent and a physician's affidavit required.
(s) Doctor's certificate must be filed 30 days prior to notice of intention.
(t) Venereal diseases. In WV and OK, Circuit court judge may waive requirement
(u) Younger parties may obtain license in special circumstances.
(v) Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females.
(w) Tests for sickle cell may be required.
(x) Applicants under age 18 must state that they have had marriage counseling.
If one or both parties are below the age for marriage without parental consent, three day waiting period.
(z) If a party has no parent residing within state, and one party has residence in state for six months, no permission required.
(aa) Physical examination and blood test required; offer of HIV counseling required.
(bb) Unless parties are over 18 years of age.
(cc) 72 hour waiting period following issuance of license.
(dd) Authorizes counties to provide for premarital counseling as a requisite to issuance of license
to persons under 18 and persons previously divorced.
(ee) Required offer of HIV test, and/or must be provided with information on AIDS and tests available.
(ff) No exam required, but parties must file affidavit of non-affiliction with contagious venereal disease.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

It might have something to do with the well being of children, born from that marriage ?

 

[unregistered]

 

[satindesire]

No we don't.

Yeah. We do.

Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with law, but the government poked it's nose where it didn't belong and passed laws to ban same sex marriage. That's why we're working to get those laws revoked. What's to argue about this? That's just fact, my friend.

 

[1sickbastard]

It's really NOT the government's business at all. HOWEVER, they decided a long time ago that it was their business, so now we have to work within the parameters they've set.



So, now that we've gotten that out of the way,




I'm personally really glad to see the shift towards human rights and equality in the last few years. I was talking about this in another thread just now with some friends, and we were discussing the fact that The Church is about to have a major reform. It's just a matter of time, the younger generations of people are striving towards equality and it's gaining so much momentum that it can't be stopped now.



It's a refreshing alternative to the hatred and bigotry that we saw from the last few hundred years, that's for sure. I long for the day that we don't have to worry about this anymore.

While I do support all human rights, I refuse to let some entity define any terms because it can. It's the same sort of logic that says that what a person does with or puts into one's body is any one else's business.

In fact, I think we'd all be better off challenging well-meaning do-gooders and busybodies about their intrusiveness into our private lives. Don't let others get in one's business without a direct confrontation as to their right to get into said business.

Put "them" on the defensive. Make "them" spend the time and energy to justify "themselves" instead of letting "them" dictate the terms of any debate.

Fuck "them".

 

[satindesire]

While I do support all human rights, I refuse to let some entity define any terms because it can. It's the same sort of logic that says that what a person does with or puts into one's body is any one else's business.

In fact, I think we'd all be better off challenging well-meaning do-gooders and busybodies about their intrusiveness into our private lives. Don't let others get in one's business without a direct confrontation as to their right to get into said business.

Put "them" on the defensive. Make "them" spend the time and energy to justify "themselves" instead of letting "them" dictate the terms of any debate.

Fuck "them".

That's a great way to think and a great way to live in an ideal world, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where if I wanted to marry my girlfriend, I couldn't. That's not fair. So we need to correct that, posthaste.

Fact is, there are a lot of people who were content to sit by and say "Fuck Them" but that isn't fixing the problem. Activism is the only way to fix it. Voting is the only way to fix it. Being aggressive about it is the only way to fix it, and enough people are tired of sitting by and saying "Fuck Them" and now they're standing up and working towards change, which is the attitude we really need.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Ah, satindesire! Nice to see you on the GB, again.

I am glad that you brought up the point about the younger generation.

I have been living with much more liberal ideas, than my parents or grandparents.

I admire how the younger generations have many more choices, than I had.

I am sure they have different ideas about what works, than their parents or grandparents had.

I am hoping that none of our Supreme Court Judges think that it would be just fine, if slavery made a comeback.
(Though, in my opinion, mega-industries are trying to do just that. Wage slave, is not just a joke in 2013. )

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's really NOT the government's business at all. HOWEVER, they decided a long time ago that it was their business, so now we have to work within the parameters they've set.



So, now that we've gotten that out of the way,




I'm personally really glad to see the shift towards human rights and equality in the last few years. I was talking about this in another thread just now with some friends, and we were discussing the fact that The Church is about to have a major reform. It's just a matter of time, the younger generations of people are striving towards equality and it's gaining so much momentum that it can't be stopped now.

It's a refreshing alternative to the hatred and bigotry that we saw from the last few hundred years, that's for sure. I long for the day that we don't have to worry about this anymore.

Not so quick, theres a larger issue here.

If the Supremes dismiss the cases for want of legal advocates then it opens the door for any governor or president to deny justice to any cause they dislike.

 

[satindesire]

Ah, satindesire! Nice to see you on the GB, again.

I am glad that you brought up the point about the younger generation.

I have been living with much more liberal ideas, than my parents or grandparents.

I admire how the younger generations have many more choices, than I had.

I am sure they have different ideas about what works, than their parents or grandparents had.

I am hoping that none of our Supreme Court Judges think that it would be just fine, if slavery made a comeback.
(Though, in my opinion, mega-industries are trying to do just that. Wage slave, is not just a joke in 2013. )

It's good to see you again, too, sweetie!

You bring up a few excellent points that I agree with. The younger generations aren't just towing the opinion-line of their parents and grandparents now, and are exercising much more freedom of thought than any other generation(s) have in recent history. That's causing a cascade effect, all sorts of human rights injustices are being corrected because a lot of people are not only old enough to vote and make a difference, but ANGRY enough to. As I said above, sitting by and saying that it's wrong isn't enough anymore. The drive to correct injustice is key, and the exponential growth of socially liberal ideals like gay rights is becoming too large to ignore any longer.

It's just a matter of time now before we see major differences in the way the government treats LGBT people.

 

[bra_man69]

Not so quick, theres a larger issue here.

If the Supremes dismiss the cases for want of legal advocates then it opens the door for any governor or president to deny justice to any cause they dislike.

They already do so what's going change

 

[the_kuntess]

Instead of letting others define the debate in terms of whether same sex marriage should be legal or not, I'd like to ask a different question:
How is marriage any of the government's business at all?

The state becomes involved because of the legal contract status of marriage.

But other than that - it's nobody's business who marries who.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yeah. We do.

Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with law, but the government poked it's nose where it didn't belong and passed laws to ban same sex marriage. That's why we're working to get those laws revoked. What's to argue about this? That's just fact, my friend.

The question is: Does any society have a right to construct itself as it see's fit?

James Madison said Yes. He said that propositions be made, debated, voted up or down, and the outcome lived with.

 

[the_kuntess]

The question is: Does any society have a right to construct itself as it see's fit?

Sure, society, the 'collective entity' can construct itself as it sees fit for the greater good. But, as many individual choices as possible need to be preserved.

Who you marry, what invisible friend you worship, how often you travel....these are choices that can and should be accomodated in any society.

Mr Madison was reflecting his world view - at a time when homosexuality was not understood or accepted. I'm sure, that today, if asked his opinion directly - he would be in agreement with same sex marriage.

 

[John Doe]

Yeah. We do.

Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with law, but the government poked it's nose where it didn't belong and passed laws to ban same sex marriage. That's why we're working to get those laws revoked. What's to argue about this? That's just fact, my friend.

No. We don't.

If we can revoke those laws then how is that working within the parameters that have been set?

Anyway, just because the government says you can't change things that's no reason to believe it's true.

 

[John Doe]

The question is: Does any society have a right to construct itself as it see's fit?

James Madison said Yes. He said that propositions be made, debated, voted up or down, and the outcome lived with.

And now it's reconstructing itself as it sees fit. So what's your problem?

 

[1sickbastard]

That's a great way to think and a great way to live in an ideal world, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where if I wanted to marry my girlfriend, I couldn't. That's not fair. So we need to correct that, posthaste.

Fact is, there are a lot of people who were content to sit by and say "Fuck Them" but that isn't fixing the problem. Activism is the only way to fix it. Voting is the only way to fix it. Being aggressive about it is the only way to fix it, and enough people are tired of sitting by and saying "Fuck Them" and now they're standing up and working towards change, which is the attitude we really need.

Fair enough. What you're looking for is your relationship with your girlfriend to be enshrined in the legal system.
I get that and I support the idea of same sex relationships or any relationships between consenting adults be given validity.

On the other hand, real activism starts when one asks the really tough questions and defining the terms of the debate instead of letting the debate be defined by others.

Actually, the "Why is gov't in the marriage business?" is my favorite counter to those who object to same sex marriage on religious grounds.

It's not about living in an ideal world, it's about challenging basic assumptions of the world one lives in.

 

[1sickbastard]

The state becomes involved because of the legal contract status of marriage.

But other than that - it's nobody's business who marries who.

Legal or not is a determination by the state.
In essence you're saying that the state becomes involved because the state decided to become involved.

And because very few thought that said involvement was not within the gov't purview, now there's this social movement for folks to get the rights that they already had, but get them encoded in the legal system.

Which I applaud.

But I still think it's silly that people let gov't have that much power over their lives.

 

[satindesire]

No. We don't.

If we can revoke those laws then how is that working within the parameters that have been set?

Anyway, just because the government says you can't change things that's no reason to believe it's true.

Yes. We Do. It takes laws to change laws, it takes government to change government. We're working within the parameters by using lawyers to change laws, by going to the government to change what the government messed up.

Also, the bolded part? What are you even talking about? I never said or even implied that and so. yeah. Made no sense there buddy.

I honestly think you're having a completely different conversation than I am, but whatever milks your cow.

Fair enough. What you're looking for is your relationship with your girlfriend to be enshrined in the legal system.
I get that and I support the idea of same sex relationships or any relationships between consenting adults be given validity.

On the other hand, real activism starts when one asks the really tough questions and defining the terms of the debate instead of letting the debate be defined by others.

Actually, the "Why is gov't in the marriage business?" is my favorite counter to those who object to same sex marriage on religious grounds.

It's not about living in an ideal world, it's about challenging basic assumptions of the world one lives in.

Enshrined? No, just made legal and possible. Straight people can get married, that's legal. It's only fair that gays have the same right.

Challenging basic assumptions of the world is great but it isn't going to change the laws if that's the only thing you're doing.

 

[the_kuntess]

Legal or not is a determination by the state.
In essence you're saying that the state becomes involved because the state decided to become involved.

And because very few thought that said involvement was not within the gov't purview, now there's this social movement for folks to get the rights that they already had, but get them encoded in the legal system.

Which I applaud.

But I still think it's silly that people let gov't have that much power over their lives.

No. It's more from the aspect of when shit goes wrong and said married person(s) turn to the legislature to sort it because, usually money or something of value is involved. Marriage is an easy state to enter into but a complicated one to leave.

 

[John Doe]

Yes. We Do. It takes laws to change laws, it takes government to change government. We're working within the parameters by using lawyers to change laws, by going to the government to change what the government messed up.

No. We really don't. If the Founding Fathers had only "worked within established parameters" we would still be under British rule.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. How can you work within the parameters you're changing as you change them? That's completely illogical.

Also, the bolded part? What are you even talking about? I never said or even implied that and so. yeah. Made no sense there buddy.

I honestly think you're having a completely different conversation than I am, but whatever milks your cow.

You know, I don't really mind that people have statist and fascist opinions but when they present them as fact, that's when I have to object.

 

[mercury14]

31 states have laws against it.

A bunch of states rushed to make laws against it when then knew support for marriage equality was surging but hadn't become a majority yet. But since then popular opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of backing gay marriage so even in the absence of a SCOTUS decision those 31 states are going to be thinning out. In fact it used to be 32 until last November and two ballot initiatives trying to make it 34 failed.