Gay Marriage Across The Nation

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 11:52am

What's it like in YOUR state?

States that have constitutionally banned same sex marriage - Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Tennessee

States that have statues prohibited same sex marriages, but allow for limited rights for same sex couples – Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Washington State, Washington DC

States that allow same-sex mariage - California, Connecticut , Massachusetts

States that do not perform same-sex marriages but recognize those performed in other states - New Mexico, New Jersey (Jersey has civil unions and domestic partnerships), New York, Rhode Island

States that have constitutionally banned same sex marriage but allow for civil unions or something similar - Oregon

States that have statutes banning same sex marriage but allow for civil unions or something similar - New Hampshire, Vermont

States that have statues banning gay marriage – Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wyoming

And my very favorite, states that not only have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but also have amended their constitutions to make sure other kinds of same sex unions are banned as well –

Alabama , Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 11:59am

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 12:02pm

I just thought it might be good for a little perspective.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 12:08pm

Well, this isn't about California being "so special" and crying now because they may have their rights taken away. Rights that other states don't remotely have.

That's kinda petty, Phyl.

This is about an initial step that was taken in the right direction by one of only three forward-thinking states... about to be reversed completely, constitutionally.

If you don't see that as a "slap down" for all of us, nationwide, then you're crazy.

We're losing "equal ground" as gay citizens of the U.S.

Never mind about "my cool rights that you don't have are about to be taken away!"

Very small to think that way.

(If that's indeed what you mean.)

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 12:11pm

How many state supreme court decisions have been made? Obviously California's court ruling led to Prop. 8, but how many others have handed down a decision on a same sex case?

[romantico]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 12:17pm

I live in Connecticut and people here are very optimistic that other states will follow soon.A friend of mine who said he was interviewed for an upcoming article for Advocate magazine says this could be very good for Connecticut's economy.For example, there is a reception hall called the Aquaturf and they have seen an increase since mid October already and expect it to grow.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 12:19pm

You can take my intentions any way you want. If you take them as petty, so be it. I don't mind.

ETA: Half the states in the nation have constitionally banned gay marriage. I suspect more will do so if Prop 8 fails. I fail to see why people keep thinking California is the barometer of the nation here. I think the nation has pretty much spoken. Updated On: 11/3/08 at 12:19 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 1:01pm

California isn't the "barometer of the nation."

It is (or was?) a step in the right direction on this matter. Regardless of the state.

The reason it might have more relevance here is because of the SIZE (aka population) of the state.

We're not exactly Wyoming here. We have just a few more people. Biggest state in the union, actually.

We're number one!

Yipee. Yahoo.

And the fact that the supreme court said a ban was unconstitutional and the people are now saying they want to amend that same constitution.

It's not an open and shut case, in other words. It's very volatile. So yeah, people are paying attention to see what's going to happen. For a variety of reasons.

I'm not exactly understanding why this is hard to understand.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 1:04pm

I just thought it might be good for a little perspective.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 1:05pm

I think it's better that a state bans gay marriage. I believe at that point legally you can advance a case beyond the state government where it needs to be.


These ****ty stopgaps "liberal" states offer are certainly progress but sometimes it seems like two steps forward one step back.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 3:38pm

"These ****ty stopgaps "liberal" states offer are certainly progress but sometimes it seems like two steps forward one step back. "

And that is unfortunately the process.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:03pm

When half the states in this country have amended their constitutions to make sure gays in their state can't ever have a legal marriage there, I find the process to be significantly flawed.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:07pm

Then you need to finally go read up on the interracial marriage fight. It's not just the antigay side that needs to remember history.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:22pm

There were laws, but to best of my research, only six states had it in their consitutions. And it took going to the Supreme Court. So - again - this really is just about biding time until someone takes it to the Supreme Court?

And again, I cite Roe v Wade. The states STILL have a say in it, no matter the supreme court says.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:25pm

Yes. To have the federal rights, we have to wait for the SC or for Congress to be able to pass it.

Until then we do what we can, step by step. It sucks. But it's how it works.

I don't understand your RoevWade analogy--abortion is legal in all 50 states. I know that certain states have tried to challenge it and certainly have created rules and such to make it more difficult, but I don't see it as the same.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:31pm

Right, but each state has the right to make its own laws regarding it. It's not a perfect analogy by any means.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:34pm

I would think marriage wouldn't be the same. It would be well more like interracial marriage's journey as that is a very similar paradigm.

Abortion deals with teens and parent's rights, etc.

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:38pm

I think this is a huge deal, fail or pass. It's one of many steps that need to be taken.

As I said on another thread - the gay rights movement is only 40 years old. We have made great advances. And yes, it's one step forward, and one step back. IF passed, we can't allow that defeat to send us back to the 1950s and into hiding. It should make us more willing to fight for our rights, rather that sit there and wait for them to be handed to us.

Maybe this is what's needed to jump start the stalling gay rights movement after all. And I don't mean the "progressive" states, but in the nation as a whole.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:39pm

I'm having a hard time with your analogy Jrby. Maybe I don't know my history all that well but Loving vs. Virginia was fought because they were sentenced for a crime related to their getting marriage.

Interesting you should bring that up Loving. I would have to look up the ruling but I believe the ruling does not say marriage is between a man and woman. It just speaks to the fact that these people were discriminated because of their race. In a way it can really speak to our plight.

I think California already allowed mix-raced marriage when that went down, which I don't think helps. I'm not a lawyer but what does it take for this to go to the supreme court? Do people have to leave California and try to get their rights upheld in Alaska and then be threatened with jail?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:45pm

I also just read that at one point miscegenation laws were upheld as constitutional because both blacks and whites were punished equally when they were found breaking the law.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:55pm

Woa I should really go back and read all that. It's so interesting you bring that up because... I believe that is in reference the provision in the 14th amendment that basically says "all men are created equal."

Anyway, a lot of Republicans use that argument AGAINST us saying well "It's not unconstitutional because nothing is stopping you from marrying a woman." "You are not being discriminated against."

That's true but then I say:

"Well what if I'm gay and I want to marry a woman from Chile, can I still sponsor her like my brother could or will I be denied because I'm an open homosexual?"

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 4:57pm

it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”

“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained

social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,”

A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it

“applies equally to men and women.”

All quotes about interracial marriage

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 5:01pm

If I wasn't afraid of my bf being deported I would sue the federal government for the right to marry and sponsor him.

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 5:07pm

Marriage Quiz

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/6/08 at 10:04am

PS - I want to apologize for appearing kind of petty (as Besty pointed out) with my "It's California's problem" attitude. I really thought I felt that way until the prop actually failed and then I was filled with such rage (imagine that). I think I was being a little petty and spiteful, but I realize that it an issue for ALL of us, regardless of which state is in question at the time. I am going to take my pettiness and spite and direct it outwardly, instead of against my own.

So yeah, don't except me to get in the habit of saying I was wrong, but I was wrong. :)