Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

1. Ohio
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

2. Oregon
The Constitution of the State is amended as follows:
It is the Policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.
3. Arkansas
Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Martial Status Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the Legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. Capacity, rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities. The Legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.
4. Georgia
This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.
5. Kentucky
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
6. Michigan
The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose
7. Mississippi
Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.
8. Missouri
That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.
9. Montana
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.
10. North Dakota
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
11. Oklahoma
Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
12. Utah
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

I do not see this as a "special interest" issue. I do not see this as an issue for a minority to fight alone. I do not see this as OK, something not to concern myself with, because that's what "normal" people voted for. I see this as damaging to families and to communities. What I see, when I look at the numbers of people who voted Yes to these laws, are people who specifically want to hurt other people. They are protecting nothing but social inequality and hate. All this "See what happens when you push this issue!" punditry... well I hope it falls on deaf ears among the activists of this country who want to see things change. Thanks to hothead for the condensed list.

While I'm at it, Judge Robertson is my hero of the week for contending that the Guantanamo Bay detainees deserve the rights of prisoners of war.



( 44 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:10 pm (UTC)
I fully believe that they will be overturned, much like the anti-black laws of discrimination. Maybe not next year, maybe not in five years, but eventually. There's really no excuse for thinking like that.
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:16 pm (UTC)
hothead's original post had some of the anti-miscegenation laws in it, but I didn't carry them on because I wasn't sure which ones were on/off the books and when.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - mpeg2tom - Nov. 11th, 2004 02:22 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - cheetahmaster - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:10 pm (UTC)
This is NOT a special interest issue! I quite agree. Human rights are human rights.

Caveat: When confronted with issues overly serious, I tend to make light as a coping measure, so please take no offense at my flipness, ok? :D

I am surprised that Utah passed such a limiting law, considering that a large portion of the population is guided by the Mormon church which (if my facts are still valid) condones multi-wife households...

And I can't wait until this backfires on some of the people who voted to be so hateful when they realize that they too will have lost their rights that many of them had already gained in the realm of healthcare and legal rights for "significant others" - no wedding bells, no rights will surely bite some of those who have chosen the "living together" option versus marriage - no matter what gender their partner, they will lose.
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:13 pm (UTC)
The official mormons do NOT condone polygamy. Several fundamentalist offshoots, however, do.

I have yet to be offended by anything you've said!
(no subject) - bearly525 - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:28 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how it works, but several media sources have been claiming that Georgia's law will actual prohibit civil unions done outside churches, too. Yes, you *must* be a member of a Church/Synagogue/Temple/etc. in order to be married in this stoopid state.
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:34 pm (UTC)
Wow! That's really something. Theocracy much?
(no subject) - cheetahmaster - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - y2kdragon - Nov. 10th, 2004 01:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:28 pm (UTC)
*grits teeeth*
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:29 pm (UTC)
I am filled with unspeakable rage over all this too, but I am dumbfounded by Oregon. Isn't assisted suicide legal in Oregon? Isn't it the birthplace of grunge, and of Starbucks? I thought it was the hub of hipster progressiveness.

I'm with CM above that these laws will eventually be recognized for what they are -- plain ol' institutionalized bigotry denying people their basic civil rights -- but I'm angry and sad and embarrassed that we have to wait and suffer in the meantime. And when I say "we" I mean the entire nation.
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:32 pm (UTC)
Oregon specifies that a "marriage" will be... It does not rule out the possibility of a civil union the way my stoopid state does.
(no subject) - salami_salome - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bearly525 - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - salami_salome - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bearly525 - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - snidegrrl - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - salami_salome - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cheetahmaster - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - salami_salome - Nov. 9th, 2004 09:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - cheetahmaster - Nov. 9th, 2004 10:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 9th, 2004 09:49 pm (UTC)
This made me sad, and is a weird counter-post to the one I made this morning.
Nov. 9th, 2004 10:01 pm (UTC)
Yeah. It makes me sad too. And I can't blame any of my queer friends for wanting to emigrate.
(no subject) - asimplelife - Nov. 9th, 2004 10:06 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - snidegrrl - Nov. 9th, 2004 10:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - asimplelife - Nov. 9th, 2004 10:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 9th, 2004 10:09 pm (UTC)
In Canada...

Civil Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-sex Unions

Why can’t same-sex unions be legally recognized by calling them something other than “marriage”, such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?

If the intention of creating civil unions is to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples and deny it to same sex couples, it is the position of the Government that the courts are correct in law in stating that this approach would not live up to the equality guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is because even a separate regime that provides equivalent benefits nevertheless denies gay and lesbian Canadians access to civil marriage. Since marriage is one of society’s foundational institutions, this denial prevents gay and lesbian Canadians from fully participating in Canadian society.
Based on the current law, this approach would require the use of the notwithstanding clause under the Constitution. The notwithstanding clause allows Parliament to adopt legislation to override fundamental rights guaranteed to every Canadian, and is something the federal Government has never done.

Won’t allowing same-sex couples to marry civilly erode the sanctity of marriage, and end up with religious officials being forced to marry same-sex couples?

The government’s proposed legislation extending civil marriage to same-sex couples explicitly states that “Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
Furthermore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a constitutional protection for any religious official who refused, on religious grounds, to perform a same-sex marriage. It would be a violation for the state to coerce a minister, rabbi, priest or other religious official to perform a marriage that was contrary to his or her religious beliefs.
Religious groups have always had the right to perform marriages according to the tenets of their religions, and for example, can refuse to marry divorced persons or perform inter-faith marriages. That will not change under new legislation.
In our democratic and pluralistic society, the Government has a duty to ensure that marriage laws serve all Canadians equally and without discrimination, ensuring that marriage is available civilly where couples do not wish to marry religiously, where they do not meet the qualifications set by their own religion, or where their religion does choose to marry same-sex couples.
Marriage will remain what it has always been - a public reflection of a couple’s personal commitment to each other and a cornerstone of our society.

If one of the central purposes of marriage is to support couples who have children, why should marriage be open to same-sex couples when they cannot create children through their union?

It is undoubtedly true that the possibility of procreation is a requirement for marriage in many religions. However, civil marriage laws do not make this a requirement of a valid civil marriage. Opposite-sex couples can marry even if they do not intend to have children, or cannot, for example, because they are past child-bearing age.
The Supreme Court is not deciding whether Parliament should or should not extend civil marriage to same-sex couples. It has been asked only to offer a legal opinion. Parliament will decide this issue.
The Census shows that some same-sex couples are raising children, and the Government has a duty to support all children and their families.
Nov. 9th, 2004 10:11 pm (UTC)
In Canada, cont'd
Are the courts overstepping their role by dictating to government what the law should be?

Under the Constitution, Parliament and the courts have complementary roles. It is an important part of the courts’ mandate to examine current laws to determine if they meet the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that Parliament itself approved through a democratic process.
Decisions from the courts of appeal in British Columbia, Ontario and Québec, as well as courts in the Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, have found that restricting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional under the Charter. It is Parliament that can best look at the complete picture in designing a Canada-wide approach. that meets both the equality and freedom of religion guarantees of the Charter.
After the Supreme Court has given its opinion on the draft bill, a bill will be introduced in the House of Commons, debated through the usual legislative process and put to a free vote.

Why have the Courts judicially amended section 15 of the Charter to add “sexual orientation” when Parliament chose to leave it out?

Parliament deliberately made section 15 an open-ended list, with the intention that the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, describing minority groups that needed to be protected under section 15, would evolve along with our changing Canadian society.
There is no need for judges to “read in" or amend section 15 to identify a new group that needs protection. The section was deliberately left open at the time the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted, as is clearly indicated in the Parliamentary debates around the Charter.

By legislating changes to marriage to include same-sex unions is not the Government starting down a slippery slope that will lead to other changes such as marriage between relatives and polygamy?

The draft bill specifically restricts the definition of marriage to two persons to the exclusion of all others. The practice of polygamy, bigamy and incest are criminal offences in Canada. This will not change.
The courts will not find a protected Charter equality right for people who engage in incest or polygamy which are criminal offences that involve exploitation.
Prohibitions on marriages between close relatives will also remain, and will be extended to marriages between same-sex partners in consequential amendments to the draft bill when it is tabled.

Why must the government change the definition of marriage in response to a very small minority?

While it is true that this issue does not affect a majority of the Canadian population, and not all same-sex couples want to get married, for those who do, it is a deeply felt injustice.
Gay and lesbian Canadians have long-term relationships. They belong to our families, and in some cases, raise children. They contribute to our communities and pay taxes.
If one minority’s fundamental rights can be denied, so can others.
Gay and lesbian Canadians should have access to central social institutions such as marriage.

Won’t allowing same-sex couples to marry lead to adoption by same-sex couples?

Adoption is a separate issue that falls under provincial law - all provinces and territories already allow adoption by qualified gay and lesbian Canadians.
In an adoption, the best interests of the child always come first. The test is whether the adoptive parent or parents will provide a loving, secure and stable household.
The Census shows that Canadian children are already being raised in a wide variety of households – married parents, common-law couples, lone parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, blended families, same-sex parents and so on. The Government has a duty to support all of these children and their families.
Nov. 9th, 2004 10:16 pm (UTC)
Re: In Canada, cont'd
Man, ya could have just linked to the justice site :P

I like your bolds, they make me happy.
Re: In Canada, cont'd - snidegrrl - Nov. 9th, 2004 10:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: In Canada, cont'd - cheetahmaster - Nov. 9th, 2004 10:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: In Canada, cont'd - examorata - Nov. 9th, 2004 11:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: In Canada, cont'd - asimplelife - Nov. 9th, 2004 11:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Nov. 10th, 2004 01:21 am (UTC)
I lived there for 25 years, ah VA, how could I forget you... GRRR.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - keryx - Nov. 11th, 2004 08:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 10th, 2004 12:46 pm (UTC)
Shush...Don't tell anyone, but you are agreeing with me on two major issues.

We'd better not let this happen again. ;<)
Nov. 11th, 2004 02:25 am (UTC)
Voting counts...
I voted for a Presidential candidate who supported gay marriage...
Nov. 12th, 2004 01:25 am (UTC)
It's not about the issue being pushed. It's about how the issue was pushed. It wasn't pushed by liberals so much as it was pushed by conservatives. Also the "we're here! we're queer!" style of politicking, though it draws upon the conventions of civil rights activism (for a minority to be recognized as relevant, it must be visible and it must have representation), is not sitting well with the mainstream. Where women and blacks have physical differences from their corresponding "haves", GLBTi people do not; consequently, in order for their community to be visible, they have to do more than simply appear. GLBTi people have to make a show of their sexuality to constitute themselves as a group, and this tactic does not work well with mainstream Americans who prefer to just not think about sex.

I believe that most Americans could care less about what two people do in their bedroom so long as they don't have to hear about it. I think we just need a different tactic.
Nov. 12th, 2004 04:37 am (UTC)
Interesting point of view; when I wrote this I had just read a ridiculous political pundit essay about how Gavin Newsom was the devil and represented exactly the wrong way to go about things. I disagree with that; that demonstration of civil disobedience was important. But whoever this was was saying that Gavin Newsom's lawbreaking was what caused the backlash, specifically. :-/
Nov. 12th, 2004 01:26 am (UTC)
It also has to do with the value that a reproducing population has for a "nation."
( 44 comments — Leave a comment )


keep it dark

Latest Month

February 2009
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner