Same Sex Marraige

[Larry Gude]

Who...

Yeah, and Ryan Seacrest will host the Superbowl! - wait, what?

...is Ryan Seacrest?

 

[toppick08]

I really don't know what the big fuss is about. I had a same sex marriage for almost 20 years... I was a man and stayed that same sex, she was a woman and stayed that same sex. We didn't change sexes, so as far as I'm concerned, that's a same sex marriage, right?

 

[jetmonkey]

...is Ryan Seacrest?

The latest in a long line of 'entertainers' that football fans are not interested in.

 

[RadioPatrol]

Aww TFB ....court won't let gay couple

R.I. court won't let gay couple divorce
Ruling cites 1961 law, deals setback to pair married in Mass.
By John R. Ellement and Jonathan Saltzman
Globe Staff / December 8, 2007


In a split decision, Rhode Island's top court said yesterday that it will not allow a lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts to get a divorce in the Ocean State.

The 3-to-2 ruling was viewed by advocates of gay marriage as a setback and by those who oppose the recognition of same-sex unions as an act of wisdom.

The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.

Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples.

"There have been people throughout history who have been discriminated against," said Ormiston, 60. "And they have fought the good fight and prevailed. It will be the case with my minority as well."

"It won't stand," she said.

Louis Pulner, the lawyer for Chambers, said his 70-year-old client has stayed out of public view during the high-profile litigation triggered by her failed marriage.

"They are in legal limbo," Pulner said of the two women. "We simply asked [the court] to allow people to get divorced if they had a valid marriage from another jurisdiction."

According to Ormiston, the couple lived together for a decade before they got married. The marriage collapsed two years later.

In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling.

"I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."

The lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, said the ruling affirms that marriage is between a man and woman and anything else is "counterfeit."

"Not only is today's ruling a victory for marriage, it's also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism," Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the Arizona group, said in a statement.

But Rhode Island's attorney general, Patrick Lynch, and the Boston group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders criticized the ruling. "It is unfair to the couple in question and other couples similarly situated," because they cannot legally end their marriages, Lynch said in the statement. He said the ruling does not affect the status of same-sex marriages of Rhode Island couples not seeking divorce.

Karen Loewy, a staff lawyer with GLAD, which filed an amicus brief siding with the couple, said she was "incredibly distressed" for them. Short of persuading the Rhode Island General Assembly to legalize gay marriage, she said, the only certain way the couple can get a divorce is for one of the spouses to move to Massachusetts and establish legal residency.

"It's the one guaranteed place they could get a divorce," she said.

The court's majority said the Legislature, not the courts, should change state law. But dissenters said Rhode Island already handles divorces for couples married elsewhere and should do the same for the couple.

In a telephone interview, Ormiston rejected the idea of moving to Massachusetts for one year so she could be divorced in the Bay State.

"I simply will not support my own discrimination," she said. "The courts have denied me my civil rights. But we will prevail because this is the American justice system."
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[dobeday1]

If the issue of gay marraige was put on a ballat this fall, how would you vote? It will never be voted on but it should!

See story.....
Maryland Legislature to Address Same-Sex Marriage - Southern Maryland Headline News.[/QUOTE

Although I feel that God did make man for a woman, and a woman for a man, I
feel that gay people should be left a lone to live their life the way that they choose. As long as it does not effect other peoples lives. This is their lifestyle. Just because many of us chose to be with the opposite sex, does not mean that we have the right to tell gay people that they can only love someone of the opposite sex. LOVE does NOT know gender! It only knows the heart. And love, whether it is with the same sex or the opposite sex, the emotions of that love are still the same.

I don't see where our tax dollars are going to effect anything regarding gay marriages. Gay people work too. They also pay taxes.

What about murderers, child molesters, rapists, and pornographers just to name a few? What do you think our tax dollars do for them? When they are caught and put in jail? We pay for them to have 3 meals a day. We pay for them to have tv, and pool tables, and recreational misc. Not to mention our tax dollars helping these people to learn a trade in prison! And we're worried about gay marriages being passed? There are more important issues to worry about.

 

[JLS]

...why their unions should be any more civil than the rest of us. Why do they get preferential treatment?

Why is it preferential treatment for them to be able to get what hetero couples get every day?

 

[bcp]

Why is it preferential treatment for them to be able to get what hetero couples get every day?

what is it that they are missing?

 

[PrchJrkr]

what is it that they are missing?

At least 1, maybe 2 chromosomes? :shrug:

 

[JLS]

If the issue of gay marraige was put on a ballat this fall, how would you vote? It will never be voted on but it should!

See story.....
Maryland Legislature to Address Same-Sex Marriage - Southern Maryland Headline News.[/QUOTE

Although I feel that God did make man for a woman, and a woman for a man, I
feel that gay people should be left a lone to live their life the way that they choose. As long as it does not effect other peoples lives. This is their lifestyle. Just because many of us chose to be with the opposite sex, does not mean that we have the right to tell gay people that they can only love someone of the opposite sex. LOVE does NOT know gender! It only knows the heart. And love, whether it is with the same sex or the opposite sex, the emotions of that love are still the same.

I don't see where our tax dollars are going to effect anything regarding gay marriages. Gay people work too. They also pay taxes.

What about murderers, child molesters, rapists, and pornographers just to name a few? What do you think our tax dollars do for them? When they are caught and put in jail? We pay for them to have 3 meals a day. We pay for them to have tv, and pool tables, and recreational misc. Not to mention our tax dollars helping these people to learn a trade in prison! And we're worried about gay marriages being passed? There are more important issues to worry about.

I agree w/u...

 

[JLS]

what is it that they are missing?

I know one lesbian couple, who want to get married but can't because their state does not recognize same-sex marriages but they have purchased a home together and are just like any other couple as far as taking care of their home and paying the utility bills etc, but they can not put each other on their health insurance policies so each are having to pay for their own, they want children and are in the process of picking out donated "stuff" lets say and its like - they are making a life for themselves just as any other couple would but if something happened to either one of them, they wouldn't get the same recognition as a hetero couple would get.. you go to a hospital and they (the hospital staff) come out after an emergency and go - spouse of so and so, and she was like - I'm her partner and they wouldn't let her see her until the next day saying she wasn't "next of kin, family or a legal spouse" and thats not right.

 

[bcp]

I know one lesbian couple, who want to get married but can't because their state does not recognize same-sex marriages but they have purchased a home together and are just like any other couple as far as taking care of their home and paying the utility bills etc, but they can not put each other on their health insurance policies so each are having to pay for their own, they want children and are in the process of picking out donated "stuff" lets say and its like - they are making a life for themselves just as any other couple would but if something happened to either one of them, they wouldn't get the same recognition as a hetero couple would get.. you go to a hospital and they (the hospital staff) come out after an emergency and go - spouse of so and so, and she was like - I'm her partner and they wouldn't let her see her until the next day saying she wasn't "next of kin, family or a legal spouse" and thats not right.

but, what do they not have that I do?
I cant marry the same sex either, so they are not being denied something that I have a right to.

 

[Lugnut]

I know one lesbian couple, who want to get married but can't because their state does not recognize same-sex marriages but they have purchased a home together and are just like any other couple as far as taking care of their home and paying the utility bills etc, but they can not put each other on their health insurance policies so each are having to pay for their own, they want children and are in the process of picking out donated "stuff" lets say and its like - they are making a life for themselves just as any other couple would but if something happened to either one of them, they wouldn't get the same recognition as a hetero couple would get.. you go to a hospital and they (the hospital staff) come out after an emergency and go - spouse of so and so, and she was like - I'm her partner and they wouldn't let her see her until the next day saying she wasn't "next of kin, family or a legal spouse" and thats not right.

I would agree that sucks. What hospital was it?

I've visited a few friends in hospitals over the past couple years and I have never been turned away or asked to wait or come back "during visiting hours" or for that matter what my relationship was with the patient.

 

[JLS]

but, what do they not have that I do?
I cant marry the same sex either, so they are not being denied something that I have a right to.

Legal recognition of a "partnership" so that God forbid, shes in another accident, she'd at least be able to see her partner and hold her hand and let her know shes there for her like any other person would have a right to do.

 

[bcp]

Legal recognition of a "partnership" so that God forbid, shes in another accident, she'd at least be able to see her partner and hold her hand and let her know shes there for her like any other person would have a right to do.

so, I can do this with a close friend because Im not gay?

again, same rights as I have.

 

[thurley42]

If there is supposed to be a clear separation between church and state, how can religion even begin to be brought up in this. If someone wants to be married to someone in a legal sense they should be allowed.

Someone said it earlier, there are a million other things more important to worry about besides who someone else marries. Everyone will answer for their sins one day, it's not our job to judge today...

 

[JLS]

so, I can do this with a close friend because Im not gay?

again, same rights as I have.

Thats what I'm saying - she was DENIED access to her partner when she was in the recovery room - they told her she was not "next of kin, family or a legal spouse" and would not allow her in to see her. So she was not given the same right as a "close friend" would have.

 

[itsbob]

I would agree that sucks. What hospital was it?

I've visited a few friends in hospitals over the past couple years and I have never been turned away or asked to wait or come back "during visiting hours" or for that matter what my relationship was with the patient.

I'd have to throw the flag on what she said

 

[MMDad]

I'd have to throw the flag on what she said

I've never heard of a hospital denying a visitor unless there was a sanitation issue or the patient had asked that the visitor not be allowed.

Maybe they didn't want to tell the "life partner" that she stank, or that her partner didn't want to see her?

 

[GWguy]

I'd have to throw the flag on what she said

I've never heard of a hospital denying a visitor unless there was a sanitation issue or the patient had asked that the visitor not be allowed.

Maybe they didn't want to tell the "life partner" that she stank, or that her partner didn't want to see her?

Probably not the norm, but it did happen to me. Wife went into the ER at St. Marys, nurse told me to wait in the waiting room. I repeatedly asked to go back, and was not allowed. Didn't want me there while the doctors were doing an exam.... That caused a tremendous amount of friction with my wife 'cause she didn't believe me.....

 

[MMDad]

Probably not the norm, but it did happen to me. Wife went into the ER at St. Marys, nurse told me to wait in the waiting room. I repeatedly asked to go back, and was not allowed. Didn't want me there while the doctors were doing an exam.... That caused a tremendous amount of friction with my wife 'cause she didn't believe me.....

But there was a medical reason for it. The is that someone was denied because they weren't married.

I've had to wait to see my wife. The last time she had surgery, they didn't let me go see her in the recovery room. That's normal, it isn't discrimination.