Posts tagged ‘marriage equality’
An editorial on marriage in the Portland Press Herald laid out in the clearest language possible why the debate around relationship recognition should about marriage and not just the collection of rights and responsibilities accessed through marriage.
A domestic partnership law is the wrong place to start the discussion. Those who object to the state applying family law norms to same-sex relationships see it as a way to sneak gay marriage into the law books.
Those who support same-sex marriage view it as a less-than-equal legal status that does not carry one of the most important benefits of marriage – its universal recognition.
In a school, hospital or courthouse, everyone understands the family relationship of marriage and the rights that go with it. A new institution with an unfamiliar name would not have the same weight.
We support full marriage rights for same-sex couples because we believe they are entitled to equal protection under the law. Marriage is the best building block for stable, supportive families, and families led by same-sex couples should have same legal rights and obligations as those led by heterosexual couples.
There is a moment in every Dr. Phil show were he tells the guests of the day that they need to “get real” and stop the behaviours that are causing them pain and emotional distress.I think it is high time that the LGBT community internalize that message and end the sometimes limp-wristed approach we take to fighting for our right to equal treatment under the law.
Continuing reports and analysis coming out about the No on Prop 8 campaign show that our side ran a timid and poll-driven campaign that avoided the use of images and messaging featuring same-sex couples talking about how Prop 8 would effect their lives, ignored outreach to communities of color until the last minute and failed to anticipate anti-gay tactics that even a first year poli-sci student could have predicted.
Looks like the “socially liberal” Rudy Guiliani is now ready to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning marriage between same-sex couples.
Perkins: Giuliani supports marriage amendment
By Sam Youngman
October 20, 2007
Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, told The Hill Saturday that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Perkins said Giuliani told him in a private meeting that if the Defense of Marriage Act appeared to be failing or if multiple states began to legalize same-sex marriages, then he would support the constitutional amendment.
Does anyone else remember that when Guiliani was in the process of divorcing his second wife and preparing to marry his third, he lived for a time with a same-sex couple who offered him a home and support?
From the August 4, 2001 edition of the New York Times:
“Howard Koeppel, half of the gay couple that Giuliani lived with during his marital spat, said [Giuliani told] us that if they ever legalized gay marriages, we would be the first one he would do.”
Now, Guiliani is not only on record as saying that he believes that his friends did not deserve the right and responsibilities that he got with each of his three marriages, but that the relationship between his friends is so vile that a constitutional amendment is needed to guard against the possibility of them marrying.
Care to explain the flip-flop Rudy?
California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar issued a statement saying that Californians “should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation” and then proceeded to discriminate against Californians because of their sexual orientation.
He vetoed a bill that would have ended marriage discrimination against same-sex couples. As Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, points out the veto was “hypocrisy at its worst.”
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
“We find it shocking for the governor to say he opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation and then veto a bill that would have ended discrimination based on sexual orientation,” Kors said.
This is the second time that a marriage equality bill has passed the state legislature only to be vetoed by Schwarzeneggar. The first time was in 2005.
The state supreme court is expected to rule next year whether the state’s ban on marriages for same-sex couples violates the state’s constitution.