This is just the prelude. The DC Council is testing the waters. If Congress doesn’t intervene (& they’ll do everything possible to avoid this issue) then it won’t be long before the council starts allowing SSM in the District.
Here’s a link to a page which discusses the issue, referring to rights available under US federal law and under state law: Legal and Economic Benefits of Marriage. It summarises the rights available to married couples, with links to the detailed list itself, prepared last decade by the General Accounting Office. The list itself is over 75 pages long, with roughly 1000 rights under federal law, and roughly 400 under state laws.
Since that particular list is now over a decade old, there no doubt have been some changes to some of the details, but it’s still likely accurate as a general description.
A few of the more pragmatic Republican Congresscritters are going to find one of their own a pain in the ass about this, though.
According to the Washington Post:
From Utah. What a surprise.
I think one of the greatest reasons for optimism is the fact the governor signed it despite saying, “It’s not the way I was raised and it’s not the way that I am.” I’ve been noticing, in the past few years, more and more conservative Christians who are saying, “Hey, even though I think it’s wrong, that’s no reason for it to be illegal.” Not the loudmouth conservative Christians who are so visible in politics, of course, but friends and acquaintances quietly living out their lives. There’s this fresh new zeitgeist that I’m seeing, strongest with my generation, but also trickling up to older generations. They’re realizing that conservative politicians having been manipulating people of faith for unsavory ends. The momentum is there and it’s definitely building. It’ll be interesting to see in the next decade or so what happens not only with same-sex marriage, but also how the Republican party adjusts to losing a base they used to have easily in their pocket.
I’ll just note that if you include civil unions in the mix, currently there’s something like 14 states where you can be either married or otherwise legally joined.
To be specific:
Vermont
Connecticut
New Jersey
New Hampshire
California
Washington
Oregon
DC
Maine
Iowa
Massachusetts
Hawaii, Colorado, and Maryland are mostly there as well.
Same here. Civil Rights issues are faaaarrrr from over in this country, unfortunately. We’re winning, but it’s taking longer than we thought. Once the gay thing is settled (believe me, bigots, it will be settled and the right side will win), the next big battle will be immigrants’ rights, especially Mexican immigrants. If more people knew what dirtbags like Joe Arpaio were up to, half the country would be walking around with their jaws dragging the floor.
Who’s Joe Arpaio? I don’t think I’ve heard the name before.
He’s our dickhead sheriff who is irrationally obsessed with immigration, to the tune of systematically harassing anyone with brown skin.
I don’t.
Civil Union is just a status applied in an attempt to, on the one hand, placate (I say insult) the LGBT community by offering some semblence of official recognition of their couplehood, yet still abridging their rights, while on the other hand, pander to the NOM crowd and their supporters by conferring a different (I say lesser) status to Gay and Lesbian couples than heterosexual ones, thereby elevating marriage to a higher level in a new and artifical hierarchy that gives the bigoted a reason to feel better (I say superior) about themselves.
Civil Union legislation is not a step in the right direction toward full equality for Gays and Lesbians because its application promotes discrimination.
I thought that civil unions conferred the same rights as marriage, just with a different name. That’s not right, I take it.
I don’t agree. Marriage is preferable to civil unions, but it’s preferable to have some rights than none at all, and the passing of a civil union law both indicates a greater tolerance of gays among the general public, and could lead to even greater tolerance and acceptance, if they become commonplace.
While we’re on the subject, does anyone know which states, while not yet authorizing legally recognized same-sex unions to be contracted within their boundaries, do recognize ones contracted elsewhere? I know New York is on that list; I believe New Mexico is as well, and two or three other states I think.
Although, that website isn’t really applicable in the case of gay marriage, because the advantages it says that marriage gives you (recognized in all fifty states and gives you federal benefits) aren’t the case when it comes to gay marriages.
Yet.
That’s kind of the point of the push for marriage equality.
Wikipedia comes to your rescue:
It looks like it’s just New York.
Yes, I know, but until that happens, there’s no legal difference to the individual whether he has a gay marriage or a gay civil union.
And DC, too. At least, city council approved it (the one “nay” vote being Marion “Crackpipe” Barry). We’ll see if Congress decides it feels like micromanaging.
Am I right in remembering the movement towards Gay Marriage started (prematurely) in Hawaii?
I seem to recall there was a court ruling that said the state constitution permitted same-sex marriage. The right-wing went nuts and then… it fell off my radar screen. Can anyone recall the details?