Yesterday my son Leo had a playdate with our "godson" Alec. Leo was looking forward to this playdate for several days, so he was more wound up that a six year old boy with ADHD normally is. At one point he was running around yelling "My booty is on fire!" It wasn't. My thought was 'Where did a six year old learn the word "booty"? I think the last time I said the word "booty" was in 1976 in talking about KC and the Sunshine Band's song "Shake Your Booty". There was a movie called "Booty Call" I think, but I certainly didn't see it.
On a more serious note, I saw a few days ago that the hearing for the challenge to section 3 of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) will be next month. This could be a really big advance for gays and lesbians in the US if section 3 of DOMA is overturned. Section 3 is the part of the law that states that the federal government won't recognize valid same sex marriages from any state. If this is overturned, it would mean that couples from states without marriage equality could travel to states with marriage equality, get married there, and return home with recognition from the national government. I think that this could be a more important case that the challenge to Prop 8 here in California. But I'm not a lawyer and can't say how all this will turn out.
I decided that I didn't want to keep using aliases for everyone that I mention in this blog. So I'm using the names of my mother in law, father in law and godson.
I also wanted to welcome a new follower, the_only_lorraine_copycat. Welcome. I can't tell if you have a blog of your own or anything about you, so if you care to you can tell us about you or your blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi there, green and purple
ReplyDeleteI wasn't previously aware of DOMA: thanks for bringing it to my attention. It seems a particularly unpleasant piece of legislation, and I wish everyone concerned the best of luck in getting it overturned.
The situation in the UK is rather different: whilst we don't (yet) have same-sex marriage, we do have "civil partnership". This provides a same-sex couple with rights (and duties) that are pretty much identical to marriage, without using the "M" word that so excites the more reactionary types.
Take care
Mark
The DOMA suit is indeed a very big deal. Of course, the huge wild card is what the makeup of the supreme court will be by the time it reaches their docket.
ReplyDeleteThat was today's good news. The bad news is that we have to wait until 2012 to overturn prop 8 :(
@Mark - yeah, the US laws are crazy on this. Each state sets their own marriage laws regarding who can marry, but most of the benefits of marriage are in federal law, and the national government won't recognize state laws on marriage equality (the preferred term over "same sex marriage"). The UK is ahead of us on this, but the civil unions seem like "separate but equal" which Americans don't like based on our history.
ReplyDelete@El Genio - but if the Prop 8 lawsuit is successful then we won't have to vote again. I don't think that a minority should have to get the approval of the majority to get equal rights.
Thanks for bringing up this DOMA development. I had no idea. I'm working on a related exhibit for Utah Pride, so this will come in handy.
ReplyDeleteA couple things...
ReplyDeleteFirstly, thanks for all of your comments. Truthfully, most of my posts are pandering to boost my own self-worth, but it's good to know there's a grounding voice out there.
Second, I had the great, great privilege of working with one of the brilliant minds behind the DOMA challenge while she was working on the No on 1 campaign up in Maine. She's astounding, and I think this case the is one to watch, not the Prop 8 challenge.
Hi there
ReplyDeleteSome late-running follow-up...
Point taken about "marriage equality", which I agree is a more appropriate term. When I wrote my previous comment, I had just come from the Wikipedia page on civil partnership, which uses "same-sex" as an adjective quite extensively (presumably in implicit opposition to "opposite-sex", which I don't recall being used at all).
Whilst I, and I'm sure many others over here, would prefer marriage to be available to all, irrespective of the gender(s) of those marrying, even civil partnership took long enough - the relevant act was only passed in 2004. I guess it's a typically British compromise: we get the rights, but not the name. Maybe given another ten or twenty years, society here will move on far enough that the name will not be contentious either.
Take care
Mark