Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-27-2004, 11:38 PM   #1 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
Problems with gay marriage already.

Well, I kind of thought this would happen...

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...30&sd=07/28/04

I'm actually a bit confused. How can the govt. not recognize legally married people? Defense of marriage act, sure, but how does that really play out? Can anyone enlighten me? Can they just say "Screw you."

It seems like fighting this is only delaying the inevitable. The cat is out of the bag, how are you going to put it back in?
Wax_off is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 12:02 AM   #2 (permalink)
paranoid
 
Silvy's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
For the link-challenged:

Quote:
FBI and passport officials say no to gay marriage

Gay men and lesbians who have legally married their same-sex partners in Massachusetts are finding that they don't have access to the same rights as straight couples once they return to their home states. The latest reports surfaced on Tuesday with the story of a New Hampshire gay man who is having trouble changing his passport license and with an account of the FBI's revoking health insurance benefits for a lesbian employee's partner in Connecticut.

Donald Henneberger, formerly Donald Smith, recently received a letter from the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, N.H., denying his request for a name change on his passport. The center said it would not recognize a marriage license for a same-sex couple as proof of a name change. The center addressed the letter to "Mr. Henneberger."

Henneberger married his partner of 23 years, Arthur Henneberger, in May, when same-sex marriages became legal in Massachusetts. On the marriage license the couple checked a box that automatically changes the last names of the partners to whatever they request. The letter from the National Passport Center cites the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states that a marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman and that a spouse can refer to only a person of the opposite sex. Donald Henneberger said he had no trouble with the Social Security Administration, another federal agency, when he requested a card in his new name.

He and his partner now have gone to probate court to get further proof of Henneberger's name change. "The woman at probate court said, 'What do you want to do--change your name to Henneberger? It's already Henneberger,"' Donald Henneberger said.

Rep. Richard Neal's office advised the Hennebergers to return to court and that this time the court would initiate the name change. The couple had sought the Democratic congressman's help. "You have to publicize your intent, demonstrate that you are not changing your name for fraudulent purposes, and then you have to appear before a judge," said Jennifer Levi, a professor at Western New England School of Law. She said the probate court name-change process is cumbersome. Henneberger balks at spending $180 in court fees and waiting for the eight-week process to run its course. "It's discriminatory," he said. Meanwhile, the FBI has rescinded health benefits that it says were mistakenly given to the same-sex partner of an agent after the couple wed in Massachusetts. Katy Gossman, an agent with the FBI in New Haven, Conn., received an e-mail from the bureau informing her that her wife, Kristin, would be removed from her health plan.

FBI spokesman Bill Carter said Tuesday the approval had been a mistake and an oversight. The U.S. government does not allow same-sex spousal benefits, Carter said.

The couple, who live in Meridien, Conn., had been receiving spousal benefits since May 30, Katy Gossman said. They were wed after gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May. Katy Gossman sent a copy of her marriage license to FBI headquarters in Washington seeking benefits for Kristin, whom she listed as her spouse. She also said the New Haven office called FBI headquarters to give them a "heads-up" about the situation. "I didn't try to hide it," Katy Gossman, 40, said Tuesday.

Kristin Gossman, 38, is a full-time student and had no health benefits before their marriage, Katy Gossman said. The Gossmans have not decided whether to fight the decision.

Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal has said that state law does not allow for same-sex marriages, but he declined to say whether Connecticut will recognize marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Massachusetts. The Gossmans are among eight couples who have filed a lawsuit challenging a 1913 Massachusetts law that was used to block other out-of-state couples from marrying in that state. Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has said that any gay marriages involving out-of-state couples would be declared void.
This will need to be fought... There is only one way this'll clear up, and that is when gay marriage is sufficiently recognized as having the same legal status as opposite-sex marriage.
__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)
Silvy is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 03:30 AM   #3 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Defense of Marriage Act once it hits federal courts:
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 08:24 AM   #4 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Amazing, we're going to spend MILLIONS of tax dollars fighting this crap when the money could go to legitimate needs (such as education, such as healthcare aid, such as raises for our men and women in the military).

Instead we make this an issue so the GOP can keep the Religious Right happy.


Then the GOP can talk about waste in the government and unnecessary lawsuits.

It never fuckin ends this side wants that so they sue and make laws, then the other side says, "fuck you" and sues and makes laws and the true needs of the people and the nation get pushed aside and underfunded because government has to face fucking lawsuits over bullshit.

And to make matters worse the press tries to fuel the fire in people so that they think the bullshit lawsuits and the laws are either good or bad (depending upon the bias) then in editorials talk about the waste in government and the needs of the people.

Grrrrrrrrr the fact government is trying so hard to fight this pisses me off (you cannot legislate morals it eventually costs more to legislate than to just let it play out). But the money spent pisses me off even more.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 08:38 AM   #5 (permalink)
BFG Builder
 
Location: University of Maryland
I don't understand how a country based on the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could be so opposed to the concept of two people being married. Get out of other people's lives!
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.
DelayedReaction is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 09:20 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
It is easy. It is my personal belief that many religious people feel that they need to force their ways on the non-believers. When in truth God gave mankind freewill so they could make their own choices and choose the path of their life. The religious should not be trying to force their value system on others instead let them make their own choices. If they make the wrong choices then they will face the consequences later but we should not be judging people and saying they are wrong
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 09:39 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
It is easy. It is my personal belief that many religious people feel that they need to force their ways on the non-believers. When in truth God gave mankind freewill so they could make their own choices and choose the path of their life. The religious should not be trying to force their value system on others instead let them make their own choices. If they make the wrong choices then they will face the consequences later but we should not be judging people and saying they are wrong
The really ironic thing about gay marriage is the both sides are claiming the other side is forcing their beliefs on the American public. It's comical how the religious right acts like they have no problem with gay people... as long as they stay hidden and in the shadows.
kutulu is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 09:58 AM   #8 (permalink)
Like John Goodman, but not.
 
Journeyman's Avatar
 
Location: SFBA, California
Quote:
Originally posted by kutulu
The really ironic thing about gay marriage is the both sides are claiming the other side is forcing their beliefs on the American public.
As Jon Stewart commented, gay marriage sounds like a horrid, disgusting and utterly unAmerican idea until you realize that it doesn't force everyone to marry within their own sex.
Journeyman is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 11:22 AM   #9 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Defense of Marriage Act once it hits federal courts:
lol so true.
Quote:
Article IV

Section 1. 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.
somebody needs to mail the FBI a copy of the constitution

Last edited by Locobot; 07-28-2004 at 11:39 AM..
Locobot is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 12:11 PM   #10 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
So the way I interpret Article IV is that the STATES have to give full faith and credit. The federal govt. isn't a state, they don't have to recognize these marriages. I can't imagine that doing that doesn't fall afoul of some other part of the constitution or law,.

I guess for me it just seems really unfair to say "You may be married is the eyes of the states, but not in the eyes of the federal government because you're a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman." For sure that's discrimination based on gender.
Wax_off is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 12:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Wax_off
So the way I interpret Article IV is that the STATES have to give full faith and credit. The federal govt. isn't a state, they don't have to recognize these marriages. I can't imagine that doing that doesn't fall afoul of some other part of the constitution or law,.

I guess for me it just seems really unfair to say "You may be married is the eyes of the states, but not in the eyes of the federal government because you're a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman." For sure that's discrimination based on gender.

IMHO, I think Art. IV basically is trying to state if you have a DL in one state it is to be recognized in all states and is refering to powers not given the Fed. BUT should there be problems within the states in recognition then the Fed. can make laws to to set a standard.

I think in HS we used slavery as an example of this Art. in that if a black man was a Mass. citizen and free, and had to travel to S. Car., S. Car had to recognize his free status from Mass. and he was still to be considered free in S.Car.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-28-2004, 10:10 PM   #12 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Perhaps I could be mistaken, but the fact that the constitution states that powers delegated to the states by federal law circumvent state law or pre-existing federal law, your Art. IV arguement is moot until DOMA is overturned.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 03:24 AM   #13 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Yes but it's an inevitability.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 10:47 AM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
DOMA is unconstitutional, you only have to look over to the recently passed DODOMA law to see that the right knows that it is only a matter of time before it comes up before a court that is willing to label it as such.
filtherton is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 11:10 AM   #15 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
DODOMA? Defense Of Defense Of Marriage Act?

I can't find any info on it. Link please?? Thanks.
Wax_off is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 01:31 PM   #16 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Zing, I guess.
__________________
it's quiet in here

Last edited by Kadath; 07-29-2004 at 01:34 PM..
Kadath is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 02:06 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=63422

This is what i was referring to.
filtherton is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 03:39 PM   #18 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Has it been ruled unconstitutional yet?
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 03:53 PM   #19 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Has it been ruled unconstitutional yet?
These things take time, but the precedent of the sodomy case practically guarantees how the Supreme Court will rule when the case gets to them. Even for a conservative SCOTUS, it is hard to legalize discrimination within the confines of our constitutional framework. I would hope that we are well past the days of Plessy vs. Ferguson.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 04:09 PM   #20 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Missouri
Some people, look so hard to find something to be angry about. It's just not worth it. Live and let live.

Best quote about the issue: "If you love someone, why should you care if they have a dick or not?"
__________________
Media Stew
skyscan is offline  
Old 07-29-2004, 04:54 PM   #21 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
Thanks for the link Filtherton. That one got by me.

Not to threadjack my own thread, but jeez, I can't believe anyone would have the balls to try to pass a law saying that the judiciary can't rule on the constitutionality of a law. That's insane.

[edit] The more I think about this the worse it seems. I don't throw this around lightly, but that bill is downright un-American. This country is built on the priciples of checks and balances. This is a clear attempt to circumvent that system, by definition, that's un-American.

Last edited by Wax_off; 07-29-2004 at 05:00 PM..
Wax_off is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 04:14 PM   #22 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally posted by Locobot
Quote:
Article IV

Section 1. 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.
somebody needs to mail the FBI a copy of the constitution
Also relevant:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Where in The Constitution does it say that the Federal Government is responsible for (or given premission for) defining marriage?
MSD is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 10:07 PM   #23 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
Quote:

Also relevant:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Where in The Constitution does it say that the Federal Government is responsible for (or given premission for) defining marriage? [/B]
No where does it say the Fed. gov. is responsible, but DOMA, A federal thjat circumvents all other law in the country, states the in this case the definition of marriage is relative to each individual state. Give it time, I'm sure within 2 years time it won't be an issue for you guys.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
 

Tags
gay, marriage, problems

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:25 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360