The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power. — John Stuary Millposted by chunking express at 1:31 PM on November 4, 2009 [17 favorites]
Legal recognition of the couple - for hospital visits, etc. - would be much easier to achieve without the in your face insistence of 'marriage'.
It might be the word "marriage" that is the stumbling block.
Gays cannot raise a family without the intervention of a third party or process.
'God has given us this victory and it is very important for us to recognize that he is the one who put the energy into this campaign.'posted by ericb at 1:41 PM on November 4, 2009
In related news: Maine has passed a referendum that Maine coon cats will now count as three-fifths of a cat.posted by Nelson at 2:08 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?"*posted by ericb at 2:08 PM on November 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
"When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620, among the first things they did for the well-ordering of their new commonwealth was to institute the Dutch custom of civil marriage with which they had become familiar during their long sojourn in the Netherlands.posted by ericb at 2:29 PM on November 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590, and the first marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in exercise of his office as magistrate.
There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph Smith in 1629, but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who may perform such ceremonies.
This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the court's ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition, rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been since 1621.
Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of consideration, those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution.
No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church or with its blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these distinctions.
It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the constitution.
We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage, the so-called 'miscegenation' laws that obtained in many parts of this country within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious.
Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners
....[more]"
And yet---here comes the golden ray of sunshine---I'm HOPEFUL! In fact, it is impossible for me to get too down about this. First, what's done is done. Second, Bacardi---it’s what's for breakfast. And third, 47 percent of Mainers are cool with gay marriage---that's as high as it's ever been, and it ain't goin' down...we've already won this fight, it's just a question of timing...look at this result from last night:Having to wait for rights that should be yours in the first place sucks, having to wait because some damned heinous bigots get to decide for you sucks more. But I don't think the wait is going to be very long.
Final numbers are in from University of Maine-Orono campus: 81% No, 19% Yes.
One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country.-- Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, April 6, 2009
Any my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care.
I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And Ive talked with other people about it and thats what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.
Is that so wrong? I dont think thats so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know I've been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.
A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation... The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.It's little wonder NOM wants to keep their "donors" out of the courts and away from public disclosure.
"Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.posted by ericb at 5:01 PM on November 4, 2009 [17 favorites]
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."*
"Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side."posted by ericb at 5:03 PM on November 4, 2009
"Tourism is one of Maine ’s largest and most important industries. Every year, millions of people visit Maine ’s beaches, lakes, and mountains. The money they spend during their travels ripples throughout Maine ’s economy, generating jobs, income, and tax revenue. In 2006, an estimated 10 million overnight trips and 30 million day trips were taken in Maine . Travelers spent nearly $1 billion on lodging, $3 billion on food, and $1 billion on recreational activities....The State Planning Office found that the economic impact of tourism in Maine is huge. In 2006 it generated roughly $10 billion in sales of goods and services, 140,000 jobs, and $3 billion in earnings."posted by ericb at 7:06 AM on November 5, 2009
"When you watch this amazing video of Harvey Milk [in 1978], discussing the bigoted Briggs Initiative, that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools, you see how far we haven't come. The public is still voting on our human rights."posted by ericb at 8:59 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
"Catholics are strutting around boasting about their role in repealing Maine's gay marriage law. At least they're taking responsibility for it. Catholics are the new Mormons—which sucks for me because I was raised Catholic. Can I unbaptize myself? Can I do it in a hot tub? How many guys will it take?"posted by ericb at 9:02 AM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
Maine's Catholic Church donations to anti-gay campaign top $550,000.That's a half-a-billion dollars from one religious domination in the 39th. largest state with a population of 1,240,000!
Where is the Catholic Church's mystery money for the anti-gay campaign coming from? The Mormons?
The Catholic Church has become an anti-gay political operation in Maine.
[having sexy fun time with Fabio] Of course, not in Maine. [eyeroll] …Well, we could do it, we just couldn't get married [wtf baffled look]WTF baffled, indeed. That gay sex remains legal but gay couples can not have a relationship of full legal equality of same-sex couples makes no sense.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.Why, this is exactly what Jesus Christ would do. Hamburger.
« Older Franny Armstrong is the director of McLibel, The A... | Please dismantling the Radio(?... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:13 PM on November 4, 2009