March 09, 2004

• Wow - I didn't even know that Portland had started marrying people too.
• Good news, Sulli. The more of these events I hear about, the more my faith in my country is restored.
• But why the half-assed support? Why not start performing gay marriages like the other cities? I'm sure this is a much more tenable legal position, but... ah. I'm disappointed.
• YAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!
• But why the half-assed support? Because in Washington state, marriages are a county responsibility, not a city.
• > Because in Washington state, marriages are a county responsibility, not a city. The same is true of California, but San Francisco is a city and a county. It's not the same for Seattle? But isn't this all moot anyway? I mean, the legality of the same-sex marriages here are by no means certain, even though SF county technically has the authority to dispense licenses as they see fit.
• It's not the same for Seattle? Seattle is the city. King is the county.
• I think what he's doing is very clever from a constitutional law standpoint. If Big Test Case #1 makes it so that gay marriages are allowed in any one of the jurisdictions currently distributing licenses, the necessary corollary is that, in spite of any DOMA or anything like that to the contrary, those marriages should be recognized EVERYWHERE in the US based on the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV of the US Constitution. Seattle's setting itself up as that second test case, wherein employers everywhere find out that if one jurisdiction creates a marriage legally, it must be recognized everywhere.
• Ah, I see. Clever monkey. Thanks for the insight, MMp.
• It makes me heart glad that there are politicians who still have the courage of their convictions.
• Seattle is the city. King is the county. Doesn't this sound like the beginning of a rap song?
• I gots more rhymes than a Canadian Mountie.
• Always gets my man, like a ham in a can.
• That doesn't quite scan.
• An' if dat doan scan fo' you, I suggest you call da crew!
• uh... sorry, I don't know how to rap. I'd prefer to call Da Boss.
• And may I also add, I'm very sorry this thread has gone so far off-topic. I am very much in favor of gay marriage, and am waiting for this wave to hit England so that my best friend and his boyfriend can get married. And I get to kiss the grooms. *wicked grin*
• So Seattle employees can amble down to San Fran for the weekend with the family, get hitched, and then start claiming thier healthcare.
• I am very much in favor of gay marriage, and am waiting for this wave to hit England so that my best friend and his boyfriend can get married. You'll have to wait until November, probably.
• So Seattle employees can amble down to San Fran for the weekend, get hitched, and then start claiming their healthcare. Yes, except that (if I understand this article correctly) they are already entitled to healthcare, and have been for the past five years. This new announcement doesn't create any new entitlements, it just cuts down on the paperwork. It makes me wonder what all the fuss is about .. except that "Seattle to Reduce Paperwork for Gay City Workers" wouldn't make such a good headline.
• i'm thinking the fuss is that seattle apparently has the nerve (the nerve!) to follow their constitutionally mandated requirement to recognize a marriage performed in a different state, and confer the standard marriage-benefits on the married couple. you know, as if it was just any other standard bush et. al. sanctioned fundamentalist bible-approved god-granted union between two people with opposite sexual plumbing. pretty much by treating a licensed gay marriage the same as any other marriage, they're (a) reducing paperwork and (b) thumbing their noses at the conservative minority who think that gays are Evil Ungodly People Destined to Burn in Hell. i say, go seattle. yet another city government not afraid to take a stand against inequality (and, very likely ensuring their re-election support from a good chunk of the populace to boot). now, let's see what happens come tax time when the first gay married couple to send in the 1040 puts down "married, filing jointly"... think the IRS will be the ones to inadvertently endorse this as legal? if they accept the tax return, does that mean that the marriage is government-approved?
• Yay for Seattle, and I also approve of the thread derailment -- it was very funny. Mad props to Sooooz, goetter, and Wolof. You da bomb!
• From dng's link (BBC): "In California and New York, they are taking the bull by the horns and confronting the issue - and putting it not just on the national agenda but also the global agenda." Umm...it's great and all - but the real props should be given to Denmark and the Netherlands for their pioneering laws - see a world timeline on gay rights. Then came Ontario as the first in North America to recognise same-sex marriages. The detailed Canadian timeline is also available, also courtesy of the CBC. Sorry, just having a moment of pique/jealousy at the USain centric nature of the world :)
• Another BBC link: The Civil Partnership Bill. I don't know when our Government is going to get around to putting this into law, though. Also includes this list: EU countries that recognise same-sex relationships: Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden That leaves just the UK, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Austria and Luxembourg (the forgotten EU member, usually). (I also win this competition: the use of most : in a post)
• This will all get very messey dng, what with the number of soon-to-be EU countries that still aren't convinced the best place for homosexuals isn't jail. Or 6 feet under.
• Gay couples win full rights to 'marriage' The first laws giving gay people the right to 'marry' are to be unveiled this week in one of the most significant changes to Britain's social make-up since the passing of equal opportunities legislation in the 1960s.
• It's not really marriage yet, is it? It's a civil partnership, without quite the same rights (no backdating on pension, for example). That was my worry about different words. But I do like the phrase "pink vote".