Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[Túrin Turambar]

Yes, it was a remarkable sight. It wouldn't have been seen without the plebiscite, which turned out to be a remarkable own goal by the No campaign in retrospect.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is so awesome I had to post it here. Of course, there is no reason why this couldn't happen with an opposite-sex couple, but it almost never would (but it should).

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/05/3 ... rig-js.cnn

[RoseMorninStar]

Awww. That was so sweet.

[yovargas]

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Meanwhile in the U.S. the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that could legalize discrimination against gays based on "religious freedom". As usual, it will come down to what Justice Kennedy says, and he had harsh questioning for both sides (this is a case in which a baker in Colorado refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple).

The ruling was very carefully worded and very carefully framed. The exact ruling of the majority boils down to "The Colorado Civil Rights Commission erred by showing religious bias against the beliefs of the baker." They didn't say the baker was definitively right and they didn't say the baker was definitively wrong.

Two justices had a separate concurrence making the ruling 7-2, although the reasoning behind their separate concurrence makes me think it is 2-5-2. They actually supported the right of a baker to deny service. The two remaining in the opposition believed that the CCRC was right and have no problem with saying the baker doesn't have any religious-based right to deny service.

[Sunsilver]

Okay, we all need a laugh...

(Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's sad that there is even any need to revive this thread, and this bill is a lot less than it should be, but at least it is something.

Senate clears key procedural step on bill to protect same-sex marriage

[RoseMorninStar]

It became necessary due to who we have on the (not-so-supreme) Court.

[Sunsilver]

Aannnd the bill protecting same sex marriage has passed!

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-con ... 022-12-08/

Speaking of gay marriage I was today years old when I discovered that both Anthony Rapp and Wilson Cruz, who play a gay couple on Star Trek: Discovery both are actually gay. Since I'm a huge fan of Discovery, I'm a bit embarrassed that I'm so behind the times in finding this out, and I only found it out because Anthony Rapp and his partner, Ken Ithiphol, just became parents of a baby boy!

I have found Cruz and Rapp's portrayal of a gay couple the best, most normal, believable portrayal I've ever seen in a TV show or movie. Maybe it's because the writers don't play up that they are gay - they are first and foremost very valuable crew members of a starship. There's another gay relationship in a series I'm watching (NCIS Hawaii) and that one just totally grates on my nerves. I'm not sure why - maybe because the one character is so insecure in the relationship that it's like one of those on-again-off-again Harlequin romances. Also, that series focuses a lot more on the ins and outs of the relationship, which is not something NCIS has done in the past. (And I've been a fan since the very first season of the original show.) Traditionally, people's private lives in NCIS are just that...private...unless they somehow get involved in a case, as happened with this week's episode with McGee's wife. The show is supposed to be a crime drama, not a soap opera.

[elengil]

I really wish it had gone further, but maybe they couldn't get the support for it, but it's frustrating that it only says that states have to recognize legally performed marriages, not that states are required to make marriages legal in their state.

But it *is* something. Just feels like a step backward.

[Sunsilver]

So, I take it the individual states still have the right to make same sex marriage illegal. It sucks sometimes that the states have so much power. This wouldn't happen in Canada - the rights of the Federal government vs. the provincial governments are more clearly spelled out. Yes, there are conflicts of interest sometimes, but they are fairly rare.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalized same-sex marriage throughout the US, is still in effect. Unless it is overturned individual states cannot make it illegal.

[Frelga]

So what the new law does is prevent the states from making marriages illegal if they were legally performed elsewhere, in the event that the deluxe court overturns Oberfell the way they did Roe?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not exactly. It requires that in the event that the constitutional protections for either same-sex and/or interracial marriage are ever removed (e.g., Obergefell and/or Loving are overturned) states would be required to recognize same-sex or interracial marriages performed in other states even if they were banned from being performed in that state.

[Inanna]

V, I understand that there is a difference between what Frelga said & what you clarified but - what is it? The word “illegal”?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Currently, no state can make it illegal for either same-sex or interracial couples to get married in that state. If Obergefell and/or Loving were to be overturned (which to be clear, I don't believe is ever going to happen), then states could make it illegal for same-sex couples or interracial couples to get married in that state. However, assuming that the Protection of Marriage Act is still on the books and is not itself struck down, those states would be required to recognize same-sex and/or interracial marriages performed in other states (and probably other countries, though I don't know that for sure).

Hopefully that is clearer!

[Dave_LF]

I'm having troubling deciding between a) this bill makes it less likely that O/L will be overturned since it's not worth getting people all riled up for so little practical effect, and b) this bill makes it *more* likely that O/L will be overturned since it would let the radicals throw their base a bone without paying the actual political cost of invalidating a bunch of marriages.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Me too, Dave.

[RoseMorninStar]

WaPo opinion piece from E.J. Dionne Jr., in part, regarding the Respect for Marriage act:

(...)But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?

That question is neither naive nor rhetorical. Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view. Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.

But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages. We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer. Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?

What we are seeing in the opposition to same-sex marriage is less about religious faith than cultural predispositions. American attitudes toward homosexuality have certainly changed radically but so have our attitudes toward racial and gender equality. Are not these moves toward greater openness all expressions of the equal, God-given dignity of every person?

We hear from our conservative friends about the importance of family values, and I heartily agree. Healthy families are good for society, for children and for social justice. But we straight people have done a heck of a job of wrecking the family all by ourselves and, in any event, supporting same-sex marriage is to stand for, not against, stable, loving, lifetime relationships.(...)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well said.