Sweden - Gay Marriage Now Legal In.....

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

I have spoken to a few students from the local law school. They tend to agree that based on California law and regulations, this stands a good chance of being overturned. I hope they are right. 14 hours until "D-Day". Hoping for a celebration, but ready for a protest.

 

[Nova]

I see. You've got me curious; I'll have to read about your Constitution

It sounds like you have a great family; your stepdaughter reminds me of my sensible, caring and loyal daughter

I find that my children are much smarter than I am, at this point.

Thank you, Martha. When it comes to family, I am indeed blessed, far beyond what I deserve. (And as I've mentioned elsewhere, our daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren live in Massachusetts, so they are very "Of course gay people should be able to marry" about all of this.)

 

[Nova]

I have spoken to a few students from the local law school. They tend to agree that based on California law and regulations, this stands a good chance of being overturned. I hope they are right. 14 hours until "D-Day". Hoping for a celebration, but ready for a protest.

I too hope they are right, Idaho. But as the CA appellate lawyer who is staying with me this weekend says, "The supremes can justify anything. In the end, the decision will be political."

And it will take tremendous political courage to strike down a popular vote, however narrow. The justices have already been threatened with recall by proponents of Prop 8.

So will they really have the guts to say "majority rule" doesn't rule when it disrespects fundamental human rights? We'll see.

A lot of people are predicting a split decision upholding Prop 8 but ruling that those of us who married legally last year remain married. That will create the sort of mess judges hate and, in effect, create yet a new class of 36,000 people who are gay-married even while gay marriage is banned.

What a mess!

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

A lot of people are predicting a split decision upholding Prop 8 but ruling that those of us who married legally last year remain married. That will create the sort of mess judges hate and, in effect, create yet a new class of 36,000 people who are gay-married even while gay marriage is banned.

What a mess!

Respectfully snipped. I have heard that a lot too, and would not be surprised. Although you're right, it would create quite the mess! I have thought so much about this, I just don't know what to speculate anymore. I think I'm just going to get some sleep and anxiously await the morning decision.

 

[Nova]

Respectfully snipped. I have heard that a lot too, and would not be surprised. Although you're right, it would create quite the mess! I have thought so much about this, I just don't know what to speculate anymore. I think I'm just going to get some sleep and anxiously await the morning decision.

Good advice for both of us. Talk to you tomorrow. As always, I very much appreciate your support on this issue. (Not that you're doing me a favor; I know you are motivated by conviction. But I see no reason why I can't appreciate that!)

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Thank you Nova. I always enjoy talking to you and hearing your opinion on things as well.

*sigh* I have to admit I got my hopes up for today. This news is so disheartening. Prop 8 is upheld. At least they honored the 18,000 marriages.

 

[southcitymom]

Thank you Nova. I always enjoy talking to you and hearing your opinion on things as well.

*sigh* I have to admit I got my hopes up for today. This news is so disheartening. Prop 8 is upheld. At least they honored the 18,000 marriages.

The legal beagles were right: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage.

I too am bummed about the decision. I haven't read the whole thing yet and will when I get a chance.

Ah well, we always knew this would NOT be a slam dunk march to equality!

 

[Marthatex]

I too hope they are right, Idaho. But as the CA appellate lawyer who is staying with me this weekend says, "The supremes can justify anything. In the end, the decision will be political."

And it will take tremendous political courage to strike down a popular vote, however narrow. The justices have already been threatened with recall by proponents of Prop 8.

So will they really have the guts to say "majority rule" doesn't rule when it disrespects fundamental human rights? We'll see.

A lot of people are predicting a split decision upholding Prop 8 but ruling that those of us who married legally last year remain married. That will create the sort of mess judges hate and, in effect, create yet a new class of 36,000 people who are gay-married even while gay marriage is banned.

What a mess!

Looks like they were correct. I was disappointed in the decision; but I'm not familiar with the California Constitution. I'm glad the existing marriages will be honored.

So many are so very disappointed in this, I'm sure.

 

[Nova]

Looks like they were correct. I was disappointed in the decision; but I'm not familiar with the California Constitution. I'm glad the existing marriages will be honored.

So many are so very disappointed in this, I'm sure.

Yes, it's a sad day for California.

Our state constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote (which isn't really a majority, since so many people don't vote at all). Anyone can put an amendment on the ballot with a few hundred-thousand signatures. No participation by the legislature or governor is required.

It's supposed to be "democratic," but in fact the propositions are often so badly worded it isn't at all clear what people think they are voting for. Powerful interests who can pay for the most TV ads (and often the least informative ones) usually carry the day.

The Founding Fathers were very wise to insure the federal constitution isn't amended so haphazardly.

That being said, the same process can someday legalize gay marriage again in California and I have faith it will (even though there's very little precedent for a majority voting to grant equal rights to a minority).

 

[Nova]

The legal beagles were right: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage.

I too am bummed about the decision. I haven't read the whole thing yet and will when I get a chance.

Ah well, we always knew this would NOT be a slam dunk march to equality!

Two steps forward, one step back.

But as Mr. Nova said to me after the decision, "This is getting boring!"

 

[gaia227]

I was hopeful. I thought maybe with all the states recently who have been legalizing gay marriage it might snowball and CA would not uphold this ban.

 

[Marthatex]

Yes, it's a sad day for California.

Our state constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote (which isn't really a majority, since so many people don't vote at all). Anyone can put an amendment on the ballot with a few hundred-thousand signatures. No participation by the legislature or governor is required.

It's supposed to be "democratic," but in fact the propositions are often so badly worded it isn't at all clear what people think they are voting for. Powerful interests who can pay for the most TV ads (and often the least informative ones) usually carry the day.

The Founding Fathers were very wise to insure the federal constitution isn't amended so haphazardly.

That being said, the same process can someday legalize gay marriage again in California and I have faith it will (even though there's very little precedent for a majority voting to grant equal rights to a minority).

The one in Texas was "trick worded"; it was ridiculous. How can it be a Democratic, "majority" vote, when those being affected are in a much smaller minority. And if only the gays and say, the religous groups show up, then it's US against THEM, with half the population not caring enough to go vote.

That's why I think it should be decided by the courts; marriage either IS a human right, or a civil right, or it's NOT.

But all civil rights struggles seem to have ups and downs and years of dissention; so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Well my internet got shut off right after I posted yesterday because I am moving, so I wasn't able to check back in. But I just wanted to say that although I am very happy that they are allowing the marriages to stand, this is in no way a victory of any kind. Yes, it's better than it could have been, but still not a victory. But the fight is not over. Not in California, and not anywhere else.

Did anyone attend any of the nation-wide demonstrations yesterday? Myself and a friend of mine organized one here in North Idaho. It was the only one in Idaho that we are aware of, and had 30 people (not bad for both area universitys being out of session). The next closest in Seattle had 1,000! You can see one picture from our rally if you go to www.dnews.com, we made the front page! (ETA: No longer on the front page) I think you have to be a subscriber to read the article, unless you know how to get around all that nonsense. But you can see a small part of our group!

 

[Tsunami]

Just have to share this with everyone.

While driving to the store yesterday I heard the funniest comment. Yes, I had my hearing aids on, so I know I heard it.

"I don't understand all the complaining about same sex marriage, because when you're married it's always the same sex."

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

King: Same-sex marriage debate heats up in New York

Story Highlights

*N.Y. Assembly passed bill allowing same-sex marriages; willl state Senate pass it?
*Christine Quinn, openly gay politician, optimistic; says opponents fear the unknown
*National Organization for Marriage lobbying hard against it, head thinks it won't pass
*Proponents hope President Obama will change mind, support issue

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/sotu.same.sex/index.html

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Another veto overriden! Another small step in the right direction! Not full marriage rights, but it's a positive step. Way to go, NEVADA!

Nevada legalizing domestic partnerships

Nevada is legalizing domestic partnerships, with the state Assembly voting Sunday evening to override a veto by the governor, officials said.

The Assembly voted 28-14 to override Gov. Jim Gibbons' veto of a domestic partner bill, said Kathy Alden of the chief clerk's office.

With the vote, Nevada will extend most of the rights given to married couples to couples in domestic partnerships, including those of the same sex. The bill will take effect on October 1.

The Nevada Senate overrode the the governor's veto 14-7 on Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/31/nevada.domestic.partnerships/index.html

 

[Marthatex]

It seems that there's a bit of a "wave" going.....

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

You're right about that wave! Today...NEW HAMPSHIRE!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

N.H. becomes sixth state where gays can marry

Traditionally conservative New Hampshire today became the sixth state in the nation -- and the fifth state in New England -- where same-sex couples will be allowed to marry.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/06/nh_legislature.html

 

[southcitymom]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/sha...any_Male_Penguin_Parents.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm

Gay Penguin Pair Parent Abandoned Chick!

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/sha...any_Male_Penguin_Parents.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm

Gay Penguin Pair Parent Abandoned Chick!

Awwww! Cute!!!

There is a children's book about a similar story in NY. It is adorable!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Tango_Makes_Three