Troops question impact if gay ban is lifted

i guess people will want to know the details of these things. i wonder if this will help push it forward now.

 

I hated this:

Just seeing it say forbidden....

But like I thought Washington allows gay marriage now? :S

 

>>>But like I thought Washington allows gay marriage now?

Here's where it gets confusing. Washington DC allows gay marriage (for the time being). However, these marriages won't be recognized anywhere where gay marriage is forbidden. Which, right now, is everywhere but Iowa (and a few scattered cities across the country). In many cases, the state where the city is located will have final say in certain aspects of a gay marriage. If the state doesn't recognize the marriage, it doesn't matter if the city does. It's not entirely clear which laws would supersede which, but you're beginning to see how complicated it can get.

And it gets more confusing. Because Washington DC is the only city in the US that isn't actually IN a state. DC stands for "District of Columbia" - an autonomous spot that doesn't belong to any state. (It was America's way of making sure whichever state held the Capitol wouldn't have more power than the others.) So one would assume that there are no STATE regulations that would conflict with gay marriage in Washington DC. That said, gay marriage is still forbidden at the FEDERAL level. So if there's a national law dealing with marriage, that might cause confusion with a Washington DC gay marriage.

Lex

 

I thought there were five or six states that allowed same-sex marriage?

 

In every state that once allowed gay marriage, the conservatives have made sure to put it to a vote during the next election. And in each case - Oregon, California, Massachusetts - the voters have elected to ban gay marriage. I believe, right now, Iowa and the District of Columbia are the only areas in the US that allow gay marriage. Someone else can jump in if my info is out of date.

Lex

 

Seeing as DC isn't really a state, I don't know how it applies to Article IV, Section 1 of The Constitution:

I'm not a legal scholar by any means, however I don't see how a state cannot recognise a legally binding marriage of another state.

 

Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire also allow gay marriage.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/01/new.hampshire.same.sex/index.html

 

My response to this: Has it affected the troops of British, Canadian and the troops of other countries that allow openly gay/lesbian/bi soldiers to serve? Probably not...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
It's allowed in Iowa, DC, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mass., and Conneticut.

 

It's progressing at a snail's pace, but at least it's progressing at all.

 

no offence to anyone, but American politics really is a pain in the ass, its swings and roundabouts, im amazed anyone ever knows what's going on :s least with policy here we just go through the commons vote then the house of lords who can reject it a few times, then we pass it....then we secretly go to the EU and ask if we can actually do this >.> ...stupid EU taking all out power...stupid government !

 

On the marriage issue.
As people have said, there is marriage in a handful of states. Granted that does not include recognition between states that don't recognize same sex marriage (minus a few notable cases) or at the national level thanks to DOMA.

Then to make the mess even more complicated, some states have domestic partnership or civil union bills which vary between the states that provide them. They may provide a few, some or most of the benefits the state would give to a married couple. I have no idea if these are recognized between some states(Obviously the majority give no recognition to any of this).

Finally, there are bi-national couples that get no federal recognition. I'm not sure if benefits are provided in states that perform gay marriages but at the very least, its likely that once the individuals visa expires it will not be renewed. And of course they can't get access to green cards. This leaves the couple with the choice of staying illegally or moving to another country.

As I understand the culprit of all of this is DoMA, which as I understand violates the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution(hence why 'married' couples don't have to get a license in every state they visit) but I'm not a Political Science major. I'm sure someone here has a better grasp on this than I do.

But to the op:
Even if its slow its still progress. I'm glad the issue is finally being discussed with the troops.

 

I'm actually disappointed.

Nothing should change. There already ARE gay men and women in the military, they just aren't out to said military. >_>

Nothing would really change, in the broad scope.

 

^Agreed, what's the big fucking deal?