Join 3,496 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The states of marriage
October 10, 2008 9:13 AM   Subscribe

Just as a California campaign for a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (allowed since June 16, 2008) is heating up the Connecticut Supreme Court has followed suit and overturned bans on same-sex marriage in that state.

They are the third state in the nation to do so, following California earlier this year and Massachusetts in 2004. New York State does not perform, but does recognize as legally-valid, such marriages.
posted by liketitanic (86 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Over 11,000 couples have married in California since June.
posted by liketitanic at 9:17 AM on October 10, 2008


First birth control, now this -- every so often I wonder what there is that's noteworthy about my home state, and then something like this happens, and I go "oh, yeah, there's something."

Yay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:18 AM on October 10, 2008


Sigh...I wonder if the Supremes in my state of Vermont will get with the programme...
posted by paddbear at 9:20 AM on October 10, 2008


Go Connecticut. I'm getting married in my home state, California, before the Yes on 8 ban goes into effect next month. Then we may fly to Connecticut and Massachusetts and do the same thing there. We'll go and do the same thing over and over in every state in the Union that overturns the marriage bans if we have to until there is a federal law that does the same thing. Probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I can dream.
posted by blucevalo at 9:21 AM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Thank Jah for this: perhaps it do something to wash away the stain on our Nutmeg souls for having inflicted Lieberman and the Bush family on the nation.
posted by Kinbote at 9:23 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whoo hoo!

A good friend of mine is getting married to his partner in Massachusetts on Monday.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:24 AM on October 10, 2008


In late 2006 or maybe 2007 I heard that NH was going to allow same-sex marriage, but I haven't heard anything since then. Maybe they allow civil unions, not "marriage"? Or maybe it didn't pass?
posted by DU at 9:27 AM on October 10, 2008


bluecevalo, you won't have to (unless you want to)--your CA marriage will be recognized in those states! You can, however, also file for a domestic partnership in CA.
posted by liketitanic at 9:27 AM on October 10, 2008


It's heartening but agonizing to watch the slow-motion creep of justice. 20 years from now, when gay marriage is legal throughout the United States and no longer a big issue, people will look back on this and say "Why did it take so long?"
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:28 AM on October 10, 2008 [7 favorites]


I disagree with today's State Supreme Court ruling but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.
- Gov. M. Jodi Rell
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:29 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


If Connecticut wants to boost their tourist popularity nows the time to develop a Love Parade a la Berlin.
I'm not even gay but goddamn is it fun to party with people who are!
posted by mannequito at 9:30 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wooo! Now go give money to defeat Prop 8 in California, Amendment 2 in Florida, and Act 1 in Arkansas.
posted by Mavri at 9:31 AM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Interesting that no one has yet made the (specious) claim that the timing will throw the election to McCain.
posted by DU at 9:31 AM on October 10, 2008


I heard that NH was going to allow same-sex marriage, but I haven't heard anything since then.

[New Hampshire] Civil Unions, Six Months Later.

posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:35 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


My home state does something right! It's heartening to know that same-sex couples now have another place to buy ridiculously overpriced houses and stare blankly at the fall foliage.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 9:35 AM on October 10, 2008


Way to go CT!

And I have to respect the Governor for saying that. I find the opinion vile, but he said he'd put his duty of office before his personal feelings. That's worth something.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:37 AM on October 10, 2008


Equality California (Prop 8)

AZ Together (a repeat of a same-sex marriage ban)

Equality Florida (constitutional strengthening of existing ban)

Good places to put your money if you can't stomach the Obama juggernaut.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:39 AM on October 10, 2008


Good.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:40 AM on October 10, 2008


Anyone from CA able to provide a realistic outlook on Prop 8 right now? Last I heard there were conflicting polls both for and against the ban by large margins.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:41 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


So now Lieberman can make if official and marry Bush.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:41 AM on October 10, 2008 [6 favorites]


but he said he'd put his duty of office before his personal feelings.

She, FYI. I would be surprised to hear a male governor named "Jodi" opposing gay marriage.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:42 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


It will be interesting to see how the legal battles play out WRT the full faith and credit clause and the holdout states who do not want same-sex marriage.

Personally I suspect the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be found unconstitutional, but I'm by no means an expert (as evidenced by me citing Wikipedia).
posted by exogenous at 9:47 AM on October 10, 2008


I'm gay. I live in Connecticut. I'm not getting married again anytime soon, but right now, I'm so happy I'm just going to burst.
posted by houseofdanie at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


"Following a recent spate of television and radio ads on behalf of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, a new poll suggests a rise in support for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would block gay men and lesbians from marrying.

The new poll found that 47 percent expected to vote yes on Proposition 8, which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, while 42 percent expected to vote no. That is a notable difference from a SurveyUSA poll released Sept. 25 which found 44 percent planned to vote yes, while 49 percent planned to vote no — an apparent 10 point swing."
posted by rtha at 9:50 AM on October 10, 2008


Link to CT opinion (pdf).
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:51 AM on October 10, 2008


Anyone from CA able to provide a realistic outlook on Prop 8 right now? Last I heard there were conflicting polls both for and against the ban by large margins.

It's confusing. My understanding is that a huge cash infusion by the Yes on 8 folks led to a change in polling results this week, turning out a margin for the ban when last week the polls showed a margin against. I also believe that some Yes on 8 ads claim that churches will lose their tax-exempt status, which is pure scare-tactic propaganda. I think it could be too close to call until the ballots come in--though Equality California did just launch a new ad.
posted by liketitanic at 9:51 AM on October 10, 2008


Please do donate. I've married the same awesome woman four times now, and I'd rather not be annulled AGAIN. (Although it is unclear if this would happen; if Prop 8 passes, the only sure thing is years of lawsuits.)
posted by rtha at 9:51 AM on October 10, 2008


First I'm happy every time this happens, and then I'm sad because it shouldn't have to.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:51 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


Although I like the result of the ruling, I can't help but think that the same result achieved by a democratic process wouldn't result in much less rancor since it would take away the arguments of opponents of gay marriage who say that the judiciary was going against the will of the people.
posted by gyc at 9:53 AM on October 10, 2008


Thanks, claudiacenter. I Posted While Excited. Oops.
posted by liketitanic at 9:53 AM on October 10, 2008


Astro Zombie: The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.
posted by Inkoate at 9:59 AM on October 10, 2008


opponents of gay marriage who say that the judiciary was going against the will of the people.

These people fail to understand the entire purpose of a judiciary branch of government.
posted by odinsdream at 10:05 AM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


My mother called me not 10 minutes after the decision was announced and asked if we'd picked a date yet. Oh, and YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! We're just a little giddy here in the Land of Steady Habits.
posted by spinturtle at 10:09 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


If any Mefite-same-sex-brides-or-grooms-to-be send me a note, I'll donate to Equality California in honor of your marriage. I would be thrilled to.
posted by liketitanic at 10:12 AM on October 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Fuck. It's times like this that I really hate being unemployed, because it would be really nice to be able to donate to some of these things. I've already given more then I can afford to Obama, and I'm worried about being able to afford my Child's Play donation, too. It's really enormously frustrating.
posted by Caduceus at 10:14 AM on October 10, 2008


Oh, um, and go Connecticut!
posted by Caduceus at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2008


Amazingly, as a straight man, married to a woman, I have not noticed any ill effects on marriage by this ruling. How is this possible? I had been assured our marriage would burst into flame, or become invalid, or something awful, the day gays could marry too.
I'm quite relieved.
posted by cccorlew at 10:27 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


Reason #5141 that other votes should not be tangled up in the process of a Presidential (or Congressional) election. Straight manipulation.
posted by rokusan at 10:27 AM on October 10, 2008


Amazingly, as a straight man, married to a woman, I have not noticed any ill effects on marriage by this ruling.

We're working on it! But things have been so busy - we've got hurricanes to steer into innocent Christian cities, and, um, economies to bankrupt (has anyone blamed us for that yet?), and weddings to plan, and people to corrupt. Busy busy busy!
posted by rtha at 10:34 AM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


My wife just came back from a marriage of two of our friends in California. Unfortunately I was away for work and couldn't go, and I bitterly regret it. Ed is a stocky dude from Colorado with with a bald head and an awesome biker beard, and his husband(!Yay!) Rik is a shortass Korean-Hawaiian dude with an equally awesome Zen master beard. They came across for our wedding last year and had a rare old time. You haven't had cognitive dissonance until you've seen a couple of California bears in kilts roaring it up with all your Scottish friends and family.

The wedding was, from the videos and photos I've seen, a multiracial, multisexual celebration of life in its most joyous sense. Family from Hawaii, Colorado, Korea, Japan and friends from all over the world. All coming together because two men they cared about finally have the legal right to call their loving relationship a marriage.

Ed gave a stump speech at the dinner. On the happiest day of his life, he stood up and told everyone at the wedding that the right he had just enjoyed was not seen as a right by some others, and that unless all the people there went out and spoke to people, showed them photos of their ceremony and tried to get across that there were two human beings who loved each other here, nothing more and nothing less, then his marriage to Rik ran the risk of being destroyed.

That's what that proposition is. It's a vote to destroy loving marriages of people you've never met who are people nonetheless. It's cowardly and its bigoted and its utterly pointless and hypocritical moralising in a supposedly free and equal society. My only hope is that it will be viewed in twenty years as miscengenation laws are viewed now.

Personally, I will take the example of the eighty-something Japanese uncle who stood up at the end of the meal and proposed a toast to Ed and Rik, and told everyone he wanted the people on the ship across the bay to hear them, then screamed "BANZAI" at the top of his lungs.

BANZAI indeed, elderly Japanese uncle, BANZAI indeed. The best changes in our society start with relentless charges forward, and damn the consequences. What's happening in California, Massachusetts and now Conneticut is a step toward a better world. Hurrah for the legislators!
posted by Happy Dave at 10:43 AM on October 10, 2008 [27 favorites]


Interesting that no one has yet made the (specious) claim that the timing will throw the election to McCain.

DU, I think this is only (thankfully) specious because rabid dogs with a taste for liberal blood at the polling stations couldn't throw the election to McCain at this point (knock on wood.) Bush used this issue pretty effectively four years ago, though, so yeah, the thought did cross my mind. Still ain't gonna happen this time around, though.

Anyway, the world just got better today. Isn't that cool?
posted by Navelgazer at 10:44 AM on October 10, 2008


This is so gay.
posted by notmydesk at 10:47 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


dramatic chord

No one expects the Gay Agenda! Among our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, hurricanes, wedding rehearsals, an almost fanatical devotion to corrupting young Christians and nice hair!
posted by stavrogin at 10:51 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


20 years from now, when gay marriage is legal throughout the United States and no longer a big issue, fundamentalists will look back on this and say "Where's the bestiality you promised us?"
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:54 AM on October 10, 2008 [8 favorites]


forty-seven more to go!

plus territories and such.
posted by rmd1023 at 11:00 AM on October 10, 2008


This is so gay fabulous. In every damn sense of the word.
posted by piratebowling at 11:06 AM on October 10, 2008


Amazingly, as a straight man, married to a woman, I have not noticed any ill effects on marriage by this ruling. How is this possible?

Barney Frank on "Real Time With Bill Maher":
"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."
posted by ericb at 11:06 AM on October 10, 2008 [6 favorites]


God, those "yes on prop 8" commercials are some of the most vile, misleading, homophobic and disgusting political ads that I've ever seen. I'm ashamed to live in the same state as these people.
posted by malocchio at 11:17 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


She, FYI. I would be surprised to hear a male governor named "Jodi" opposing gay marriage.

OTOH, you'd also be surprised that's she's a Republican in CT, even after the immediately prior Republican governor went to prison for fraud.
posted by smackfu at 11:19 AM on October 10, 2008


Amazingly, as a straight man, married to a woman, I have not noticed any ill effects on marriage by this ruling. How is this possible?

Yeah. My sister lives in Connecticut with a husband and three boys. Will the state still recognize her marriage? I mean, it was performed in Texas, and before this ruling, so her heterosexual marriage should at least be grandfathered in, right? Also, while the boys are barely reaching school age now, at what age will they be forced to may other men? And what about when I go to visit her? Where does that leave me? I'm very confused by all this.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:20 AM on October 10, 2008


Something Positive showed us the horror this sort of thing unloosed on Canada....

Seriously, this is fantastic news. I imagine much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the fundies, and I shall sit back and enjoy it with smug schadenfreude.

Also, as repugnant as I find Gov. Rell's opinion, I find her refusal to stand in the way of progress to be admirable. Also, where the heck did Connecticut find a Republican who understands the concept of separation of powers and is there any way we can get Republicans like her into positions of power in the national party?
posted by sotonohito at 11:24 AM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


...a new poll suggests a rise in support for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would block gay men and lesbians from marrying.

Well listen, I may be going against the grain here, but I just don't think gay men should be marrying lesbians.









Huzzah Connecticut!
posted by Mister_A at 11:39 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


bluecevalo, you won't have to (unless you want to)--your CA marriage will be recognized in those states!

liketitanic, point well taken ..... it would be more for the symbolism than anything else.

You can, however, also file for a domestic partnership in CA.

Yep, we did that as soon as we got hitched in SF in 2001.
posted by blucevalo at 11:40 AM on October 10, 2008


A good friend of mine was ragging on Connecticut just this morning (for reasons entirely unrelated to same-sex marriage). Just sent this to her. Good for Connecticutians!!
posted by BaxterG4 at 11:56 AM on October 10, 2008




Connecticut Republicans, and New Englanders in general, are more into individual social rights, or, as my fellow New Englanders might think of it, the right for individuals to do as they choose, than others might think.

I was born in Connecticut, about a mile from where Jodi Rell now lives. In the 70s, there was a gay male couple living up the street. Everyone knew they were gay, they clearly had a long-term relationship, but I don't think anyone in the town gave them a hard time. They were as much a part of the neighborhood as anyone else.
posted by zippy at 12:07 PM on October 10, 2008


Not saying there's only been one gay male couple since the 70s, just making the point that my town, which might seem pretty conservative to outsiders, was OK with gay long-term relationships decades ago.
posted by zippy at 12:09 PM on October 10, 2008


I think all ballot measures banning gay marriage should automatically include an addendum which outlaws divorce in absolutely every circumstance. If you're about strengthening marriage, put your money where your mouth is.
posted by mullingitover at 12:13 PM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


God, those "yes on prop 8" commercials are some of the most vile, misleading, homophobic and disgusting political ads that I've ever seen.

Indeed. They get very close to the "What's next? Are people going to be able to marry their dogs next?" scariness. Equating gay people with dogs. Nice.

The fact that two people cannot biologically produce a child together nullifies their ability to pledge a lifelong bond to one another? I guess that rules out any infertile or post-menopausal women from marriage too. And we might as well subject the guys to sperm count tests before that license is signed, just to make sure...
posted by queensissy at 12:17 PM on October 10, 2008


I'm actually pretty impressed by my adopted state. Much more than some of the political crap I've seen flying around my home state down south lately...
posted by pupdog at 12:35 PM on October 10, 2008


When I helped start the gay-straight alliance at my fairly conservative New Haven prep school back in the early 90s, I never would have dreamed this day would come. GO CONNECTICUT!

Also, where the heck did Connecticut find a Republican who understands the concept of separation of powers and is there any way we can get Republicans like her into positions of power in the national party?
posted by sotonohito at 1:24 PM on October 10 [+] [!]


Outside of New England I think they're called "independents" or sometimes "Democrats"
posted by jtron at 12:50 PM on October 10, 2008


From the decision:
We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect... sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification... and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.
Go Nutmeg State!
posted by jenkinsEar at 1:11 PM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


“I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut.”

Fuck ‘em. The majority of people think the first amendment gives people too much freedom as well.

I don’t mind the slow change (given that there’s ultimately a proper resolution). People need to be able to predict and get used to stuff otherwise you can have a lot of unrest.
Y’know, looking back 30 + years I thought Goldwater had some very reasonable and cogent arguments regarding some of the laws on civil rights and the constitution etc.

But at some point you have to just say ‘fuck it, it’s time.’

The less hate there is in the world the less likely any of it will be directed my way for some thing I do that the majority of people feel they just don’t like and want the government to do something about.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:08 PM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


sotonohito, the EPA has long classified the liberal Republican as an endangered species. Its range is primarily limited to the New England states, though they are occasionally found west of the Hudson and arguably as far south as Maryland. One of the more magnificent specimens, affectionately nicknamed "Rocky", was spotted migrating even to the District of Columbia, but was last seen back in New York, according to some observers in the process of seeking a mate. In the 1980s a virus called revolutionus reaganii nearly brought the species to extinction, as in their weakened state they were no match for the stronger blue variety that is now dominant in the region, and the numbers have never really recovered. The remaining specimens have largely interbred with the more conventional red variety and have lost much of their distinctive features, although if you cut one it may have blue blood even today.
posted by dhartung at 2:28 PM on October 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Many of the Republicans here in Connecticut could easily pass for Democrats down south. I'm so liberal that my skin has a blue cast to it, but I've voted Republican in several local and even Congressional elections.
posted by houseofdanie at 2:36 PM on October 10, 2008


S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom
"Today, the Connecticut Supreme Court took an historic step by joining California and Massachusetts in the fight to provide marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. The Court’s decision to overturn Connecticut’s ban on equal marriage rights indicates that all across the country, communities are reaching the conclusion that separate is not equal, and that we should not harm our friends, neighbors and coworkers by denying them equal treatment under the law.

Our task now is to protect marriage equality at the ballot box in California by voting No on Proposition 8."
posted by ericb at 2:49 PM on October 10, 2008


Go Nutmeg State!

Also -- Go Constitution State (where I was born and bred).

Here's to a proper interpretation of the state constitution.

The ghost of "The Charter Oak" stands tall today.
posted by ericb at 2:54 PM on October 10, 2008


Next up: Iowa.

The Iowa Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of the Iowa marriage statute in early December. The case is Varnum v. Brien and is set for hearing on December 9th, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Des Moines. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs who were requesting the Recorder issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The trial court found the Iowa statute prohibiting same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The decision has been stayed until the appeal is decided. One couple managed to get married prior to the stay order being issued.
posted by webhund at 3:04 PM on October 10, 2008


I still don't get why any government has anything to do with a religious ritual. Seperate church and state, have no recognition of marriage whatsoever. Governments can serve as the registrar and enforcer of contracts between consenting adults, but that isn't marriage. Leave that to the religious.

Nice job, Conneticutlets.
posted by QIbHom at 3:31 PM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Also, where the heck did Connecticut find a Republican who understands the concept of separation of powers and is there any way we can get Republicans like her into positions of power in the national party?

Oh, somehow I think Republicans will be all about the separation of powers in about three-and-a-half weeks.

What's next? Are people going to be able to marry their dogs next?

Apparently people can already marry pit bulls in Alaska (lipstick optional).
posted by kirkaracha at 3:54 PM on October 10, 2008


I'm curious, given Connecticut's existing domestic partner law, does this have any practical effect?

I found one link that said:
Key Civil Union Negatives
No Federal Recognition — All the points mentioned in chart below.
Not Portable — Once outside of Connecticut, you are not in a union.
No way to dissolve the Union once outside Connecticut.
But it seems like those issues still exist today now that they have gay marriage.
posted by smackfu at 4:23 PM on October 10, 2008


I'm curious, given Connecticut's existing domestic partner law, does this have any practical effect?

Yes it has many practical effects/benefits.

Benefits that married couples receive, and non-married couples don't.
"Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a 'family partnership' under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.'

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family."*
posted by ericb at 4:35 PM on October 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


I still don't get why any government has anything to do with a religious ritual.

Marriage has two components -- civil marriage (as citizens/civitates) -- and religious marriage.

The root of "marriage" in many cultures and eras has often been defined by the transfer of property, wealth and power. Religious recognition came later. In many cultures the idea of marrying for "love" has had little to no standing (e.g. arranged marriage).

With the separation of church and state here in the U.S., no religious entity is required (or, can be forced) to perform a "religious" wedding.

All that same-sex couples seek is equality in the rights and benefits that accrue from consummating a loving and dedicated reltionship "under the law" and not under a "religious recognition." We seek equal treatment; the same that our heterosexual friends enjoy. It's as simple as that.
posted by ericb at 4:48 PM on October 10, 2008


Benefits that married couples receive, and non-married couples don't.

That's an interesting generic list, but as far as I know all that stuff at the state-level was covered by CT's existing civil union law. That's why I was asking about practical effects. I thought the Federal Government didn't recognize gay marriage anyways, so legalizing it in CT wouldn't give the Federal rights, correct?

Here's what the CT law said:
Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Wherever in the general statutes the terms "spouse", "family", "immediate family", "dependent", "next of kin" or any other term that denotes the spousal relationship are used or defined, a party to a civil union shall be included in such use or definition.
posted by smackfu at 5:23 PM on October 10, 2008


But don't get me wrong, even if there's no practical effect, good for them. Separate but equal is no good for anyone.
posted by smackfu at 5:26 PM on October 10, 2008


ericb, you are saying that religion is a late thing? Because I don't think that anyone knows just when in pre-history people started using religious rituals relating to economic unification and bond creation.

The government is currently recognizing fundamentally religious rituals. It should not. If consenting adults wish to take out a contract on property rights, offspring (if any), medical power of attorney or any of those things, they should be able to, as long as there are termination clauses and it is a legally viable document. They can register that, let the courts handle disputes.

But, using religious grounds to decide who gets to make these kinds of contracts? That is federal recognition of specific religious practises, and it should not be happening.

Heterosexual partnerships of two adults of legal age are getting all kinds of special priviledges. It should stop.
posted by QIbHom at 5:43 PM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Another, what, 5 states? 8? to go until something hits a SCOTUS that's not sandbagged with righties and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution gets restored, DOMA is overturned, and gender is no longer a legal basis for discrimination in issue of state-issued marriage licenses anywhere in the U.S.? I'm looking forward to seeing the day.
posted by notashroom at 5:54 PM on October 10, 2008


And, for what it's worth, The Church™ used to join same sex couples in holy matrimony centuries ago. Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe is a good read.
posted by notashroom at 5:57 PM on October 10, 2008


Yay, Connecticut!

Hang in there, California. Thanks to the people upthread who provided the link for donating to No on 8 - I hope my little bit helps.

C'mon, New York, get with the program already. Geez.
posted by Quietgal at 8:19 PM on October 10, 2008


The campaign's web site is actually http://www.noonprop8.com; Equality California is just one of the many partners that joined together to form "Equality For All" which changed its name to No On 8 when it became clear that the campaign needed to have a name that had "No" in the title when so many people said "Oh, gay marriage? I'm for that... I'll vote yes." (Equality California isn't the only organization that deserves credit for the ad, money has come from a lot of other organizations to help out. Donations to EQCA still make it to the campaign though, as long as you're donating in the right place, and those are the places they've got easily visible on the web site right now.)

So, please, when talking to people in California, remember to mention that it's No On 8.

Now, as far as a status update, the latest polls show that we lost a lot of ground, and that coincides with a time when the yes campaign got their ads on the air, and at the beginning of this week I believe the numbers showed that we had $10 million less than the yes campaign. And whether you like it or not, a lot of elections are impacted by who has more ad time, and money is what does that.

(And Quietgal, I'm so with you on NY getting with it. Although I think it's close.)
posted by grae at 9:59 PM on October 10, 2008


The Yes on 8 busybodies in my suburban SF Bay neighborhood have been going around jamming lawn signs into peoples' lawns without asking them. Until I learned this, I was disappointed to find that I lived in a neighborhood of hateful idiots. Now I think it was probably just a couple of fundamentalist assholes on the march.

I wanted to put up a lawn sign that said "Gay Marriage caused the Market Collapse: Yes on 8" but I was afraid the sarcasm might be lost on people here, so I just put up some simple "No on 8" signs to go with my lighted skulls and giant inflated spider.
posted by Hello Dad, I'm in Jail at 2:28 AM on October 11, 2008


Incidentally, this is pretty poor timing for Connecticut as well. We don't have ballot initiatives to change the state Constitution. We only have a ballot question to ask whether to call a Constitutional Convention -- every twenty years. And yes, this election day is when it comes up next.

From this article:
The state Supreme Court's historic ruling legalizing gay marriage Friday has prompted the state's Roman Catholic bishops to call on Catholics to vote "yes" on a key ballot initiative Nov. 4.

The question of whether the state should hold a constitutional convention had been a low-key issue until the court's ruling ignited opponents of gay marriage.
posted by smackfu at 8:58 AM on October 11, 2008


Mormons renew calls for Calif. gay marriage ban

Young Mormons urged to join fight against gay marriage in California
posted by homunculus at 2:12 PM on October 11, 2008


A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.
posted by homunculus at 2:14 PM on October 11, 2008


Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage

I woke up to the article above. It pissed me off.

I can't have children. I'm, as they say, barren. Any time they bring up the "biology" argument, then they're saying that any marriage I enter into is worthless and meaningless. Perhaps it's clear already that I find this to be pure BS.

What would it take to organise a bunch of the people with opposite sex marriages who can't or won't have children - folks like me, certain types of handicaps, older people, child-free advocates, et cetera - and have them stand up against the "biology" (procreation) argument, I wonder?

Because unless marriage laws are going to be re-written to say "if you ain't breedin', you ain't weddin'", that's a ridiculous argument and there's got to be a way to show the people putting this forth just how ridiculous it is.



*I'm handicapped and prefer it to "disabled", because the former means I'm competing through life with more difficulties and the latter means I'm not able.
posted by batmonkey at 11:26 AM on October 12, 2008 [3 favorites]


The Mormon Church vs Civil Marriage Equality
posted by homunculus at 10:09 AM on October 22, 2008


Batmonkey,
One of the things that brought people out against the "indecent sex" (anal and oral) laws in MD was the realization that they could be applied to straight couples as well as gay couples.
So, I think you are onto something with getting people to realize that procreation cannot be the basis of modern marriage.
posted by Librarygeek at 5:25 AM on November 6, 2008


« Older Project Censored 2009 brings you 25 stories censo...  |  Shark Virgin Birth!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments