Marriage Equality: Toward victory in U.S.--On to the rest of the world?

[fritzkep]

Yay! Slowly, slowly....

[ingmarnicebbmt]

Ja, genau.
Irgendwann schaffen sie es dann überall!

[lislis]

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/18/nx-s1-5044564/south-korea-same-sex-couples-ruling-health-insurance

[lislis]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/us/same-sex-marriage-bible-richard-hays-cec/index.html

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Wow...two instances of progress!
(Amidst the chaos of one of our political parties.)

[tfferg]

The king of Thailand has signed the Marriage Equality Act. It will come into effect on January 22, 2025. Many other laws have been amended accordingly.

[CellarDweller115]

What does Prop 3 mean for same-sex marriage in California?

By Gisselle Palomera - October 2, 2024


In practice, Prop 3 would not change who can marry, it would only change the language of the California Constitution that still only acknowledges marriage between a man and a woman.

Approving the change of language would cement the legacy of progress that has allowed same-sex and interracial couples to marry.

In the Hollingsworth v. Perry Supreme Court case from 2010, United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional after a two-week trial. He then issued an order prohibiting the state and local officials named in the lawsuit, from enforcing the proposition – referred to as an injunction.

Following that move, the proponents of Prop 8 challenged the decision by filing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court, standing by the notion of its unconstitutionality, though they stated a different reason for their position on the issue. The proponents of Prop 8 then filed a petition to review the Ninth Circuit and the district court’s rulings.

https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/10/02/prop-3-california-same-sex-marriage/

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Of course, I know about this measure as it's on my ballot. Still, to have it on there means certain people can display their ugliness again, even if there's little danger it wouldn't pass. However, it's not anything really being focused on over the airwaves or internet here.

I had to read the article posted above because I thought the first line was odd: "In practice, Prop 3 would not change who can marry, it would only change the language of the California Constitution that still only acknowledges marriage between a man and a woman."

"In practice" it wouldn't change who can marry? Whenever "in practice" is in a sentence it can often mean, or signifies, well in this case, it would mean that it could change who can marry in some other way. I think it's just an unfortunate phrasing, because there's nothing else in the article to denote different.

[lislis]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/presidential-election-2024-live-updates-rcna175556#rcrd63453
^^^
California’s Prop. 3 passes, establishing a right to marry in the state


I was quite annoyed when Prop 8 passed in 2008, I joined the ACLU as soon as the vote was final (I let my membership lapse in 2016 after the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality in 2015).

[tfferg]

There's been a surge in same-sex marriages in the US ahead of the president-elect taking office.