Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jul 31, 2008.
Mostly symbolic, but still a good thing.
Perhaps Lee, but a massive savings in travel for those guys in the East.
Huh? I don't quite get it. Are you referring to the California law?
The sooner people open their eyes and see that being homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual and allow gay couples the same rights as non gay couple then the world will be a much better place. The same rights, without question, without restrictions on where or when or how. It needs to be done ASAP.
Every little helps.
I think he was. California allows out of state couples to marry, and although Massachusettes allows same sex marriage, you had to be a resident of the state in order to do so. Allowing out of state same sex couples to marry in their state means east coast gay couples won't have to travel all they way across the country to get married.
Missed this before, but good news all around I'd say.
Now all we have to do is place a bet on the next state to legalize same-sex marriage.
My bet is either New York, or possibly Vermont. Then the rest of the normal states will fall like dominos.
On a side note, Norway is going to begin recognizing same-sex marriages on the first day of 2009.
Another piece, albeit a small one, falls into place. Nice to have the USA finally coming on board with this one, even if it is happening in baby steps
Definitely baby steps. I'd bet another 10 years before 50% of the population lives in a state where same sex marriage is legalized, and another 15 or more before it is federally mandated.
Embarrassing that it will take so long, but at least it's moving in that direction.
Sadly, I don't see either happening. Several states have already amended their constitution to ban it, and a federal mandate would never make it past congress, and if it did, it wouldn't get past the supreme court. This country is just too back-asswards.
In 15 years the US Supreme Court will be quite different from the one we have now. As long as we get a few decent appointments (ie by Democrats), we can keep the Court on the right path. Remember that Kennedy, for all his nonsense votes, still votes heavily with the liberal wing on gay rights issues.
In addition to all that, the younger generations simply don't care about the issue as much. This is really an issue for the Baby Boomers above all else. They are the most anti-gay marriage group of all age groups right now, and I think that's sad considering the time period that they were born in.
I agree. The baby boomers were so promising when they were young. But you know what? A lot of what happened back then was a fad- people going along with the crowd. Most of them never really believed in what they were doing, they were in it for social reasons. If the WW2 generation is called the "greatest generation", the baby boomers should be called the "disappointing generation". They really had a chance to change the world, and they blew it in a huge way.
Complete symbolic but complete worthless otherwise.
Other states will not recognize the marriage because it is not recognized in their home state. Means no gains what so ever. Plus if they ever want to get a divorce that is another huge mess because the home state never recognized the marriage so it can not recognized the divorce either.
I disagree with that statement. I feel the court should remain balanced. 3 Conservative, 3 moderate and 3 liberal
I do not feel that balance should be changed. Mind you what Bush wants to do I do not agree with and that is loading the court more conservative. but I would feel the same way about a president trying to change the balance in any way. Replace a liberal judge with a liberal judge, a conservative judge with a conservative judge and so on.
It isn't entirely symbolic. By eliminating the residency requirement, Mass. now can draw in tax dollars from weddings that would have otherwise gone to California. Other states will soon figure out the magic of gay weddings (as in $$$$$$$$$), and after they see that the world doesn't end, resistance will begin to crumble.
The governor's decision also adds to the Interstate Commerce Clause dilemma that gay marriage will eventually face. When Federal Courts decide the issue, they will no doubt rely upon the practices used among several states, and that includes both CA and Mass, which both allow out of states residents to marry.
So perhaps not significant in the short term, but very valuable in the long term.
That's a nice story, but the Court has never been balanced.
The fact that the Court has also been the exclusive source of civil liberties for nearly 75 years means that it must be more liberal than Congress or the President, because those two branches are too greatly affected by the rather dim-witted voting public.
i am indifferent, might hurt me later on since i live here, but whatever floats your boat
How could it possibly "hurt" you?
Why in the world would it hurt you?
no idea but down the road who knows such as property values and so forth. i am preparing for the worst but hoping for the best.
You mean the property values will go up? That's normally a welcomed thing.
I'm really confused now. Usually, property values go up in neighborhoods where there are gay folks. Are you afraid the values will go up?
Lee, I love the fact that we're both on this.
Hmmm, maybe I should change my stance on the issue; I can't afford a home the way house prices are rising at the moment even without encouraging teh gay invasion!
Well, I can sort of understand if he's afraid property values will go up. If he doesn't own property already, it may make it harder for him to buy. It also raises your property taxes. If he already owns though, it should be nothing but good.