Gay Rights in America

[Charlotte_native]

There is a protest against Prop 8 in Charlotte Saturday -- mid afternoon at our Government Center. I hope a lot of folks show up -- I'm going and have invited a lot of friends, both straight and gay. I'd like to hope that Prop 8 woke up a lot of people and us in particular about how this is both stupid and hurtful. I know a lot of my straight friends that are talking about this now have said they never thought of certain aspects of the issue beyond just they were brought up thinking marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. They also didn't think about the actual package of rights that come with marriage.

The California decision just might have finally set people off -- in the past it was just us having fairly silent legal battles to gain full rights. That and the protests were always anti-gay-marriage demonstrations. The battle for us was primarily on the defensive. Now it feels like there might be an offensive change. Not that I want a fight so much, but demanding the rights and pointing out the facts and stupidity that surrounds the issue.

[erdogs]

Too many people are still ignorant about gay people in general. There are still a lot of stereotypes that people have about gays. Unfortunately I don't see this ever changing, we will always be a small part of the population and personal exposure to people different from yourself is what increases tolerance. This reminds me of a friend of mine who told me what a coworker said about one of their gay coworkers. He actually said "I don't really have a problem with him, I mean he doesn't actually do anything, does he?". After she told him "Well yeah, he's gay and that's what they do", he all of a sudden had a major problem with him. Some people just have a hard time getting past the sexual aspect of homosexuality. At the end of the day, you have to change the minds of enough individuals to make a difference. Most just don't see gay relationships as equal to heterosexual ones, that's the crux of the problem.

[Charlotte_native]

Most just don't see gay relationships as equal to heterosexual ones, that's the crux of the problem.

Agreed. And they are trying to pass amendments and laws to keep it that way. The funny thing is, my 'marriage' is as normal and boring (meant in a positive way) as any other if you get past the fact that we are two guys. We cook at home most of the time, haven't stepped foot in a big nightclub other than on vacation in years, are very monogomous, have our whole family over for Thanksgiving, etc. We have the same good aspects and problems that any other couple married for 4 years would have. For those that know us well, many of whom had to get used to two guys married at first, I don't think we are seen as the 'gay couple' at all but just another part of our large group of friends (who happen to help everyone decorate ).

[voyager12]

CT began issuing marriage licenses today. While we suffered major setbacks in this election it's important to take heart in the progress we have made.

Regarding the post above, it's unfortunate but true that some straights can't grasp the fact that homosexuality is no more "sexual" than heterosexuality. Hence, the "gay lifestyle" line. We are present in every social strata. While media exposure helps our cause it can also be a double edged sword. Since the media version of gay usually equals rich white males who are obsessed with the gym or fashion. The average person has a hard time seeing beyond the stereotype.

[Lowerdeck]

Well, first one went down earlier today in New Haven. Since I still have the broadcast channels, I assume God hasn't sucked New Haven and Hartford into a black hole as judgment for allowing gays to have rights.

New England is definitely the place where this battle is beginning, and here it seems to be fine. The question becomes, what state outside New England becomes the first to legalize it? My guess would be New Jersey or possibly New York.

[voyager12]

^ Governor David Patterson of NY is a strong gay marriage supporter. The election gave Democrats control of the Statehouse but they are not all progressive and there is some Republican opposition but I think it will happen there eventually. NJ is still debating whether their current Civil Union system is unequal but the growing consensus looks good for us.

The Iowa Supreme Court is going to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage very soon. It was legal briefly for about an afternoon this past year, one couple was able to get married before it was stayed. The final ruling could go either way.

[Charlotteman]

One step forward, and one step back: California no; Connecticut yes. As others have said, we shouldn't consider the California vote a devastating setback. I guess the California Supremes could overrule this blatant attack on civil rights.(?)

By the way-what ever happened in Hawaii? A couple years ago, it was thought the Aloha State would be the first state with full gay marriage.

This Saturday, a marriage equality rally and march will be held in Seattle. My partner and I so look forward to attending. It should be interesting to see how it will shape up politically......most of Seattle's city council is in favor of full marriage rights, and the mayor is known to be in favor of marriage equality as well. I hope plenty of political figures attend.

I'll try to take my camera to record the event, and hopefully I can post some pics here.

[Charlotte_native]

One step forward, and one step back: California no; Connecticut yes. As others have said, we shouldn't consider the California vote a devastating setback. I guess the California Supremes could overrule this blatant attack on civil rights.(?)

A good friend who is an attorney told me that California's scenario might just be the right track that takes this to the US Supreme Court. I don't get all the legal nuances, but he said thus far none of the previous state actions had the right situations that this does that would be relevant on a national level regarding citizen rights, contitutional rights, etc.

[ohioaninSC]

A good friend who is an attorney told me that California's scenario might just be the right track that takes this to the US Supreme Court. I don't get all the legal nuances, but he said thus far none of the previous state actions had the right situations that this does that would be relevant on a national level regarding citizen rights, contitutional rights, etc.

If it does get to the US Supreme Court, lets hope Obama is able to get another progressive judge onto the court by then. I believe it is pretty much still a 5-4 majority to the conservatives. I'm not sure how it would fair with that kind of makeup, but one would hope they would see that Prop 8 and all these other state amendments (SC voted on 1 a couple years ago, and unfortunately Ohio voted on one in 2004-I think that is how Bush won the Buckeye state then) are an attack on a group of citizens' rights which is clearly unconstitutional. No majority is allowed to vote away a minorty's rights in this country, yet that's exactly what happened.

[suburban george3]

There is a protest against Prop 8 in Charlotte Saturday -- mid afternoon at our Government Center. I hope a lot of folks show up -- I'm going and have invited a lot of friends, both straight and gay.

There evidently is a organized effort to get protests going on in several cities across the country. A friend of mine from Los Angeles sent me this link to a website showing where, when (most are this Sat. at 1:30 Eastern, some differ though), and who to contact. There are also downloadable flyers, signs, etc.

Check it out here.

[monsoon]

....but he said thus far none of the previous state actions had the right situations that this does that would be relevant on a national level regarding citizen rights, contitutional rights, etc.

Your lawyer friend misses the real point as it's not dependant on this. Any Gay couple could challenge one of these laws and question its constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Ct. now. The reason it hasn't happened is that nobody will back it because they are uncertain of the outcome. In fact this is why people on both sides of the issue have not tried to get a ruling. The Supreme Ct. is pretty divided and thus nobody wants to push this into that court.

The problem with going to courts, and many miss this, is that once you fire that gun, you lose complete control of the final outcome. You effectively give that control to someone else.

[Charlotte_native]

Your lawyer friend misses the real point as it's not dependant on this. Any Gay couple could challenge one of these laws and question its constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Ct. now. The reason it hasn't happened is that nobody will back it because they are uncertain of the outcome. In fact this is why people on both sides of the issue have not tried to get a ruling. The Supreme Ct. is pretty divided and thus nobody wants to push this into that court.

The problem with going to courts, and many miss this, is that once you fire that gun, you lose complete control of the final outcome. You effectively give that control to someone else.

I'll go with the lawyers opinion, being trained in law and all, I do believe he gets the point. To get to the Supreme Court you have to move through the system. Many cases never make it there though their parties would like them to - you don't get to decide, there have to be merits that bring the case to that level. The courts at the appelate level accept and decline cases based on lower court rulings (and whether they might or might not be constitutional or might have other flaws) and whether individual, group, or other constitutional rights have been infringed. It doesn't matter if people wish to 'back it' or not. Thus far, according to the attorney who is gay and has followed this for years, no cases have had the sufficient merit nor the particular terms that would get it to the highest level. Rulings in states like Connecticut and Massachusetts in their higher courts actually stopped those cases because the defendants won. You actually have to keep losing to move up the chain. Your point is correct, though, that those opposed to gay marraige haven't pushed their losses eying the Federal Supreme Court because they are afraid of actual constitutional review.

Clip from How Cases Reach the Supreme Court:

'Thousands of cases are filed with the Supreme Court every year, but the Court only hears 100 to 150 cases a year. Most cases require the Court to interpret an existing law, the intent of Congress when passing legislation, or whether legislation or acts by the Executive are constitutional. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving foreign dignitaries or when the state is a party, meaning that those cases must first be filed in the Supreme Court but may later be passed down to a lower court. All other cases reach the Court on appeal from lower courts. '

[monsoon]

^But 1000s of landmark Civil Rights cases are not filed with the Supreme Ct. I recommend you look at some of the history and you might better understand what I mean by backing. In fact right at home, go look at the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 1971. There are plenty of cases to merit going to the courts on. In fact it has been court rulings that have caused Gay marriage in places such as Mass. and California.

[Charlotteman]

Thank our stars for American courts. Most progress in this country has resulted from sweeping judicial action. The reason the courts must do so is that American legislatures and congress don't have the guts to enact simple fairness policies.

All the loonies and fanatics would organize and vote legislators out of office for legislating gay marriage, even if the legislator personally knows it's the right thing to do.

So the courts have to step in to supply the courage and fortitude. History has shown that progress of this magnitude comes about with judicial action. Lots of people are upset about the (unelected) courts making these important societal decisions (Brown vs. Board of Education, etc) If they want things to change, they will have to elect legislators, senators, congressmen who might have a touch of statesmanship. Then the courts can back off and stay out of legislative matters.

[Charlotte_native]

All the loonies and fanatics would organize and vote legislators out of office for legislating gay marriage, even if the legislator personally knows it's the right thing to do.

Exactly. All one has to do is look back at the poor little kids being escorted into their new school in Alabama during desegration and see the populace lining the streets to scream at them to remember that the courts sometimes have to trump the masses. In the struggle for gay rights a handful of state courts have handed down rulings that opened the door for marriage in their states, but the 'right' case will eventually head all the way up the chain to the highest court that can, once and for all, cover the nation. Many think a case like this will result from the passage of Prop 8.

[Charlotte_native]

^But 1000s of landmark Civil Rights cases are not filed with the Supreme Ct. I recommend you look at some of the history and you might better understand what I mean by backing. In fact right at home, go look at the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 1971. There are plenty of cases to merit going to the courts on. In fact it has been court rulings that have caused Gay marriage in places such as Mass. and California.

OK, I see. We are actually talking about two things that are just a bit different. Agreed on all of the above. What I was more referring to was the fact that we might have a case go all the way up, therefore this doesn't have to happen state-by-state but could go with one fell swoop on a national level. If the Supreme Court were to hear a case that found that same sex marriage is a constitutional right, or the right to marry whomever you choose for that matter, then all states in the union have to follow.

Regardless of any of this, it seems that there is a momentum now that wasn't there before. In 2004 there was a lot of action and reaction to Mass. allowing gay marriage, but it didn't seem as 'sweeping' as this does right now even though that year many campaigned against the horrors of two men or two women setting up household. I honestly think we are seeing the front end of this starting and it won't stop.

[Lowerdeck]

Before the Obama election, you would of had to worry about the loonies and nutjobs trying to diminish the power of the courts in order to prevent them from becoming activist. There's many documentations of this being attempted, mostly by those watching radical Christian groups trying to make it ok to persecute gays and turn America into a Christian state. I just wonder how much damage Bush has put into the court system to prevent it from doing the right thing.

[monsoon]

.... I just wonder how much damage Bush has put into the court system to prevent it from doing the right thing.

Alot. Aside from the supreme ct. he appointed 100s of district level federal judges. It was especially damaging when the GOP nut cases completely controlled the congress from 2004-2006. Back when Bush proclaimed... "I have earned political capital and I intend to spend it." i.e. He is going to do as he pleases or rather as his puppet masters please.

[Charlotteman]

It's been in the news today that Jerry Brown, former California governor, US presidential candidate in 1976 and 1980, and current California Attorney General, is urging the California Supremes to take a look at the constitutionality of Prop. 8's passage.

Another hetero ally we should thank our lucky stars for. In the 70s and 80s, Brown was somewhat of a national joke. This could be a huge opportunity for him to turn that around, and exhibit some statesmanship at the same time.

[snoogit]

Recent comments like this from Newt Gingrich:

I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. (link)

Just boil me from the inside out. I really wish there was punch-o-vision sometimes!

How can someone be such a dolt? I mean why does this affect this man like this? It drives me INSANE.

[tamias6]

Recent comments like this from Newt Gingrich:

Just boil me from the inside out. I really wish there was punch-o-vision sometimes!

How can someone be such a dolt? I mean why does this affect this man like this? It drives me INSANE.

Newt's comment shows that humanity still has a long way to go before eliminating prejudice and hate.

[monsoon]

This from a man that committed adultery on not one but two wives. In fact he was being adulterous when he opened impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for the Monica affair.

[Charlotteman]

....and lest we forget, Newtie has an openly gay sister, Candace. I guess he thinks Candace is set to take over the world too.

[Charlotte_native]

I love how my desire to have legal rights included in my relationship somehow attacks and damages someone else.

[Charlotteman]

A New Jersey court just ruled that eHarmony, a dating service, must offer "gay relationships" alongside their usual ads . The courts are rock and rollin' folks....

Just a couple decades ago, we were fighting our butts off for "equal rights". Remember those days? That meant being fired from one's job, being evicted from a hotel or apartment, etc. These days, not even the most vabid conservative would speak out against gays having "equal rights".

But "equal rights" has come to include full on marriage these days. Jerry Falwell and Jesse Helms must be rolling over in their graves. Too bad they didn't live a few more years to see the full tidal wave of civil rights that appear to be right around the corner.