Skip

One more knot gets tied, sort of
June 1, 2007 10:06 PM   Subscribe

New Hampshire approves same-sex unions with bipartisan, if contentious support, recognizing both in- and out-of-state unions and marriages. While New York's Eliot Spitzer follows up on a campaign promise, higher courts in California and Connecticut may make decisions on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage later this year, deciding if a civil union is an adequate legal substitution for marriage.
posted by Blazecock Pileon (23 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
One of the many neat things about this is that New Hampshire is the first state to permit civil unions without a lawsuit pending, or a court pointing to a copy of the state constitution and scowling.
posted by tepidmonkey at 10:19 PM on June 1, 2007


This is terrible. All the gays and lesbians will take all of the limited amount of marriage licenses each state issues, making it impossible for heterosexual people from getting married. A true attack on marriage.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:53 PM on June 1, 2007


Is the "glbt" tag appropriate? Will NH really recognize bi-sexual and transgender unions?

Why do g and l always have to be lumped in with b and t?
posted by three blind mice at 10:58 PM on June 1, 2007


Gays should be able to get married, so they can enjoy divorce! Spread the love.
posted by IronWolve at 11:13 PM on June 1, 2007


Is the "glbt" tag appropriate? Will NH really recognize bi-sexual and transgender unions?

Sure. The law only recognizes someone as male or female, so if males can wed males and females and females can wed males and females, well, that pretty much means any human can marry any other.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:24 PM on June 1, 2007


Sweet. Plus the whole weird personal tax-free thing up there means maybe NH will become rich gay mecca or something.
posted by mathowie at 11:29 PM on June 1, 2007


maybe NH will become rich gay mecca or something.

HAHAHAHAHHAA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAH

I sure hope so.
posted by lumpenprole at 1:18 AM on June 2, 2007


Activist judges done been promotin' the homo-SIN-uality! Activatin' with their judgin' right thar! Wait? What's that?
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:51 AM on June 2, 2007


I like that NPR map. Looks very similar to maps of the early days of the American revolution.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:36 AM on June 2, 2007


AWESOME. Now, how to convince the boyfriend that it is important to support such awesomeness by moving there...?
posted by bitter-girl.com at 5:42 AM on June 2, 2007


AWESOME. Now, how to convince the boyfriend that it is important to support such awesomeness by moving there...?

Yeah, but then you would be living in new Hampshire.
posted by delmoi at 6:41 AM on June 2, 2007


I'd be totally okay with some kind of Constitutional-level amendment barring same-sex marriage forever, so long as:

1) It would hold only for Christian marriage, or be set up in such a fashion that one could not force an organized religion to "marry" two or more persons.

2) Marriage ceased to confer any kind of civil or legal benefit, including by not limited to: taxes, parenting, inheritance, visitation rights, Blockbuster video cards, etc. You know, like every other weird gourd-shaking animist ceremony.

I think it's fairly bizarre. You don't see baptism or confirmation giving people special rights. At least, I don't think I missed out on anything by not being baptized. How is it that a guy who has spent years reading some musty old folk tales in Greek and Hebrew, wearing a funny costume, has the ability to confer these special rights and decide who won't get them? Can I get a guy wearing a horn-studded metal helmet to confer upon me the right to smite mine enemies, then pillage local towns?
posted by adipocere at 7:36 AM on June 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


How is it that a guy who has spent years reading some musty old folk tales in Greek and Hebrew, wearing a funny costume, has the ability to confer these special rights and decide who won't get them?

Uh, because that's not how it works? Good shot for the atheist brigade, but deciding who can and cannot get married is decided in courtrooms and legislatures.

Good for NH.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:51 AM on June 2, 2007


Yeah... tone it down a notch adipocere; people who get married in church don't get any special rights. In case you didn't know, you still have to go to a courthouse and get paperwork. In fact, you can skip the church altogether (*gasp*!), and just get the paperwork.
posted by odinsdream at 8:38 AM on June 2, 2007


Then why do I hear all of this "marriage is a Christian institution" stuff? What's with the *gasp* markedly more religious bent of the folks who wish to ban gay marriage? Some of the folks toting the signs around have some bits from Leviticus on them.

Arguing that it's merely law is disingenuous. It neither fools me nor convinces me. The push behind banning gay marriage is primarily religious in nature. Occasionally, someone will attempt to dress it up in "well, production of children is important to a society, and the nuclear family is the only way to do that" clothes, but I'm not buying it. It's like that long Orson Scott Card screed, which reads like it was written by a committee of high school debaters who went nudge nudge, wink wink all the way through it - arguing that society would collapse if people had same sex civil unions. Card is L.D.S. and dishonestly avoids stating his real influences.

These other arguments are purely so that the people pushing them don't have to just break down and say, "My pastor said Jesus doesn't like it." Everything else is sophistry.
posted by adipocere at 8:51 AM on June 2, 2007


Adipocere - yes, a lot of the anti-gay marriage is centered around Christian groups. A part of religion is a group of people with shared moral beliefs - however, for a society to function, there must also be shared moral beliefs. For religion, these beliefs are commandments, writings in holy books, words of leaders, etc etc. For governments, these are laws. Laws in a democracy are decided by the people in that democracy - therefore, if a large block of people (like the many Christians in the US) share a belief, it's reasonable that they would want to make it known. It's not giving religions any special power that any other group couldn't obtain via number of people/financial contributions to candidates that support their beliefs.

Also, for the record, not all Christians are anti-gay marriage.
posted by fermezporte at 9:08 AM on June 2, 2007


The problem is one of semantics. Generally, when people who are for gay marriage say so, what they mean is they are for legal rights between same-sex couples.* It's generally not about religion, though it can be.

When anti-gay marriage people say they're against gay marriage, they don't mean "in my church" kind of marriage.* They mean anything, anywhere, of any kind.

See - the difference is the religious groups want to push their morals and opinions on the rest of society, whereas the gay rights movement wants to be recognized as normal.

* Of course, there is a more complicated side here, where the legal term "civil union" should be enough, sometimes it isn't. For instance, some insurance companies have different rules for civil unions than marriages. Even though this is insane, it's still a fact. As a result, many pro gay marriage groups are taking the position that civil unions aren't enough, which is true, but not for religious reasons.

* Personally, I've found that the anti-gay marriage crowd doesn't make a distinction between marriage and civil unions. They aren't really aware that there is a legal marriage aside from the church-sanctioned one.
posted by odinsdream at 9:40 AM on June 2, 2007


Good points odinsdream - I just think its important to note that both the pro- and anti- gay marriage sides are trying to impose their beliefs (and being a bit of a devil's advocate I suppose)
posted by fermezporte at 9:50 AM on June 2, 2007


When anti-gay marriage people say they're against gay marriage, they don't mean "in my church" kind of marriage.* They mean anything, anywhere, of any kind.

You couldn't be more right. Their stock in trade is blurring the distinctions and making it look like they're really super-reasonable folk. All they're objecting to, after all, is those frenzied crazy homo-activists trying to subvert and distort and destroy the antediluvian institution of heterosexual marriage (an institution which, if history is any indicator, was never as solid and immovably fixed in the firmament as the Sacred Institutionalists like to make it seem).
posted by blucevalo at 10:28 AM on June 2, 2007


The modern concept of marriage goes back.. what, 75 years?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:54 PM on June 2, 2007


Perhaps the next Surgeon General can set them straight.
posted by homunculus at 1:04 PM on June 2, 2007


I just think its important to note that both the pro- and anti- gay marriage sides are trying to impose their beliefs

On the contrary. I 'm not trying to impose my beliefs about what constitutes marriage on anyone. I'm trying to defend people from having their beliefs imposed upon. You see, adam and steve's marriage does not in any way affect my marriage. That is a quantifiable fact.

If you think that your marriage is cheapened by someone else getting married that you don't agree with, you should take a long, slow look at who gets married.
posted by lumpenprole at 5:44 PM on June 2, 2007


One of the many neat things about this is that New Hampshire is the first state to permit civil unions without a lawsuit pending, or a court pointing to a copy of the state constitution and scowling.

Actually, California has had the functional equivalent of civil unions (called "registered domestic partnerships" here) since January 1, 2005, without any prompting by a lawsuit or court.
posted by mahamandarava at 6:01 PM on June 2, 2007


« Older The Myth of the Rational Voter   |   Dictatorships do it efficiently Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post