LGBTQA and Ally Safe Space

[I-Jo]

what's the word on this?  I have NO free time this week to catch up on anything other than at work apparently- fill me in fill me in fill me in!!!!

[pandraztic]

In regards to the Prop 8 ruling, that isn't expected until June if at all. There is presently speculation that they will completely drop the Prop 8 case due to some legal technicalities. HOWEVER, because of that, they may just focus on the DOMA case today instead. Which, makes sense because part of what the Prop 8 case hinges on is DOMA. So, yeah. I'm not 100% up and up on the legalese of it all, but, there you have it. I will try and answer any other questions if I can, but, no promises. 

[I-Jo]

nah that's more than I knew before.

 

I'm not particularly active in politics or care to be- but I try to at least pay attention to things that are as important as this. 

[ICB]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I understand it. Everyone feel free to correct me.

 

The issue yesterday was with "standing," that is, if you're going to sue the government, you have to have been personally wronged in someway. I'm a staunch gay ally, but I have am not a gay person living in California who was not allowed to get married, so I could never hire a lawyer and take this business all the way to the Supreme Court. The people arguing at the court yesterday were anti-gay marriage people, and the question is: how have you been personally wronged by gay people getting married around you? The obvious answer, to us, is that they haven't.

 

One of the things that might happen is that the court decides that the people arguing don't have standing, so the case is dismissed. If this happens and they don't do anything else, then the appeals court ruling would stay in affect and proposition 8 would be overturned, meaning gay couples in California could probably start getting married again.

 

That's California. What happens today is the DOMA argument, which will affect how gay marriages in California (and Washington and Massachusets and Iowa and New York, etc.) are treated by the federal government. This has a lot of applications. Gay military members might get better benefits, pay lower taxes, inherit their dead spouse's possessions more easily. Gay Americans who travel, fall in love, and marry a gay citizen of another country would be able to apply for an immigration vista for their foreign spouse.

[bigm141414]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I understand it. Everyone feel free to correct me.

 

The issue yesterday was with "standing," that is, if you're going to sue the government, you have to have been personally wronged in someway. I'm a staunch gay ally, but I have am not a gay person living in California who was not allowed to get married, so I could never hire a lawyer and take this business all the way to the Supreme Court. The people arguing at the court yesterday were anti-gay marriage people, and the question is: how have you been personally wronged by gay people getting married around you? The obvious answer, to us, is that they haven't.

 

One of the things that might happen is that the court decides that the people arguing don't have standing, so the case is dismissed. If this happens and they don't do anything else, then the appeals court ruling would stay in affect and proposition 8 would be overturned, meaning gay couples in California could probably start getting married again.

 

That's California. What happens today is the DOMA argument, which will affect how gay marriages in California (and Washington and Massachusets and Iowa and New York, etc.) are treated by the federal government. This has a lot of applications. Gay military members might get better benefits, pay lower taxes, inherit their dead spouse's possessions more easily. Gay Americans who travel, fall in love, and marry a gay citizen of another country would be able to apply for an immigration vista for their foreign spouse.

 

 

Nice summary. I've been following it pretty closely all week since, you know, we are on the cusp of a pretty major social change that even a decade ago was considered out of reach. History people. History is happening

[RBC]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I understand it. Everyone feel free to correct me.

 

The issue yesterday was with "standing," that is, if you're going to sue the government, you have to have been personally wronged in someway. I'm a staunch gay ally, but I have am not a gay person living in California who was not allowed to get married, so I could never hire a lawyer and take this business all the way to the Supreme Court. The people arguing at the court yesterday were anti-gay marriage people, and the question is: how have you been personally wronged by gay people getting married around you? The obvious answer, to us, is that they haven't.

 

One of the things that might happen is that the court decides that the people arguing don't have standing, so the case is dismissed. If this happens and they don't do anything else, then the appeals court ruling would stay in affect and proposition 8 would be overturned, meaning gay couples in California could probably start getting married again.

 

That's California. What happens today is the DOMA argument, which will affect how gay marriages in California (and Washington and Massachusets and Iowa and New York, etc.) are treated by the federal government. This has a lot of applications. Gay military members might get better benefits, pay lower taxes, inherit their dead spouse's possessions more easily. Gay Americans who travel, fall in love, and marry a gay citizen of another country would be able to apply for an immigration vista for their foreign spouse.

Some minor corrections just on standing -- yesterday, the issue was with the petitioners (the pro-prop 8/anti-marriage equality folks). Generally, that role (defending the outcome of the ballot initiative) falls to the state. However, the state declined to defend the ballot initiative's outcome. 

 

My guess is that the Court will kick the Prop 8 case based on standing but will couch their opinion with the phrase, "We need not address the merits of this case due to the Petitioner's lack of standing, however, if we were to decide the merits of the case, here's what we'd say..."  I'm also fairly certain that Scalia will be sure to remain firmly on the wrong side of history.

 

With the DOMA case, it looks doomed for the DOMA proponents. However, I don't think that Edie Windsor will win based solely on the equal protection claim. I think she'll likely win due to the states' rights argument. Regardless of how the court finds 5 votes to strike down DOMA, it means that those 1100+ federal benefits will be granted to married same sex couples who live in states that recognize their union. 

 

On a side note, although it seems unrelated, keep your eye on an affirmative action case that was just granted certiorari. The case deals with a ballot initiative in which the majority votes on (and ultimately curtails) the rights of the minority. Does this sound familiar?    I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the Court used the opportunity to say that ballot initiatives that strip rights away from a class of people are unconstitutional. If so, that means the Court has just come up with a roundabout way of dealing with all of the states that have previously voted to ban same sex marriage and doing away with those horrible, horrible mini-DOMAs.

[Shukar]

@LilHit, I'm not sure what you do outside the forums but all that agrees fairly well with the analysis from my lawyer friends so I'm gonna guess that's about spot on.

[pandraztic]

Sounds about what all my lawyer friends here on the hill are saying LilHit. Most important though? Rights for me and my girlfriend to (hopefully in the nearish future) get married and get collocated orders, and so she will be notified if anything happens while I'm on deployment or the other way around while she is deployed. I just want to be equal.

[RBC]

@LilHit, I'm not sure what you do outside the forums but all that agrees fairly well with the analysis from my lawyer friends so I'm gonna guess that's about spot on.

I'm one of those non-practicing lawyers that decided to hide out in the world of policy research. My current area of research? Civil rights and LGBT discrimination. This week has been amazing for a wonky policy legal nerd like myself. 

 

Sounds about what all my lawyer friends here on the hill are saying LilHit. Most important though? Rights for me and my girlfriend to (hopefully in the nearish future) get married and get collocated orders, and so she will be notified if anything happens while I'm on deployment or the other way around while she is deployed. I just want to be equal.

Absolutely the most important is finally getting the rights we all deserve. I've been with my wife for 12 years. We registered as domestic partners in Cook County, IL in 2005. We were civilly united in NJ in 2007. We had our union blessed in our church in 2008. We're considered unmarried females in our current state and are barred from jointly adopting children. 

 

Yes, yes, we're married in our hearts. Yes, we're married in the eyes of our God. All that is wonderful, don't get me wrong. However, I'm really tired of being treated as unmarried and having my elected officials refer to us as "roommates." 

 

That said, a change for the better is coming and I cannot wait for it!

[Vector]

Hi, dropping in to be supportive! Glad to see this space here!

[catspaw]

BTW, I'm not sure if anyone here has said it before (23 is a lot of pages) but I just wanted to say...
 
HUGE THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO'S HERE JUST TO GIVE A SUPPORTIVE THUMBS UP.
 
I think Dan Savage said it better than I could...

Gays and lesbians are a tiny percentage of the population. And while we laid the groundwork for the breakthroughs we saw last week in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota—we built this—we didn't build it on our own.

• The majorities in the state legislatures in Maine, Maryland, and Washington that voted to make same-sex marriage legal? Straight.
• The governors who signed laws making same-sex marriage legal? Straight.
• The overwhelming majority of people who voted in favor of marriage equality in all three states after anti-gay bigots forced public votes on our civil rights? Straight.
• The majority that voted against writing anti-gay bigotry into Minnesota's state constitution? Straight.
• And the president who took a huge political risk and came out for marriage equality before his reelection campaign? Straight.

It has gotten better for us—better, not perfect—but it hasn't gotten better for us in a vacuum. It's gotten better for us because straight people have gotten better about us.

Rights are rights. They shouldn't be put up for a vote. And we shouldn't have to say "thank you" when they're recognized. The sad fact is that we have had to fight for our rights. But here's the happy fact: We didn't have to fight this one alone. Thousands and thousands of straight people stood with us and fought for us. We had help. And that's what we should thank the straight people for. Not for granting us our rights—rights are rights are rights—but for joining our fight.
[...]
 
We saw a huge breakthrough in the struggle for LGBT equality last week. And it wouldn't have happened without the help of so many righteous, kick-ass straight people. I'll bet every queer person reading this knows a straight person who they should thank. I certainly do. [...]
 
Because we literally couldn't have done it without them.

 

Every time I see a post here just from someone being like "hey, straight ally saying woo", I literally smile.  It means a lot.  Thank you.

[I-Jo]

I'm one of those non-practicing lawyers that decided to hide out in the world of policy research. My current area of research? Civil rights and LGBT discrimination. This week has been amazing for a wonky policy legal nerd like myself. 

 

Absolutely the most important is finally getting the rights we all deserve. I've been with my wife for 12 years. We registered as domestic partners in Cook County, IL in 2005. We were civilly united in NJ in 2007. We had our union blessed in our church in 2008. We're considered unmarried females in our current state and are barred from jointly adopting children. 

 

Yes, yes, we're married in our hearts. Yes, we're married in the eyes of our God. All that is wonderful, don't get me wrong. However, I'm really tired of being treated as unmarried and having my elected officials refer to us as "roommates." 

 

That said, a change for the better is coming and I cannot wait for it!

You know what pisses me off to no end- is that Christie won't address this shit here in NJ.

 

AND the state legally recognizes outside common law marriages- but we don't allow them.  pretty sure they will do the same for "civil unions"

I'm straight-ish and it fucking pisses me off. 

 

It annoys me that "this is history" this shouldn't be histroy- why are we having to do this?  Really?  in this day and age- we REALLY are having to go to the Supreme Court for this shit?  This should just be fixed and we can move on and all my friends can get married and be offical so they can be miserable married couples like everyone else

 

It makes me angry FOR you all.  

[ICB]

I think Dan Savage said it better than I could...

 

Dan Savage says all kinds of things, every day, better than I can!

 

It makes me angry FOR you all.  

This sums up my feelings exactly, but even though I'm straight I still feel like I have a dog in this fight. My wife and I are legally married by the state of Texas, but our marriage has never been blessed by a church (atheists). We have no plans to ever have kids (we like dogs). We are an interracial couple (white/hispanic).

 

These assholes stand up and shout their slogans thinking they're only talking about the icky, icky homos, but if marriage is a religious institution, what does that say about my marriage? If marriage is bound by traditional definitions, does that mean I have to divorce the love of my life and find a white girl instead? If marriage is only valid because of natural-born children, does that make my marriage inferior?

 

The biggest, loudest "fuck you" I can say to these people is that you aren't talking about TEH GHEYS (OH NOZ!). You're using such thickly coded language for your bigotry that you've accidentally started talking about my wife, and for that I will cut your goddamn face.

 

Jeez. I'm all riled up this morning.

[I-Jo]

yeah- I love seeing interracial couples holding signs that say - "Not long ago our marriage wasn't legal either"

 

unfortunately the racism around that still exists and I have tremendous scars to prove it- but yeah- they think they are being specific about something- they aren't. 

 

Technically I'm caput too if you want to get into it- if I marry I'll be marrying into a Syrian family- my family is pure Scottish and all Christian.  I could care less and I'm also not having kids.

 

funny totally irrelevant story- went to a Greek (or Russian) orthodox wedding two weeks ago- they are both remarrying- he has kids- all over 18 yrs old- they are in their late 40's early 50's.  

 

Half the ceremony was sing song/chanting about be fruitful and multiple like the good book says.  I was like- are you kidding me?  Do you even know the couple you are marrying.

 

Organized religion and their rituals can make me shake my head- they are so ridiculous sometimes. 

[Avistew]

Yeah, my grandfather remarried after my grandmother died. I can assure you there was no illusions of children being possible with his new wife, who hadn't been able to conceive in probably decades. The wedding was also not religious. But guess what, it was legal, they were allowed to marry, and nobody tried to protest it. Anti-same-sex-marriage people are really ridiculous with their arguments. If they actually believed what they said, they would want divorce to be illegal, they would want adultery to be illegal, they would want sterile people and people who don't want kids not to be allowed to marry, but even though all of these are way more common than two people of the same sex wanting to marry, I don't see anyone being an activist about them.

[Vector]

I had a great conversation with someone about this, who was all up in arms about gay marriage being a sin..who was cheating on her third husband with a married man. People and logic often don't mix.

[Zorch]

Just wanted to pop in and say that you all have my best wishes for all the legal BS you're currently forced to deal with to be resolved fairly and justly, as soon as possible.  I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court has the good sense to kill Prop 8, DOMA, and anything vaguely resembling them once and for all. 

 

Relationships should be about the two people involved, how they feel about each other, and their personal happiness.   Bystanders(and society at large) need to butt out and let people live their lives - a couple's decision to marry should be between the couple involved and no one else, and anyone that feels otherwise should F off.  Speaking as someone with deep, deep scars from a past interracial/intercultural relationship, it utterly infuriates me when a bunch of bystanders with nothing at stake feel the need to inflict their judgement/restrictions on others.

 

You all have my best wishes for this codified bigotry to be stuck down as quickly and completely as possible.

[weirdquark]

 However, I'm really tired of being treated as unmarried and having my elected officials refer to us as "roommates." 

 

That said, a change for the better is coming and I cannot wait for it!

 

Some friends of mine who used to live with me here in Texas have an excellent story wherein they went to the polls to vote and ran into one of said officials who was up for election that year and was doing the handshake-meet-the-people-as-they-go-vote thing. So he saw one of them approaching and turned to her with a big smile and introduced himself and she cheerfully smiled back and said, "hi! I'm [name] and this is my wife, [name]!"

 

He had a camera guy with him filming the whole thing.

 

They said his ability to retain his 'game' face was both hilarious and impressive.

[MariahSnow]

First, definitely an ally over here. Any lovin' is good lovin'

 

Second, it BLOWS my mind that 1. In the 1960s, my interracial relationship would be illegal. Not just shunned by society, but actually against the law. And 2. In Texas, if you live with a partner for 6 months, you are legally married in the sense that if you want to hire a divorce lawyer and split up the assets, you are entitled to that. Or if you want to put your domestic partner on your health insurance, etc. 6 months is a really short amount of time! And my boyfriend and I are definitely "living in sin", so what gives? How does it make sense that someone like me, who doesn't even want to get married, is "married" and has legal rights to my partner's things, not to mention health benefits. But two people who REALLY want to get married aren't allowed to. WTF?! 

 

Although I don't always like the "jokes" about gay marriage, I did see some post on Facebook about how more weddings = more cake, and everyone loves cake.

[bigm141414]

First, definitely an ally over here. Any lovin' is good lovin'

Second, it BLOWS my mind that 1. In the 1960s, my interracial relationship would be illegal. Not just shunned by society, but actually against the law. And 2. In Texas, if you live with a partner for 6 months, you are legally married in the sense that if you want to hire a divorce lawyer and split up the assets, you are entitled to that. Or if you want to put your domestic partner on your health insurance, etc. 6 months is a really short amount of time! And my boyfriend and I are definitely "living in sin", so what gives? How does it make sense that someone like me, who doesn't even want to get married, is "married" and has legal rights to my partner's things, not to mention health benefits. But two people who REALLY want to get married aren't allowed to. WTF?!

Although I don't always like the "jokes" about gay marriage, I did see some post on Facebook about how more weddings = more cake, and everyone loves cake.

This is not true. Informal marriages in Texas can come about one of two ways 1) signing a marriage declaration 2) The people agree to be married and present themselves as married to others (eg to friends and family, have joint bank accounts etc). It is spelled out in Section 2.401 of the Texas Family Code. You don't have to wait 6 months and both parties have to consent to such an arrangement.

/legalrambings.

[MariahSnow]

This is not true. Informal marriages in Texas can come about one of two ways 1) signing a marriage declaration 2) The people agree to be married and present themselves as married to others (eg to friends and family, have joint bank accounts etc). It is spelled out in Section 2.401 of the Texas Family Code. You don't have to wait 6 months and both parties have to consent to such an arrangement.

/legalrambings.

 

Good to know! I just moved to Texas and honestly the "6 months and you're married" thing was a rumor I'd heard.

 

That almost makes it even more ridiculous that same-sex couples can't get married but all my boyfriend and I have to do is wake up one day and say, "yeah, we're married" and tell all our families. 

[Elder]

In celebration of this thread, I give you Jonny McGovern's video for "

." Barely work safe (lots of tighty whities...it's the Gay Pimp, after all!)

 

Hahaha I never knew this guy existed but I love love love this!  Booyah on my workout playlist!

[DeadBeat23]

I'm pan-sexual, and i'm trying to find a way to come out without getting disowned. I'll stop by when i can. Advice would be helpful too.

[TankGrrl]

Hi all,

Thought I'd pop in and say hi to the family and a big right on to all the ones battling for their rights at the moment in the states. I'm in Australia where we have no relationship recognition at all. Momentum is building and has been for a long time but neither of the main political parties seem the least bit interested in taking up the fight. Not a vote winner it would seem.

On another note, check this out https://www.facebook.com/DIYrainbowcrossings

For Mardi GRAS this year in Sydney (which brings in millions in tourism for the city) the council painted a pedestrian crossing in the heart of the gay community with a massive rainbow. Totally fabulous! Despite a massive campaign to keep the crossing the council ripped it up after a few short weeks. The campaign to reinstate it continues in the form of crossings all over the city (and country) being chalked in rainbows!

I've been watching this go viral over the weekend and it's awesome stuff :-)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Zeuel]

Are we going to have a LGBTQA accountabilibuddy group? I remember being in one for my second challenge and I thought it was awesome!