Mothering Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I live in WA, and I am taking it much harder than I thought I would.

I had listened via live feed to the court arguments when they were first heard by the Supreme Court Justices. I am biased, obviously, but the legal arguments in the side against the ban on same-sex marriage were the strongest arguments. I half thought the primary attorney making the arguments on the side in favor of the ban was not personally on the side he was arguing...it didn't seem he was trying very hard. I knew there was a 50/50 chance based on the wild card justices, but I guess deep inside I thought I would wake up this morning and learn I can make my marriage (we were married by our church four years ago as of a week from now). It just didn't seem logical to me that they would go the way the went, based on the strength of the legal arguments.

This day is so sad. I feel this sinking feeling in my chest. My heart hurts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,378 Posts
Have you been listening to KUOW at all today? Bunch of whack-jobs calling in with the usual, "I'm not homophobic, but.." bullshit.

I liked how the justices equated marriage with procreation. Guess that should piss off all the straight people who are married and don't have kids.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
(((((hugs))))))
that just sucks. I'm not familiar with the decision specifics but I can get the gist from your post. As a very public figure in Canada's positive decision, I totally understand how hurtful this stuff can be, and I find now that I have a kid it's even harder emotionally. so sorry!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,587 Posts
Caught your post on the fly, but had to respond and send you cyberhugs. I'm so sorry. It is really going to be a long uphill battle in this country. We will hopefully (fingers crossed) have a issue on the ballot this fall in Colorado that will legalize same sex domestic partnerships - not perfect, but a good first step. I THINK we have a good chance of passing. I'm hopeful that will just be one more small step in getting the whole country on board. Don't know if that helps at all, but.... I'm so sorry - what a crappy day for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks for commiserating with me folks. ColoradoMama, I remember all too well ammendment 2 from when I was living in Colorado. I only hope that the domestic partnerships get voted in as a small first step. By the way, I have a friend there who has two "step children" via her relationship with her partner. If there were second parent adoptions there, she would have attempted to adopt them by now. I shudder as I think of all the threats she faces to her rights or voice in matters having to do with the kids, since she is basically considered a stranger to them in the courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,020 Posts
I don't understand this defense of marriage BS. How is allowing everyone the same rights endangering people who already have those rights? How is allowing gay marriage endangering hetero marriage?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,556 Posts
LOVE IS LOVE!!!!!! in no place does it say love has to be between an man and woman! i dont understand why they cant see that! i dont tell "them" who they cant or can love (marrie) so why do they think they can tell you.

Im so sorry! i will never know how you feel 100%! but i can say if they told me i could not get married to my DH i would be LOST. but i can say im on your side. i think the sould let gays get married. ITS THEIR RIGHT!!!!!! who are we to say it is wrong!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
Grrr -it's so frustrating.
I don't even want to get married but of course I support everyones right to do so...
and I certainly want my relationship to have equal recognition to hetero r'ships and I absolutely want my partner to have legal parenting rights.

It's going to take a long time to have same-sex marriage legalised here but some of our states are starting to pass civil union legislation...and the freakin Federal govt is doing all it can to overturn it.

I feel your sadness and frustration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,466 Posts
This is very sad to me as I live in Washington State. What angers me is that the government thinks that it has any right to define what marriage is. Marriage is about love, and it's between you and the person you love. PERSON...meaning a male or female.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital
I don't understand this defense of marriage BS. How is allowing everyone the same rights endangering people who already have those rights? How is allowing gay marriage endangering hetero marriage?


I'm constantly amazed how often (so called) morality plays a big role in laws and government when we have a constitution founded on separation of Church and State. Without the "sin" aspect, they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,842 Posts
I know
I was very sad when I saw this- I work for a small gay press and I usually see news headlines early. In my faith this is considered a very sad time of year and I'm not having a hard time feeling "in mourning right now.
:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,067 Posts
Yes.
It has been a difficult day. I too am in Washington.
I am so sorry, Sierra. I'm so sorry your heart hurts. Mine does too.
One day, you guys, one day. SOON.

History is cyclical, and you can see what happened in the past. Women's rights and racial issues have come a long way. It's not perfect, but it's SO much better than it used to be. We'll get there. We'll get there. And not just legally, but people's delusional thinking will change.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital
I don't understand this defense of marriage BS. How is allowing everyone the same rights endangering people who already have those rights? How is allowing gay marriage endangering hetero marriage?
No one has answered this question. It continues to amaze me that people can say "it hurts marriage" and just stop right there and no one in the media ever presses them to follow through with this line of (not really) thinking. It's simply amazing.

I was in my last year of law school when the Massachusetts SJC heard the oral arguments for marriage in MA. I was lucky enough to be one of the last people admitted into the courtroom, after standing in line for 2 hrs outside the courthouse. With respect to the rationale that marriage is for procreation, one of the justices asked the MA assistant attorney general (AAG) about that, after she argued it. The judge inquired, "So, what you are saying then is that all heterosexual couples who are married and don't have children must get divorced, right? And all heterosexual couples planning to get married, but who have decided not to have children, shouldn't be allowed to marry, right?" And the AAG had NOTHING to say except, "Well...no...that's not what we're saying..." Then another judge asked another question. Then the judge inquired, after the AAG talked about children being better off in heterosexual homes, "But, you allow gay couples to adopt. You allow gay couples to have foster children. And all of the research shows that these children are just as well adjusted as those in heterosexual homes. So, why do you allow them to adopt but not allow them to complete their families by getting married?" The AAG responded in the same lame, innane, idiotic way she did to the other question.

None of the debate makes any sense. I grew up in a lesbian home and have painful memories of how these laws have hurt families like mine. These laws continue to hurt families like mine.

This is what happens when the ignorant masses are allowed to run a country as opposed to the thinking few. If the civil rights of the 50s and 60s were put to popular vote, I would be riding the back of the bus today.
:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,020 Posts
ebony, if it was the 1950's all over again, I'd give you my seat and sit in the back of the bus.

I'm in favor of equal treatment for EVERYONE. Regardless of sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, color, national origin, disability, or whatever else people are discriminated against for. (Wow, my English escaped me there...)
I am in favor of a letter writing campaign. Anyone else up for it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Personally, I think it ultimately ends up being a financial issue. If gay marriages were "allowed", then businesses would have to spend megabucks to provide insurance for those married couples, and survivor benefits in the event of death. This is the only argument I see for not allowing gay marriage. Let's face it, money talks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by maigheach
This is the only argument I see for not allowing gay marriage. Let's face it, money talks!
But if that is the case, wouldn't Washington be eager to legalize same-sex marriage (this term is much more accurate than "gay marriage," for what it's worth)? Washington doesn't have a residency requirement for marriages? People can get married here even if they aren't residents. If same-sex marriage was legal here, I think we'd become an attraction for tourism, marriages (ah the wedding industry!), etc. Plus, some insurance companies offer same-sex domestic partner benefits and have studied it and found it cost effective. Now things like survivor benefits in terms of social security I can see, but I really don't think that is the driving force.

It is nothing but discrimination. That's it.

What I think is the worst part of the ruling is that the whole argument of marriage=procreation got credit. Come on. It is not illegal for infertile couples to marry. And folks who marry don't have to sign any promise that they will have children. Plus, we're in the 21st century here...same-sex couples can have children through sperm donation. Not to mention, my dw and I are adoptive parents through WA state foster care. How is it that we're good enough to parent this "unwanted" child, but not good enough to parent children we might give birth to through sperm donation?! All kinds of flaws in the whole thing.

If you want to read the majority opinion and its concurrence, as well as the dissent, it's at:
And finally, one rant: I think its important that the discussion of same-sex marriage in our country is framed from a useful context, and I offer this as part of the context. The religious freedom our constitution affords us means that no religion can tell another religion what they can and can't do. Would we really want the Catholics to dictate what the Methodists can do? Or the Episcopals to dictate what the Jews can do? Or the Jews the Muslims? Of course not! We do not live in a country with an official religion. Some religions allow religious leaders to officiate at same-sex weddings, some do not. That's fine. But as long as there are all those different religions, and as long as religious leaders (rabbis, priests, ministers, etc.) are given the power to pronounce marriages, than the government should honor that power so long as the individuals are consenting adults. To do otherwise would be to allow one religious perspective to dictate what other religions can do.

If the government wants to take that power out of the hands of religious leaders, and make legal marriages a legal institution only a government official can pronounce, then that would be fine with me too. But if you take religion out of it, then a single religious perspective (even a majority religious perspective) can't come into play. Our countries highest documents and imperatives are now designed to, in part, protect minorities from majorities. But apparently, we're still failing at this.

End of rant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,378 Posts
As far as insurance coverage goes, doesn't the new antidiscrimination law cover that? Most companies (and the state) already cover domestic partners if they cover spouses.

Does anyone know if antidiscrimination statute (which wasn't in place when the case was argued) will affect the status of the DOMA? Seems to be a pretty damn clear violation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,587 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sierra
But as long as there are all those different religions, and as long as religious leaders (rabbis, priests, ministers, etc.) are given the power to pronounce marriages, than the government should honor that power so long as the individuals are consenting adults. To do otherwise would be to allow one religious perspective to dictate what other religions can do.
Very good point!
I never looked at it that way.

You know, the whole marriage is for procreation thing really offends me (probably sounds silly coming from a VERY pregnant woman who already has three kids!). I didn't marry my significant other so we could have kids!!! We didn't need a marriage certificate for that - just sex. I married him because I was in LOVE with him. Isn't THAT what marriage is about? Isn't THAT why most couples - heterosexual or homosexual - WANT to get married? I mean, come on. Argh.

Well, we should know in about a month if our initiative here in Colorado will be on the ballot in November. {{fingers crossed tightly}}
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
Aww, thanks Dreams
but I don't think the choice would be up to you. It would be up to the other white people on the bus who will call in the cops and then you and I both would be in trouble
That's the problem with the government sanctioning ignorant behavior.

As for the religious argument, I think it is irrelevant. Marriage is a civil right bestowed upon couples by the government. You can have as many religious ceremonies as you choose but you will never receive any of the government benefits unless you register your marriage with the appropriate government clerk.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top