Page 3 of 62 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 920

Thread: Marriage

  1. #31
    condemned to wires and hammers ebby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    10,930
    The Seanad has just voted to approve the (not good enough) civil partnership bill here in Ireland. (they're the upper house of parliament, and amendments can be tabled at this stage and discussed at length, which they were and the #cpbill twitter feed will show some of the irate responses to the idiocy coming from one Senator in particular).

    They currently re-voting manually, which is a walk through vote, which was suggested by one of the Senators due to the historic nature of the vote.

    Here's the digital vote:

    We've been watching it live online: http://classic.scribblelive.com/Even...Seanad_Eireann

    I think each time a parliamentary debate on Civil Partnership has come up, there's been more people watching the live feed from the houses of parliament than for pretty much anything else, except maybe the budget.

  2. #32
    Strangerer Rum 509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,127
    Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

    The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

    U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

  3. #33
    worth a million in prizes .chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,883
    ^
    The whole thing is very complicated. I'm stealing info from all over to write this post:

    First, it is actually not DOMA that is ruled unconstitutional. It is only a section of it. (Section 3, which grants federal rights, but not state rights). Individual states would still be free to discriminate against same-sex couples legally married in other states (& not recognize those marriages), but the fed would not be free to do the same. The right to have a marriage from an equality state recognized in a non-equality state will have to be fought under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th Amendment. That's a different fight entirely. Also we have to wait 60 days to see if the Department of Justice is going to appeal. Which they probably will. (Why Obama, why?) And from what I've read: If DOJ does not appeal, these decisions are binding only in the court's Federal District, i.e., in Massachusetts. However, these decisions can still be persuasive (not binding) case law in other jurisdictions when they take it up.

    very fucking complicated. but it is great news and progress!

  4. #34
    condemned to wires and hammers ebby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    10,930

  5. #35
    the unhappy worker waitressboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,356
    Yesterday. At 4.06 am. It was soooooo f*cking cold.

    I was at the square when they accepted it.
    It was a-m-a-z-i-n-g.

    Plus, there was one senator (she said that we wanted the marriage so we could traffic sperm...) and she cried when we won.
    But she cried because she is part of the Opus Dei.
    When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Cairn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,235
    Quote Originally Posted by waitressboy View Post
    Yesterday. At 4.06 am. It was soooooo f*cking cold.

    I was at the square when they accepted it.
    It was a-m-a-z-i-n-g.



    Plus, there was one senator (she said that we wanted the marriage so we could traffic sperm...) and she cried when we won.
    But she cried because she is part of the Opus Dei.
    .

  7. #37
    condemned to wires and hammers ebby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    10,930
    What struck a chord the most in this country was that the compromise proposed by the catholics over there - some kind of civil unions with a conscience clause opt out for registrars etc or something = essentially what we've ended up getting here in Ireland, minus the conscience clause which was the cause of 2 days of debate in the higher house of parliament.

    Cue much head slapping and the like here when we see Argentina being more progressive, despite big marches against same sex marriage, whereas we've had big marches for civil marriage rights for same sex couples, and we've ended up with civil partnership

  8. #38
    flayed on the marble stairs
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,310
    That makes me really happy!

  9. #39
    the unhappy worker waitressboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by ebby View Post
    What struck a chord the most in this country was that the compromise proposed by the catholics over there - some kind of civil unions with a conscience clause opt out for registrars etc or something = essentially what we've ended up getting here in Ireland, minus the conscience clause which was the cause of 2 days of debate in the higher house of parliament.
    Yeah, the conscience clause was like the WTF of the whole thing... I'd really like to tell you the whole story about this law, but my english is pretty lame so let's see what we can do...

    Like 10 years ago, Capital Federal (the capital of Argentina) made the civil union. Which is, basically, a piece of crap. You can share the doctors and buy a house together... and nothing else. It was actually something symbolical. And it was ONLY in Capital Federal. There was nothing for the rest of the country.
    So three years ago, the FGLBT and the CHA (the two biggest associations for the rights of homosexuals in Argentina) started to think about asking the civil union for the whole country. The thing is, in Argentina we're going through a very particular situation about the president. Cristina Kirchner is the kind of person that you love her or you hate her. There's no middle term. (note: I'm in the band that hate her). Truth be told: she's making an excellent work about human rights. So the guys from FGLBT thought that instead of creating this symbolical ghetto of the civil union, we should ask for the marriage.
    Believe me, the last three months I've heard the most incredible things about gay people. Examples:
    *Gay people are actually sperm dealers.
    *Lesbian woman want to sell their ovules.
    *Gay people are soldiers from the Devil. (yeah, they include the Devil in the discussion)
    *The human race will extinguish if this law was approved.
    *The earthquakes in Chile and Haiti were signals from God showing that he was against gay marriage.
    *Gay people wants to get married so we can adopt children so we can rape them. (note: in Argentina, gay people can addopt since the 90s. As the law doesn't say anything about the sexuality of the father or the mother, we can addopt. Of course, the difference is that legally you're a single father or mother)
    *After this, we will ask to get married with our pets.

    There was one deputy who said the incredible line "I don't agree with this, and maybe my mind is closed, but my ass is closed too"...

    In Argentina, to approve a law you have to go to the deputies sector and then it goes to the senators sector. It was approved by the deputies, but the senators said that, instead of approving the gay marriage, a better idea was the civil union with the conscience clause. The thing, the CC is a right that citizens have. Not the judges. But Liliana Negre de Alonso, a @#$%& senator who claimed that we're sent from hell, really don't care about that and she proposed the CC in the union civil.
    The other senators told her that she was a nazi.


    Quote Originally Posted by ebby View Post
    Cue much head slapping and the like here when we see Argentina being more progressive, despite big marches against same sex marriage, whereas we've had big marches for civil marriage rights for same sex couples, and we've ended up with civil partnership
    There march against gay marriage was TERRIBLE. They took the children out of the schools and made them travel 500 km to go to the march. The children had no idea why they were there for.
    The true is that there was a lot of marchs supporting gay marriage. A lot (and I mean A LOT) of artists went there to play songs in all every march. We were every day in a lot of corners of the city collecting firms, giving rainbow ribbons, informing people. We even when to the center of the city one night and made a Ruidazo: the idea was just making noise. Clapping, whistles, drums, trumpets, vuvuzelas, it didn't matter: the idea was to make some noise.

    And it worked.

    The bad part is that the media never covered any of those marches, except maybe the first one, with 50.000 people in the square.

    On Wednesday the president will sign the law and then we can get married.
    I don't have anybody to get married with, but the important thing is that if I want to do it, I can.
    When he woke up, the dinosaur was still there.

  10. #40
    to the loneliest city in the world other pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    shatter shattered
    Posts
    5,962
    UK Government Announces Consultation on Gay Marriage

    Simon Hughes: Coalition Government will legislate to allow gay marriage

    By Stephen Tall | Published 20th July 2010 - 12:30 pm
    Here’s how PinkNews reports it:
    Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that the government will give gay couples the right to civil marriage. He predicted that the change would be made before the next general election. Mr Hughes said a consultation would take place in the coalition government on taking civil partnership to the next level.
    Speaking in a video interview, he said: “It would be appropriate in Britain in 2010, 2011, for there to be the ability for civil marriage for straight people and gay people equally. That’s different of course from faith ceremonies which are matters for the faith communities… they have to decide what recognition to give. The state ought to give equality. We’re halfway there. I think we ought to be able to get there in this parliament.”
    Currently, gay couples in the UK can have a civil partnership, which is not called marriage. They may not have a religious ceremony.
    Nick Clegg set out his full support for gay marriage at the start of the year.
    The contenders for the Labour leadership, meanwhile, are split, with Ed Balls, Diane Abbott, and Andy Burnham supporting full marriage equality. The Miliband brothers, however, have side-stepped the issue.
    ETA - And it very much reads like a consultation on the how and when of legislation, not whether to do it.

  11. #41
    Join The Resistance Barbarella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Whorelando
    Posts
    7,086
    Awesome!

  12. #42
    condemned to wires and hammers ebby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    10,930
    That would be fantastic! From an Irish perspective, we tend to follow the UK on equality legislation a few years after the fact, mostly because our government bodies are crap and very rarely do anything other than play follow the leader.

  13. #43
    Senior Member SoulQuake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    228
    Yay! It's probably just wishful thinking, but I feel like if it happens in the UK, we'll be even closer to it happening in the states. Probably not, but I can hope, right?

  14. #44

  15. #45
    Strangerer Rum 509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,127
    I was just reading this one -

    Prop. 8 supporters plan appeal before ruling

    Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco will decide whether Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violated gays' and lesbians' right of equality under the U.S. Constitution.

    After court officials on Tuesday announced plans to release the decision, Prop. 8's sponsors filed papers making it clear they expect to lose this round. They asked Walker, if he rules against them, to leave the ban on same-sex marriages in place while they appeal.
    They think that after ruling that Prop. 8 violates people's rights the judge will let it stand for now?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •