Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Question about SSM bans

Posted by on Jul. 28, 2014 at 4:37 PM
  • 17 Replies
2 moms liked this
These bans are dropping like flies all over the country. When these bans are thrown out, SS folks start to get married there when before they could not.

So I have a question you can help me figure out...

Am I to understand that if the social conservatives had never made a legal effort to ban SSM, but instead just left their marriage laws alone in states that had not taken steps to legalize it, it would still be illegal , right?

Because if that's true, then this is hilarious.
by on Jul. 28, 2014 at 4:37 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
ashellbell
by shellbark on Jul. 28, 2014 at 4:38 PM
Doh!
coolmommy2x
by Gold Member on Jul. 28, 2014 at 4:43 PM
1 mom liked this
I believe. This started out as gays wanting unions to be recognized, especially in cases where one partner is hospitalized, under existing law, the other partner couldn't make decisions as that person wasn't legally next of kin. I'm not sure if it's simplified as you've stated but I think you could be right in your conclusion. At least it seems that way and yes, it is funny and a lesson to be careful what you wish for.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Jul. 28, 2014 at 4:45 PM
2 moms liked this
I've thought the same thing. Good job voting in all those bans, y'all. You've pushed our agenda forward a decade earlier than we could have done ourselves.
NWP
by guerrilla girl on Jul. 28, 2014 at 4:58 PM
Yeah...it seems as if SSM is now legal in some of our most conservative states because of this. Who would've thunk these states would be some of the first to have SSM?

Quoting coolmommy2x: I believe. This started out as gays wanting unions to be recognized, especially in cases where one partner is hospitalized, under existing law, the other partner couldn't make decisions as that person wasn't legally next of kin. I'm not sure if it's simplified as you've stated but I think you could be right in your conclusion. At least it seems that way and yes, it is funny and a lesson to be careful what you wish for.
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Jul. 28, 2014 at 5:00 PM
4 moms liked this

Pretty much.

So in all actuality, we should be thanking those who are so against what another person does in their own lives.  They have helped many of my friends be equal to them. 

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Jul. 28, 2014 at 7:50 PM

bump

4evrinbluejeans
by KK on Jul. 28, 2014 at 7:58 PM

No, I don't think that is necessarily accurate.  Washington state didn't have a constitutional marriage ban when the state supreme court ruled that the way the law was written created a second class citizenship status for same sex couples; and that the state needed to find an way to equalize access.  The legal challenges came about from a denial of access, not specific action taken by voters to limit marriage.  

Shortly after that occurred the state created a Domestic Partnership law to address the disparity.  

Same sex marriage was legalized in Washington state through the legislative process, and upheld by voter referendum; and the original court intervention was not due to any constitutional action attempted to ban it in our state.  

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Jul. 28, 2014 at 8:05 PM
1 mom liked this

True...but that is not the case for every state.

In some of the more conservative states, the intent was to specifically ban marraiges that were not between a man and a woman. Only now, in those states, same sex couples can now be married because the bans are being struck down. 

Had they left it alone, then the proceedure for legal SSM would be more what you are describing...instead it seems they hastened the legality by unconstitutionally trying to stop it. 

Quoting 4evrinbluejeans:

No, I don't think that is necessarily accurate.  Washington state didn't have a constitutional marriage ban when the state supreme court ruled that the way the law was written created a second class citizenship status for same sex couples; and that the state needed to find an way to equalize access.  The legal challenges came about from a denial of access, not specific action taken by voters to limit marriage.  

Shortly after that occurred the state created a Domestic Partnership law to address the disparity.  

Same sex marriage was legalized in Washington state through the legislative process, and upheld by voter referendum; and the original court intervention was not due to any constitutional action attempted to ban it in our state.  


supermonstermom
by on Jul. 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM
1 mom liked this

I just don't get SSM bans.  What is it to me who some else marries?

I don't get why states regulate it.. is there any way to get your marriage license revoked by the state?  Has anyone ever been told, hey this is your fourth marriage, you are not allowed to have a marriage license?  Why do states get to profit on marriage?  Why do they have a say in what marriage is?  Maybe the government should just stay out of marriage.

I seriously do not care who marries whom. 

4evrinbluejeans
by KK on Jul. 28, 2014 at 8:13 PM

I disagree that it hastened the legality of it.  Groups were challenging the laws in place in the 1970s.  One could argue that had the roadblocks not be put in place SSM would have been quietly legalized much more quickly and quietly.  

While the laws are falling quickly now, this wasn't a quick process and was a fight being fought for decades by SSM proponents and advocates.  

Quoting NWP:

True...but that is not the case for every state.

In some of the more conservative states, the intent was to specifically ban marraiges that were not between a man and a woman. Only now, in those states, same sex couples can now be married because the bans are being struck down. 

Had they left it alone, then the proceedure for legal SSM would be more what you are describing...instead it seems they hastened the legality by unconstitutionally trying to stop it. 

Quoting 4evrinbluejeans:

No, I don't think that is necessarily accurate.  Washington state didn't have a constitutional marriage ban when the state supreme court ruled that the way the law was written created a second class citizenship status for same sex couples; and that the state needed to find an way to equalize access.  The legal challenges came about from a denial of access, not specific action taken by voters to limit marriage.  

Shortly after that occurred the state created a Domestic Partnership law to address the disparity.  

Same sex marriage was legalized in Washington state through the legislative process, and upheld by voter referendum; and the original court intervention was not due to any constitutional action attempted to ban it in our state.  


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN