Jump to content

Gay Marriage Update


Recommended Posts

gay marriage bill shows the state "no longer seeks to promote that each child have a mother and a father

If the state was really interested in doing that, they should be outlawing divorce of couples with children. I'm sure there are far more of those than gay couples trying to marry and have kids. I suspect for the vast majority of gay and lesbian couples it is their own protections of each other that is the big concern, not raising children.

It sure looks like a step in the right direction, but it still needs to become law.

Link to comment

Trab, you help to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the gentlefolk who keep claiming the 'sanctity of marriage' will be irreparably harmed by allowing gays to marry. I think these people are already harming it past the point where the relatively few gays that would marry could affect it at all! Half of all marriages now end in divorce. Can gays do any worse? Hell, perhaps gay marriages would save the institution!

C

Link to comment

Perhaps it is just my age or our dislike of rules, but the BF and I are in agreement that we don't have any desire to seek the community's blessing or even recognition of our rather long term relationship by getting married.

It is probably our own personal rebellion against society, our own streak of civil disobedience (sorry EleCivil) that causes us to reject the institution, the idea of marriage as desirable, but it seems to us, in that state of revolt, that we prefer to love together without the overhead of having to seek to justify ourselves, our love for each other in any one else's eyes.

I certainly think that in time, gay marriage will be accepted by the various communities, even if it is just to further the condemnation of people who, like us, don't see its value. In other words the irony will be that they will eventually allow gays to marry in order to maintain 'the sanctity of marriage.' :lol:

What we therefore, do see is the necessity for individuals to be able to choose the right to marry, or not, without either state being judged as right or wrong. That should be a primary requirement of any equal access to the state of marriage.

Link to comment
It is probably our own personal rebellion against society, our own streak of civil disobedience (sorry EleCivil) that causes us to reject the institution, the idea of marriage as desirable, but it seems to us, in that state of revolt, that we prefer to love together without the overhead of having to seek to justify ourselves, our love for each other in any one else's eyes.

[...]

What we therefore, do see is the necessity for individuals to be able to choose the right to marry, or not, without either state being judged as right or wrong. That should be a primary requirement of any equal access to the state of marriage.

:icon_cat: Hey, no apology necessary - feel free to attach my name to that statement. I'm with you. Getting the government involved in matters of love? They can't even get matters of money right, and money's not half as complicated!

Of course, as a Discordian pope, I have the authority to marry, bury, and baptize in the Discordian non-tradition. Granted, the government won't recognize my authority, but then again, I don't recognize the government's authority, so it's only fair.

If anyone's in need of someone to officiate a Discordian wedding (same-sex, polyamorous, human-on-inanimate-object, or otherwise), let me know. Just...none of those one-man/one-woman weddings. That's been done to death. :lol:

Link to comment
:raccoon: Hey, no apology necessary - feel free to attach my name to that statement. I'm with you. Getting the government involved in matters of love? They can't even get matters of money right, and money's not half as complicated!

Of course, as a Discordian pope, I have the authority to marry, bury, and baptize in the Discordian non-tradition. Granted, the government won't recognize my authority, but then again, I don't recognize the government's authority, so it's only fair.

If anyone's in need of someone to officiate a Discordian wedding (same-sex, polyamorous, human-on-inanimate-object, or otherwise), let me know. Just...none of those one-man/one-woman weddings. That's been done to death. :lol:

:cat: That is so cool, Ele. Thanks.

Phrase of the month: "Discordian non-tradition."

Is it possible to be a Discordant agnostic?

Now that you mention it, a Discordant wedding is a real temptation...even if it is to just be part of a non-ceremony.

On the other hand, to be wed in chaos, seems a little too close to most wedding services. :icon_cat:

same-sex, polyamorous, human-on-inanimate-object, or otherwise? -Kind of says it all doesn't it?

I am only too happy to oversee the after wedding Discordant reception orgies. :icon_cat:

Link to comment
Perhaps it is just my age or our dislike of rules, but the BF and I are in agreement that we don't have any desire to seek the community's blessing or even recognition of our rather long term relationship by getting married.

Des, your argument has been made many times over the past few decades. The best reasons I can think of for allowing gay marriage are:

1) for tax reasons. If my partner and I were legally married, it would reduce our state and federal income tax bill quite a bit.

2) for insurance reasons. There's a lot less paperwork involved if two people are married and one has insurance coverage, and the other does not. I had to actually swear out an affadavit and get it notarized in order to get "domestic partner" status with my employer's insurance company, and get my partner insurance. Without that, we would have been out many thousands of dollars in extra insurance payments.

3) emergency services. If I was injured (god forbid) and wound up in the hospital, the staff would not let my partner in to see me because he has no legal status as a relative. "Close friends" don't cut it.

4) legal reasons, particularly wills and estates. If I were to drop dead tomorrow, my partner would have to fight through probate court to try to get some of my estate. (That's assuming there's any money to have, which ain't much at the moment.) If a greedy blood relative came along and said, "we never heard of this guy -- give us all the cash and property," my partner could potentially be shut out.

5) equal rights for all. Even if I never intended to get married, it irks me that our political system is prejudiced against me and people like me, and wants to deny me some of my rights and treat me like a second-class citizen. That's just not fair, and it's a principle I'd fight very hard to defend.

So that's five good reasons I can think of to allow gay marriage. Note that nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you get married if you don't want to. It's just nice to have that option if it were available.

Link to comment

Pecman, I am aware of the points you make, but I was stating personal views about about getting married being a requirement for social acceptability, as I tried to say.

As I understand it, the benefits you state in your points are now all granted in Australia without doing anything except living together in a de facto relationship with another person. The only thing we cannot do is get married.

On a rather unhappy note, the gun at my head, at the head of all Australian gays, is a byproduct of the legislation that has granted all this in the name of equality, and is that because the government (note: the government determines this, not me or my partner), deems that I am living in a de facto relationship, my age pension will be reduced by nearly $100 a fortnight.

In other words, sex with my partner will cost us $50 a week once we add in the price of the appropriate accessories. This loss of pension will be applied to gay people already on a pension as well as those who will become eligible. The gay community claims that this should have been phased-in by a grandfather clause as has been done with every other change to pensioner legislation except this one.

There are a number of gays who will be assessed as not eligible for full pension simply because they live together and therefore deemed as in a de facto relationship, no matter if they are a gay guy and a lesbian or two gay people in their 70s who have never come out to their relatives. Their trauma is palpable, and in some cases devastating.

My general statement stands that people should be free to marry, without judgement if they do not or if they do.

Despite the problem with the pension payments, we seem to have the basics of your five points in Australia and time will surely be on the side of marriage being made available to all who want it.

All I was saying was that neither I nor my partner desire to wed just to be accepted as a couple, and it shouldn't be necessary.

The Australian legislation also stands as a warning to other countries to be wary of how equality will be used to reduce financial circumstances.

Link to comment
All I was saying was that neither I nor my partner desire to wed just to be accepted as a couple, and it shouldn't be necessary.

I agree 100% with you. But I didn't get that from your original statement, which read to me like you didn't think there was a reason for gay people to get married.

If we got 100% of the benefits that straight married couples got, in the United States, then I wouldn't make this argument. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works in this country. No legal marriage = no acceptance, by local laws, by state laws, by national laws, by the courts, by hospitals, by insurance companies, and many other realities of life.

A change in the marriage laws might also help lessen discrimination against gays somewhat, but I can also see where it might backfire in some areas, particularly those controlled by the religious right. I can just see two guys trying to check into the bridal suite of a motel in Utah...

In other words, sex with my partner will cost us $50 a week once we add in the price of the appropriate accessories.

Two comments:

1) you could always stop having sex! :icon_cat:

2) avoid using accessories! :lol:

Link to comment
I agree 100% with you. But I didn't get that from your original statement, which read to me like you didn't think there was a reason for gay people to get married.

Pecman, I'm sorry if my original statement was less than clear, at least we have cleared that up. :icon_cat:

If we got 100% of the benefits that straight married couples got, in the United States, then I wouldn't make this argument. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works in this country. No legal marriage = no acceptance, by local laws, by state laws, by national laws, by the courts, by hospitals, by insurance companies, and many other realities of life.

A change in the marriage laws might also help lessen discrimination against gays somewhat, but I can also see where it might backfire in some areas, particularly those controlled by the religious right. I can just see two guys trying to check into the bridal suite of a motel in Utah...

(I think the following point was suggested before in another topic, but I am sorry, I can't find it.)

I rather favour the civil recognition by government to encompass 100% of the benefits bestowed by the government, including non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual relationship in all civic, welfare, business and financial matters including adoption and education. That would leave "marriage" as the anachronism it is, for the churches to administer.

In effect that would permit the religion, the choice of who was admitted to its own marriage concepts and who it barred without denying anyone their individual human rights to the benefits enjoyed by the larger society.

This is of course a further division of State and Religion, and I agree would not be popular with the Churches. Pleasing the church is not high on my list of priorities. I am more interested in the law enforcing my right to use the bridal suite in Utah.

I do expect that eventually civic entitlements along these lines will become universal, and before anyone says it is impossible, I will immediately say that in 1950 no one could believe that a man of Obama's ancestry could ever become President.

The real problem is with the fundamentalists who exist in all cultures and seek to impose their beliefs on the freedoms inherent in individual human rights.

Liberating those extremists may take a tad longer.

1) you could always stop having sex!

2) avoid using accessories!

The accessories are affordable. The deprivation of the pension funds means that as we will not be able to afford the privacy provided by accommodation, we may have to resort to public exhibition of our lifestyle :lol:

Link to comment

I gotta get here earlier, my heads all a-jumble , where to start...where to start...

Oh, first things first, why didn't I thik of that?

Hello everyone :wav:

deems that I am living in a de facto relationship, my age pension will be reduced by nearly $100 a fortnight.
There are a number of gays who will be assessed as not eligible for full pension simply because they live together and therefore deemed as in a de facto relationship, no matter if they are a gay guy and a lesbian or two gay people in their 70s who have never come out to their relatives. Their trauma is palpable, and in some cases devastating.

If I am understanding this correctly (never a sure thing, I assure you) I have to ask how they go

about assessing first of all, who is gay; is this a self-disclosure thing and once disclosed, will carry with it the assumption that if you live with another self-disclosed gay man that you are in a relationship with him? And how would that bring about the outing of them to their relatives? As for the reduction of the pension, is this reduction imposed on married couples because with the assumption that pooled resources in effect mean sharing of some items and therefore reduce expenses?

With the rather risky assumption that I am getting it right, it seems likely to me that we would in fact be talking about de facto relationships a high percentage of the time. What am I not getting that makes this soundly objectionable.

The accessories are affordable. The deprivation of the pension funds means that as we will not be able to afford the privacy provided by accommodation, we may have to resort to public exhibition of our lifestyle

Whatever clarity I thought I had flies out the window....are we talking about the number of bedrooms in the residence? That I could see as a potential for being outed, and it seems to be a reverse of the American position where recognition of the validity of the partnership is a key point

of the struggle. The protection of privacy is not a part of the discussions I have been a party to.

I am interested in what it is about the ways we are governed that creates this difference.

Minnesota recognizes domestic partnerships in regards to health insurance, and reflects the liberal political climate of the people here and one supportive of tolerance in general. We still have Pro-lifers, with their posters of dead babies and their 3 year olds spouting rhetoric they can't possibly comprehend following women from their car to the clinic door, but they are a small group who enjoy the benefit, mistakenly if you ask me, of the tolerance just mentioned.

My personal conviction is that the rights covered in Pecmans list should be extended to everyone who self-define themselves as partners. To have to conform their definition to something that

historically has defined itself in limited terms and requires a redefinition is unnecessary to the attainment of the goals, and allows a large and vocal opposition to what is in essence, none of their concern. Parties seeking legal remedy present their case to those who have been given the power to decide these matters for the population, and these things play out every day without any effect on the lives and liberty of anyone else. I would prefer that this admirable fight produce fruit that is all it's own, defining itself on its own terms, for the beautiful thing that it is--the evolution of us all

and the expansion of our collective consciousness. The thing that is represented by marriage as we know it has proven itself to be incapable of living up to it's expressed ideals, and doomed by it's

own hidden agenda. Bullshit and illusion might get them to the alter, but illusion disolves under close

scrutiny, and bullshit soon stinks to high heaven.

This reduces the issue to semantics. If there's another way to say it that preserves the essence

and increases the chance of success, screw semantics, it's only a word after all. Leave the hair-splitting to the republicans, it's time to claim our destiny.

Where's the front of this fight anyway? Let's grab our friends and head over there.

Tracy

Link to comment

Ah, Tracy, you ask the question on everyone's lips.

If I am understanding this correctly (never a sure thing, I assure you) I have to ask how they go

about assessing first of all, who is gay; is this a self-disclosure thing and once disclosed, will carry with it the assumption that if you live with another self-disclosed gay man that you are in a relationship with him? And how would that bring about the outing of them to their relatives? As for the reduction of the pension, is this reduction imposed on married couples because with the assumption that pooled resources in effect mean sharing of some items and therefore reduce expenses?

With the rather risky assumption that I am getting it right, it seems likely to me that we would in fact be talking about de facto relationships a high percentage of the time. What am I not getting that makes this soundly objectionable.

My reply is somewhat cynical to the issues involved, but not to your question.

Talking to a "person in charge" of the government department that handles the welfare payments, revealed that he is concerned with this exact problem of how his staff can determine who is and is not entitled to not receive the full payments.

As the legislation is supposed to remove discrimination on these pension and other welfare payments, then it appears possible that:

1. We will have to prove that any persons who live together are not in a de facto relationship. Note: that this means if siblings are living together then it is not certain how the Welfare officer should proceed in whether he should reduce their payments or report them to the police for breaking the incest laws. No one knows.

2. If I do not claim to be in a relationship with my cohabitant other than sharing the same roof, will I be granted full pension payment? They are thinking about that. No one knows. :icon11:

3. Are separate bedrooms sufficient to enable full pension payments. Not if you are in a de facto relationship. If you are married then yes, it is possible to claim you hate each other enough to get the full pension entitlement. (I Know this because my aunt did it.) :wink:

4. We need a definition of de facto for the purpose of how the rules are going to be implemented. (Much thought is being given this.) :wav:

If we accept the common interpretation for de facto being a marriage existing in fact whether legal or not, than the answer is yes. However marriage has to be between a man and a woman, (by law) so de facto cannot refer to the illegal state of a same sex marriage, but as it is not legal, perhaps it can. (The mind boggles.)

5. Self-disclosure may well be required under the law, (once we get de facto defined), but if we don't disclose then it is possible that prosecution and retrieval of any payments will be investigated to the full capacity of the law, for not telling the department that you are in a de facto relationship or any relationship that could affect your entitlement. I guessed that one. :icon13:

6. How they will assess all this is anyone's guess, but I am betting it will be a written question asking if I am in a de facto relationship. I will at least get something for my money by asking the officer if he could explain what he means by de facto. (I am quite dumb on these matters). :hehe:

When I contacted the department, I was told to ring back two weeks before I turned 65. The legislation doesn't take effect until July 1st, so they may not have answers to some of these problems when I make my claim.

QUOTE

The accessories are affordable. The deprivation of the pension funds means that as we will not be able to afford the privacy provided by accommodation, we may have to resort to public exhibition of our lifestyle

Whatever clarity I thought I had flies out the window....are we talking about the number of bedrooms in the residence? That I could see as a potential for being outed, and it seems to be a reverse of the American position where recognition of the validity of the partnership is a key point

of the struggle. The protection of privacy is not a part of the discussions I have been a party to.

I am interested in what it is about the ways we are governed that creates this difference.

Minnesota recognizes domestic partnerships in regards to health insurance, and reflects the liberal political climate of the people here and one supportive of tolerance in general. We still have Pro-lifers, with their posters of dead babies and their 3 year olds spouting rhetoric they can't possibly comprehend following women from their car to the clinic door, but they are a small group who enjoy the benefit, mistakenly if you ask me, of the tolerance just mentioned.

My above lifestyle comment was sarcasm with innuendo, (Aussie style) about our living arrangements after we get thrown out of our house for not being able to afford to live together because of the reduction in payment.

As for the number of bedrooms in the house, then yes that would be a factor in determining the cohabitation as de facto. Historically, (pre legalisation) the police used the fact of two men living together in a residence with one bed as evidence of an act of gross indecency, for which the men were then arrested.

Today's thermal imaging devices may well be used to prove where people sleep as well as what they are doing, to support evidence of a de facto relationship. Your cell phone can be used as a listening device to ascertain if the noises in your house are those of people involved in a de facto type, emplacement. :hug:

Again we don't know. What we do know is that the whole idea of privacy is bypassed by simply saying if you want any entitlement at all you have to tell them what your relationships are. It is illegal to withhold any information that might affect your entitlement; surprise, surprise. :blink:

Allow me to quote from the local GLB magazine, Blaze, a portion of Matthew Loader's astute opinion piece:

At the same time, though, Labor has singled out older poofs and dykes for unfair treatment by refusing to allow the standard grandfathering arrangements for social security changes to apply to the same-sex law reforms.The normal thing is to let those who have planned ahead based on their current pension, to continue to receive it. It?s like they want to do the right thing, but don?t want to be seen as ?going soft? on us queers.

But it?s not good enough. You can?t give equality with one hand and then take it away with the other. There are thousands of older couples who, in the middle of their retirement, are going to be significantly disadvantaged by these changes?and Labor doesn?t seem to get it.

But losing $150 out of your pension because the government has decided it won?t bother to offer same-sex couples the same grandfathering arrangements that have historically been offered to existing welfare recipients every time major social security changes have been implemented, isn?t small potatoes.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Attorney-General Robert McClelland and other ministers need to explain why same-sex couples are now being singled out for different treatment. In my book, that?s discrimination.

The above should show the concerns for our elder gays and lesbians or anyone affected by the so-called equality legislation. Many people see it as another manipulative attack on our community by an out of touch government.

Be careful what you wish for. I did warn the activists that this was an area of considerable concern some years ago when they first started the marriage and equal rights campaign, but I was assured that my fears were groundless. Yeah, right.

I'll keep y'all informed of any developments. :shock:

Link to comment
OMG, governments are so freakin' stupid sometimes. Even in Oz.

Colin :wav:

What appears as stupidity in governments doesn't come from the stupidity of the individual legislatures as they are usually quite intelligent (George Bush being the notable exception). It comes from the agenda of almost all legislators (and there are a few notable exceptions here too) to be re-elected or the giving in on one legislators pet project to get his vote to pass his own pet project. Too much goes on behind the scenes in caucuses or closed doors that we don't know about.

The mix of words and legislation that comes out sometimes appears so confusing that the whole process appears to be, like Colin said, pure stupidity.

I think that we here in the US are going to be facing the same concerns that Des and the Aussies are facing as we get closer to civil unions, domestic partnerships and even real marriage. It will be interesting to see how President Obama (who professes openness in government) handles this and any other thing that the government does so that the public isn't left out and continues to feel the stupidity of government.

Link to comment
[...]

I think that we here in the US are going to be facing the same concerns that Des and the Aussies are facing as we get closer to civil unions, domestic partnerships and even real marriage. It will be interesting to see how President Obama (who professes openness in government) handles this and any other thing that the government does so that the public isn't left out and continues to feel the stupidity of government.

Yes Richard, a large part of my reason for posting on this issue is so that others may see, some of the slight of hand; the unexpected side effects; the stupidity and sheer unfairness that can accompany same-sex law reform. There are many issues involved and these are just some of them.

As much as I do like Obama and his words of promise, I think legislation in the US as well as other nations will be subjected to compromises imposed by those who cannot understand that relationships between consenting adults are not their concern, regardless of what their beliefs are.

To make an understatement; there is a lot of room for improvement in politics, (and other assorted human endeavours.) :wav:

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you Des, for clarifying where you are coming from, and even more for your intent. As with anything involving government and/or legal issues, it is so important to understand the implications

that are inherent, as the job of dealing with the unimaginable elements created by any act of these

entities will surely require all available resources after the fact. Anticipated difficulties are nothing compared to the bs that can be dragged into it--I no longer trouble myself with whether this is caused by ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, or malice, as we will not be spared having to systematically deal with each split hair that presents itself simply by knowing who it's parents

are.

The American Constitution is, in my opinion, a rather inspired document, and seemed to allow for

the subsequent ability of human beings to misinterpret, misrepresent, over and under estimate significance, with one or two visionary protections for threats yet unmanifest in even the

imagination of the public whose lives would be shaped by it. We have not evolved beyond the limits of human capacities, and expecting Democratic principles to encompass the pernicious self-interest

of Capitalism is a recipe for exactly what we have before us-- an over-developed sense of our individual rights and the total absense of collective consciousness. Failing to understand that every single expression of the word "I" defeats the purpose of every single sysytem that could actually

work for us all. We make a mess of everything! How hard is the concept of equality, really?

I can want what I want, and can have it, as long as I don't take what's yours without consent

to get it. What is mine, what is consent--these are the questions that bring us to a standstill?

Your points, Des, about the right to privacy is illustration enough of every other right we believe

we have and how it can and is obiterated before our eyes--and if we were to apply this to the issue of consent, we would surely lose in any court regardless of the system of goverment. We trip over ourselves to get a picture phone so we can take pictures of ourselves or of our of our friends when they don't know it. To say that because today, you have nothing to hide so it doesn't matter if you can be tracked and recorded and filmed, or to say that because you are not someone the police would be interested in and therefore it would not be your house they could see into is reason to give up your right to not have them do so, is to sign away any and all claims to Democracy, and yet

will defend it as the best system on the planet, paying with the lives of others for rights that have been surrendered with ambivalence worn like a crown. The priviledge to not give a shit, the mark of any good American. A part of me keeps struggling to believe what I see, thinking it impossible

to have eyes and see nothing.

Ideally, to claim ones space for oneself would be enough, and how one sees oneself be the only view that mattered. To me that would be true freedom. But that our survival is inseparable from

at least some participation in the way things are done, i.e. credit ratings, criminal records, employment history, etc., and if they can't define us we simply do not exist and with each passing

day this fact moves from theoretical to literal. What elsewhere produces delays and reduction of benefits, in America will blossom into the Capitalistic goal of all out denial. Why pay anything if you can find a way around it, where NO is worth it's weight in gold and no expense is spared in it's pursuit.

It seems that inclusion does not necessarily provide freedom, and that acceptance brings rules

of the game and proof of how good a sport we really are. Again, I will continue to support and promote equality on whatever stage it appears, seeing all such causes as part of one whole, and

hope that through our own struggles we will discover each other and see ourselves in each others eyes. One thing for sure, giving voice to our hope, fear, anger, and desperation is the first and best defence against dispair.

But i'd rather be kicking ass. :lol:

Tracy

Link to comment

Thanks Tracy, your post has lots to think about. I like the point about consent. Must follow up on that when time permits.

In the meantime here is a link to the Australian federal body Centrelink which oversees all the welfare payments in Australia, for their same sex equalising information

The toothbrush picture gets me. I find that rather banal. You also need to wait for it to load.

This CentreLink video isn't going to win an Oscar or too many friends. If this link doesn't work for you, you can access it on the above Centrelink page -just scroll down to the videos.

There is much (rushed) information on the above link. I can see I am going to have quite a time when I go for my pension next month.

Wish me luck.

I may have to take a hit out on the bf as I don't fancy my chances of getting him to leave voluntarily.

I wonder if a steady stream of casual same sex partners qualifies as de facto relationships? Is my hand in de facto relationship with the rest of my body.

I have two hands so they are a couple. :lol:

Link to comment

Haha, so much truth in humor, Des. But you illustrate an important point--the term "de facto"

seems to me to open the door to a whole world. It gives the freedom for me to define for myself

what constitutes relationship, and in theory it can be what ever I say it is, for me. Your government

has adopted the use of the word to serve their purposes, within the context of the scope of their influence, but certainly it was not an entirely independant or voluntary act originally. I suspect it was like any other government or service industry, a response to a situation that presents itself in

a proportion they could no longer afford NOT to do something about.

No matter their reasons, really, but it can be expected that it will only go so far, and riddled with

what amounts to land mines and the usual extraneous nonsense.

I will use the link, thank you, as look forward as I always am to being enlightened about something

I did not know existed. Why that should ever surprise me, that there's something I don't know, has me chuckling and shaking my head at how small our daily world really is when left to our own resouces. It takes getting out and talking to people to retain any sense of perspective, and I appreciate all of what I get by coming here. So much easier than getting off my ass and going

out. No luxury comes without a price, eh? Carpal tunnel and broader hips for an ever expanding horizon. :stare:

Tracy

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

NEWS FLASH

From News.com.au

NEW York Governor David Paterson has introduced a gay marriage law that would make the state the fifth and highest profile US state allowing same-sex couples to wed.

"I'm introducing a bill to bring marriage equality to the state of New York," Mr Paterson said in an announcement carried live on television.

"We have an honour and a duty to make sure that equality exists for everyone," he said, comparing the issue to racial, sexist, and religious rights.

"We have all known the wrath of discrimination ... We stand to tell the world that we want equality for everyone. We stand to tell the world that we want marriage equality."

However it remained far from certain that the law would overcome significant opposition in the assembly in the state capital Albany. The same bill was rejected in 2007.

The initiative comes on the heels of similar laws being passed in Vermont last week, and previously in Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts.

Or see this article at Newsmax.com

Link to comment

How typically American, that I get my news of my own country from someone

who lives elsewhere. :lol:

I am surprised most about Iowa, who reversed their stand on Roe vs Wade. But

that does not mean I am not happy about their decision on Gay Marriage, as this

is surely an issue that will see it's success one state at a time, with each one

paving the way for others. I'd hate to think this is more "monkey see, monkey

do" but I don't rule anything out.

Thanks for the news, Des, and for the news I want to hear without all the

aggravation of US news programs or newspapers. I do find BBC world news

totally tolerable, with the aggravation coming from the news itself rather than the

topics or the delivery. It's the being awake for it that poses the challenge.

Tracy

Link to comment
How typically American, that I get my news of my own country from someone

who lives elsewhere. :icon1:

I am surprised most about Iowa, who reversed their stand on Roe vs Wade. But

that does not mean I am not happy about their decision on Gay Marriage, as this

is surely an issue that will see it's success one state at a time, with each one

paving the way for others. I'd hate to think this is more "monkey see, monkey

do" but I don't rule anything out.

Thanks for the news, Des, and for the news I want to hear without all the

aggravation of US news programs or newspapers. I do find BBC world news

totally tolerable, with the aggravation coming from the news itself rather than the

topics or the delivery. It's the being awake for it that poses the challenge.

Tracy

Your welcome Tracy, but I have to add it is much the same for us. Our local News.com (Australia) apparently did not announce the election of Obama for four DAYS, and then I think it was only because I messaged them letting them know that an Afro-American had been elected by the American people to the White-house, and thought they might like to add the event to their news items. :hehe:

The ABC and the BBC seem to offer the best coverage, but I like the Washington Post and the Huntington Post too. The danger is that we become too wrapped up and worried by all the drastic happenings that they cover.

Take time out to smell the roses too. :hug:

If you OD on the roses, you can always watch Fox news, Hannity etc. :lol:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...