The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Pointless. - Certis

I'm looking forward to Hawaii and New Mexico hopefully becoming the 16th and 17th states to recognize marriage equality. Progress; can't stop it.

The whole fight over same-sex insurance benefits is due to the ridiculous idea that employers should for some reason be supplying health insurance to their employees. It's a particular piece of national lunacy that has become so entrenched that many people simply take it as a given. There's so many problems it causes and yet we seem to be stuck with it.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The whole fight over same-sex insurance benefits is due to the ridiculous idea that employers should for some reason be supplying health insurance to their employees. It's a particular piece of national lunacy that has become so entrenched that many people simply take it as a given. There's so many problems it causes and yet we seem to be stuck with it.

Yes, this obsession with employer-provided healthcare has most of us socialist pinko liberals from Europe scratching our heads. (I can't speak for non-Europeans, but I assume they mostly feel the same way.)

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The whole fight over same-sex insurance benefits is due to the ridiculous idea that employers should for some reason be supplying health insurance to their employees. It's a particular piece of national lunacy that has become so entrenched that many people simply take it as a given. There's so many problems it causes and yet we seem to be stuck with it.

It's so weird. Further enshrining this concept is the biggest defect of the ACA from my perspective, and nobody's even talking about it at all.

gore wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The whole fight over same-sex insurance benefits is due to the ridiculous idea that employers should for some reason be supplying health insurance to their employees. It's a particular piece of national lunacy that has become so entrenched that many people simply take it as a given. There's so many problems it causes and yet we seem to be stuck with it.

It's so weird. Further enshrining this concept is the biggest defect of the ACA from my perspective, and nobody's even talking about it at all.

I feel like that point has been discussed in the relevant threads. People either really don't like it, or don't like it but don't think that the country was ready to stop it completely and hope the state marketplaces work as a stepping stone to civilized insurance.

Rallick wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The whole fight over same-sex insurance benefits is due to the ridiculous idea that employers should for some reason be supplying health insurance to their employees. It's a particular piece of national lunacy that has become so entrenched that many people simply take it as a given. There's so many problems it causes and yet we seem to be stuck with it.

Yes, this obsession with employer-provided healthcare has most of us socialist pinko liberals from Europe scratching our heads. (I can't speak for non-Europeans, but I assume they mostly feel the same way.)

Pretty much this. In France, we separated church from state eons ago. And we have socialized medicine. I don't see anything like this problem happening. Ever.

I can't even begin to measure the amount of anger I have right now at Hawaii State Rep. Jo Jordan. Ms. Jordan is an openly lesbian member of the Hawaii House of Representatives and she voted today AGAINST the marriage equality bill being considered before the Hawaiian Legislature.

It's bad enough that we have had to fight tooth and nail to get the 15 states that now have equal rights for gays and lesbians vis-a-vis marriage. But to have a member of our own community stab us in the back is beyond contempt.

There is third reading of the bill tomorrow and she has been warned that if she votes no on the third reading, her political career is over considering that her district supports marriage equality by a 75-25 margin and the State of Hawaii supports it by a 55-45 spread.

What in God's name was she thinking?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I can't even begin to measure the amount of anger I have right now at Hawaii State Rep. Jo Jordan. Ms. Jordan is an openly lesbian member of the Hawaii House of Representatives and she voted today AGAINST the marriage equality bill being considered before the Hawaiian Legislature.

It's bad enough that we have had to fight tooth and nail to get the 15 states that now have equal rights for gays and lesbians vis-a-vis marriage. But to have a member of our own community stab us in the back is beyond contempt.

There is third reading of the bill tomorrow and she has been warned that if she votes no on the third reading, her political career is over considering that her district supports marriage equality by a 75-25 margin and the State of Hawaii supports it by a 55-45 spread.

What in God's name was she thinking?

Any riders on the bill that are particularly bad?

Hawaii News Now had an article from a few days ago that provided a bit more background on Jordan's decision making process.

It also highlighted an error in the Think Progress article: the 75% figure quoted doesn't represent any actual polling data. It's Jordan's estimate of the percentage of constituents who have contacted her office that support same-sex marriage.

Hawaii News Now[/url]]
"How can I say I'm a supporter or not a supporter when I can't tell you what that final bill is going to read? If I say I support something right now and I'm not palatable with that thing— how am I going to take back those words? If I say right now I'm not supportive of it and I am supportive of it in the end, how am I going to do that? As legislators we should be able to argue our stance — if my constituency supports it or not supports it, I should be able to argue that," described Jordan.

Jordan estimates about 75% of the constituents she's heard from have indicated they support same-sex marriage, but she's concerned not everyone feels like they have been given a chance to participate in the process.

"Down on that floor we're not only representing our constituency that elect us, we're representing the 1.4 million people and that's where I feel — that's where my duty begins. I set aside any of my personal feelings, thoughts or beliefs and I open myself up to the pros and cons and the dialogue to vet measures, and I will make my decision once I see the final measure," Jordan explained.

Jordan says she's worried about the misinformation she's heard circulating about the bill — specifically that there won't be opportunity for public input or for lawmakers to introduce amendments, both of which she clarifies as inaccurate.

The first public hearing is scheduled before the Senate's Judiciary and Labor committee on Monday, October 28 at 10:30 a.m. in the State Capitol auditorium. Testimony will be limited to 2 minutes a person, in an effort to accommodate everyone who wishes to address legislators. A second public hearing is scheduled before the House committees on Judiciary and Finance on Thursday, October 31 — a move House leadership says is unprecedented.

Another uncommon step they say they've taken is to extend the special session length past the 5 day minimum, but Jordan thinks there should have been more discussion between the House, Senate and Governor's office before they were called into a special session.

"We had two measures in this body earlier this year during session — neither one of them was heard. They were given referrals for committees and they were never heard. We had a great opportunity earlier this session to at least have some open dialogue, not necessarily pass any measures, but to have public dialogue on a marriage equality measure and that didn't happen," Jordan said.

Jordan was appointed to her seat in the 44th District by Governor Neil Abercrombie in January 2011 and says one of her first votes was for civil unions.

"We haven't even absorbed that here in the state. You know for somebody to say, well we've been waiting for this all this time and now we're ready to go because the discussion has been had out there for 20 years and you guys need to move forward — that's inaccurate. 80% of this elected body in the House of Representatives haven't had that discussion in this walls. There's been no bill previously vetted. Civil unions was vetted, what 10 years? Vetoed once came back in 2011 first out the gate and there were errors in it, we had to correct it in 2012. I would say with a measure of this magnitude, we should be making every conscious effort to make it as clean and viable as possible and that's done with discussion," said Jordan.

Jordan says she followed the Windsor case for years and watched the U.S. Supreme Court ruling closely, but isn't sure a special session should have been called.

"Has anybody been denied before DOMA or after DOMA — what has changed in our state? These are questions that I still have to settle in myself and that's why I'm undecided," Jordan explained.

"It's tough for me. It really is. I might not know until that third reading. I really don't know and it's going to be a tough decision," Jordan said.

Her argument against marriage equality in favor of keeping civil unions is that enough time hasn't passed. The idea that civil rights are doled out only if you have had to wait a particular length of time is absurd. The old "we/you just need to wait a little longer" is horribly abusive to those who do not have equal rights. Perhaps Rep. Jordan should read the Loving v. Virgina decision to see why "just wait" is not acceptable.

And then she says this:

"Has anybody been denied before DOMA or after DOMA — what has changed in our state? These are questions that I still have to settle in myself and that's why I'm undecided," Jordan explained.

Yes and yes. Gay and lesbian citizens of the State of Hawaii have been denied the right to marry in Hawaii before and now after DOMA. What has changed in the Aloha State is that you have enough members of the current Legislature and the Governor who believe that it is time to join the other 15 states, the District of Columbia, various Native American tribal lands, and a good number of nations that believe that gays and lesbians have the right to marry.

I just got an email from the director of HR with my company advising employees that they can update their 'domestic partner' status to 'spouse' status due to the DOMA ruling. I won't be able to as I live in Kansas and my partner and I have not decided to travel to get married at this time. There's a part of me that felt like I wasn't touched or affected by the DOMA ruling because I live deep in the bible belt. In an odd way, this email made it feel like it has done something for my partner and I.

Those little victories are awesome Blondish83 And at least with the direction things are going, it should be official in Kansas even sooner than we could have hoped.

Unfortunately the cultural side will take longer; I grew up in (and my family still lives in) the Bible Belt, so I totally understand the difficulties that stem from that side of things.

Hawaii is seen as being super liberal, but it's really not. The state government might be filled with Democrats, but that's because people here are uneducated and poor as sh*t, and the Democrats campaign less on how worthless those types of people are. It has nothing to being liberal or progressive or anything like that.

I've met plenty of people here who are just as socially conservative as my deep-south relatives. That being the case, I'd be shocked if the statewide split was really 55-45 in favor of marriage equality.

The Hawaii House of Representatives voted for its marriage equality bill 30-19-2. Rep. Jo Jordan, the openly lesbian legislator voted against the bill.

The bill returns to the Hawaii Senate as it has some minor differences, but is expected to easily pass early next week.

Well, crap.

In extremely upsetting and infuriating news, Australia’s High Court has overturned legalization of same-sex marriage in Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

In October, the territory was the first part of Australia to legalize same-sex marriages. However, the national government challenged the law, claiming that it contradicted federal law, which specified in 2004 that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Predictable. Federal law trumps. Often that is for the best, sometimes there are bad federal laws.
Hopefully Australians will overturn the federal law.

Yeah, as embarrassment as this is the challenge has now progressed to the federal court so the silver lining here might be an overhaul at the federal level. The guy that *should* be running the country imho (Malcolm Turnbull) has already stated it's kinda ridiculous that we are trailing the rest of the civil world in this regard.

DC Malleus wrote:

Yeah, as embarrassment as this is the challenge has now progressed to the federal court so the silver lining here might be an overhaul at the federal level. The guy that *should* be running the country imho (Malcolm Turnbull) has already stated it's kinda ridiculous that we are trailing the rest of the civil world in this regard.

Could still beat the US to it though.

Demosthenes wrote:
DC Malleus wrote:

Yeah, as embarrassment as this is the challenge has now progressed to the federal court so the silver lining here might be an overhaul at the federal level. The guy that *should* be running the country imho (Malcolm Turnbull) has already stated it's kinda ridiculous that we are trailing the rest of the civil world in this regard.

Could still beat the US to it though. :(

DC specified "civil world".

I'm not one who is much into hip-hop, but it's really nice to see a message of support from an artist. He even calls out the industry for their BS. It's a good message.

Man, that video always hits me in the feels. I've can personally identify with so many of the scenes from the ones of feeling lonely at the party to being there when a father found out the guy I was seeing was gay resulting in a fight/walk out. Hopefully someday I'll get the chance to have a wedding to my partner as well but in the meantime it's awesome to have artists like Macklemore put out awesome messages like this through their craft.

BC gives final approval to establishment of Christian Law School with gay sex ban.

alternate source

They don't take government funding so I suppose it is whether their curriculum truly meets the guidelines that, rather than their policies, is what must be judged but I'm saddened to see such a thing sanctioned in any way. I do however maintain some hope that no self-respecting law firm will want to hire or even article students from this place.

The problem being, if they don't approve of the school based on something outside of its curriculum, then it becomes a matter of religious discrimination which the school can sue for. What it comes down to, is this school is going to start, an adventurous vanguard of gay students will come, break the rule, and then when kicked out for something that has absolutely no basis in academic performance or tuition... will probably sue the pants off the school... something the dean of a law school should see coming a mile away.

Even in Canada we have people who still believe that God's law trumps human law.

New Mexico just ruled that same-sex marriages are constitutionally protected. They are now the 17th state in the US to allow and recognize gay marriage.

ABC News Article

IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GqOn9ODM4SA/Ubk_hTmfx7I/AAAAAAAAAS4/T0-ssGXg0n8/s1600/confetti_its_a_parade.gif)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
...
The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are three gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry, but are currently unable to do so because the Utah Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage. The Plaintiffs argue that this prohibition infringes their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The State of Utah defends its laws and maintains that a state has the right to define marriage according to the judgment of its citizens. Both parties have submitted motions for summary judgment
...
ORDER

The court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32) and DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 33). The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court hereby enjoins the State from enforcing Sections 30-1-2 and 30-1-4.1 of the Utah Code and Article I, § 29 of the Utah Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same sex.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge

Apparently the anti-polygamy laws were also weakened by the decision.