California legislature passes same sex marriage rights act

[Ecstatic]

The California legislature became the first state legislature in the country to pass--in both houses--their same sex marriage rights bill. The bill is the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which recasts the definition of marriage as between "two persons" rather than between a man and a woman. Their senate did last week, and the house this week. Of course, Ahhnuld will most likely veto it! But the time is coming; this is a major milestone. Also, CA was the first state to legallize interracial marriage, back in 1948, and among the first to rescind anti-sodomy laws in 1976.

Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California, said "There are moments in the history of any movement when the corner is turned. This is it. This is the tipping point."

[tsluver247]

Glad to hear, but the "Gobernator" is waiting to veto the bill. I believe if they left the definition of marriage alone, this bill would have a better chance of surviving. Civil unions is a term that seems less offense to homophobias.

[Ecstatic]

If it were purely a matter of semantics, then it wouldn't be a big deal: that is, if civil unions truly were equal in all regards to marriage. But there are typically some limitations; in CA for instance domestic partners cannot pass on their social security to their partners as married partners can.

In Mass, by definition, all marriages are civil unions, and any other language is really nonsensical. It's been this way since Colonial times. Even if you're married in a church, the priest/minister/rabbi has to include the statement "by the power invested in me by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"; I solemnized the marriage of two of my best friends (special dispensation with a document signed by the governor to authorize me to be solemnizer), and the one main requirement was that statement. I think churchs absolutely should be free to decide whether or not to approve same sex marriage as valid ecclessiastically, but there should be no difference between "marriage" and "civil union" at the civil level, including the name. Likewise, states should recognize TS as the sex of their choice, whether pre-op or post-op, so that a m2f TS can marry a man as a woman. I've read that CA allows a TS to change her sex on her driver's license, but how far does this extend?

[tsluver247]

If it were purely a matter of semantics, then it wouldn't be a big deal: that is, if civil unions truly were equal in all regards to marriage. But there are typically some limitations; in CA for instance domestic partners cannot pass on their social security to their partners as married partners can.

In Mass, by definition, all marriages are civil unions, and any other language is really nonsensical. It's been this way since Colonial times. Even if you're married in a church, the priest/minister/rabbi has to include the statement "by the power invested in me by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"; I solemnized the marriage of two of my best friends (special dispensation with a document signed by the governor to authorize me to be solemnizer), and the one main requirement was that statement. I think churchs absolutely should be free to decide whether or not to approve same sex marriage as valid ecclessiastically, but there should be no difference between "marriage" and "civil union" at the civil level, including the name. Likewise, states should recognize TS as the sex of their choice, whether pre-op or post-op, so that a m2f TS can marry a man as a woman. I've read that CA allows a TS to change her sex on her driver's license, but how far does this extend?

I understand your point, but there is also legislation to defend the word "marriage". Though it may not make sense, since they basic mean the same thing. It is a legal and political issue, which is why it does not make sense. :lol:

Bills:
To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one man and one woman. -H.R.72.IH

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. S.J.RES.1.IS

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to marriage. S.J.RES.13.IS

Marriage Protection Act of 2005 H.R.1100.IH

[Ecstatic]

The problem with such "defense of marriage" laws is that they promulgate the tyranny of the majority in religious matters. This country was founded on religious freedom (or so they tell me), but all those who support "defense of marriage" laws which define marriage as between one man and one woman make the erroneous assumption that their predominantly Christian stance on marriage is universal, fundamental to all religions and even to nature itself, when in fact that is not the case. Many Reform Jews, Quakers, Unitarian-Universalists, the UCC, Buddhists, Taoists and Episcopalians have backed same sex marriage (from groups to dioceses to the religion as a whole), so imposing a "traditional" Christian definition of marriage on society as a whole is fundamentally wrong and opposed to principle of religious freedom (in contrast, none of these groups support polygamy).

[~*MoNi*~]

I feel that I should have the right to be legally married whether I have a stinkhole in the front or a penis should not matter.

[tsluver247]

Ecstatic, I am not argue with you. I believe basically the same thing as you do. You are preaching to the choir.

Moni, I like my fartboxes in the back, not the front. :lol: I with you, I do not feel that any government has the right to say who should marry who (though they should keep it in the same species and have an age limit).

As far as religions, they have every right to not marry same sex couples if they feel that it impedes on their faith. But the law of their religion should not be the law of our land.

Just my two cents on the subject.

[~*MoNi*~]

very well said... the law of their religion should not be the law of our land

[JohnnyPaycheck]

Yes, TsLover, that was very well said.

[tsluver247]

Thanks. :D

[angel_glow]

who wants to get married and be stuck at home washing dishes cooking meals and cleaning after ur husband,but if its true love why not.... :D

[MsDazzler]

It s sad that pre op Tgirls cant marry men legally, especially when we all know their cocks are what men like. lol

[Harajuku Tgirl]

...

[Scott]

Like anyone else here I also believe that two consenting adults, no matter who they are, should be allowed to be married if they so wish. Yes our government is being a pain in the ass but that's because they can't let go of old beliefs.
The good news is that as the generations pass and younger people become more involved in politics fresher perspectives are brought in. We've already seen smaller local governments trying to change things for the better and you know they will always keep up the fight. What victorys we've had are small ones admited but each small victory will always bring us on step closer the the complete victory. Sure it's gonna take a few years. No fight worth fighting can be won overnight. Until that time comes I would be just as happy being with the one I love married or not.

[MsDazzler]

YEah.... each stepping stone paves the way to the ocean..