Pagans (from what I am told) don’t get married, they get hand fasted. Is hand fasting even valid according to the state/courts?
No, it’s not legal in and of itself. Couples who become hand-fasted must either use a priestess licensed by the state to marry (not very many of them), or also go to the Justice of the Peace.
Does every state have separate constitution? I know there are different laws but a constitution?
I believe they do, yes. As I recall from long ago Civics class, it may be one of the requirements for statehood.
Also from what I have heard on the news, the Supreme Courts & the Legislature have equal authority. How can one override the other? That is like Mom saying you can & then Dad saying you can’t. Well too bad, Mom already told me I could.
The system of checks and balances; our government, state and federal, is comprised of three branches: Executive (President/Governor), Legislative (Congress, House of Reps), and Judicial (Supreme Court). They all hold equal power, generally speaking, and may override the decisions of each other, though that is a serious matter and not performed lightly. Ultimately, though, the Judicial branch is charged with enforcing the laws created by the Executive and Legislative branches. If the two latter in Massachusetts amend the state constitution, the Judicial branch will be obligated to follow and enforce the amendment.
The Judicial branch’s highest power is to call a law or act unconstitutional. The Mass. Congress is trying to circumvent the Judicial branch’s power to do that by amending the state constitution itself, thus forcing the Judicial branch to enforce it without challenge.
If Mass. passes and ratifies the Amendment, there is only one way to get it repealed (short of the state congress reversing itself): Challenge the constitutionality of the Amendment under the United States Constitution. This would have to be done in Federal Supreme Court and may also need to be heard in the federal Congress. Given the current Republican anti-gay “family values” régime, the likelihood of the issue even being heard in Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court is small.
In other words, the prosed Amendment needs to be defeated BEFORE it passes. Otherwise, it will be a much, much harder battle to get it repealed.
I’m straight, but I believe wholly in the right for two consenting adults of either gender to make a partnership committment to oneanother, and for that committment to be validated as the legal definition of marriage. Long have I applauded progressive states like Vermont who allow same-sex marriages. Disney provides health care and other benefits to the long-time partners of their gay employees. Until last year when shrinking profit margins inspired Blue Cross & and Blue Shield (a Massachusetts corporation, incidentally) to cut its product offerings, BCBS offered health care coverage to non-married partners (either hetero or homosexual) of covered plan members.
More and more major corporations are recognizing the validity of same-sex relationships, whether the state allows the marriage or, if allowed, the couple would have been common-law-married. If the private sector can embrace the concept of same-sex marriages, isn’t the government therefore obligated to reciprocate?
See also:
An initiative to show support for gay marriages in Massachusetts (and anywhere).
Very quickly…Vermont doesn’t allow same-sex marriage. Civil unions are pretty different, in that the couple doesn’t have the same rights, such as joint tenancy, etc. It seems small, but the difference ends up being pretty huge. It’s nice to see all over the internet, and on the news, people saying they approve of gay marriage. It gives me hope.
I did, yes…and we were quietly cheering them on here in our living-room. I hope my correction didn’t sound pompous. But I have seen several gay people (on lists, etc.) lately writing about how accepting civil unions is allowing the powers-that-be to delegate us to the back of the bus. Interesting analogy, don’t you think? I don’t know. I’d just like to know that I can leave my partner this condo when I go, and not have my family rip it away from her. One wonders why it’s so much to ask.
I don’t think we will reach a point where same-sex marriages will be found morally acceptable by the majority. Simply put, one cannot force another to accept the notion of women bedding other women or men penetrating other men if they find that activity distasteful.
Marriage is simply a private contract between two individuals, and the government should have no say in the matter of marriage. But at the same time, marriage should not garnish entitlements as it does today (i.e., lesser tax rates and exemptions, representation in the courts, etc.) because they are illegal and violate federal and state discrimination laws.
I just think that the recent push for gay marriage “rights” has more to do with securing benefits than any thing else.
Brian’s comment is rankling me for some reason. Okay…
First of all…why does sex have to come into it? I don’t find the idea of sex between a man and a woman tasteful, but that’s not really the point, imo. What I do in my bedroom has absolutely nothing to do with my wanting equal rights in my life. And no, it’s not just about benefits. It’s about a fundamental wish to be on equal footing with everybody else. Did the blacks of the sixties just want better benefits? I don’t think so. It’s no different than that. It’s also not particularly recent…gays have been fighting for rights for decades.
Personally I think the only ‘valid’ way to deny gay marriage is on a religious basis. To say that it’s morally wrong to be gay and therefore gay marriage is morally wrong. However, if you do that, then NO marriage should receive legal protection. Because if it’s a religious thing, the government shouldn’t be involved. And if you want to keep those legal protections, then stop making a fuss over gays. I’m married, and some of those legal protections are nice. I get insurance at work, so does my husband and vice versa. I commit a crime (not that I would) and he can’t be forced to testify against me. I have someone who knows my wishes and can legally carry them out without a lot of fuss in the event something tragic happens to me. My marriage was not and is not a religious one. I am a religious person, Pagan, and my husband is not. We were married in a park by a mayor. Both I and my husband are ordained ministers and if Michigan ever manages to allow gay marriage, we’ve already said we’ll be one of the first ones there offering our services.
Marriage is either a legal union or a religious union. It can be both, however you cannot justifiably deny the right to equal legal protections and claim moral high-ground. The morals they are using are religious.
Ok, did anyone understand that?
I stand corrected. Thank you. Still, same-sex civil unions are a step in the right direction.
Did you see the convergence upon San Francisco today?
You didn’t sound pompous at all. I’m sincerely grateful that you corrected me.
America is a country struggling to reconcile it’s Fundamentalist origin, and all the rules and regulations that grew out of that origin, with a modern world no longer applicable to Fundamentalist rules.
If the empire doesn’t crumble under it’s own weight first, I believe we will reach a point wherein same-sex marriages are not only legal, but morally acceptable by the majority of the population and government.
As far as your condo… Have you thought of putting your partner’s name on it now, as co-owner? If you have a mortgage, you could add her to it or refinance as a co-signers, couldn’t you?
I’m with Pawz in that response.
She brings ups a good point too: The Civil Rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. Until then, the majority of white America found the idea of blacks holding public office or even being civil servants (police, firefighters, mail carriers, etc.) morally wrong. Blacks were inferior to whites, they thought. That changed. Now the vast majority of white America has no moral issue with blacks in office or civil service or in any walk of life.
As with those who have issues with African-Americans, there will always be a minority of people who have moral objections to same-sex marriages.
Perhaps more to the point: Twenty years ago the idea of a television show starring openly homosexual characters/actors was repugnant to much of America. Now the Nielsen ratings prove that the majority of America not only accepts but watches such television shows. To wit: “Ellen,” “The Ellen Degenerous [Talk] Show,” “Will & Grace,” “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” and on and on.
This too, shall pass.
Incidentally, if you feel that joint filing status and special treatment by the courts and government are unwarranted for married couples, you clearly aren’t and have never been married. Moreover, you clearly haven’t put enough thought into that opinion.
You might want to look at the lives, incomes, and acquisition and distribution of marital income and expenditures among some real live married couples, straight or gay, before you spend too much more energy espousing that view.
Well said, Gwynne.
I began to respond her, but it spun off into a post of its own.