NY Times for marriage equality
The New York Times has come out in favour of same-sex marriage while other states in the region look set to join those offering marriage equality this year.
The newspaper, which reaches 30 million people each month, made the call on February 13, in an editorial titled ‘In defense of marriage, for all’ and called on US President Barack Obama to head off two court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by quashing the law, or risk appearing to defend the undefendable.
DOMA prevents same-sex couples married under state laws from receiving federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples.
In related news, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has pledged to pass legislation allowing same-sex couples to wed within months, while Maryland is expected to legalise same-sex marriage within weeks.
A House Judicial Committee in Rhode Island is currently studying a marriage equality bill, which if passed would leave Maine as the only state in New England without marriage equality.
Maine legalised same-sex marriage in early 2009, but it was repealed by a narrow margin through a ballot initiative before the end of that year.
Well said Stephani!
This to me is a non-issue. If you don’t agree with marriage equality, don’t marry someone of the same sex! As a school teacher, I don’t ever recall reading/citing the words…”with liberty and justice for ALL” and seeing the word, “except”. Separate but equal does not, has not and should not work. We can not “eenie meenie miney moe” through our neighborhoods and point to who is allowed marriage or not. As a christian and American, I am for equality, love, and acceptance for all human life.
Dave,
One of the issues that the NIMBRs hold are for the word Marriage.
There is no reason why you can not have Civil Unions, and have that give all the same legal status and protection as Marriage, just the different word.
In my NIMBR website (will not publish as I am not sure of this websites rules) I propose a range of Civil Unionship types. Say Deluxe Union, Basic Union, etc and each with their own range of options. Bit like getting a pay TV package, in that you get what you want in the deal.
There are a lot of people I know who support my line of view. So it is time that you joined forces to get ‘at least something’. ‘at least something is better than nothing’.
Why not Civil Unions?
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-failed-experiment.pdf
England is now giving up on the failed Civil Union experiment, and the conservative government is implementing marriage for all loving couples. Report after report shows Civil Unions do not work. A traditional Marriage is a Same-Sex Marriage or heterosexual marriage. Throughout history Same-Sex Marriage is documented around Jesus, in pre-Modern Europe, Ancient Rome, Imperial China, and even conservative Singapore over a 100 years ago.
If Civil Unions are truly the same as marriage, then why argue for a Civil Union? Because it is not the same, it is different, it discriminates against the government recognition of your relationship. It starts with what you call yourself, a Civil Unionist, and the list goes on and on and on. It is an enshrined discrimination of your love, that your love is different.
Wrongly, Australia has many pieces of legislation that discriminate against de-facto couples. Marriage is mentioned in over 1000 pieces of legislation, it will take decades before all those are changed to give the same recognition as Civil Unions.
Marriage Equality is about making marriage open and fair, the way it used to be. Giving all access to an institution of society, arguments are based on the common good, and fairness.
No I am not convinced I need to be discriminated against by government, I mean I pay the same tax as others, I do not get a discount, I want and expect equality in the law.
The problem is that the powerful & over-represented Australian Christian Lobby do not want us to have even just apartheid civil unions either! They have Labor in a vice on this one- a ban on any type of federal civil union, and a firm ban on ALL ceremonies or “relationship visibility” (federal and state).
F***k it- let’s smash through this pressure cooker of prejudice by aiming for the only outcome we should be getting in this day & age- full Civil Marriage- to be able to marry in a government registry office like any other tax-paying straight person can.
What we need, & what we should be aiming for is full equal Civil Marriage (not to mention that a heap of churches would love to marry us too if they had the chance, but are currently banned).
Why don’t we just go for civil unions and get it over with. I support equality but am happy for glbt to own civil unions as their own.
The rest, it seems to me, is a shouting match where no one wins and we ostracize the right.
The New York Times supports Same-Sex marriage while Shit Happens in Australia.
The Australian newspaper, has published articles saying Same-Sex Marriage will foster bestiality. The constant hate mongering in The Australian is frightening, yet this is the same newspaper that proudly supported the White Australia Policy not so long ago. The ethos of a fair go, is an ethos few newspapers in Australia subscribe to.