16 down, 34 to go...

[Miss Philicia]

It IS progress -- and astounding progress at that.  Five years ago not many folks would have dreamed that we'd be where we are today.  The peace of mind that this gives to many couples is enormous - the ability to adopt a child, to know that inheritance rights are there, hospital visitation is guaranteed, never mind the right to make decisions for a spouse when needed, I could go on and on.  I get that marriage isn't for everyone, but it is for me and this progress is enormous and hugely impactful.

Not sure why folks must try to denigrate a win by pointing out an area where progress is still needed.

M

Because all gay people need employment protection provided under EDNA legislation. Not all gay people get married. In fact, only a small percentage of them get married. You're in a relationship so naturally your view on the issue is (understandably) biased. I'm neither employed nor in a relationship so my viewpoint is neutral.

You can't deny that all the air has been sucked up in terms of political capital and funding in the past decade on marriage equality at the expense of passing EDNA. In fact public polling shows your average voter assumes gay people already have such protections.

[bocker3]

Yes, I agree that ENDA is very important.  Though, I don't think that not having ENDA means that marriage equality is "less important".  Ending any form of discrimination is important and when it happens it IS progress.

Why did marriage move faster than ENDA?  Perhaps because employment discrimination is allowed to happen, whereas marriage discrimination was mandated in dozens of states.  So, while a percentage of people might lose their job for being gay, 100% of people in most states were not allowed to marry.

Again -- not saying ENDA isn't important -- but marriage equality is progress and is important too.

oh, and I'm not convinced that ENDA's languishing is due to the marriage equality fight -- it is due more, IMO, to the fact that marriage had a strong legal basis for judicial challenge, while ENDA is pretty much in the hands of Congress -- and we know how much of ANYTHING has happened in the last few years in that venerable institution.

M

[buginme2]

You're in a relationship so naturally your view on the issue is (understandably) biased. I'm neither employed nor in a relationship so my viewpoint is neutral.

Wait, your neutral because your not in a relationship and you don't work?  So following that logic, since I'm both married and employed my viewpoint is also neutral. 

You don't give up progress on one issue because you haven't made progress on a different issue. There's a saying for that, isn't it don't shoot yourself in the foot despite your face?  It's also what children do when they don't get their way.

[leatherman]

Not all gay people get married. In fact, only a small percentage of them get married

there's a terrible argument.  So because gay people haven't been able to get married in most states, then marriage rights are less important because gay people aren't getting married??

I'm neither employed nor in a relationship so my viewpoint is neutral.

this argument is just sad. Since I've already been lucky enough to have been in 2 relationships where I wish I could have gotten married, I won't ever say that I won't get lucky again and find another man I'd want as my spouse. Are you saying you're neutral on the marriage issue because you don't think you'll find someone you love that much? Or someone won't find you?

Personally I see the same sex marriage issue as the cure to many of the ills you have complained about. Once gays are allowed to marry, young teen-aged gays will be better able to date openly and will go on to have "normal" uncloseted lives. While it won't happen overnight, it will happen and that'll be an amazing change for gay people! As gays are allowed to marry, ENDA will gain more power and many discriminatory practices will have to be stopped because other rights should flow from the marriage decision. Once marriage is legal in a state, a lawsuit to keep a home or keep a picture on a desk will be a much easier win.

You can't deny that all the air has been sucked up in terms of political capital and funding in the past decade on marriage equality at the expense of passing EDNA.

ah! the funding issue rears its ugly head once again. Funding for research, funding for treatment, and funding for political/legal outcomes all come at a price because funding is finite. Some time ago, ENDA and same-sex marriage sucked up a lot of the funding and capital that used to be devoted to the HIV epidemic. I would suggest that these funding and political changes came about because many gays who were not infected by HIV decided they were "neutral" on the topic and moved on to other issues they deemed more important to their lives.

[tednlou2]

So, is SCOTUS going to hear appeals or not?  I'm confused.  A stay was issued for Idaho, which included Nevada.  The article says Idaho was the only state to appeal.

Anyway, I just heard the stay has been lifted for Nevada, but still in effect for Idaho.  I guess Idaho has until Thursday to present their appeal.  I don't understand saying they will not hear appeals, but now are.  Perhaps legal scholars would say it is appropriate what Kennedy did today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/08/gay-marriage-supreme-court-kennedy-idaho-nevada/16907035/

[mitch777]

I think it's beneficial for some and not for others.


I do worry about what if I lose my health insurance?  I don't qualify for Adap or any other public assistance now due to my income.  When you include his there's no way I would qualify for anything.  Should I require to be on any type of assistance I would need to get a divorce first , that's fucked up.

That's what I thought. We could have benefitted being married over a decade ago IF it were legal tax wise but now am facing assistance qualifiers. It really is fucked up. Guess we missed the opportunity to get married and divorced. lol.

[mitch777]

While the ability to be married or not won't affect me I do know that we need an equal footing in our society. I'm not neutral in the least and I also am amazed that anyone would suggest that getting this equality is going at a fast pace. I know it is now but I imagine a 70ish year old couple that have been together for decades would be laughing hysterically.

[bocker3]

I also am amazed that anyone would suggest that getting this equality is going at a fast pace.

If you don't think that this has moved quickly then I don't know what to say.  Pretty much EVERYONE is amazed at the speed of change on this topic.  Marriage equality was not really anywhere in the conversation a few years ago -- now more than half the country has it.

If your starting point is the Big Bang, then yeah - a long time.  My starting point is when folks truly galvanized around the issue -- rights are rarely expanded without advocates, so nothing was going to happen on it 20 years ago.

Mike

[Miss Philicia]

this argument is just sad. Since I've already been lucky enough to have been in 2 relationships where I wish I could have gotten married, I won't ever say that I won't get lucky again and find another man I'd want as my spouse. Are you saying you're neutral on the marriage issue because you don't think you'll find someone you love that much? Or someone won't find you?

Look Mikie, I was in a relationship a decade ago which, if there had been marriage equality, I could have (or he could have) moved from one country to another -- marriage equality is an even more important issue for those in relationships that involve two countries. So yes, I do see the value in the issue. I still maintain that as an issue it still effects a smaller amount of people -- those are just facts. It's the same with housing discrimination for gay people. That effects every gay person.

I apologize to the forum that I don't repeatedly divulge my personal life spanning decades over and over and over ad nauseam.

[leatherman]

I still maintain that as an issue it still effects a smaller amount of people -- those are just facts.

and I just disagree. I believe same-sex marriage will not only have long term effects for every gay person having any sort of relationship from high school onward; but it is a right for every gay person. Just because some/many may not use this right does not mean that it isn't as important a right to every gay person as non-discrimination in employment and housing are also important rights to every gay person.

Quite honestly, isn't that the pantheon of gay rights? the right to marry who you want; the right to work where you want and not be fired for just being gay; and the right to live where you want without being forced out onto the streets because you're gay.

[bocker3]

I still maintain that as an issue it still effects a smaller amount of people -- those are just facts. It's the same with housing discrimination for gay people. That effects every gay person.

I do get the point that you are making here.  Though I would add that these are potential impacts that don't actually hit the majority of gay people who are employed or need housing.  However, the marriage inequality hit EVERY gay person who wished to marry.  Plus, as I said earlier, the marriage question was an easy one to get to the courts, as states were enshrining this discrimination in theirs laws and constitutions.  I've not yet seen a state MANDATE the firing of gays or forbidding renting an apartment to them.  So, it's not too surprising that it was achieved first.

Bottomline -- all discrimination needs to end, but if all isn't solved at once, it still doesn't lessen the victory that was achieved.  It simply means more needs to be done.

Mike

[tednlou2]

Here's a good breakdown of what happens next in marriage equality.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5946680?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000010

[wolfter]

I apologize to the forum that I don't repeatedly divulge my personal life spanning decades over and over and over ad nauseam.

So when it goes beyond reasonable discussion, it's truly better to resort to attacks?  And it's not just that Mikie and I are friends, we are very similar in many regards.  We've both dragged corpses around a long time and it's a painful aspect of our history and probably dictates who we are today.

[buginme2]

Supreme Court has denied idaho's delay.   Marriage is now legal in Idaho and.....North Carolina!

North Carolina I will have a drink in your honor tonight.  A southern gay wedding sounds downright charming.

[J.R.E.]

Supreme Court has denied idaho's delay.   Marriage is now legal in Idaho and.....North Carolina!

North Carolina I will have a drink in your honor tonight.  A southern gay wedding sounds downright charming.

   Here's the link for that:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/10/supreme-court-idaho-gay-marriage/17035827/


Ray

[Miss Philicia]

So, it's been a year and a half since gay marriage was passed in Socialist France and stuff like this is still going on. Rather amazing don't you think? I can't even see things like this happening in South Carolina or Kansas once gay marriages start up. Maybe a day or two of small groupings on the steps of the state capital which will fade away quickly but that will be about it.

[buginme2]

Rather amazing don't you think? I can't even see things like this happening in South Carolina or Kansas once gay marriages start up.

I agree.

Do you think it is because the French are more likely to protest (regardless the reason)?  Or do you think it is because of a more intense dislike of marriage equality?  It said in the article 30 percent of French dont support gay marriage.  Its higher in the US, especially in Kansas and the South. 

I can't picture the people in Kansas or South Carolina protesting much.  I often wonder why people don't protest more in this country.  Where I live, protests are quite common.  Probably daily, or weekly.  Its not uncommon to be stuck in traffic because of some impromptu protest blocking the streets.  Just last week when I was driving to work I got stuck in a protest. 

I don't get the impression that people throughout the country do the same.  It seems limited to the more liberal places like SF, NYC, etc etc. 

Are Americans inclined to get off their asses regardless of what its for? 

[leatherman]

I can't picture the people in Kansas or South Carolina protesting much.

that's cause you don't live here. Anti-abortionists, anti-gay, pro-church, anti-Obama confederate flag wavers are on the steps of the state house all the time protesting something. When pro-sex-ed, pro-gay, pro-church put-the-flag-away-people show up for their own rallies, those "other" people are always there. at the last pro-medicaid-expansion rally where there were about 500 people on one side of the capital building advocating for access to health care, there were about 300 old, white (men and women), confederate flag wavers on the other side of the capital hollering about how we should all burn in hell.

IMHO I always thought South Carolina would be the last to fall. Since our Governor and AG are still fighting to keep the state constitutional ban (78% of the votes, during the midterm election before Obama was elected POTUS, put it into place in 2006), it'll still be a while before its legal in SC.

Maybe a day or two of small groupings on the steps of the state capital which will fade away quickly but that will be about it.

what's that old saying? "from your lips to god's ear" However, i think you are right and that is what will most likely to happen. Those Bible-thumpers will make some noise for a while  However, I'm most worried about the noise they will make right now. This is just another issue they can fear-monger with to get a large republican/libertarian/tea party turn-out for the Nov midterms. As always, the issue of same sex marriage will bring crowds to the polls, and SC will stay just as red as ever.

[buginme2]

#Arizona

That makes...30?

[Dan0]

Barring activity by the Attorney General - which they probably will - asking for a stay of the ruling, it's DARK BLUE now! 

Jan Brewer - suck it!

[tednlou2]

You can color Wyoming in, as their ban was just knocked down.  The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Alaska.  Not sure what's taking the 6th District so long. 

[mitch777]

Barring activity by the Attorney General - which they probably will - asking for a stay of the ruling, it's DARK BLUE now! 

Jan Brewer - suck it!

I saw another map earlier today that colored the gay marriage states in red. It just seemed wrong, SO wrong. lol.

[buginme2]

I saw another map earlier today that colored the gay marriage states in red. It just seemed wrong, SO wrong. lol.

That's genius

Beats it being pink

[Dan0]

And now Wyoming at 33....oops Ted beat me to it.

[Jeff G]

OH lord ... the South is rising to a new low . An Author has suggested the South succeed because of gay marriage . Im sure it will lead to a civil war ... The Rainbow War probably .
 
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/conservative-author-wants-states-secede-over-gay-rights

[buginme2]

Thats comedic gold.

He wants to call it Reagan land and is forbidding Texas from joining because there are too many Mexicans. 

You can't make that shit up.

[zach]

the rainbow, when did that become a gay symbol?

just curious

[Jeff G]

the rainbow, when did that become a gay symbol?

just curious

We may never know ... if you wear special goggles you can see the rainbow coming out of homosexuals butts all over the world and ending in West Hollywood .

[Wade]

This is better than Letterman

[Joe K]

the rainbow, when did that become a gay symbol?

just curious

I found this:

1978

The first Rainbow Flag was designed in 1978 by Gilbert Baker, a San Francisco artist, who created the flag in response to a local activist's call for the need of a community symbol. (This was before the pink triangle was popularly used as a symbol of pride.)

Joe

[tednlou2]

I found this:

1978

The first Rainbow Flag was designed in 1978 by Gilbert Baker, a San Francisco artist, who created the flag in response to a local activist's call for the need of a community symbol. (This was before the pink triangle was popularly used as a symbol of pride.)

Joe

Wasn't the pink triangle taken from how the Nazis labeled homosexuals, or those accused of being gay?

[Miss Philicia]

Yes, it was originally a Nazi identification symbol.

[J.R.E.]

Pam Bondi ( AG of Florida),  Still refuses to budge:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/10/24/pam_bondi_to_federal.html


TALLAHASSEE (AP) --

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is asking a federal judge to keep the state's ban on gay marriage in place despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The court's decision to turn away appeals from five states prompted the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida as well as lawyers representing same-sex couples to ask a federal judge in Tallahassee to allow same-sex marriages.

But Bondi on Friday asked that U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle keep the state's ban in place while the state pursues appeals. Hinkle ruled Florida's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional this summer, but stayed the ruling until other cases around the country were resolved.

Bondi's court filings said there is a "great public interest" in keeping the state's marriage laws stable at this point.

[tednlou2]

Decision in Missouri.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=32236355&title=judge-overturns-missouri-ban-on-gay-marriage

[mitch777]

I'm losing track. Is it time to change the name of the thread to 32 down, 16 to go...?

Still waiting and waiting and waiting for the decision from District Court # whatever that covers from Kentucky to Michigan.

[tednlou2]

I'm losing track. Is it time to change the name of the thread to 32 down, 16 to go...?

Still waiting and waiting and waiting for the decision from District Court # whatever that covers from Kentucky to Michigan.

I am still waiting on the 6th Circuit decision, too.  That covers KY, TN, OH, and MI.  It has now been 3 months, since oral arguments on August 6th.

[buginme2]

I think everyone is waiting for that decision.  Of all the court decisions so far the most likely to hold up a marriage ban is the 6th.  If they do, the supreme court is going to have its hand forced.  If they overturn the bans...I think that would be the end of it. 

[Miss Philicia]

source

The same-sex marriage movement lost its first major case in a federal appeals court Thursday after a lengthy string of victories, creating a split among the nation's circuit courts that virtually guarantees Supreme Court review.

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed district court rulings that had struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

More important, it gives Supreme Court justices an appellate ruling that runs counter to four others from the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits. Those rulings struck down same-sex marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho and Nevada and led to similar action in neighboring states.

The six cases before the three-judge panel involved not only whether gays and lesbians should be able to marry, but whether marriages performed elsewhere should be recognized, whether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children, and whether their names should be placed on partners' death certificates.

The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin cases, at least in part because there was no conflict among the federal appeals courts. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minneapolis audience that a ruling against same-sex marriage from the 6th Circuit panel would make Supreme Court consideration more urgent.

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry, including the five states from which the high court turned down appeals. Since then, eight additional states have been added to the list: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming. Three more states -- Kansas, Montana and South Carolina -- also are bound by the appeals court rulings.

The justices ruled 5-4 in June 2013 that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states that allow them. They also refused to overrule a California court's decision striking down that state's ban.

Those rulings have led federal and state judges to overturn state bans in more than two dozen more recent decisions. The string of federal court victories was broken in early September in Louisiana, where a federal district judge upheld that state's ban. Then in October, a federal judge in Puerto Rico upheld the territory's ban.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld Nebraska's gay marriage ban in 2006, long before the Supreme Court's ruling last year. But in deciding not to consider any cases recently, the justices clearly did not give that decision equal weight in determining whether the appeals courts were divided.

[tednlou2]

Sad day.  I still think Kennedy will be the 5th vote to overturn their decision.  I hope. 

[mitch777]

I must have ESP. I just felt a bowel movement coming but wasn't sure where it was coming from. Now I know.

[Miss Philicia]

Sad day.  I still think Kennedy will be the 5th vote to overturn their decision.  I hope. 

You best hope Ginsberg doesn't croak in the next 12 months because I am sure filling her position with a Republican controlled Senate would be a lot of fun.

[buginme2]

I must have the ESP. I just felt a bowel movement coming but wasn't sure where it was coming from. Now I know.

HA, that made me laugh.  I'm sitting in the lobby of the aids clinic giggling.

You best hope Ginsberg doesn't croak in the next 12 months because I am sure filling her position with a Republican controlled Senate would be a lot of fun.

That's a real concern, she's like 150

[J.R.E.]

Decision in Missouri.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=32236355&title=judge-overturns-missouri-ban-on-gay-marriage

And today a federal Judge ruled in  Missouri :
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-rules-missouri-ban-on-gay-marriage-violates-us-constitution/ar-AA70OnT?ocid=mailsignout

[tednlou2]

The Kentucky playground that "Will & Grace" built.

http://www.upworthy.com/these-backwoods-country-folks-had-some-ideas-about-homosexuality-hollywood-noticed?c=ufb1

[Jeff G]

This is almost uplifting ... http://news.yahoo.com/tv-campaign-gay-equality-starting-miss-170610624.html

[Miss Philicia]

South Carolina's gay marriage ban struck down in federal court

Judge cites fourth circuit decision in Virginia in ruling knocking down same-sex marriage ban, but gives time for state to appeal

[Miss Philicia]

Supreme Court green lights Kansas same-sex marriages

Same-sex couples may begin to marry in Kansas despite a request from the state attorney general to halt gay nuptials there, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered on Wednesday.

In a one-page order, the court announced without explanation an earlier request to stay same-sex marriages in Kansas pending appeal was denied and the hold entered by U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor is vacated.

The order denotes that U.S. Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have granted the application for an extended stay.

On Monday, Sotomayor, who’s responsible for stay requests in the Tenth Circuit, had placed a temporary hold on same-sex marriages in Kansas until the court reviewed the matter following the stay request from Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt.

In his injunction against the Kansas marriage ban, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree had placed his own stay on the ruling, but that expired on Tuesday at 5 pm Central Time. Now that the Supreme Court has denied a further stay, same-sex couples are free to marry at any time.

But the litigation is still ongoing on the merits. Kansas has requested the full U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals consider the district court injunction in “en banc” review. That request is still pending before the appeals court.

[tednlou2]

A federal judge just ruled Montana's ban unconstitutional.  It seems these rulings, after SCOTUS refused to take appeals, are just going through, with appeals being denied. 

So, if the judge for KY didn't rule until now, would that mean KY would have marriage equality?  Would the original federal judge ruling stand and it wouldn't have gone to the 6th Circuit of Appeals?  This is all so confusing.

[leatherman]

South Carolina's gay marriage ban struck down in federal court

Those who married elsewhere are now officially married in the state
marriage licenses will begin to be issued tomorrow 11/20 at noon. WooHoo!

If you married elsewhere and still need to have a name change on your SC documents, there are still delays there. They say within a few days the DMV and other agencies will have their act together. Hopefully it won't take another court case to bring all of SC along.

[J.R.E.]

Florida's same-sex marriage stay declined, marriages to begin next month?

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/12/3/gay_marriage_ruling.html


ATLANTA --

A federal appeals court on Wednesday gave the green light to same-sex marriages in Florida.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta declined to extend the stay on Florida's gay marriage ruling. Without any action taken by the Supreme Court of the United States, gay marriages will start in Florida in January 2015. The current stay expires at the end of the day Jan. 5, 2015.

Several judges had ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, but Attorney General Pam Bondi appealed each time.

Bondi's office said they are reviewing the order right now.

This is a developing story. Check back and refresh the page for the latest.