|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Jun 29, 2011 22:27:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Jun 29, 2011 22:49:37 GMT -5
Um no.
We are at 6 states that recognize a union under the name of marriage and thus provide equal status to all.
There are several other states, to which Rhode Island will become the newest member, that recognize the union of same sex partners under a different name (usually civil union) which provides all/most rights granted to traditional marriage. However those are considered possibly inferior under the separated but equal paradigm.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jun 29, 2011 22:52:32 GMT -5
Civil unions aren't controversial anymore, especially not in Rhode Island where polls show it to have the 2nd highest support for equal marriage (around 60%, only behind Massachusetts). I'm not expecting a lot of hubbub around it (and I live here).
The gay rights groups are up in arms over the religious exemptions which allows religious organizations to ignore the fact that someone is in a civil union. So for example, if one civilly united partner is admitted to a Catholic hospital in an emergency, then his/her partner may not be allowed to make any medical decisions. These religious exemptions apply only to civil unions and not marriages.
I say bring it. Let discrimination rear its ugly head and let's fix this via the courts where this issue belongs. Equal marriage is not just a privilege to be granted by a legislature; it should be recognized as a constitutional right.
Also, you're spelling it "Rhoad" Island in the title of the thread. I'm guessing this is an amalgamation of how it's spelled correctly in the article (Rhode Island) and how 80% of out-of-staters spell it ("Road Island"). :-P
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 29, 2011 22:56:02 GMT -5
Uh, marriage IS an absolute right.
Loving v. Virginia, folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 29, 2011 23:01:42 GMT -5
Uh, marriage IS an absolute right. Loving v. Virginia, folks. Why does no one ever make this argument when in a legal battle? |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 29, 2011 23:01:56 GMT -5
RR has the thread on NY, which was posted earlier, but I don't think they have one on RI yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jun 29, 2011 23:04:32 GMT -5
We will be the 9th State to offer relationship recognition on par with marriage:
California
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Nevada
New Jersey
Oregon
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Washington
States with limited rights:
Colorado
Maine
Maryland
Wisconsin
States with marriage equality:
Connecticut
Iowa
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New York
Vermont
(District of Colombia)
California will recognize all same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008 as marriages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Jun 29, 2011 23:04:48 GMT -5
Damn. I knew I was spelling it wrong. And no, the auto-correct wasn't helping.
I blame teh gayz.
ETA: Wow... even read it in the article. I R edumacated. *sulks in the shame corner*
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 29, 2011 23:55:44 GMT -5
Uh, marriage IS an absolute right. Loving v. Virginia, folks. Why does no one ever make this argument when in a legal battle? I have no idea, it seems pretty damn obvious to me. |
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Jun 30, 2011 1:25:50 GMT -5
I say bring it. Let discrimination rear its ugly head and let's fix this via the courts where this issue belongs. Equal marriage is not just a privilege to be granted by a legislature; it should be recognized as a constitutional right. Uh, marriage IS an absolute right. Loving v. Virginia, folks. Why does no one ever make this argument when in a legal battle? It is dangerous to take this issue to the Supreme Court because it is so conservative right now. You can be almost certain that 4 will vote against gay rights (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) and 4 will vote for it (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan). Kennedy is considered the swing vote, but he is more conservative than progressive. I have little doubt that the Supreme Court is where this fight will ultimately end, and homosexuals will be given marriage equality. The problem is that if it gets there too early, and a right-wing court rules against gay rights, it could take decades to overcome the legal precedent. Call me cynical, but what the law actually says doesn't mean very much in cases involving denying rights to a minority group. Bigoted judges will find a legalistic justification for their bigotry. The only reason that civil rights are typically won in the courts is that, in the aggregate, judges are considerably less bigoted than the population as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jun 30, 2011 2:10:20 GMT -5
Uh, marriage IS an absolute right. Loving v. Virginia, folks. Why does no one ever make this argument when in a legal battle? I think it is not used because of the stupid bigoted counter point of everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is an absolute right, but homosexuals as individuals are not being prevented from marrying, they are just being prevented from marrying someone they love. I think the right concerning gender and sex discrimination with regards to all rights as in the constitution is a far better argument. As it specifically focuses on the discrimination of not being allowed to marry someone on the grounds of the sex of the people involved regardless of all other opportunities for marriage. Still it is good seeing progress happening slowly but surely. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jun 30, 2011 2:30:14 GMT -5
Why does no one ever make this argument when in a legal battle? I think it is not used because of the stupid bigoted counter point of everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is an absolute right, but homosexuals as individuals are not being prevented from marrying, they are just being prevented from marrying someone they love. I think the right concerning gender and sex discrimination with regards to all rights as in the constitution is a far better argument. As it specifically focuses on the discrimination of not being allowed to marry someone on the grounds of the sex of the people involved regardless of all other opportunities for marriage. Still it is good seeing progress happening slowly but surely. Yeah, and white folks weren't prevented from marrying other white folks, they were just prevented from marrying someone they love (who happens to be black). |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jun 30, 2011 7:25:48 GMT -5
Our governor is a huge marriage equality supporter and should we get a favorable ruling in a lower court would not appeal it (like in California).
Also there are state-level courts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 30, 2011 7:36:13 GMT -5
So for example, if one civilly united partner is admitted to a Catholic hospital in an emergency, then his/her partner may not be allowed to make any medical decisions. Screw gays, THESE are the "special priveleges" that piss me off. |
|
