|
0 members (),
1
guest and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,089
Posts313,785
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Great Op-Ed by Frank Rich. the concluding portion: No president possesses that magic wand, but Obama’s inaction on gay civil rights is striking. So is his utterly uncharacteristic inarticulateness. The Justice Department brief defending DOMA has spoken louder for this president than any of his own words on the subject. Chrisler noted that he has given major speeches on race, on abortion and to the Muslim world. “People are waiting for that passionate speech from him on equal rights,” she said, “and the time is now.”
Action would be even better. It’s a press cliché that “gay supporters” are disappointed with Obama, but we should all be. Gay Americans aren’t just another political special interest group. They are Americans who are actively discriminated against by federal laws. If the president is to properly honor the memory of Stonewall, he should get up to speed on what happened there 40 years ago, when courageous kids who had nothing, not even a public acknowledgment of their existence, stood up to make history happen in the least likely of places.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Another view of anti-gay prejudice: Some gayby boomers say they are tired of hearing that their family isn't legitimate. It's an argument many have heard since they were children. They learned that they didn't fit the definition of the "right" family, and worried how others would react if they found out about their parents.
The result: the children of same-sex couples often lived lives that were more closeted than their parents.
"Many of us were so closeted that we didn't know others like us were out there," says Danielle Silber, a 26-year-old fundraiser for the International Rescue Committee, who was raised by lesbian mothers and gay fathers in Takoma Park, Maryland.
"In middle school, because of pervasive homophobia and taunting, I didn't tell any of my new friends in school about my family to the point where I wouldn't invite them to my birthday parties," Silber says.
Silber says she didn't tell her parents about her fear of harassment because she was afraid to stand up for her family in school even though she was proud of them.
"Although I would normally turn to my family, I couldn't because I was ashamed that I was ashamed of them," she says.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351 |
"I was ashamed that I was ashamed of them."
Awwwwwww....
...that's sad. And who placed this shame on this young girl? Society.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54 |
This thread is rather long so if this has been discussed earlier, just say so -
A friend was talking about the "Iowa wedding" (as they're called here) she'll be attending next week, and this question arose - as gay marriage becomes legal in more and more places, is there a parallel change in the definition of common-law marriage?
After all, there are couples who have been together for many years, some with formal commitment ceremonies - and it would seem that if they can legally marry, then common-law marriage should be recognized as well.
Any ideas on that?
Julia
A 45’s quicker than 409
Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time
Betty’s bein’ bad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Many, maybe most states do not have common law marriage. Common law refers to the law as it evolved in Britain before the revolution primarily, so I don't think it would apply to same gender situations.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,285 Likes: 351 |
Common Law Marriages are not recognized in the State of California - contrary to popular belief.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54 |
Actually I didn't have any beliefs about California law; my question was more general. Nebraska does not have common law marriage either, but recognizes legal marriage by common law from other states.
So I guess my question is state-specific, to those who recognize common-law marriage, and therefore unanswerable here.
(Athough it would seem that if this state recognizes common-law marriage from other states, even if we don't have it here, that would set some sort of precedent for recognizing other types of marriage not performed here.)
Last edited by Mellowicious; 07/01/09 11:03 AM.
Julia
A 45’s quicker than 409
Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time
Betty’s bein’ bad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Mellow, yes is one state recognizes within its borders common law marriage and another state recognizes such marriages, one would think that might apply to same gender marriages.
Except a majority of states have passed laws or constitutional amendments barring the recognition of any same gneder marriages from other states, as has the US (Defense of Marriage Act)
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
Mellow, this is a very pertinent point. "Common law" marriages are common in Midwestern states, the former "frontier" states, as the niceties of formal marriage processes were more difficult to obtain at the time the laws were solidified. States that no longer recognize common law marriages are generally the ones that have codified the process - set them down in law, thus modifying the "common" law through "civil" law. California (and Washington State) are "community property" states - a civil law concept - which is often confused with "common law" but is completely different, and really has more to do with inheritance and such (the law of descent and distribution). Your question, though, about States recognizing marriages of other States (including common law), is precisely on point. While the "Full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV,Section 1 - which governs the rights and obligations of the States within the Union) provides, Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. States have generally been given more latitude in the area of "domestic" or "family" law. Most will recognize most marriages performed, or recognized, in other States, but anti-miscegenation laws, for example, were for a good deal of time - well over 100 years - considered constitutional. (Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional. This ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964 in McLaughlin v. Florida and in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.) DoMA is a law that was passed by Congress in part to repudiate the requirements of Article IV, Section 1. I have always felt it was unconstitutional on that basis alone. As more States recognize marriage equality, it will become harder and harder to maintain the distinction between those marriages - which, by the way, DO have the formality that common law marriages lack - and other forms, such as religious, civil, or common law. It is a matter of time... I am just anxious to see that it happens, and repeal of DoMA is a good (big) first step.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
