NH, Ore. Prepare To Recognize Gay Couples

[William769]

Source: 365gay.com

(Concord, New Hampshire) January 1 will usher in laws in states at opposite sides of the country that provide rights for same-sex couples.

In New Hampshire, dozens of gay and lesbian couples will herald the New Year by having civil unions. A special mass civil union ceremony is planned for midnight January 1 on the Statehouse steps.

Other couples will have ceremonies in towns across the state.

A new license was created for civil unions and became available at local clerk's offices in towns earlier this month.



Read more: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/12/122607couples.htm

[Redstone]

1. And about damn time, too. Too bad, though, that they aren't going for the whole

Right Thing: Marriage for any two people, be they heterosexual or not.

I simply do not believe that my marriage to Mrs R is threatened one bit if Joe down the street gets married to John, or if Sally gets married to Sue.

The arguments against Gay Marriage are full of shit.

Redstone

[Divine Discontent]

6. Thank You Redstone n/t

[AllyCat]

16. My husband and I have yet to figure out how our marriage is threatened

by gay people getting married. Any threat we have we've brought on ourselves. I have yet to hear any opponent of gay marriage or civil unions between gay people explain how this threatens our heterosexual marriage. They are all full of $hit.

What I don't understand is why the state is getting involved in the marriages of ANYONE. If they are going to recognize one, then they better recognize them all. If they are doing this because it's a "legal contract", then they have to recognize any legal contract and that includes gay people. The way I see it, marriage is a religious ceremony and any married couple is a "civil union" in terms of state recognition.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. Entirely FOS. I completely agree with you! nt

[Marrah_G]

2. Congrats New Hampshire and Oregon!

I know it isn't full equality, but it is a start and no one is giving up the fight now. If it helps a few couples between now and when all marriage is equal then it's a win.

[William769]

3. You said it Sister!|

[zanne]

4. That's the way I look at it.

Of course, I'm straight so I don't see it quite the same way a gay person would; I expect that I'd be disappointed in not having a real marriage. I would love to be there at the statehouse to cheer them on. Maybe I can make it.

[Marrah_G]

18. I look at it as a step forward in the right direction

I have a bi or lesbian daughter (she's still figuring herself out)and I look at the civil unions as a small win in the bigger battle.

[fascisthunter]

5. Congrats

My sister just got married to her partner earlier this year. Best wedding I've been to in while.

[Rock_Garden]

7. Fantastic!

[durrrty libby]

8. It may be baby steps, but at least it's steps forward. K & R

[DeSwiss]

9. Right On!!!

K&R!!!

[Occulus]

10. How do the state Constitutional Amendments forbidding gay marriages NOT run afoul

of the (popular name) Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution, in light of what may now be FOUR states recognising those contracts?

Or is marriage not considered a contract between two individuals and a State?

[FreeState]

11. DOMA

The federal DOMA law has yet to be challenged. That is where the Full Faith and Credit clause will be tested again (like it has in the past with interracial marriages etc). This will happen one day - but I think that the national GLBT groups fighting in the courts for Equality are waiting until full marriage is available in more than one state before trying - also they may be waiting to see what the make up of the highest court will be after the next Presidential election. Filing a court case now could end up in being ruled on in 2 or 3 years - you dont want to try a case that may be stacked against you. This and Abortion rights are a main issue every Democrat should be worried about - it's vital we have a Democrat in the office of president next time or Civil Rights as we know them will be over.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. And Jim Crow, Festive Edition, continues to spread

Separate is inherently unequal. If it is not called marriage, it has NONE of the rights, responsibilities, privileges and protections that centuries of court precedent has recognized as part-and-parcel of marriage. The one and only way to get that recognition is to call it "marriage."

Yeah, yeah. I'm dancing for joy that we are allowed on the bus at long last. But don't expect me to rejoice that we can only travel while tied to the roof.

[customerserviceguy]

21. It's not comparable to racial equality in this case

If a same-sex relationship is accorded the very same rights as an opposite-sex marriage, there is not the same fundamental inequality that "separate but equal" racial entailed. All they did was just underfund the hell out of black schools in the pre-Brown vs. Board of Education days. If an employer is required to recognize a gay registered relationship the same as a heterosexual one, they're way too smart to risk screwing that up in terms of benefits, etc.

I acknowledge that it doesn't confer social accepability in the eyes of bigots, but they have the right to dislike interracial marriage as well, even though they cannot do anything about it either.

[nealmhughes]

23. But the poster was questioning the "full faith and credit" clause, not Brown or the 14th amendment.

The full faith and credit clause is black letter law, and just awaiting for a legal NH marriage to move to another state with its homegrown DOMA to contest it. It will be a wonderful test case, black letter federal Constitution v. state's homegrown DOM statutes! Truly a battle royale, and frankly, I don't see how one can parse their way out of black letter Constitutional law.
Either there is full faith and credit or there isn't.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. I beg to differ

Creating "civil unions" or any other form of marriage subtitution is inherently discriminatory. It creates a separate institution with very few of the rights et al. that come with marriage by statute and absolutely none that come with marriage by precedent. It kowtows to the bigots in exactly the same way that "separate but equal" kowtowed to racists. That is my point: MARRIAGE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS NOT MARRIAGE and since it is not marriage, our system of jurisprudence guarantees that it will never, ever convey the same rights as marriage.

[customerserviceguy]

27. Yes, it is inherently discriminatory

but--like I tell the right-wingers I work with and am acquainted with--every couple's relationship is what they make it, without regard to what happens with other couples. When they say that marriage equality somehow 'dilutes' heterosexual marriage, I have to point out to them that what Adam and Steve down the street do has no more effect on their marriage than does drive-thru marriage, or no-fault divorce.

It may take some time before the folks in that squishy middle find out that letting gay and lesbian couples have full equal status (even if we don't presently call it 'marriage') is not going to make the sky fall. Surely, their children will grow up knowing same-sex couples, and when the Supreme Court finally does what it did with interracial marriage, then society will be ready to shrug it off with, "well, it was about time".

I share your desire for marriage equality, but all Massachusetts did was mar the constitutions of many states with anti-equality laws, and get Chimpy re-elected. A more gradual pace towards marriage equality would have been a far less bumpy road, and would have allowed more people a chance to join our side, before they were recruited to vote for an amendment to enshrine bigotry in their states' laws.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. So demands for full civil rights helped "get Chimpy re-elected"?

Do you think that the Abolitionist movement caused the Civil War?

(Edited for clarity and to keep this post from being deleted.)

[customerserviceguy]

36. Being as I was not

part of the voting population in 1860, I really don't know what issues "caused" the Civil War, I will let Ron Paul debate that with Tim Russert, as it no longer makes any difference to me. I do know that the normally non-political Amish came out in 2004 in Ohio, and they made a difference in that one state that defeated John Kerry, I have to think that gay marriage on the ballot worked against us.

I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, but there are a lot of muddle-headed straight people out there who still think "Well, I'm OK with gay rights, but marriage is something else," who need some time to absorb the fact that the same-sex couple living down the street is just as concerned about crime, taxes, and corruption as they are. The Repukes exploited the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision to not only win the 2004 election, but to stain the constitutions of many states with anti-equality law that will likely only be overturned by a US Supreme Court decision, if we have the votes to do so. Having Roberts and Alito there instead of John Kerry's appointments does not give me a lot of hope.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. Sorry, that's just not fair

Asking gay and lesbian people to just continue waiting for the road to get less bumpy just isn't fair.

Doing the right thing is the right thing to do. I recognize the political expediency involved in CUs, and if they represent an incremental step in the right direction, I welcome that. But they are not equality, and there won't be equality until marriage is available to all. Mass. did not get Chimpy re-elected. Blaming those willing to step out first is not fair. By your reckoning, should equal rights for African American citizens have waited until everyone was cool with it? The Democratic party lost much of the south over desegregation. Does that mean we should have sat on our hands and waited for a more convenient time?

[customerserviceguy]

37. It really didn't help the cause

Like I said above, all it did was scare the crap out of fundies in the red states, and now they have constitutional restrictions on same-sex marriage, that will only be overturned by a full Supreme Court decision that says that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights as straight people to marry. Alito and Roberts may be less likely to go along with this than somebody John Kerry could have nominated and gotten confirmed to the Court.

Plessy vs. Ferguson gave us the phrase "separate but equal" in 1896, we didn't get to overturning that until Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. Black people did have to wait almost sixty years, and even longer when you consider that many local jurisdictions ignored Brown for years afterwards. Do you really think that it will take two generations for marriage equality to become a reality? I have far more faith in the younger people of today. A white person could easily have gone from 1896 to 1954 (and beyond) without any significant contact with people of color, but I think the only straight people today who don't have contact with gay people are those to whom gay neighbors, co-workers, and acquaintances just don't want to come out to, since they don't need a hassle.

Racial integration of schools did not make racism go away, sometimes people in the controlling majority need a bit of time to assimilate change. Gay and lesbian people have far more support in the media of today than people of color had during the tumolt of the 1950's and 1960's. It will not take long. Having states enact measures that seem incomplete to purists are a big step to showing people who are not fully homophobic that nothing bad is going to happen from society recognizing relationships of same-sex couples.

Perhaps I'm not seeing this from your perspective, can you enlighten me as to what civil union does not have that full marriage does? I'm not talking about the states that specifically have sought to limit domestic partnership (as did my former home state of Washington), but ones where there is language that says "this is the same as marriage, without the name".

[Chovexani]

42. Oh Jesus Christ

I share your desire for marriage equality, but all Massachusetts did was mar the constitutions of many states with anti-equality laws, and get Chimpy re-elected.

OLD MEME. You're about three years too late for that flame war, but thanks for playing.

God, with "allies" like you, no wonder we're still second-class citizens.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Often it doesn't confer all the rights of real marriage, either

Never does it confer them wrt federal laws, taxes, etc.

CUs are a step up, but they're not the solution, and they are still unequal treatment.

[customerserviceguy]

38. Massachusetts equal marriage laws

did not confer Federal recognition, either. It will take a Supreme Court decision to remove that stick from the IRS's ass, but there is a history of tax law that says that states get to define marital status in regard to Federal tax law, such as with community-property states, for example. I certainly hope that a Massachusetts tax case makes it to the Court before a full-faith-and-credit case arrives there, it will be politically easier for the Supremes to say that a state can define who is married for the sake of tax calculation.

Then, that becomes a step in the right direction to do so with civil union, which then becomes a step towards saying that "separate but equal" is as wrong for same-sex relationships as it was for schools for black and white America.

[Chovexani]

41. It most certainly is the same

Civil unions are NOT accorded the very same rights as a marriage, that is the whole point of fighting for marriage equality. Ask the couples in NJ who found out exactly what their civil unions were good for when it came time to have their partners put on company health plans, not to mention that civil unions mean shit in terms of the federal privileges hetero marriages enjoy.

[racaulk]

13. Awesome news!

K&R

:)

[Iggo]

14. I know a bunch of people...

...who are gonna be goddam pissed off about this.

And I couldn't be happier about it.

[William769]

15. me too!

:)

[Siyahamba]

17. All right, they can now sit in the bus!

They have to sit in the back of the bus, but still!

[William769]

19. At least we are not under the bus.

[okasha]

20. I remember reading that Bishop Gene Robinson

and his partner are going to have a civil union. I hope they send an announcement to Peter Akinola, and I hope the very thought gives him hemerrhoids.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. LOL. Yes, I'd heard that, too.

And the picture you paint is rather entertaining, although I suppose I should be better than that... nah, it's still entertaining!

[galileo3000]

22. Great news-hope it flies under the radar. (n/t)

[Kajsa]

24. This is good news!

It's about time!!

Congrats to NH or OR for taking a big step in the
right direction.

:applause:

[xchrom]

25. i'll be happy for what is gained -- but the mere fact it is different only underscores

the bigotry at play.
including the bigotry of thse who are supposed to be on our side.

congrats to the folk who live there for what they have gained.

[customerserviceguy]

29. Maybe I'm wrong

but if I recall correctly, Oregon is the only state that has an anti-marriage equality clause approved by voters in its Constitution, which subsequently provided for civil union or domestic partnership. This shows a lot of courage on the part of the legislators and governor there.

[sarcasmo]

28. I always thought the States would have to take the lead. The Fed's are always light years behind.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Good. Little by little, piece by piece, until it's too widespread

to ignore anymore on a federal level... it WILL happen.

[Doctor_J]

39. Can we place NH safely in the Blue column?

Sure is sounding that way.

[Tesha]

40. No. But we're working to keep it blue. (NT)