MsOtis

Nov 7, 2012

Just wanted to say yay! for my fellow Marylanders, who approved the law already in place.

As of January 1, 2013, gay couples can officially get married in the state of Maryland.

That makes 6 states, plus D.C., and two Native-American tribes which have legalized same-sex marriage. California had passed it, but then had it taken away by state vote (that was a crafty vote).

Lots of LGBTQ folks don't wish to marry, or perpetuate the hetero-normative state of marriage as it's been handed down. That's okay. Maybe "marriage" will evolve to a less religiously-based deal, and definitely with smaller receptions, and the way we define our legal and emotional long-term relationships will be more user-friendly for all peoples.

Still, gotta say YAY today!!

Chaeddd

Nov 7, 2012

Why would you need to marry another woman?

Why should they allow you to marry another another woman when they won't allow a man to marry another woman? (he is still married to his 1st wife)

MsOtis

Nov 7, 2012

Where did I say anything about wanting to marry "another" woman?

I'd like to marry the current woman, though.

I would only have been able to marry a second woman at the same time if your candidate Romney got in, and he enforced his religion's belief in polygamy again.

Also, if you live in Maryland, you can marry any man you want, if he's single. Got anyone in mind? I understand Mayo is available.

 

dgbdc

Nov 7, 2012

Go us!

Also passed in Maine and Washington state.

And Minnesota's referendum to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage failed (though it's been explicitly banned in state law).

So it was a good day all-around for LGBT rights.

Chaeddd

Nov 7, 2012

So in other words you don't need to marry another woman, it s just that you want to have the right to marry another woman.

sfguyyy

Nov 7, 2012

 

Damn, dbgdc took the words right outta my keyboard.

Def a good day for gay rights. And medical marijuana. And Democrats in California..

 

MsOtis

Nov 7, 2012

Chaedd, I now have the right in Maryland to marry the person of my choice, whether that's a woman or man. 

Other than that, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

On a side note for my original post, I was intrigued that 2 Native American tribes have approved same-sex marriage. Both tribes are in that Northwest liberal corner of our country, called Oregon and Washington. So, not the Sioux or Apache. 

smashingmayo

Nov 7, 2012

Not really news that a bunch of dems would pass it.
MsOtis

Nov 7, 2012

Says the misinformation Minister of Information.

Good job.

Chaeddd

Nov 7, 2012

You spent some time to write a thorough answer but did not say why you need to marry another woman. We can assume that a woman does not need to marry another women, because neither woman will get the other one pregnant.

This is different than Loving vs. Virginia, in that case a black woman who was doing a white man would get pregnant, but he didn't have to marry her. So Virginia's racist law was depriving black women of protection that a white woman could get. Thus not being equal protection under the law.

MsOtis

Nov 7, 2012

^ if you re-read what I have said, there is nowhere the word "need."

There is no law saying that people can only marry if they "need to."

It sounds like you are linking procreation with marriage. One need not be married to procreate. Likewise, one need not be with a man sexually, to become pregnant. 

And then there are all the people who, through choice or not, will not be attempting procreation. They should not marry then?

Is that what you mean, Chaedd? That women should not marry other women OR men, if they cannot or will not get pregnant at some point?

Where is marriage defined in civil law as only for the purpose of bearing children?

belialx90

Nov 7, 2012

Gay marriage is gay

Chaeddd

Nov 7, 2012

 ^ now the state of Maryland is gay too, I suppose you bigots could call it Fairyland.

The case for same sex marriage is based on the the current marriage laws being unconstitutional because of a clause in the 14th amendment, that is about equal protection under the law, and a law that requires the couple to be 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex is a bad law because a man who they won't let marry another man, could have married this man if he was a woman. This could be discrimination.

Because of this the state is compelled to throw out it's marriage law because it is unconstitutional, or there are cases were someone is a victim.

In Loving vs. Virginia, Black women could be considered to be the victim. The bad guys would be the white men who could leave them and not pay alimony or child support.

The Black women needed a marriage license so they could sue the white guys, but the state refused to give them a marriage license.

Chaeddd

Nov 7, 2012

"two Native-American tribes which have legalized same-sex marriage."

which tribes are those? the Navahomos and the Homohawks?

jk

MsOtis

Nov 7, 2012

Chaedd, I'm still not clear about your point, but I enjoyed reading about Loving v. Virginia case.

In 2007, Mrs. Loving had this to say:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.


belialx90

Nov 7, 2012

you bigots

lol

smashingmayo

Nov 7, 2012

As many have said, you are allowed to marry if you're gay already. Simply marry the opposite sex and then be gay with whoever. Only bigots would want to try to force straight people to be gay.
belialx90

Nov 7, 2012

They're not forcing you to be gay Mayo. You choose to have sex with those men.

dgbdc

Nov 8, 2012

You spent some time to write a thorough answer but did not say why you need to marry another woman. We can assume that a woman does not need to marry another women, because neither woman will get the other one pregnant.

...you don't have to get married to get pregnant.Also you can raise kids without pregnancy: it's called "adoption."Finally, there are lots of straight marriages where kids and pregnancy are avoided, or where one member of the couple biologically can't have children. And yet oddly enough, having children or even potential fertility isn't a prerequisite for straight marriage, even though you seem to be obsessing over its centrality to the issue. That's strange.The reason why marriage rights are important are because of all the legal rights and benefits that come with marriage by default, such as "next-of-kin" rights, shared healthcare benefits, spousal privilege in prosecution, etc. It's typically estimated that there are around 1400 rights and benefits that married couples enjoy simply because they are married, many (if not MOST) of which have nothing to do with children.But of course, you're probably just trolling, so there was no need to explain this.
dgbdc

Nov 8, 2012

^And thanks a lot, forums, for again getting rid of my formatting.

Here it is again, in readable form:

 

...you don't have to get married to get pregnant.Also you can raise kids without pregnancy: it's called "adoption."

Finally, there are lots of straight marriages where kids and pregnancy are avoided, or where one member of the couple biologically can't have children. And yet oddly enough, having children or even potential fertility isn't a prerequisite for straight marriage, even though you seem to be obsessing over its centrality to the issue. That's strange.

The reason why marriage rights are important are because of all the legal rights and benefits that come with marriage by default, such as "next-of-kin" rights, shared healthcare benefits, spousal privilege in prosecution, etc. It's typically estimated that there are around 1400 rights and benefits that married couples enjoy simply because they are married, many (if not MOST) of which have nothing to do with children.

But of course, you're probably just trolling, so there was no need to explain this.

Post a comment