Black voters back Calif. marriage ban

[Birdy]

WAIT!

So in Arkansas, gay couples who have since adopted kids when the laws became favourable are now seeing those kids go back into group homes?

How fucked those people are who voted for this proposition... :(

That makes me sick... those poor kids!

[d_rawk]

That is my understanding, although whether this is just what proponents hoped for but that likely won't actually happen (like the dissolution of the existing same-sex marriages in California), I'm not sure. It doesn't seem to be clear, and will probably be another matter for the courts to weigh in on.

[edit: after some searching around, I see it stated repeatedly that up to 400 children will be returned to group homes, but can find nothing to substantiate that or anything in the actual text of the initiative that suggests that it should necessarily have to be the case.]

Edited November 11, 2008 by Guest
did some digging, came up with nothing definitive.

[d_rawk]

Antipathy Towards Obama Seen as Helping Arkansas Limit Adoption (NY Times)

[mattm]

But conservatives mounted a grass-roots campaign, mainly through church groups, that framed the state’s case-by-case approach to adoption requests as an affront to traditional family values.

[Birdy]

[edit: after some searching around, I see it stated repeatedly that up to 400 children will be returned to group homes, but can find nothing to substantiate that or anything in the actual text of the initiative that suggests that it should necessarily have to be the case.]

Where do i write a letter and to whom? This really makes me so sick to think about. Imagine those poor little kids thinking they now have a family, not knowing the difference between gay and straight, not even having an opinion on it, being snatched away because of some f'ing bigot?

This is right up there amongst the worst things in the world to me.

[d_rawk]

The ACLU.

Arkansas legislators aren't going to give a hoot about a citizen of Ontario, Canada's opinion, I'm afraid.

[d_rawk]

@mattm - yeah, the traditionalists stick to the trappings of traditionalism. It has little to do with religion in the end, as I see it. It is more "America has a Christian background, therefore Americans ought all be Christians. America has a history of hating homosexuals, therefore Americans ought all hate homosexuals. Ergo, I am Christian so I hate homosexuals."

If the traditional culture was, say, one of worshiping ponies, these people would be pony worshipers and would never give it a second thought. And as pony worshipers, they would have to be against gay marriage and adoption by gay couples, because that is what pony worship demands.

If the traditional culture was, say, one of strict atheism, these 'warriors for Christ' would be adamant atheists. And as adamant atheists, they would have to be against gay marriage and adoption by gay couples, because that is what adamant atheism demands.

All IMHO.

[Birdy]

Arkansas legislators aren't going to give a hoot about a citizen of Ontario, Canada's opinion, I'm afraid.

I think i'd go for the citizen of the world approach. Maybe i'll just start up a 'what's up Arkansas?' blog.

[d_rawk]

You should! I'd read it. (and contribute even, if you'd let me).

Want some server space and a wordpress install?

[Birdy]

totally!

you can contribute... which would be perfect for when i stop being blog happy and let it slide, you can come in to re-inspire.

[Kanada Kev]

WAIT!

So in Arkansas, gay couples who have since adopted kids when the laws became favourable are now seeing those kids go back into group homes?

How fucked those people are who voted for this proposition... :(

That makes me sick... those poor kids!

Sick isn't it??

When legislation like this goes through, it seems they conveniently leave out any sort of "grandfather clauses"!! In California, ALL those people who were LEGALLY married are being STRIPPED of their marriages! All the benefits of being married are now being taken away as well.

B U L L S H I T !

[phishtaper]

i'd be pissed. im guessing the courts will have final say on these proposition votes and in the meantime, the nastiness continues.

anyone see this article today? we have our share of bigotry and hatred north of the border. thankfully, its not legislated.

[SaggyBalls]

come on...they still have civil unions.

What's the difference? Spelling?

[SaggyBalls]

Because civil unions are a new concept, they do not instruct business, the courts or other agencies how to apply the centuries of kinship-related doctrine, custom and law to these arrangements which is one of the primary differences cited between marriage and civil unions.[8]

yay wikipedia

This is also helpful:

union vs. marriage

[d_rawk]

Right, so given that, why is the state involved in any capacity in the marriage business anyways?

The state recognizing civil unions alone and giving out licenses (and the related advantages of legal unions such as tax reprieve, visitation rights, including all the rights now attributed to marriages) and leaving the sanctioning of 'marriage' to independent civil or religious groups would suit everybody.

But those opposed to same-sex marriage don't want that. Because that means that those pesky liberals like the united church, say, would get to marry same-sex couples as is their wont. It would be outside the law. They want the state to keep a firm clutch on marriage so that the definition can be strictly controlled, and controlled in the way they see fit with all the implied tiers of social hierarchy and moralizing kept in place by force of law. And a very significant portion of benefits and rights withheld from those who do not meet the moral criteria.

A civil union is not a marriage. Gay couples ought to have the right to be married. If it is too much trouble, leave marriage to the social space and the civic space can recognize legal unions and only legal unions. This would be a giant horror to those who want to defend the 'traditional definition' of marriage, though. (Funny, as I think the traditional marriage was something quite different than what we understand marriage to be today)

[phishtaper]

isnt it obvious? conservative churches are holding on to the traditional concept of marriage in the hope that one day it will regress back into its very original form wherein the man owns the wife and she becomes his property. that way, pesky women will have to keep their mouths shut and things will return to the good old days of the 16th century. gays have gone and screwed up the master plan. silly gays. [/wit]

[Birdy]

i wonder if i'd qualify as a pesky woman.

i think you're right pt. scary how people hold on to things thinking that progress isn't really progress but temporary mis-steps.

you'd think that if they really held faith in their church as being true and right and 'the one' there wouldn't be so much concern for what government allows because ultimately they would be right, the world will undoubtedly have it's eureka moment and go back to 'the true way', and when judgement day came, that really would be the ultimate test.

personally, i think a few of these religious folks are going to have their eureka moments when it comes time for that final judgement. which would be interesting.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Guest

[phishtaper]

i wonder if i'd qualify as a pesky woman.

as my dad used to say ... "If you have to ask ..."

a) yes

other popular answers:

you can't afford it

c) you are probably doing it wrong

[meggo]

i have been following this thread and the news and it is making me CRAZY! this is our next hurdle i think. although in canada, i think we're doing pretty well.

need to go to my happy place....

[d_rawk]

Oohh, that's a nice happy place meggo! Nicer than mine (the water is bluer).

Anyone catch Dan Savage on Colbert re: prop. 8? That was some pretty funny stuff. Colbert had trouble keeping in character. I'll see if I can find a video to embed.

[edit:]

Boo, Comedy Network doesn't give you embed links. It's here, anyways Savage on Colbert starting at about the 5:00 min. mark

Edited November 12, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

Meggo, doesn't this look like a such a beautiful happy place?

*cough* bestest side of the bay! *cough*

[meggo]

oh no you DI-IN'T!

that is a beautiful pic. *sighhhhhhhhh*

[d_rawk]

After Calif. Loss, Gays Get Right to Wed in Conn.:

Same-sex marriages begin in Connecticut as activists plan scores of protest over Calif. vote

Same-sex couples exchanged vows Wednesday for the first time in Connecticut amid cheers and tears of joy, while gay activists planned protests across the country over the vote that took away their right to marry in California.

Surrounded by red roses and smiles, Jody Mock and Elizabeth Kerrigan, who led the lawsuit that that overturned the state law, emerged from West Hartford's town hall to the cheers of about 150 people and waved their marriage license high.

"We feel very fortunate to live in the state of Connecticut, where marriage equality is valued, and hopefully other states will also do what is fair," Kerrigan said.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a 2005 civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples. A lower-court judge entered a final order permitting same-sex marriage Wednesday morning. Massachusetts is the only other state that allows gay marriages.

Gay marriage advocates said they were planning nationwide demonstrations this weekend in more than 175 cities and outside the U.S. Capitol. A Seattle blogger was trying to organize simultaneous protests outside statehouses and city halls in every state Saturday.

In New York City, several hundred demonstrators gathered Wednesday outside a Mormon Temple to protest the church's endorsement of the same-sex marriage ban in California. Several people held signs asking "Did you cast a ballot or a stone?" while other signs read "Love not H8."

"We're not trying to convey an image of persecution, we're not trying to attack any specific group," said Ryan McNeely, an organizer for the Join the Impact protest movement. "The point we need to be making is that we need to bring everybody together and to respect each other, and that hate breeds hate."

Outside City Hall in New Haven, bubbles and white balloons bounced in the chilly autumn air as well-wishers cheered the marriage of Peg Oliveira and Jennifer Vickery.

"This was a very broad-based coalition that defended traditional marriage in a free and democratic election," Otterson said.

Outside City Hall in New Haven, bubbles and white balloons bounced in the chilly autumn air as well-wishers cheered the marriage of Peg Oliveira and Jennifer Vickery.

Despite the roaring traffic and clicking cameras, "it was surprisingly quiet," Oliveira said after the brief ceremony. "Everything else dissolved, and it was just the two of us. It was so much more personal and powerful in us committing to one another, and so much less about the people around us."

According to the state public health department, 2,032 civil union licenses were issued in Connecticut between October 2005 and July 2008.

But there was no comparison between civil unions and marriage for Robin Levine-Ritterman and Barbara Levine-Ritterman, who obtained a civil union in 2005 and were among eight same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry.

"We didn't do it with pride or joy," Barbara Levine-Ritterman said of getting the civil-union license. "It felt gritty to be in a separate line."

On Wednesday, however, she proudly held up the first same-sex marriage license issued in New Haven as about 100 people applauded outside City Hall. She and her betrothed, who held red roses, plan to marry in May.

"It's thrilling today," Barbara Levine-Ritterman said. "We are all in one line for one form. Love is love, and the state recognizes it."

Manchester Town Clerk Joseph Camposeo, president of the Connecticut Town Clerks Association, said clerks in the state's 169 communities were advised by e-mail shortly after 9:30 a.m. that they could start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

The health department had new marriage applications printed that reflect the change. Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse."

Like the highest courts in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court ruled this spring that same-sex marriage is legal. After about 18,000 thousand such unions were conducted in California, however, its voters last week approved Proposition 8, a referendum banning the practice.

ABC News

[Birdy]

Love is love.

Hear hear!

[phishtaper]

looks like them courts is imposing the liberal agenda agin' :cool: