Same-sex marriage allowed in Sweden as of May 1, 2009. Maine on the verge as well.

GuilewasNK

GuilewasNK

CAGiversary!
Feedback
110 (100%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Sweden

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/Internatio...l.asp?ProgramID=2054&Format=1&artikel=2739765

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTkv.D...om/s/nm/20090501/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_maine_2

You know, I really wonder if the wording of the whole "no on Prop 8" thing is what threw people off in Califonia. I think if they simply said, "should same-sex marriage be allowed" it would have passed. The fact that most of New England and even Iowa are ahead of the curve compared to California baffles me.
 
Yeah, I think the phrasing caused that. Mostly because I think most people didn't do something like say... read the proposition.
 
It was also phrased "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

I'm sure it caused confusion, some people probably didn't even realize it was about homosexual marriages.

Ironically the LDS approved it, you would have thought they would have gone for the Utah special "Only marriage between a man and a woman or a man and a woman and a woman or a man and a woman and a woman and a woman etc. is valid or recognized in California."
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']

The fact that most of New England and even Iowa are ahead of the curve compared to California baffles me.[/QUOTE]



California (pre prop 8), Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut all had it legalized through court rulings. Vermont and New Hampshire (looks like Maine will join them as well) both had it legalized through the state legislature. If these were all put up to popular vote like they were in California, I think you'd be surprised by the results. I mean even Obama says he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'] The fact that most of New England and even Iowa are ahead of the curve compared to California baffles me.[/quote]

Going off of memory but, from what I remember there was a vocal group in Mass that were outraged by the courts decision. They wanted gay marriage to be brought up at the state house, but the politicians just sat on it. People like my dad, who as much as I love him has the thought process of your stereotypical Republican were pissed. A few years have passed and it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal anymore. I've lived out of the state for a while now but, not once have I heard him say anything about gay marriage.

I'm sure it would be similiar in any state. Let it be legal for a few years, show how little impact it has on anyone (besides gay people and Pier 1 Imports).
 
Ahead of the curve? California was way ahead of the curve by granting domestic partnerships rights nearly equal and in some ways superior to marriage.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/gaymarriageinformation/f/CADPvsMarriage.htm

You know what's really confusing? Leading a deceitful campaign that says you are being denied equal rights when you have had them all along (it's great for making everyone in opposition look like homophobic assholes though).

The reality is that this was never about rights. It was about trying to change public perception of normalcy. The problem is, telling people that the beliefs that they were brought up with are a bunch of garbage (whether they are or not) is generally not the best way to win them over. If anything, it breeds resentment and sets back the very cause you are trying to push forward.

It was a huge monetary loss for everyone and a major setback to the gay movement. All because some judges decided that their opinions were more important than the popular vote.
 
[quote name='Eltis'] All because some judges decided that their opinions were more important than the popular vote.[/quote]

Confused. I thought Judges opinions were more important than popular vote. Thats their job. Should we have taken a vote on Brown vs. board of education?
 
[quote name='homeland']Confused. I thought Judges opinions were more important than popular vote. Thats their job. Should we have taken a vote on Brown vs. board of education?[/QUOTE]

Constitutions are more important popular vote. But that's reconciled by the fact that they represent pre-existing compacts between the people. To the extent that judges are tasked with interpreting what a constitution says their opinions will trump the referendum.

But that doesn't mean judges are somehow the ultimate arbiters of morality as a consequence of their station.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Constitutions are more important popular vote. But that's reconciled by the fact that they represent pre-existing compacts between the people. To the extent that judges are tasked with interpreting what a constitution says their opinions will trump the referendum.

But that doesn't mean judges are somehow the ultimate arbiters of morality as a consequence of their station.[/QUOTE]

What Eltis is referring to is the fact that California passed a law (IIRC via referendum) that made marriage defined as between a man and a woman. It wasn't a constitutional amendment. The California Supreme Court decided to circumvent the will of the people and impose its version of what was best on the people of California, Prop 8 quickly gathered momentum, and here we are. It's a classic case of the court doing more harm than good to the cause it was trying to help. As I said in another thread, doing this by court fiat is a very, very bad idea for supporters of state-recognized gay marriage.
 
[quote name='Eltis']Ahead of the curve? California was way ahead of the curve by granting domestic partnerships rights nearly equal and in some ways superior to marriage.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/gaymarriageinformation/f/CADPvsMarriage.htm

You know what's really confusing? Leading a deceitful campaign that says you are being denied equal rights when you have had them all along (it's great for making everyone in opposition look like homophobic assholes though).
[/quote]

Last time I looked, it wasn't the gays who brought the whole Prop 8 thing on California.

It wasn't the gays who told everyone that their religious freedoms were doomed, that all churches would have to marry gay people, and that children would have to be taught gay marriage in school. But please, go ahead and blame the gays for being deceitful.

Also, last time I looked, I no longer have the same rights I did even eight months ago. I can now get a divorce, but I can't get remarried. So please tell me how my rights are "equal"?

Domestic partnership is not superior to marriage in any meaningful way. Domestic partnership will not:

- grant your domestic partner citizenship or protect them from deportation
- grant the relationship any federal standing
- result in equal treatment for a variety of health, survivorship, and insurance/inheritance related situations

Is it close? Yeah. Is it equal? No. There are many little differences that are quite a pain. My taxes were a fucking nightmare this year, all due to differences in how registered domestic partners, married couples, and same-sex married couples are treated.

Also note that domestic partnership is wonderful if you stay in California. Once you step outside, it's worthless. Don't take my word for it. See what could happen if you visit Florida.

The reality is that this was never about rights. It was about trying to change public perception of normalcy. The problem is, telling people that the beliefs that they were brought up with are a bunch of garbage (whether they are or not) is generally not the best way to win them over. If anything, it breeds resentment and sets back the very cause you are trying to push forward.

It was a huge monetary loss for everyone and a major setback to the gay movement. All because some judges decided that their opinions were more important than the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's all the judges fault. Those damned Republican appointed activist judges that are apparently incapable of deciding that a law is unconstitutional.

And the gays. They should just wait until everyone is comfortable with them. However long that takes.
 
[quote name='camoor']

Ironically the LDS approved it, you would have thought they would have gone for the Utah special "Only marriage between a man and a woman or a man and a woman and a woman or a man and a woman and a woman and a woman etc. is valid or recognized in California."[/QUOTE]

Your cleverism would have succeeded in being clever, if only: A) LDS practiced or advocated the practice of polygamy in the past 100 years, and B) Polygamy was legal in Utah in the past 100 years.

[quote name='JJSP']I thought we decided long ago that "separate but equal" was wrong.[/QUOTE]

That all depends on if you believe defining words and phrases is just as important as practiced and legal equal rights.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']California (pre prop 8), Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut all had it legalized through court rulings. Vermont and New Hampshire (looks like Maine will join them as well) both had it legalized through the state legislature. If these were all put up to popular vote like they were in California, I think you'd be surprised by the results. I mean even Obama says he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.[/quote]

Bingo. And California has had multiple votes on this but over and over again the courts say the people are stupid.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That all depends on if you believe defining words and phrases is just as important as practiced and legal equal rights.[/quote]
Yeah, we know. You want to do away with "marriage" all together. Everyone gets a civil union. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone eliminating the concept of "marriage" any time soon.

I don't, haven't, and never will see the reasoning for why anyone would not want gays to be able to be "married". The only reasoning that ever comes up is "it's how I was raised and it's what I believe in", which holds about as much weight as "I was raised to believe in gay marriage". The anti-gay marriage crowd shoots that down as being ridiculous just as much as the pro-gay marriage crowd does.

Gays being allowed the right to get married doesn't affect anyone's lives other than the potential married couple. Zero impact on anyone's day to day behavior and another source of income for the state, save for the God-fearing conservatives afraid that their kids will think gay marriage will convince them that being gay is okay and acceptable. Tolerant kids that don't freak out and bitch over shit that doesn't concern them, who would want that?

I wish we'd stop treating homosexuality as socially deviant behavior.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Bingo. And California has had multiple votes on this but over and over again the courts say the people are stupid.[/QUOTE]

The people don't have an interest in having their constitution protected?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Bingo. And California has had multiple votes on this but over and over again the courts say the people are stupid.[/quote]

That is is the larger issue that is getting lost in all the same-sex marriage noise.

Do the people of California have the right to change the laws however they want? Even if the new law is illegal? Immoral? Unconstitutional? Unfair?

Where do you draw the line? Should the initiative process be scrapped? Changed? Limited?

In some ways, the people of California are stupid. They believed the Mormons (2% of the population) who told them a bunch of blatantly untrue things in order to deny rights to gays (another 2% of the population). Both groups spent an astonishing amount of money that would have been better spent on just about anything.

The people of California are getting a chance in a couple of weeks to confirm how stupid they are. There's a bunch of ballot propositions intended to fix the budget. No one likes them, but if they fail, the state is going into financial freefall. All of the current polls show they are going to be voted down. Go California voters!

But then, who can blame them when the initiative process is so stupid. Should Californians -- the overwhelming majority of whom are not affected by gay marriage in any tangible way -- be allowed to vote on who can get married? Should Californians vote on budget matters because the legislature and the governor are too chickenshit to do what it takes and work out a real and workable compromise?

Should I be allowed to gather signatures on an initiative to deny marriage to Mormons? Should it be immune to judicial review if the public votes it in? If Prop 8 stands, why not? Democracy in action!

Judges are there to protect people from bad laws and from their own stupidity. If they were there to rubberstamp whatever idiot laws the legislature and the public put in, there'd be no reason to have them.
 
[quote name='JJSP']
Gays being allowed the right to get married doesn't affect anyone's lives other than the potential married couple. Zero impact on anyone's day to day behavior and another source of income for the state, save for the God-fearing conservatives afraid that their kids will think gay marriage will convince them that being gay is okay and acceptable. Tolerant kids that don't freak out and bitch over shit that doesn't concern them, who would want that?

I wish we'd stop treating homosexuality as socially deviant behavior.[/QUOTE]

I wish we'd stop saying untruths. Homosexuals are allowed the right to marriage. Everyone is allowed the right to marriage. The "right" you are misinterpreting is the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Redefine your terms. It confuses people and detracts from your arguments when talking amongst intellectuals. But as for the rest of your argument, I believe God-fearing conservatives would be more acceptable in calling the union between gay's a civil union and grant the same (and imo unfair) privileges to them as well. Then, if gays really want the approval of the church (which i don't think will ever happen) they can make a move to call the civil union a "marriage" after a few years (but again, there will be stiff opposition to that). I believe that Conservatives basically want the word to be traditionally defined- as btw man and woman- and don't really care if gays live together (they already do). I say, let the conservatives have their word and just call it a union for now. There's very little opposition to that. Can you all live with that?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'] The fact that most of New England and even Iowa are ahead of the curve compared to California baffles me.[/quote]
Actually the Iowa Supreme Court has always been ahead of the curve on civil rights issues.
Of course if we're as far ahead of the curve on gay marriage as we were on other issues it will be about 100 years before the US Supreme Court makes gay marriage legal. ;)
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Judges are there to protect people from bad laws and from their own stupidity. If they were there to rubberstamp whatever idiot laws the legislature and the public put in, there'd be no reason to have them.[/QUOTE]

This is demonstrably untrue. Judges are in place to interpret laws, not to decide what legitimately-passed laws are "bad" or "stupid." Judges only should invalidate a law when it conflicts with a higher law, such as the state constitution when considering a state law. Laws can be bad, or stupid, or both, yet be perfectly legal. We have plenty that are that way, in fact. But it is not a judge's job to legislate these away, being as they are not legislators. When judges legislate from the bench, they are acting as if they are elected politicians, yet they are not accountable to the voters to protect their impartiality. So when they do this, they damage the system they are sworn to protect.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']Actually the Iowa Supreme Court has always been ahead of the curve on civil rights issues.
Of course if we're as far ahead of the curve on gay marriage as we were on other issues it will be about 100 years before the US Supreme Court makes gay marriage legal. ;)[/quote]


Iowa rocks! The state that is always mocked then the rest of the country follows their example.....not to mention we brought all you people Asthon Kutcher and Frodo.
 
[quote name='tivo']I wish we'd stop saying untruths. Homosexuals are allowed the right to marriage. Everyone is allowed the right to marriage. The "right" you are misinterpreting is the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. Redefine your terms. [/quote]

That's a complete red herring. Are two homosexuals allowed to marry? No. Therefore; homosexuals can not get married. That's the same thing as some guy whom gets mad when someone says "can" instead of "may".
 
Uh, nobody mentioned the real reason for the Prop 8 debacle. Put it on the ballot again and it'll be fine.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Uh, nobody mentioned the real reason for the Prop 8 debacle. Put it on the ballot again and it'll be fine.[/quote]

You do know that Prop 8 was the second time this has come up, right? And both times the people of California have voted in favor of traditional marriage. It also seems like for the second time, judges will once again call those people stupid.

If Judges want to start invalidating laws, how about they invalidate election results again and again until they get what they want. Oh wait, that's exactly what they're doing here.
 
A public vote in favor of something can happen infinite times and still be unconstitutional. It's not as if a second public vote makes it *less* unconstitutional.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A public vote in favor of something can happen infinite times and still be unconstitutional. It's not as if a second public vote makes it *less* unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

Except for the fact that this time they changed the constitution, so by definition it can't be "unconstitutional." So yes, in fact, the second vote did make it "less unconstitutional."
 
It still has to abide by the federal constitution.

Marijuana possession has been decriminalized in Boulder, CO. But the police and authorities there are still obliged to CO state law and US federal law - so it's still illegal to possess marijuana in Boulder.
 
Well wouldn't it be simply that the police of Boulder can't do anything, but state police and federal authorities could? I guess the Boulder police could call one of them if they really cared.
 
^ No. They're not obligated to follow one set of laws and not others. That would be a quick and easy way to killing off federal laws, then, wouldn't it?

They're obliged to follow all laws hierarchically.
 
Well its been almost a week in Iowa since homosexual started getting officially married, and let me tell everyone...its awful! The moral fabric of my entire being is nearly destroyed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ No. They're not obligated to follow one set of laws and not others. That would be a quick and easy way to killing off federal laws, then, wouldn't it?

They're obliged to follow all laws hierarchically.[/quote]
It was my understanding that local police enforce local laws, so on and so on. Meaning that local police couldn't arrest someone for doing something that isn't locally illegal, but say the FBI could if it was federally illegal.
 
Nope. Not the case.

They can arrest, but they probably won't file charges or prosecute - especially if it's a federal violation (say, mailing out anthrax via mailed letters that cross state lines and kill people there - it's no longer a local issue).

There's a lot of collaboration, and boundaries - so you're not completely wrong. I think I understand what you're getting at. But local authorities cannot disregard state and federal law.
 
I just remember something being discussed about the legalization of pot once. People were warned that local authorities weren't a worry, but the feds were. I think maybe a small amount had bee legalized in the area, but of course having it at all is still federally illegal.
 
[quote name='gareman']That's a complete red herring. Are two homosexuals allowed to marry? No. Therefore; homosexuals can not get married. That's the same thing as some guy whom gets mad when someone says "can" instead of "may".[/QUOTE]

It may be but its also the LAW. That's how its currently practiced, at least in most states. Is polygamy acknowledged in the US? Should we whine and complain for their "rights" to marry as many people as they want? If you think that homosexuals are being persecuted, then you;d also want to help those individuals who want group marriage, polygamy, human-animal marriage, posthumous marriage, etc. to be acknowledged because they can't marry who they want as well. If you are all as liberal and progressive as you all think you are, you'd be fighting for these b.s. relationships as well. Well are you? Changing the law to acknowledge all of these different unions wont affect your life, so join up with these other freaks and create PROGRESSIVE CHANGE.
 
[quote name='tivo']It may be but its also the LAW. That's how its currently practiced, at least in most states. Is polygamy acknowledged in the US? Should we whine and complain for their "rights" to marry as many people as they want? If you think that homosexuals are being persecuted, then you;d also want to help those individuals who want group marriage, polygamy, human-animal marriage, posthumous marriage, etc. to be acknowledged because they can't marry who they want as well. If you are all as liberal and progressive as you all think you are, you'd be fighting for these b.s. relationships as well. Well are you? Changing the law to acknowledge all of these different unions wont affect your life, so join up with these other freaks and create PROGRESSIVE CHANGE.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

Oh my god, I don't even know where to begin. Are you *really* this retarded?
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']:rofl:

Oh my god, I don't even know where to begin. Are you *really* this retarded?[/QUOTE]

This came to mind:

kb66pe.gif
 
[quote name='tivo']It may be but its also the LAW. That's how its currently practiced, at least in most states. Is polygamy acknowledged in the US? Should we whine and complain for their "rights" to marry as many people as they want? If you think that homosexuals are being persecuted, then you;d also want to help those individuals who want group marriage, polygamy, human-animal marriage, posthumous marriage, etc. to be acknowledged because they can't marry who they want as well. If you are all as liberal and progressive as you all think you are, you'd be fighting for these b.s. relationships as well. Well are you? Changing the law to acknowledge all of these different unions wont affect your life, so join up with these other freaks and create PROGRESSIVE CHANGE.[/quote]
I don't think anybody would argue that marriage should be between two human beings.

Although if a cat wanted to marry a dog, i wouldn't stand in it's way.:lol:
 
[quote name='gareman']Well its been almost a week in Iowa since homosexual started getting officially married, and let me tell everyone...its awful! The moral fabric of my entire being is nearly destroyed.[/quote]
So very true! I except Iowa to turn into a Fallout style wasteland any day now.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It still has to abide by the federal constitution.

Marijuana possession has been decriminalized in Boulder, CO. But the police and authorities there are still obliged to CO state law and US federal law - so it's still illegal to possess marijuana in Boulder.[/QUOTE]

True, but I am unaware of any provision in the U.S. Constitution that stipulates what marriages states shall recognize. I guess you would argue under the equal protection clause with some merit, but I'm not sure that could convince a court.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']True, but I am unaware of any provision in the U.S. Constitution that stipulates what marriages states shall recognize. I guess you would argue under the equal protection clause with some merit, but I'm not sure that could convince a court.[/QUOTE]

Substantive due process? Worked in Loving.

Though it may be rather easy to persuade the Court to distinguish this from miscegenation.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']So very true! I except Iowa to turn into a Fallout style wasteland any day now.[/quote]

Scenes out of Sweden are not promising.

gay-pride-parade.jpg


Save them SARAH!!
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']:rofl:

Oh my god, I don't even know where to begin. Are you *really* this retarded?[/QUOTE]

no, tell me what's so funny. what's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy except that gay marriage has 0% chance of creating offspring and is arguably a worse environment for raising children in?
 
[quote name='tivo']no, tell me what's so funny. what's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy except that gay marriage has 0% chance of creating offspring and is arguably a worse environment for raising children in?[/QUOTE]

So wait, the only reason for marriage is to create and raise offspring? You also have any actual evidence to back up that claim about environment?
 
[quote name='tivo']no, tell me what's so funny. what's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy except that gay marriage has 0% chance of creating offspring and is arguably a worse environment for raising children in?[/quote]

:rofl: It's like he's 12!
 
[quote name='tivo']except that gay marriage has 0% chance of creating offspring [/quote]
For the sake of humanity, please become gay.
 
[quote name='docvinh']So wait, the only reason for marriage is to create and raise offspring? You also have any actual evidence to back up that claim about environment?[/QUOTE]

Reread my post. I said:

what's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy except that gay marriage has 0% chance of creating offspring and is arguably a worse environment for raising children in?
Click to expand...

I never said that the only reason for marriage is to create and raise children. As for my claim that gay marriage is arguably a worse environment for raising children in, I base that on the common held view that children who are raised without fathers have:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
Click to expand...

And I'm guessing children without mother's don't fare any much better. Can a gay man or woman replace the role of the other gender? Possibly, but probably not as well as the real thing. Can a group of women or men replace the role of single man or woman as in polygamy? Yes, and probably even better than a single person as in traditional marriage. You can argue against this idea but that's why as I stated before, gay marriage is arguably a worse environment for raising children in compared to polygamy.



Now that I answered your comments, answer mine: What's the difference between gay marriage and group marriage/polygamy. Why don't I hear you advocating for the acknowledgment of polygamy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top