US Soon To Lag Behind Albania In Gay Rights

[Tyyr]

No, the state should have a part in marriage, not everyone has a religion to get married under. We atheists deserve recognition for our partnership, just as much as those who are part of religion. No, I don't want some sort of second rate 'civil partnership' crap. Besides, you can get 'married' in any service you like but unless it's registered here with the government then it doesn't count. All weddings here have to fill in a marriage certificate and lodge it with the local council (civil authority) for it to be legal.

Except that if the government gets out of marriage no one's marriage is any more valid than anyone else's. If someone wants to call themselves married they can. If you want some kind of non-religious ceremony arrange it and go for it. In the eyes of the government there's no such thing as married or not married. Its up to the people involved to determine what they want to do/call it.

[Mikey]

The who would certify the partnership as "marriage," in order to make avialable spousal benefits, default beneficiary status, estate planning, etc.? By me, at least, marriages may be legally performed by clerics but must be ratified by a civil license. Or, of course, a civil ceremony may be performed.

I agree with Ian that some gub'mint involvement must be included, if only to secure the perqs of "marriage" (as opposed to "civil partnership") for those of non-religious status.

[Graham Kennedy]

I was listening to an interview the other day and somebody said "The US will be one of the last if not the last country in the world to recognise gay marriage. And when they finally do, they will turn around and trumpet from the rooftops that America surely is a fine example to everyone else and the freest country in the whole world."

[Nickswitz]

I was listening to an interview the other day and somebody said "The US will be one of the last if not the last country in the world to recognise gay marriage. And when they finally do, they will turn around and trumpet from the rooftops that America surely is a fine example to everyone else and the freest country in the whole world."

Yeah, that'll probably happen, lol.

[Mikey]

I was listening to an interview the other day and somebody said "The US will be one of the last if not the last country in the world to recognise gay marriage. And when they finally do, they will turn around and trumpet from the rooftops that America surely is a fine example to everyone else and the freest country in the whole world."

Probably about right, except that it won't be the "US" as a whole recognizing anything. I can't see the federal government ever taking that away from the states' discretion.

[Lazar]

Probably about right, except that it won't be the "US" as a whole recognizing anything. I can't see the federal government ever taking that away from the states' discretion.

But there is the question of whether the federal government will recognize the states' gay marriages and force the other states to do so under the full faith and credit clause. For the non Americans, right now we have this Clinton era law on the books called DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) which stipulates that the federal government won't recognize gay marriages, and that no state has to recognize another state's gay marriages. Obama promised that he would try to get it repealed in the future.

[Mikey]

That repeal would allow the guv'mint to recognize gay marriages from the states that allow them; I still don't see the feds dictating to the states on this issue.

[Captain Seafort]

Why not? The federal government has a track record of using troops to enforce equal rights, why should they be so reticent on this? Certainly it'll be a long time before any President will have the popular support to act as Lincoln or Kennedy did, but once the tipping point is reached I don't see the states being allowed to carry on regardless.

[Mikey]

I should say "until there is a huge paradigm shift in modern thinking." There were always enough forward-thinking white Americans to push the federal government on issues of segregation and institutionalized bias. There is not, unfortunately, enough hetero support of homosexual marriage to do so.

[Aaron]

Wouldn't it take just one successful challenge against DOMA to render it unconstitutional and then gay marriage must be recognized? I realize that's about as likely as a Newfie designing a working submarine but still....one can hope.

[Mikey]

Overturning DOMA would force the federal government to recognize gay marriage in states that allow it; it wouldn't force the government to make a state allow it.

[Lazar]

Overturning DOMA would force the federal government to recognize gay marriage in states that allow it; it wouldn't force the government to make a state allow it.

True - from sources such as this book, it seems that even without DOMA, the states still wouldn't be required to recognize gay marriages.

[Mikey]

Right - it's always been, and IMO will be for the foreseeable future, a reserved power.

[Graham Kennedy]

Since when are human rights issues settled on a state by state basis? What if they'd decided to settle slavery or segregation on a state by state basis?

[Sonic Glitch]

Since when are human rights issues settled on a state by state basis? What if they'd decided to settle slavery or segregation on a state by state basis?

For the longest time, those were settled on a state by state basis weren't they?