Gay Marriage Updates

[stakebait]

New Paltz mayor barred from performing gay marriages for over a month and other updates from around the country.

Washington Governor opposed gay marriage, backs civil union

Wisconsin assembly approves amendment banning gay marriage

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] </a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/gay_marriage_developments">New Paltz mayor barred from performing gay marriages for over a month</a> and other updates from around the country.

<a href="http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11553&sd=03/05/04">Washington Governor opposed gay marriage, backs civil union</a>

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=9&u=/ap/20040305/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_12">Wisconsin assembly approves amendment banning gay marriage</a>

<a href="http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/legislature/0304/04leggay.html"</a> Georgia democrats introduce new, cleaner version of marriage ban</a>. Republicans denounce as strategem (hope they're right).

<a href="http://www.ljworld.com/section/gaymarriage/story/163424">Kansas ban narrowly passes house, shifts to Senate</a>

<a href="http://www.ljworld.com/section/gaymarriage/story/163424">Kerry opposes gay marriage but also anti-gay marriage amendment, supports giving federal rights to civil unions</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/04/MNG8H5E0RQ1.DTL">Senate begins hearings on US amendment to ban gay marriage</a>

<a href="http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/030404/a0104shields.html">Nyack mayor encourages gays to apply for marriage licenses, may be one of them</a>

<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001870939_law04m.html">King County will not issue marriage licenses; Washington ACLU to challenge law</a>

<a href="http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm18726_20040303.htm">Gay couples denied marriage license in Detroit</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/04/national0857EST0512.DTL">Gay couples denied marriage licenses in New York City</a>. I am deeply shamed.

<a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/8093309.htm">West Hollywood takes steps to recognize gay marriages</a>

<a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4642610.html">Senator Dayton calls for marital contracts for gays AND straights</a> and leaving the term "marriage" to religious ceremonies.

<a href="http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=65051">Multnomah County, Oregon, starts performing gay marriages</a>.

<a href="http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/03/02/local/10046113.txt">Nebraska DOMA challenged in court</a>

<a href="http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0403/02/m05.html">Mississippi House votes to send gay marriage ban to voters</a>

<a href="http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11516&sd=03/03/04">Group threatens lawsuit if New Mexico licenses aren't voided</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/02/MNGNM5C3B31.DTL">Schwartzenegger fine with gay marriage if voters approve</a>, has "no use" for an amendment banning it.

<a href="http://news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID=11935&SecID=83">Gay marriages will be recognized, though not performed, in Itheca</a>

<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040227-1528-ca-gaymarriage-socialsecurity.html">Social Security won't accept San Francisco marriage licenses as proof of name change</a>

<a href="http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/022804dcMarriage.htm">DC officials explore allowing gay marriage</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/26/bush.civil.unions/index.html">A good article for context and background: explains the difference between civil union and gay marriage, as well as some of the laws and cases that apply to the issue</a>

<a href="http://www.idahostatesman.com/Common/PrintMe.asp?ID=61954">Idaho senator blocks anti=gay marriage vote</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/28/samesex.marriages/index.html">California court rejects request to order a stop to SF weddings and declare the ones already done invalid</a>. The court agreed to hear the case on a expedited basis.

<a href="http://www.kcbs.com/pages/kcbs/news/news_story.nsp?story_id=47643011&ID=kcbs&scategory=Computers">Oakland may follow SF lead in performing gay marriages</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL">American Anthropologists refute Bush's claim that heterosexual marriages are necessary for stable societies</a>

<lj-cut text="And now a few personal Mer musings on the issue"> I was talking to <user site="livejournal.com" user="dotsomething"> a few nights ago, on why my support for Kerry isn't as enthusiastic as it could be. In the process I said that gay marriage was the most important issue for me, and she countered, not unreasonably, with other important issues. I've been thinking about it since, and I've decided that the better way for me to say it would be that gay marriage and Iraq are the two most *urgent* issues for me. (Iraq because people are dying. Hard to get more urgent than that.) It's not that I don't care about poverty, or healthcare, or education, or the environment, or quality childcare, or homelessness, or any of those other issues. I do care, passionately, even. But those things are hard, long problems to solve. They can't be fixed with the stroke of a law the way a problem that is *caused* by law can be.

I told <user site="livejournal.com" user="dotsomething"> that he couldn't have my enthusiastic endorsement until I had his. And that's true. But it's also true that I might not have felt that way six months ago. Because six months ago I was seeing this as a long hard slog, the kind of thing that takes generations. It was still important to me, but it wasn't time-sensitive. I would be satisfied with a position that was a step forward from where we are now, even if it was a step or three behind mine, because it was still progress. And if we made a little faster progress on the economy or the environment or education or combatting discrimination on the basis of sex and race than we did on sexual orientation, well, as long as the general trend was still progress, that was basically okay with me.

But now, this is the cusp. Momentum is gathering. More and more changes are happening every single day. And I want a candidate who will sieze that historical moment, not one who's hanging back and trying to have my cake and eat it too, and would rather allow a group to be treated as second class citizens than offend people who want to keep the rights for themselves alone. Those are not equivilent claims, no matter if it's one person who's lost their rights and a million who are offended, and I'm not impressed by anyone who weighs them equally.

I no longer see his view as progress, even though its more than we have now, because it's less than what we're trembling on the verge of -- I see it as equivocating, trying to slow down progress that's already happening until no one will be offended by it. Which is impossible. Change will always be too fast for people who don't want change, and our history shows that the way it happens is to make it happen and let people get used to it after. The feminsts waited more than 70 *years* after people told them now was not the time to get the vote, and in the end they pushed it through in the face of virulent opposition anyway. There is no right time except the one we make. And when we have so clearly made one now, I for one can't get too excited about a candidate who either can't recognize it or lacks the guts to say so.

Don't get me wrong: I think Kerry's a smart, competant, basically principled man who will be a better president than many we've had. I'll vote for him. But I'm voting for him because he's better than Bush. If he wants me to go all the way for him, then he needs to go all the way for me.

I was also a little thrown that <user site="livejournal.com" user="dotsomething"> thinks I'm too liberal to be a Democrat. If that's true, I'd be very sad. I've always been a Democrat. I was raised a Democrat by a Democratic politician. And to my mind, this is what a Democrat is. An unapologetic liberal, who believes it's society's job to help those who can't help themselves and butt out of those who can, and not the other way around.</lj-cut>

Mer

Comments

[angeyja.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these. I remember reading a while ago that NY and CA are bellweather states, and I've been watching... don't know that this is the single most imp issue for me currently; but, long term and locally (we're in Albany) it's right up there.