Vermont’s legislature voted Tuesday to override the veto of Governor Jim Douglas (R) and become the fourth state to recognize gay marriage. This follows Iowa only last week, which achieved the same result through a vote of its Supreme Court. On the same day, the District of Columbia voted to recognize such marriages in other states.
There are similar efforts on the way in New Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey. These victories have taken some of the sting from the recent setback in California. However, it may also need new momentum for a federal constitutional amendment, particularly given the value of the issue to rally the religious rights after its recent political setbacks.
There are 43 U.S. states with laws prohibiting gay marriages, including 29 with constitutional amendments. The federal government has a Defense of Marriage Act pushed through with the support of Bill Clinton to deny recognition of such marriages.
“The federal government has a Defense of Marriage Act pushed through with the support of Bill Clinton to deny recognition of such marriages.”
Am surprised…Bill Clinton actually did something right! I believe the residents of the individual States should decide…as they did in CA if they wish to give continual support the Defense of Marriage Act..and not the courts. If those pro-gay marriage states had given the voters the opportunity to make the decision…I am sure the outcomes would have been very different.
“Transgender refers to a man or woman who changes their sex from one to the other. In the end, that person is either a male or female.”
Actually “transgender” refers to pretty much any form of gender non-conformity. “Transsexual” covers those who transition from male to female or from female to male. (There is some heated discussion in some circles about whether “transsexual” should be included under the “transgender” umbrella; I’m a transsexual woman and I’m okay with it – but some other transsexuals are not.)
“As such they can marry their new opposite or, in four states, a member of their new sex.”
Sort of. In the states that allow same-sex marriage, the question of legal sex is moot for operation of state marital law – but the question shifts as to how the federal government would treat a marriage between a transsexual and a non-transsexual from ‘X’ state. A marriage between a transsexual woman and a non-transsexual man that takes place in Massachusetts should be recognized by both the state and federal governments because Massachusetts has, since 1975 (since 1981 by statute) recognized transsexuals’ change of sex – and some little-known federal administrative law has held that, for operation of the federal DOMA’s same-sex marital prohibition, how the state in question treats transsexuals controls. A Massachusetts marriage between a transsexual woman and a non-transsexual woman would be legal in Massachusetts only because of Goodridge – and presumably would not be recognized by the federal government, despite the fact that the same two people, married in Texas or Ohio, would be recognized by the federal government as being married because Texas and Ohio would regard the transsexual woman as being a man, making it in law – though not in fact – an opposite sex marriage.
“I think your issue is with states re-designating a transgendered person a male or female different from their gender at birth. However, it would seem that in the for states where same-sex marriages are legal, the gender of each participant is irrelevant.”
Again, for purposes of state *marital* law, theoretically that is true. However, a transsexual person’s legal sex is still relevant in any number of situations apart from marriage – most notably whether or not a person who presents as female will actually be regarded as female when she tries to enter a public restroom or department store dressing room.
And I won’t even touch what the significance would be for a transsexual woman who finds herself behind bars.
Wow, bi-sexual. Humm, is that a hummmm or a muffing sound I heart.
I think that it is all good. if that is what you want to do.
Life is not as I may like it but if you want to smoke it or poke it that is your choice. Hopefully you would be smart enough to only have this type of relationship with a person that has the apparent ability to consent.
Some of my best friends have been lesbians. I like them all.
I have had clients that are Gay and adopted a child. The child eventually had it reversed because of his prejudices. So, not all are good, not all are bad. Everyone has some redeeming quality about them. Some just have to be looked at harder than others.
I worry less about legal confusions with transgender people than with bisexual people. Bisexuals are often politically allied with lesbians, gays, and transgendered, correct? Isn’t there usually a “B” when you hear from an LGBT coalition?
So when the rights of lesbians and gays become more firmly rooted in law, will they abandon the bisexuals? And when you have bisexual marriage, how is that different from polygamy? And would a bisexual only be limited to two partners? What if two (or more) bisexuals demand the right to marry?
Serge
What’s your point? If you’re trying to say only a male and female can produce offspring, we all know that. If you’re trying to imply that marriage is exclusively about having children, your argument is pretty weak. What is not produced in a petri dish is the love and compassion that can exist between two people regardless of their gender.
Marriage is a legal contract with legal ramifications, not a baby producing compact. If this were not the case one wouldn’t hear the priest say: “By the vested in me…by laws of the State of…”. My brother and my wife’s brother have each been married (to women, btw) for over 15 years and have no children—by choice. Are they not married? My cousin had a baby out of wedlock. Obviously these things are NOT mutually exclusive.
Same-Sex marriage confuses Human Rights; the exclusive right of humans to create, not mutate. Creation of the human species, when scientifically produced in a petri-dish, leaves no-doubt that only an ovum combined (married) to sperm results in an embryo. Any attempt to combine (marry) an ovum with an ovum, or, sperm with sperm is simply an attempt to “mutate” LIFE!!!
I for one am appalled that people would think it was o.k. to recognize the rights of a minority group of citizens.
I live in Vermont and am fortunate enough to have a job with enough flexibility that I could take vacation time so I could be in the Vermont House when the override vote was made. It was overwhelming to feel the joy of so many who have been so marginalized for so long as they witnessed this very significant statement of inclusion.
I quote from one of our state Reps, Bill Lippert, from his speech on the House floor in 2000 when he was our only openly gay legislator:
“Think what kind of relationship you would try to establish and how successful it would be to find a loving, committed partner in an environment where you have been barraged on a daily basis, from birth, saying you are sinful or wrong, that something is fundamentally flawed in your nature. It is, in truth, the goodness of gay and lesbian people and of gay and lesbian couples that is a triumph, is a triumph, against discrimination and prejudice. We are not a threat. We are not a threat to traditional marriage. We’re not a threat to your communities. We are, in fact, an asset. We deserve to be welcomed, because in fact we are your neighbors; we are your friends; indeed, we are your family.”
Anonymously Yours
1, April 8, 2009 at 7:16 am
Ok, they have covered them all and for that I am proud. But they left a class of people out that is emerging.
The Transgender. Can a transgender, marry, adopt if incapable of bearing children not a FTM, Divorce?
I am not one of the lawyers who frequent this site, but I believe the simple answer is yes to all the above. Transgender refers to a man or woman who changes their sex from one to the other. In the end, that person is either a male or female. As such they can marry their new opposite or, in four states, a member of their new sex. As for divorce, since roughly 50% of all marriages end that way, the married transgendered person would have the same likelihood of going through that nightmare. Most states allow single people to adopt regardless of sexual orientation.
I think your issue is with states re-designating a transgendered person a male or female different from their gender at birth. However, it would seem that in the for states where same-sex marriages are legal, the gender of each participant is irrelevant.
Ah, but what you consider to be un-natural is natural. Were you born in clothes? Is it natural or unnatural to wear clothes?
What makes your way of life better than the other persons?
Because possibly the fear of social alienation if you do not conform to whats expected of you?
I am not saying its right with what you do with your sheep, it is not for me, but, face it.
How do you legislate morality without compromising other aspects of the law and life?
It has been written that Venice was once the mecca of power and it was not until they started condoning alternative relationships did they fail as a power.
But to wholesale say it is not right is wrong. Thats my 2 cents or is that I give you my W stamp or was that 43, I am not sure.
OK, let’s get everything into the “law” of man and let people marry whoever and whatever they want to. Pets, animals, plants, anything living walking or crawling. It’s naturally un natural if not between a man and a woman.
Ok, they have covered them all and for that I am proud. But they left a class of people out that is emerging.
The Transgender. Can a transgender, marry, adopt if incapable of bearing children not a FTM, Divorce?
These are questions that I have and I know I could read it in The Sun or the National Enquirer but I amuse myself.