Same-sex marriage legalised in Maine; on the verge in New Hampshire

Dont be a lemon

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Posts
17,811
Likes
3,412
Location
Party time all the time
AFL Club
Essendon
Thread starter #1
Maine and N.H. Move to Expand Gay Rights

By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 7, 2009


NEW YORK, May 6 -- Gay rights advocates celebrated swift and unexpected twin victories in New England on Wednesday when Maine became the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage and New Hampshire's legislature shortly afterward sent a marriage equality bill to the governor.

If Gov. John Lynch (D) signs the New Hampshire bill or allows it to become law without his signature, New Hampshire will become the sixth state to legalize marriages of same-sex couples, leaving Rhode Island as the only New England holdout.

The movement in Maine and New Hampshire came faster than even gay rights advocates had expected and with bipartisan support in both places, suggesting that the question of same-sex marriage is losing some of its resonance as a divisive societal and political issue, at least in the Northeast.

"There is no doubt there is a shift in attitudes and opinions," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Family Equality Council, which advocates legalization of gay marriage. "We're seeing it in poll after poll. We're seeing it at lunch counters and over kitchen tables."

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa now allow gay men and lesbians to marry their partners. California briefly allowed such unions before a voter-backed referendum last year made same-sex marriage illegal -- and left in limbo the thousands of couples who had wed in the interim. The California Supreme Court is set to rule imminently on whether that referendum was constitutional.

The Maine law came after a 21 to 13 vote in the state Senate, following an earlier state House vote, which sent the bill to Gov. John E. Baldacci (D), who has spoken against same-sex marriage. But Wednesday morning, according to some involved in the issue, Baldacci told legislative leaders that if the bill passed, he wanted it on his desk within two hours.

In a statement, Baldacci said that although he was not raised to believe in same-sex marriage, he has come to see it as a civil rights issue. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law," he said.

Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine, which had been pushing the issue, said: "We were not expecting it. What was not a surprise was he heard the thousands and thousands of Maine voters who raised their voices."

The Maine law now faces the likely prospect of a referendum challenge much like California's. In Maine, citizens who collect 55,000 signatures can file a "people's veto" to have a law passed by the legislature overturned, and opponents of same-sex marriage have said they plan to do so.

The law would not be enforced until the challenges were exhausted, and the first possible date for a referendum would be November.

Smith predicted the gay rights advocates could prevail in tiny Maine, since they would need about 200,000 supporters in a referendum to keep same-sex marriage legal. "We can talk one-on-one to 200,000 voters," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050601681.html
I give this news the thumbs up :thumbsu:

And yet I can't help but wonder just how long we'll have to wait until our apathetic and homophobic parliament will make it legal here :thumbsdown:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Posts
32,987
Likes
29,268
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
#2
I give this news the thumbs up :thumbsu:

And yet I can't help but wonder just how long we'll have to wait until our apathetic and homophobic parliament will make it legal here :thumbsdown:
Unfortunately our last two Prime Ministers have both been very religious.

Australia as a nation isnt a religious place (especially compared to the USA) but due to our political system we only have 2 choices on who we want to become Prime Minister and we didnt even get to pick those two choices (that is done by the parties).

It would be nice if one day we could get a PM who represents modern Australian values but the moment we are stuck with the ultra socially conservative Kevin Rudd.
 
Joined
May 18, 2008
Posts
3,234
Likes
23
Location
South Australia
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
San Antonio Spurs
#3
In a statement, Baldacci said that although he was not raised to believe in same-sex marriage, he has come to see it as a civil rights issue. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law," he said.

This is what I don't understand about the whole gay marriage thing. How is it a civil rights issue? Gay people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. I hardly think they are being treated unfairly.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#4
In a statement, Baldacci said that although he was not raised to believe in same-sex marriage, he has come to see it as a civil rights issue. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law," he said.

This is what I don't understand about the whole gay marriage thing. How is it a civil rights issue? Gay people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. I hardly think they are being treated unfairly.
Just... not the right to marry who they want. Its similar to if people were allowed to marry people of their own race, but not people of other races. Oh but they can easily just marry another black person! :rolleyes: I mean surely if someone is gay they should have the right to enshrine their marriage?
 

EasternTiger

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Posts
4,719
Likes
4,284
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#5
I thought one of the benefits of being a gay couple would be that no-one expected you to get married. No pressure from friends, parents and relatives:

"When are you gonna get married, when are you gonna get married?"

Ah well, if they want to get married let them suffer the tortures of the damned...like the rest of us straight folk. I just hope our politicians don't waste time on non-issues like this, especially during a recession.
 
Joined
May 18, 2008
Posts
3,234
Likes
23
Location
South Australia
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
San Antonio Spurs
#6
Just... not the right to marry who they want. Its similar to if people were allowed to marry people of their own race, but not people of other races. Oh but they can easily just marry another black person! :rolleyes: I mean surely if someone is gay they should have the right to enshrine their marriage?
So they surely have the right to take part in a ceremony that is completely against their lifestyle/beliefs?

It's like saying Black people should have the right to join the Ku Klux Klan.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#7
So they surely have the right to take part in a ceremony that is completely against their lifestyle/beliefs?
Is it? Firstly, many gay people are couples, and most couples, gay and straight feel the need to bind their relationship for a number of reasons, legal and emotional. So the lifestyle seems out. As for beliefs, I don't know about you but I would not make sweeping generalizations about what gays believe. It's certainly not a universal opinion of gays that marriage is unimportant, not if their push to have the right to is any inclination. There are many Christian gays for instance, and not every religious folk feels the need to exclude gays from marriage nor does every gay person feel that marriage and religious ceremonies are irrelevant.

It's like saying Black people should have the right to join the Ku Klux Klan.
So, you're effectively saying that groups like these should engage in racism? Ridiculous. The only reason why the KKK bans blacks is because they hate them, if you want to go back to a time when people used to shoot black people and Europeans used to ridicule Jews, you'll be on your own thanks.
 
Joined
May 18, 2008
Posts
3,234
Likes
23
Location
South Australia
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
San Antonio Spurs
#8
Is it? Firstly, many gay people are couples, and most couples, gay and straight feel the need to bind their relationship for a number of reasons, legal and emotional. So the lifestyle seems out. As for beliefs, I don't know about you but I would not make sweeping generalizations about what gays believe. It's certainly not a universal opinion of gays that marriage is unimportant, not if their push to have the right to is any inclination. There are many Christian gays for instance, and not every religious folk feels the need to exclude gays from marriage nor does every gay person feel that marriage and religious ceremonies are irrelevant.



So, you're effectively saying that groups like these should engage in racism? Ridiculous. The only reason why the KKK bans blacks is because they hate them, if you want to go back to a time when people used to shoot black people and Europeans used to ridicule Jews, you'll be on your own thanks.
Not saying that at all.

Just trying to make the point that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, and that religion in general (not each individual person) is against homosexuality. Doesn't really make sense.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#10
Not saying that at all.

Just trying to make the point that marriage is a religious ceremony
Doesn't have to be. The state registers and respects secular marriages.

between a man and a woman,
Which can easily change. It's like suggesting since taxation is gradual, it has to stay that way. No it doesn't.

and that religion in general (not each individual person) is against homosexuality. Doesn't really make sense.
Not convinced, sure Catholic groups are and there's that line in the OT, but many gays are religious and some protestant groups are quite open to gays. Anyway, considering many don't get married in a church I don't see the problem anyway.
 

placebo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
6,973
Likes
3,908
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#11
Not saying that at all.

Just trying to make the point that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, and that religion in general (not each individual person) is against homosexuality. Doesn't really make sense.
Sorry, that's not just what marriage is. There goes your argument out the window.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

placebo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
6,973
Likes
3,908
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#13

I don't want to have to post the same thing I've posted on quite a few topics so I'll try to summarize. Marriage has changed forever and ever. It wasn't always a religious ceremony, in fact, originally it wasn't religious at all. It can be a religious ceremony but it doesn't have to be as someone already said. One of the major reasons it existed in the past was to establish contracts and ownership etc.
 

Sportman1987

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
May 19, 2007
Posts
2,043
Likes
16
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Geelong
#15
In a statement, Baldacci said that although he was not raised to believe in same-sex marriage, he has come to see it as a civil rights issue. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law," he said.

This is what I don't understand about the whole gay marriage thing. How is it a civil rights issue? Gay people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. I hardly think they are being treated unfairly.
That's like saying, when interracial marriage was frowned upon that everyone had the same rights - the right to marry someone of the same race.

It's a civil rights issue because I, as a man have the right to marry a woman. There is no reason why a woman shouldn't have that same right. This kind of opens a can of worms in regards to private institutions such as men's clubs, women's gyms etc, but I don't put marriage on par with them.

In regards to civil unions, different/separate but equal is not equal. Getting rid of such conceptions of equity is a large part of what the black civil rights movement was about.... & it should apply to gays too.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#16
If anything it's a legal and civil contract, as well as all the symbolic notions. Even when you get married in a religious service the marriage still fufills legal services, which is one of the many reasons why people get married. I mean heck it is quite legal to marry someone purely to get entry and citizenship into a nation. Happens alot too.
 

P.A.F.C

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
5,010
Likes
141
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
West Bromwich Albion
#18
Yeah, there are laws against 'sham marriages'

Not a law expert, but the basic marriage act states that;
“Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#19
I thought the Australian govt allowed arranged but not sham marriages?
Well I don't mean forced marriages but it's quite easy to get over the sham bit. Plenty of Australian blokes marry some foreigner bring her over and get her a citizenship. It doesn't always work but people have worked sham marriages before in Australia. What I mean is marriages for convenience, someone needs citizenship, they marry someone to help in entry. Happens a fair bit in the US I think.

And plus, if marriages had to be for life, better tell all those divorcees!
 

Niximus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Posts
13,482
Likes
13,557
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
#20
Not saying that at all.

Just trying to make the point that marriage is a religious ceremony
between a man and a woman, and that religion in general (not each individual person) is against homosexuality. Doesn't really make sense.
My first point is

A) That is BS, Marriage is defined in an act of parliament and requires no religious affiliation whatsoever - ever heard of a celebrant?

and then

B) Even if it was a religious ceremony what right do you have to set what is and isn't religious. Even if we went a further ridiculous step and said it was a christian ceremony, why could a christian denomination not perform homosexual marriage if they wish?

There are many gay people who are christian and their religion accepts homosexuals just as some christians accept female minister and some not.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#22
Well I don't mean forced marriages but it's quite easy to get over the sham bit. Plenty of Australian blokes marry some foreigner bring her over and get her a citizenship.
I thought it was reasonably hard? I know Australians who have married Poms for example and they had to jump through various hoops to prove the relationship was on the up and up.

I wondered why would they do that when there allegedly seems to be quite a bit of mail order / internet brides floating about.

Ditto arranged marriages.

Anyway re this, ending discrimination has to be a good thing.

I look forward to all the proponents of this demanding an end to ethnic and gender specific spending in Australia ie aboriginal programs, SBS, multiculturalism, Office for Women, family reunion etc.

Oh and campaigning for Mormons rights as well
 

KevinCat07

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Posts
2,348
Likes
13
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#24
Looks like ol' Lue has a death grip on Maine.

To borrow a well known saying and change it a bit: (One day thoe supporting that movement will say this):

First, the Gay lobby came to bully the Christians. I did not speak up because I was not a Christian.

Then they came to bully the Gypsies and I did not speak up because I was not a Gypsy.

Then they came to bully the Intellectuals and I did not speak up because I was not an intellectual.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak up because I was not a Muslim.

Then they came to bully others who stick up for traditional marriage, but I did not speak up because I thought it didn't affect me.

And then the gay lobby, they came for me.

And There was no one left to speak up.

Point is you are creating something that will in the end destroy everything even you stand for.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Posts
19,105
Likes
6,542
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#25
I thought it was reasonably hard? I know Australians who have married Poms for example and they had to jump through various hoops to prove the relationship was on the up and up.

I wondered why would they do that when there allegedly seems to be quite a bit of mail order / internet brides floating about.

Ditto arranged marriages.
It really is easier than you think. Many people do it and many people througout the world get residence and citizenship through marriage. Anyway my point is many people get married for all sorts of reasons, many of them not religious and many times not in some religious institution. If two Australians consentually get married by a celebrant in an registery for money reasons, there's no reason why or how that can be stopped. And I really don't see any reason why gays can't marry. Society isn't going to implode.

Anyway re this, ending discrimination has to be a good thing.

I look forward to all the proponents of this demanding an end to ethnic and gender specific spending in Australia ie aboriginal programs, SBS, multiculturalism, Office for Women, family reunion etc.
Mmk.

Oh and campaigning for Mormons rights as well
Pfft, why would I of all people be supporting the crazies?
 
Top Bottom