ehBeth
 
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 08:12 am
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favour of same-sex marriage
Thomson Reuters Posted: Jun 26,2015

such great news for my friends in the US

(and on a selfish note - this is going to make our Pride weekend an insane party)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 29 • Views: 7,311 • Replies: 109

 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 08:13 am
@ehBeth,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage-1.3127280
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 08:14 am
@ehBeth,
June 26 will be a good day to remember.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 08:18 am
I'm glad I'm home right now. I'm so happy-weepy for my friend Jim and his cub.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 08:22 am
@ehBeth,
https://thiswaysouth.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/rainbow-joy.jpg?w=1200
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  5  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 08:49 am
It's been legal here for over a decade.

Massachusetts has not sunk into the sea.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 08:55 am
@jespah,
just over 12 years for my province

10 years for Canada as a whole

cavfancier's aunt was pivotal in the definitional change for Canada

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb34.htm

Quote:
Justice Mesbur declared parts of the Divorce Act to be unconstitutional because it defined "spouse" as a "man" or a "woman." She reserved her decision on how to remedy the constitutional defect in the law that had prevented the couple from ending their marriage.

She decided to rewrite the federal law by declaring that "spouse" is to be replaced by the phrase "two persons" married to each other. The federal government urged her to not take this route, but to leave the task to Parliament when SSM was eventually introduced. Tracey Tyler of the Toronto Star newspaper wrote: "Unlike previous decisions from provincial and territorial appeal courts reformulating the common-law definition of same-sex marriage, Mesbur's ruling applies to a federal statute, passed by Parliament." It therefore applies across Canada.

Her ruling was handed down on 2004-NOV-19. On that date, "spouse" became "two persons" married to each other in federal law.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:07 am
What spectacular news for everyone. Congratulations to us.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:11 am
They made the correct decision. I wonder if this will affect past cases of legal discrimination. There is the story of a Texas man married to a transgender woman. When he died, the state barred her from all spousal benefits. I kind of don't think it will change that case, but I don't know for certain.
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:38 am
It's about time! This piecemeal one-at-a-time stuff was ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:45 am
Quote:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.

In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.

As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.

It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.

Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.

They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.

The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.



___________



Here is the full text of the decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, as well as the dissents:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:49 am
@edgarblythe,
Good question. Two of the petitioners were men whose partners were deceased. It will be interesting to see how this decision effects their concerns.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:50 am
@ehBeth,
http://i62.tinypic.com/3329ys5.jpg
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:55 am
A great day indeed!
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 09:58 am
Brilliant article!
Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares'
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:03 am
@tsarstepan,
https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/videos/10153565147979238/
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:19 am
@ehBeth,
I would guess that there are divorce lawyers that are seeing dollar signs.

In other words, fast forward twenty years and a sociology course might include the percent of marriages that end in divorce for heterosexuals, and the percent of marriages that end in divorce for LGBTs.

I wonder if there will be a correlation for marriages that stay together when there are children involved?

When all the partying is over, and all the self-congratulatory news items are history, the real benefactors might just be the children that previously had no real parents. What would that say about an LGBT couple that chose never to raise a child? No difference from the heterosexual couple that "chose" not to raise a child I would guess?

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:26 am
@Foofie,
It's one of the things I wondered about. There are a lot of same-sex couples who'd like to adopt, who couldn't because they weren't married - and some agencies still consider marriage important in selecting parents.

Will these couples move up the list for adoptions once they're married? will they get on more lists?

I certainly hope so, as I've seen some beautiful same-sex families grow here over the past 30 years. I've love to see more children have the opportunity to leave foster care and be adopted by loving parents.
tsarstepan
 
  4  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:48 am
@ehBeth,
http://i61.tinypic.com/116ud74.jpg

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/gay_marriage_map_where_is_same_sex_marriage_legal.html?cq_ck=1435330734983
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2015 10:50 am
@tsarstepan,
watching the commentary on Scott Walker's FB page is interesting
he's not happy with this - and a pile of his supporters are bailing on him
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Say yes!
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 11:17:21