The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2012, 03:45 PM   #271
infinite monkey
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
You can't hide your ionize...
infinite monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 03:55 PM   #272
Sundae
polaroid of perfection
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
Why should you have to declare yourself divorced anyway?
For all legal and tax purposes you are single once a divorce is finalised.
Why should you have to admit to a failed union?

And no, I'm not being facetious.
I'm divorced myself and have always considered it a peculiar question.
Sundae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 03:57 PM   #273
infinite monkey
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
I've actually wondered that too.

And engaged doesn't count.

Nor does pre-engaged, or engaged to be pre-engaged.

You're either in a union or you're not.

But...what about widowed?
infinite monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 03:59 PM   #274
Ibby
erika
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,082
Why can't losing your civil partner be called widowed?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 04:01 PM   #275
Sundae
polaroid of perfection
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
I think Shawnee is asking - why is it necessary?
For Civil Union or Married.
Sundae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 04:01 PM   #276
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
Why can't losing your civil partner be called widowed?
Because it is a sacred institution, and gay widows would destroy traditional widowhood.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 04:02 PM   #277
Sundae
polaroid of perfection
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
Spanx
Sundae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 04:05 PM   #278
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundae View Post
Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God.
There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union.
I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal.
Whoa Whoa Whoa. First you secularist declare war on Christmas and now marriage?!? hehe
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 04:12 PM   #279
Sundae
polaroid of perfection
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
Quite the opposite!
I'd prefer to see only regular church-goers get a blessing for their union in church. And all those who go just for a pretty location stop pretending.

The Church of England is pretty tolerant of people who attend three times in their life - Christening, Wedding and Funeral. I say good on them. But open it to all couples. So that gay church-goers have the same right of blessing as hetero unbelievers who will never come back.

ETA - I don't mean to contradict my previous statement.
I would not want any church, synagogue or mosque to be forced into a blessing. I believe progress in tolerance is inevitable and people will vote with their feet.
Sundae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 05:26 PM   #280
infinite monkey
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
Because it is a sacred institution, and gay widows would destroy traditional widowhood.
Seriously. Can you imagine the widow walks on tops of old houses? They'd be converted to catwalks! They'd be FABULOUS.

@Ibram...Sundae got what I meant. She was asking about having to report divorced instead of single, and I was making the tangential point of why widowed instead of single.
infinite monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 05:38 PM   #281
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 19,942
For some government programs, widowed does matter, because you are given certain benefits that would have gone to your dead spouse instead. But I've seen many forms that go so far as to offer a checkbox for "Separated." WTF business is it of theirs what bed a person sleeps in, if their marriage contract is still in effect?
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 06:34 PM   #282
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Associated Press
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI

NJ Assembly passes gay marriage bill
Quote:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) ó The New Jersey Assembly on Thursday passed a bill
legalizing same-sex marriages, setting the stage for an expected veto by Gov. Chris Christie.

The 42-33 vote sends the bill to Christie, who won't take immediate action.

The Republican governor who opposes gay marriage had promised
"very swift action" if the bill passed both houses of the Legislature,
but the Assembly isn't required to send the bill to his desk until the close of business Friday.
The Senate approved the bill Monday.<snip>

The bill would need several Republican votes in each house to override the governor;
Christie himself essentially guaranteed that that won't happen.
NJ is different and interesting because the State's Supreme Court has already reviewed
the State's Civil Union Law, and has:
Quote:
" instructed the Legislature to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples".
The article also describes strategies of the various parties.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 09:45 AM   #283
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
I have rearranged the sequence of paragraphs below to (hopefully) make this post more readable.

msnbc.com
Miranda Leitsinger
7/13/12

Same-sex couple fights to stop deportation, gay marriage ban
Quote:
DOMA, enacted by Congress in 1996, blocks federal recognition of same-sex marriage,
thereby denying various benefits given to heterosexual couples, such as the right to immigrate.

A Filipino woman who married her American wife in 2008,
when it was briefly legal to do so in the state of California,
should not be denied immigration rights that heterosexual couples receive
and should not be deported, her lawyers are arguing in a lawsuit.

Authorities approved her employerís application for permanent resident status
for her in May 2006, and she had temporary lawful status until April 2011,
when immigration officials told her she was inadmissible to the country.
They said she had misrepresented her name and marital status
because she had entered the U.S. under the last name of her former
spouse [common law husband],
even though they were not legally married, according to the lawsuit.

The couple attempted to get a waiver based upon the hardship that deportation
would impose upon them and DeLeonís 25-year-old son, whose immigration status
would also be affected if his mother was deported, but it was denied last November.
Authorities, the lawsuit said, did not reject the request because the couple
failed to prove the hardship claim, but solely because under the federal marriage law
she was married to someone of the same sex who was not recognized as a relative.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal marriage law [DOMA] denies due process
and equal protection under the law in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The couple is asking the court to grant their request to give class action status
to the lawsuit since their challenge affects innumerable others in their situation.


The suit joins several others targeting DOMA, the federal law banning same-sex marriages,
including one filed by binational gay couples in New York.
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up two of those cases:
one originating in Massachusetts and another in California, according to scotusblog.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 10:26 AM   #284
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
The following is an editorial by Linda Greenhouse,
the NY Times reporter who covers the US Supreme Court.
Usually, her articles are straight reporting, with little to no "editorializing"
For a long time, I have followed her reporting and have respect for her knowledge and expertise.
But here is an article that is strictly her opinions.

I believe it is well worth reading in it's entirety because she speaks to
the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression, to equal rights for gay/lesbians,
and California's Proposition 8 vs the Obama Dept of Justice's
refusal to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

NY Times
LINDA GREENHOUSE
11/14/12

Changing Times
Quote:
When people talked during the presidential campaign about the potential impact
of the election on the Supreme Court,most meant the impact on the courtís membership:
whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would get to fill any vacancies during the next four years.
The vote on Nov. 6 settled that question, obviously, but it also raised another tantalizing one:
what impact will other developments during this election season,
beyond the presidential vote itself, have on the nine justices?

If time is on the side of preserving the Voting Rights Act, itís also on the side
of recognizing the right to, and federal recognition of, same-sex marriage.

Note that this observation is something well short of a prediction that the Supreme Court
will declare a constitutional right to marriage equality during its current term.
A vehicle for doing so, the Proposition 8 case from California (Hollingsworth v. Perry)
is sitting on the courtís docket, awaiting the justicesí decision on whether to take it.<snip>

The most likely scenario to emerge from the conference is a grant of review
in one of the DOMA cases, most likely Windsor v. United States,
decided last month by the federal appeals court in New York.
Along with the federal appeals court in Boston, in another case also now pending
before the Supreme Court, the New York-based United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit declared unconstitutional the statute that withholds
the many benefits of marriage available under federal law from same-sex couples
who are legally married in their state of residence.<snip>

Assuming the court grants one of the DOMA cases, I think the justices are likely
to put the Proposition 8 case on hold until the DOMA issue is decided.<snip>

I think thereís an excellent chance that the Supreme Court will overturn DOMA.<snip>

When the history of how same-sex marriage became the law of the land is eventually written,
as it will be in the not too distant future, there will be many turning points to mark.
The Supreme Courtís 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which held that
gay relationships could not be criminalized, will certainly be one landmark.

But last weekís election results, when voters in four states had the choice
to say yes or no to marriage equality and said yes in all four, will stand,
I think, as the more important development.


It didnít necessarily tell the justices how to decide the cases now on their docket.
But in showing them that times are changing, it told them a lot.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.