Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

California same-sex marriages legal starting todayFollow

#1 Jun 16 2008 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
But I just found this totally sweet.

Quote:
Lesbian Couple of 55 Years to Marry

SAN FRANCISCO (June 16) - Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin fell in love at a time when lesbians risked being arrested, fired from their jobs and sent to electroshock treatment.

On Monday, more than a half-century after they became a couple, Lyon and Martin plan to become one of the first same-sex couples to legally exchange marriage vows in California.


California Allows Same-Sex MarriagesMarcio Jose Sanchez, APPhyllis Lyon, 84, left, and Del Martin, 87, who have been a couple for 55 years, are to be among the first same-sex partners to legally exchange marriage vows in California. Gay marriage became legal Sunday under a California Supreme Court ruling that overturned a ban on them.

"It was something you wanted to know, 'Is it really going to happen?' And now it's happened, and maybe it can continue to happen," Lyon said.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to officiate at the private ceremony in his City Hall office before 50 invited guests. He picked Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, for the front of the line in recognition of their long relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement.

Along with six other women, they founded a San Francisco social club for lesbians in 1955 called the Daughters of Bilitis. Under their leadership, it evolved into the nation's first lesbian advocacy organization. They have the FBI files to prove it.

Their ceremony Monday will, in fact, be a marriage do-over.

In February 2004, San Francisco's new mayor decided to challenge California's marriage laws by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His advisers and gay rights activists knew right away which couple would put the most compelling human face on the issue: Martin and Lyon.

Back then, the couple planned to celebrate their 51st anniversary as live-in lovers on Valentine's Day. Because of their work with the Daughters, they also were icons in the gay community.

"Four years ago, when they agreed to be married, it was in equal parts to support the mayor and to support the idea that lesbians and gay people formed committed relationships and should have those relationships respected," says Kate Kendell, a close friend and executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Lyon and Martin vividly recall the excitement of being secretly swept into the clerk's office, saying "I do" in front of a tiny group of city staff members and friends, and then being rushed out of the building. There were no corsages, no bottles of champagne. Afterward they went to lunch, just the two of them, at a restaurant run as a job training program for participants in a substance abuse program.

"Of course, nobody down there knew, so we were left to be by ourselves like we wanted to be," said Martin, the less gregarious of the two. "Then we came home."

"And watched TV," adds Lyon.

The privacy was short-lived. Their wedding portrait, showing the couple cradling each other in pastel-colored pantsuits with their foreheads tenderly touching, drew worldwide attention.

Same-sex marriage would become legal in Massachusetts in another three months, but San Francisco's calculated act of civil disobedience drove the debate.

In the month that followed, more than 4,000 other couples followed Martin and Lyon down the aisle before a judge acting on petitions brought by gay marriage opponents halted the city's spree.

The state Supreme Court ultimately voided the unions, but the women were among the two dozen couples who served as plaintiffs in the lawsuits that led the same court last month to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.

They were having their morning coffee when Lyon heard the news on the radio. She rushed across the house to embrace Martin. Not long after, Newsom called to offer congratulations and to ask if they would be willing to be at the forefront yet again.

"Sure," was the answer they gave.

The couple, who live in the same San Francisco house they bought in 1956, do not get out much now. Martin needs a wheelchair to get around. Although they plan to briefly greet well-wishers at City Hall after the ceremony, they are having a private reception for friends and family.

"It's so endearing because they do seem excited and a little bit nervous," Kendell says. "It's like the classic feelings anyone has as their wedding day approaches."

Because a few other clerk's offices agreed to stay open until the court's decision becomes final at 8 p.m. EDT, other couples planning late afternoon weddings may already have tied the knot before the mayor pronounces Lyon and Martin "spouses for life."

They don't mind. They know they already are.

"We get along well," Lyon said. "And we love each other."

"I love you, too," Martin said.


55 years together, no matter the orientation, is awesome to celebrate.
#2 Jun 16 2008 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Along with six other women, they founded a San Francisco social club for lesbians in 1955 called the Daughters of Bilitis. Under their leadership, it evolved into the nation's first lesbian advocacy organization. They have the FBI files to prove it.


I'm sure that's true.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Jun 16 2008 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Sad that this can be misconstrued by bigots as 'more evidence that California is whacky'.

I can't imagine how awful it must be to be in love with someone and have the relationship viewed as '2nd class'.

Thank Bob I'm not a pouff.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#4 Jun 16 2008 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The comments following the SFGate article about this were priceless. So many people planning on getting married after 20+ years together.

One person pointed out that if the November initiative (to declare marriage as being between a man and a woman) passes, it will effectively force California to stop recognizing ANY marriage as being legal, and to go to a purely civil union scenario.

Which would play hell with the old tax situation, eh, wot?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5 Jun 16 2008 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
In Massachusetts, Deval Patrick marched in Pride and not just b/c his daughter just came out. What a change that was from Romney. It's nice to have another state legalize it. It feels like there is momentum. I could have never imagined this when I was a kid and it's so inspiring to see things like this change--I'm gonna ignore all the bad stuff and be awash in a fleeting state of optimism.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#6 Jun 16 2008 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I understand Mr. Obama is against Gay Marriage (but for civil unions and equal rights).

I've never quite understood the notion of a civil union. It's kinda like taking a state-sanctioned marriage and renaming it for the sake of the bigots.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Jun 16 2008 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I understand Mr. Obama is against Gay Marriage (but for civil unions and equal rights).

I've never quite understood the notion of a civil union. It's kinda like taking a state-sanctioned marriage and renaming it for the sake of the bigots.
Pretty much. I don't fully agree with Obama on it (I think either it's all marriage or none of it is) but he apparently feels that "marriage" should be between a dude and a chick.

I could try to make myself feel better about it and claim that he's just playing the middle for political purposes but he's been pretty plain about the point before. I think he's just honestly against redefining "marriage" even if he's fine with giving the same benefits to gay couples.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Jun 16 2008 at 12:28 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I understand Mr. Obama is against Gay Marriage (but for civil unions and equal rights).

I've never quite understood the notion of a civil union. It's kinda like taking a state-sanctioned marriage and renaming it for the sake of the bigots.
Pretty much. I don't fully agree with Obama on it (I think either it's all marriage or none of it is) but he apparently feels that "marriage" should be between a dude and a chick.

I could try to make myself feel better about it and claim that he's just playing the middle for political purposes but he's been pretty plain about the point before. I think he's just honestly against redefining "marriage" even if he's fine with giving the same benefits to gay couples.


At least he opposes "Don't Ask, Don't tell," that friggin' *********** law of epic proportions. One of my friends got booted from the Coast Guard for it. First they offered a psychiatric hospitalization and then they kicked her out. She liked girls. Smiley: frown McCain wants to uphold this law.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#9 Jun 16 2008 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Of course all the articles are about the 20 yr relationships that are finally blossoming. They don't dare tell you about the scores of flaming butt-pirates that are sure to be married and divorced faster than they can reach around.

In no way saying that "man & woman" is any more reliable....
#10 Jun 16 2008 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
Elinda wrote:

I've never quite understood the notion of a civil union. It's kinda like taking a state-sanctioned marriage and renaming it for the sake of the bigots.



Who says the idea of "Separate but Equal" is dead? And as always, astonishingly lacking in anything commonly recognized as equality.
#11 Jun 16 2008 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's next week's story: Scores Of Flaming Butt-Pirates File For Divorce, Reach Around
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Jun 16 2008 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
NephthysWanderer wrote:

In no way saying that "man & woman" is any more reliable....


Ain't that the truth. This is one of the reasons Mr. Ambrya and I resisted getting married for so long, actually. We figured we didn't want our relationship "sanctioned" by any authority so thoroughly f'ucked-up that its criteria for who is allowed to have their union recognized grants recognition to two 18-year old kids who haven't known each other six weeks and won't be together for six months, but won't do the same for two 35-year-old adults who have been together for ten years and will be together for another 50.

If I hadn't needed his medical insurance once I got laid off from my job, or if that insurance had been granted to heterosexual "domestic partners" we'd still be contentedly cohabitating.
#13 Jun 16 2008 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Ambrya wrote:
If I hadn't needed his medical insurance once I got laid off from my job, or if that insurance had been granted to heterosexual "domestic partners" we'd still be contentedly cohabitating.
One of the many reasons I support same-sex unions.

For me, my marriage wasn't about state recognition, or legal entitlement.

I married her because:
a) we both wanted to formalise our relationship,
b) We were christiana back then, and believed a Church blessing was important, and
c) I wanted to express my love for her publicly before the people we loved.

I'm no longer a christian, but if ever I met a woman misguided enough to want me, the feeling were mutual, and we wanted to commit to each other, I'd want an opportunity to declare it before our closest friends and family.

I see no reason why those rights should be confined to heterosexualists.

It's not so long since we were intolerant of inter-racial marriages. This story reassures me we're moving away from irrational prejudice.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#14 Jun 16 2008 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
You can't fault the institution when the participants are suddenly not interested in holding up their promises any longer.

People are the weak point, not the act of making a commitment.
#15gbaji, Posted: Jun 16 2008 at 1:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ok. What exactly in that list you made do homosexual couples *not* have right now, without any sort of "state recognition" or "legal entitlement".
#16 Jun 16 2008 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
NephthysWanderer wrote:
You can't fault the institution when the participants are suddenly not interested in holding up their promises any longer.

People are the weak point, not the act of making a commitment.


You missed the point. I wasn't faulting the institution of marriage, but not getting married was a sort of silent and personal protest against the arbitrary and frankly nonsensical rules which govern who is admitted into the institution. It wasn't the institution itself of which we wanted no part, it was the people running it whose "sanction" we didn't care to have so long as that sanction was unfairly and inequitably denied to other equally deserving couples.

Kinda like boycotting a television program because you have an ethical problem with the companies who pay for commercial time during the show. The show might be great, you might love it and not have a problem with the SHOW itself, but you have a problem something associated with the show, and boycotting the show is the best way to protest that "something."

#17 Jun 16 2008 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
It only limits the benefits granted by the state to married couples who are heterosexual. That's it.
Why?
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#18 Jun 16 2008 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
I don't find the rules of marriage to be arbitrary and nonsensical at all, it's one of the oldest traditions in human history. Bestowing benefits and monetary privledges to married people is the piece that throws the wrench in the machine.

My prediction is that marriage as a state recognized institution will become so convoluted and messy that the government will just step out and declare everyone and everything perfectly equal. And the liberals will dance and rejoice while drinking the blood of the rich.
#19 Jun 16 2008 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
Quote:
I'm no longer a christian, but if ever I met a woman misguided enough to want me, the feeling were mutual, and we wanted to commit to each other, I'd want an opportunity to declare it before our closest friends and family.

I see no reason why those rights should be confined to heterosexualists.


+1 I'd write more to back up those sentiments but I'm off to go hot tubbing. Just pretend I wrote something intelligent and witty echoing what Nobby already posted, only from a female perspective.
#20gbaji, Posted: Jun 16 2008 at 3:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For the same reason the government creates any status and attaches benefits to them:
#21 Jun 16 2008 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess it's doable, but the whole thing would have been a lot easier if the gay folks had recognized that they don't need the government status to be "married".
No, you seem to have confused yourself. They do need the state marriage license to be married, but most places same-sex folks are not allowed it.

...and why shouldn't they be?

Why should they be denied the right to legally obtain couple status, for whatever reason they may want it?

Maybe it's simply because that is how our society recognizes formal life-long commitment between two people....or something.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#22 Jun 16 2008 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Gbaji is just arguing against this because he doesn't want to marry his life-partner.

Aarlokk

Bloodwolfe
#23 Jun 16 2008 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I guess it's doable, but the whole thing would have been a lot easier if the gay folks had recognized that they don't need the government status to be "married".
No, you seem to have confused yourself. They do need the state marriage license to be married, but most places same-sex folks are not allowed it.


No. They don't. They only need a marriage license to prove that they've meet the criteria from the state to qualify for the state status of "married", which in turn exists purely to grant benefits to couples who marry.

If you don't want or need the state granted benefits, there is absolutely nothing stopping you and your partner from getting married. None at all. Your marriage simply wont qualify you for the state benefits. Oh. And if you want other things traditionally associated with marriage, you'd need to sign a set of contracts that specifies those things. But again, you don't need to meet the state criteria to do that.

Do you really think that marriage didn't exist until the State of California created a special status for it? Obviously, you can be married without a government agency recognizing the marriage. The recognition only matters if you want whatever benefits the state grants to married couples.


Anyone who argues that this isn't about qualifying for state benefits hasn't really thought this through.

Quote:
...and why shouldn't they be?


But they are!

There is currently no law in California that forbids a same sex couple from marrying. They can go to a church or hall. They can declare their love for each other in front of their families and peers. And they can enter into whatever contractual financial arrangements they wish to enter into as well. All of that is what we normally consider a marriage, right?

They aren't being denied anything except a set of state funded benefits. Period. Haven't been since sodomy laws were struck from the books. Your argument only makes sense if you somehow assume that a relationship is only real and valid if the government says it is. I'm sorry, but how strong can your relationship be if you don't think it's real unless some government agency says it's real.

You don't need the government to get married. Never have. You only need to meet the government's criteria if you want your marriage to qualify you for a specific set of benefits. I just don't know how many different times and in how many different ways I can say the exact same thing over and over until you (and a host of other people) understand.

Your definition of marriage is wrong is all. You're assuming that marriage only means the state status. Period. Anything less isn't a marriage. Yet people managed to get married for thousands of years with nothing more official then their friends and neighbors agreeing that they were a married couple. That's all you need. Everything else is extraneous. The very fact that so many people seem to think that nothing exists unless the government gets involved is somewhat scary all by itself. You don't need the government to get married!

Quote:
Why should they be denied the right to legally obtain couple status, for whatever reason they may want it?


Let me be really clear. The second we're talking about something the government gives you, we cease to be discussing rights. Rights are things you have, which may be taken away. Certainly, if there was a law on the book illegalizing gay marriage, complete with criminal charges for same sex couples caught "living in sin" or something, I'd be right there with ya protesting it. However, that's not the case. They have the "right" to marry, just as any heterosexual couples does.

Their marriage doesn't qualify them for state benefits though. That's not a violation of rights, because you don't ever have a right to something given to you by the government. That's always a benefit, and the government most certainly can set qualifying criteria.

Quote:
Maybe it's simply because that is how our society recognizes formal life-long commitment between two people....or something.


This has nothing to do with a formal life-long commitment though. That's what's so funny. You're pulling a bait and switch here. You talk about the "right" of marriage being denied, and talk about life-long commitment, but yet the thing being fought for has absolutely nothing to do with either of those things.


Kinda strange, don't you think? It would be like arguing that if the government doesn't provide you with a free computer with internet access you're being denied a "right" to free speech. One does not follow the other. The government is not preventing gay couples from marrying, nor is it inhibiting their rights. It's only not granting them a benefit. Those are not the same thing.

Edited, Jun 16th 2008 5:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Jun 16 2008 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:

They aren't being denied anything except a set of state funded benefits. Period. Haven't been since sodomy laws were struck from the books. Your argument only makes sense if you somehow assume that a relationship is only real and valid if the government says it is. I'm sorry, but how strong can your relationship be if you don't think it's real unless some government agency says it's real.


What has been denied is state-mandated recognition and legitimacy and the spouse being granted rights as a primary family member in a way that cannot be contested like other contracts. It's not the relationship that is suddenly being real, it's the feeling of being fully welcomed as a member of society, where your family is considered on par in the eyes of law to families with opposite sex partners. It's the change in your relationship and yourself as a class in the eyes of the law.

Stop acting self-righteous, if you think marriage mattered, you wouldn't oppose this law. Instead your stupid breeding *** is trying to cast aspersions at people who are only striving for their relationship to be legitimized in the way that you yourself value by your opposition.

I'll say this: It's really nice to feel as a ***** person that some day I might live in a country that treats me like an equal member of society, even if you find it to be superficial.


Edited, Jun 16th 2008 9:00pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#25 Jun 16 2008 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
I think its the act of a geezer poking his d'ick into another mans **** that makes opponents of gay marriage uneasy.

Of course they deny it, but thats what it is really.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#26 Jun 16 2008 at 5:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Commander Annabella wrote:
What has been denied is state-mandated recognition and legitimacy and the spouse being granted rights as a primary family member in a way that cannot be contested like other contracts.


WTF is "state-mandated recognition"? Sounds an awful lots like "I don't think my relationship is real unless the government tells me it is".

Secondly. Believe it or not, an actual power of attorney is *stronger* then the powers granted by dint of being married to someone. Or were you not paying attention during the whole Terry Schivo thing?


Quote:
It's not the relationship that is suddenly being real, it's the feeling of being fully welcomed as a member of society, where your family is considered on par in the eyes of law to heterosexual. It's the change in your relationship as a class in the eyes of the law.


So all the people who were married prior to the state creating a special status and granting benefits weren't really married? Their marriages didn't count?

That's the part I don't get. There really is no social difference. It's all in your own head(s). Somewhere along the line some activist planner thought: "Hey! If we can convince people that their relationships don't have meaning unless the state recognizes them as a marriage, we can use that as a lever to change the definition of marriage". That's why you think this way. No other reasons. People have been getting married for thousands of years without any special state status, or marriage licenses or anything other then the people around them recognizing it.

Why do you need more?

Quote:
Stop acting self-righteous, if you think marriage mattered, you wouldn't oppose this law.


I think that the status matters. For the reasons I already listed. The state status of married is a benefits package designed to create an incentive for heterosexual couples to marry. That's it. That's the entire reason it exists. It is not, nor has it ever been, the determinant of the validity of someone's relationship. That some seem to think it is just honestly strikes me as strange.


Quote:
Instead your stupid breeding *** is trying to cast aspersions at people who are only striving for their relationship to be legitimized in the way that you yourself value by your opposition.


Cast aspersions? When? I have said nothing negative about gay couples. Not one thing. I only stated the very obvious fact that from the perspective of the government, there is no reason to provide gay couples an incentive to marry, while there is one for heterosexual couples.

That's not casting aspersions. That's commenting on a pretty basic biological fact. Hetero couples tend to produce kids. Gay couples *can't*. Not as a natural consequence of being a couple. That's ultimately the whole reason for the status.

Quote:
I'll say this: It's really nice to feel as a ***** person that some day I might live in a country that treats me like an equal member of society, even if you find it to be superficial.


And you judge your equality in society based on whether or not you qualify for the same state funded programs as everyone else? Seriously? Get over it. I'm a white male. I likely qualify for fewer state benefits just as a consequence of my gender and skin color then any other group of people in this country. Do I ever complain that I'm somehow less a part of society as a result?


Let me give you a hint: Not only can the government not give you rights, it also can't give you self confidence or acceptance.

Not one of the people who are today lining up to get married will feel more fulfilled as a result. They may think so for a day or two, but ultimately one's sense of self isn't boosted via government recognition. Social recognition will, but this move and judicial process in violation and opposition to the will of the majority is ultimately harmful to the social recognition of those relationships, not helpful.



Edited, Jun 16th 2008 6:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 303 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (303)