Recently, New Jersey became the 14th state in the Union to legalize same-sex marriage. A state court declared New Jersey’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional, and the state’s supreme court strongly signaled it would support the lower court, so Governor Christie dropped his appeal.
This week, Hawaii takes up the matter of same-sex marriage. Democrats hold huge majorities in both state houses, and the governor is a Democrat who supports marriage equality. Hawaii is expected to pass a same-sex marriage law next week.
I remember Hawaii was one of the early pioneers in the struggle toward marriage equality. Then they had some kind of referendum back in the 90s that sadly stopped it, and Vermont went on to be the next pioneer by passing the first civil unions law. Glad to see Hawaii taking the issue on again.
Just the other day I was looking at a map of the US, making predictions of what states may be next in line to pass gay marriage laws. I saw Hawaii, Oregon and Illinois as having the best chances. After that, perhaps Nevada and Colorado. Then perhaps New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Deep South and Utah will be last, as usual being the most reluctant to catch up to the modern world, but it will happen. It’s inevitable.
In 20 years we’re all going to look back on this so called “struggle” for marriage equality and say, wtf were people thinking? Of course we should have marriage equality, how on earth did people back then justify anything other than equality?
Congratulations, Illinois! The Illinois state House passed the marriage equality bill already passed by the state Senate. The bill goes on to the governor, who has stated he will sign it promptly. I lived in Chicago for a couple of years, so I am especially thrilled by this. I grew up primarily in Texas and live in Alabama, and I know that they will be among the last to legalize gay marriage. In fact, I doubt they will ever legalize gay marriage. If marriage equality comes to the South, it will be because the Supreme Court decides the matter on the basis of the Constitution for the entire nation.
Take heart- in South Carolina, opposition is down to 52% against/39% for- in a state that passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by 78% in 2006. And,as everywhere,young people are more in favor.
The most recent poll in Alabama - in April this year - found support at a mere 32%. The church culture around here keeps support low, even among young people. Good news about South Carolina though, that’s encouraging.
Nice to see Illinois and Hawaii joining the 21st century. Oregon has starting recognizing same-sex marriages from out of state, so marriage equality there can’t be far behind. It is a slow burn, but it is fun watching the U.S. religious right/haters fret and squirm.
Wonderful to see all this progress in the last year alone! Places to keep an eye on over the next few years: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
I’m not the slightest bit religious, and more an anarchist than a conservative, but I find this same-sex ‘marriage’ stuff a bit weird.
There is a difference between a committed relationship between two individuals from which children will likely result and a committed relationship between two individuals from which children will not result (at least not without interventions like adoption, cloning, etc.). Marriage was invented to structure families. It was nothing to do with individuals celebrating their personal commitment, love, etc.
I’m all for letting people do their own thing, and have always thought civil unions should be recognized. I’m just not sure why this has to happen at the expense of redefining marriage itself, which is effectively what’s happening.
I’m not as convinced as you are that that is even a fact, and even if it was, are things not subject to change when humans achieve a higher form of ethics?
I’m not sure those two things can co-exist. Either you are for it, or not. You either recognize the rights of everyone regardless of gender to participate in marriage, or you don’t. I’m not seeing the middle ground you are implying…
Yes, the marriage of homosexuals is a fundamentally different thing than of a man and woman. It can never produce children of their own naturally.
I’m not religious either but can see the difference. It’s not the same thing as marriage, more like civil partnership. No reason they can’t have equal rights in this manner either.
For people saying these things are ‘obvious’ , they are not. For instance why is polygamy still illegal? What about age of consent and age of marriage? These are societal behaviours that vary enormously between cultures, and often not clear from the outside regarding the reasons people come to certain conclusions. For instance in Taiwan’s support the criminalization of adultery, because women do not feel secure financially. Not because of their disgust at adultery.
[quote=“Kiwi”]I’m not the slightest bit religious, and more an anarchist than a conservative, but I find this same-sex ‘marriage’ stuff a bit weird.
There is a difference between a committed relationship between two individuals from which children will likely result and a committed relationship between two individuals from which children will not result (at least not without interventions like adoption, cloning, etc.). Marriage was invented to structure families. It was nothing to do with individuals celebrating their personal commitment, love, etc.
I’m all for letting people do their own thing, and have always thought civil unions should be recognized. I’m just not sure why this has to happen at the expense of redefining marriage itself, which is effectively what’s happening.[/quote]
Seems you’re defining marriage in terms of the potential to have children.
People can have children and stable families without marriage; heterosexual couples who don’t want to, don’t plan to, or are physically unable to have children can still marry.
Nevertheless, gay couples, married or not, still can and do have children through such methods as artificial insemination, adoption, or children from previous opposite-sex relationships.
Marriage has no connection to children.
Not sure why you call this “redefining”, or why you would consider it an “expense” rather than, say, a bonus.
If marriage was invented as a structure for children (not provable) that doesn’t mean that’s how it must remain. Having children is now a matter of choice, whether a couple is gay or not.
Societies can define marriage however they choose. And they are doing so.
If marriage were about children, it would be illegal for post-menopausal women, infertile people, and recipients of hysterectomies to get married.
The whole thing about “redefining marriage” is high up on the list of “Things that anti-gay bigots say”. I don’t think you are one, but please be aware that you’re using their language.
Ahh, “separate but equal” has worked so well for us in the past. Do we really want to go down that road again?
I am a huge supporter of gay marriage. I will not accept any religious argument about what is natural and what is godly because this is the law we are dealing with, not scriptural decree. If you want to keep marriage between a man and a woman because it’s the Christian way, that’s really just one step away from requiring all Americans pray to Jesus regardless of their personal faith. Because it’s the Christian way.
Now as for this travesty that there is a notion of “traditional marriage,” it amazes me how short people’s memories can be. Similar arguments have been launched over the decades on interfaith and interracial marriage, and divorce is still today a stigmatized thing in many countries. If you look past the surface of a typical American household 100 years ago, it has some very notable differences from one today.
Marriage has always been changing. The Bible has uncountable instances of polygamy, advocates divorce in some instances, and even has stories of sanctioned adultery.
I would add that different cultures have different definitions of marriage. A Christian gay couple could quite possibly have more in common with Mr. and Mrs. America than, say, a straight Hindu couple would.
And if I’m wrong and allowing gay people to get married really means the death of “traditional marriage,” well, good riddance.
Lastly, gay marriage absolutely must not be linked at this stage in history to gay adoption. They are two separate issues and require two separate debates. I agree there are many more considerations when it comes to gay adoption (although I’m still very much in favor of it), but that should not blind us. Stand on the right side of history, ladies and gentlemen.
is marriage is defined by the well being of children, like somehow children’s well rounded development depends on the institution of marriage instead of love and care, then we should go back to the days when people can not get a divorce. Or at least cannot divorce if they have children.
if people can get divorced, then it’s obviously marriage is about the two people who decided to spend their lives together which is separated from their life long duty to take care of ones children if they decide to become parents, biological or not.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]Recently, New Jersey became the 14th state in the Union to legalize same-sex marriage. A state court declared New Jersey’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional, and the state’s supreme court strongly signaled it would support the lower court, so Governor Christie dropped his appeal.
This week, Hawaii takes up the matter of same-sex marriage. Democrats hold huge majorities in both state houses, and the governor is a Democrat who supports marriage equality. Hawaii is expected to pass a same-sex marriage law next week.[/quote]
My only question is when will marriage equality in a marriage between a man and a woman begin in the United States?
If marriage were about children, it would be illegal for post-menopausal women, infertile people, and recipients of hysterectomies to get married.
The whole thing about “redefining marriage” is high up on the list of “Things that anti-gay bigots say”. I don’t think you are one, but please be aware that you’re using their language.[/quote]
Be aware that you are pushing your view of what is moral or right on others who may not agree. I don’t need to agree with your views and I don’t like being told what to think. Watch your categorisation and re-read what I wrote.
Even if I opposed gay marriage (which I do not actually), I still would not necessarily be a bigot or anti-gay. I might have my own reasons for doing so. You’d need to ask questions to find out why wouldn’t you (remember that part about the adultery and the majority view in Taiwan on that…it’s complicated).
I said ‘redefining marriage to have no connection to children is ridiculous’. This was a reply to this statement.
In the large majority of cases, marriage is directly connected to having children. To have the opposing view is to be the minority view.
It does not mean that to be married is to have children. But the connection is strong still today, has been historically, and will continue to be in the future.
