3 Down, 47 To Go

[tyr_13]

Render unto Caesar... There are certainly legal as well as religious aspects of marriage. You can't remove the interest of the state because it is written into inheritance, taxation and other laws - generally, those things which a civil union is designed to provide. Unfortunately, the religious (some of them, anyway) cannot bring themselves to see the functional difference, and insist on imposing their religious-moral views upon the legal framework that all citizens have to use.

Agreed. That's why I would like legal gay marriage. However, that doesn't change my belief that one should let bad ideas come up and be worked out, not dictated from the top down (which tends to build up a lot of resentment and leave pockets of hidden bigots doing stupid things).

 

[Cavemonster]

Agreed. That's why I would like legal gay marriage. However, that doesn't change my belief that one should let bad ideas come up and be worked out, not dictated from the top down (which tends to build up a lot of resentment and leave pockets of hidden bigots doing stupid things).

And that's great as an intellectual exercise for you.
Unfortunately, not all people have the resources to move to the state that suits them. So a gay couple who have jobs they don't want to give up (who would risk it in this economy) and family and friends they don't want to move away from need to tough it out so that we can see who the idiots are?

Real families get screwed over by state's failure to recognize their marriages.

 

[tyr_13]

Umm, who do you think I want to speak out against the idiots? Those people getting screwed over should be the ones fighting for it. This is a hard, long road to true social acceptance, not something that there should be a shortcut for. If you want real, lasting change, it has to have a broad base or you just make people resent gay marriage, and married homosexuals. And what do idiots and bigots do when they feel like the law has oppressed and bypassed their will? They lynch people! And if those idiots have support from other people because the Feds came in and 'took away their Bible' it is that much harder. Why give these people more fuel for their book burning (so to speak)?

I'm really sorry that gay people have these problems. But you don't have to be gay to have marriage problems or be screwed over by stupid laws related to such.

 

[Ausmerican]

Unfortunately, AZ has an initiative on the ballot this time around to make our current ban part of the state constitution, and going by my parents' neighbors the Mormons are pretty keen on getting it passed.

I voted against it, FWIW.

I couldn't (not a citizen, just a denizen) but my wife voted against it as well. CT is all well and good but isn't that just a little too close to MA? Teh gayness needs to infect more spread out states so people don't have to travel as far to get hitched. How bout Texas? It's nice and central down the bottom there. And see that? It is even a bottom state!
Then for a top maybe Wyoming? Just need a switch state or two in the middle after that.
Ole Miss is just asking for it with a nickname like that.
Georgia for the bottom right hand side, jusy cos my wife works with a guy from Georgia who is a very out self declared "Southern Belle".

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

I'm all for some states banning gay marriage. Marriage as a governmental institution has always been in the province of the states (thus I don't think the federal government has any place in it), and traditionally, each state honors marriages from other states.

The reason I'm all for some states banning gay marriage is that it makes the states that actually want to apply the institution of state contract style marriage fairly and equally a leg up. In fact, I might just start a campaign to make it legal in New York, and get the Falls to become the marriage capital of the world again!

Woo hooo! I have a project!

There's one minor hitch with the State/marriage argument: my wife is not American. She moved to the US after we were married, which means she needed some kind of clearance from the Fed to do so. Immigration is a federal thing, and spouses often get a quick green light. What happens when the state in which I reside recognizes my marriage, but the goverment doesn't, or doesn't need to?

Granted, is very minor to 99.9% of people, but pretty major to me...or any gay dude that falls for a foreign gay dude.

 

[tyr_13]

Doesn't the Fed recognize all marriages that are legal in the state they were performed in? If the Fed was talking about banning or not recognizing gay marriage, like the were before, that is different from states being dumb and wanting to ban it.

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

Doesn't the Fed recognize all marriages that are legal in the state they were performed in? If the Fed was talking about banning or not recognizing gay marriage, like the were before, that is different from states being dumb and wanting to ban it.

I don't know if the Fed recognizes all marriages or not. Right now, I can't think of a "type" of marriage that states view differently enough where it would be a question up to now. Perhaps common law marriages, but given the nature of a common law marriage, they aren't conducive to immigration given the timelines involved.

That also doesn't take into account marriages in another country, as was my case. Suppose they do recognize it. Two dudes get married in a country where it's legal. They move to Mass., where gay marriage is recognized, just long enough to get the green card (~1-2 months). They then move to a non-recognition state. Are they legally married at that point? The state says no. Does the Fed revoke the green card based on that?

My point is that so long as the Fed is in charge of immigration, and marriage plays a large part in immigration, the Fed will be involved in marriage.