Anonymous wrote:

---

It just seems so righteous sounding to embrace the teachings of equality than to thumb a nose at here and queer by stigmatizing the discussion and making it sound like a necessary evil. Funny thing is here, in Florida, the public schools eliminated History as a requirement several years ago. Eliminating history is really not

its not like they are planning on teaching a class on gay and lesbian sex tho that might be a nice touch. there are no plans to teach anything other than the law was passed. todays news is that the catholic church has asked for special exceptions for catholics.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Groups Want Faith Exemption On Same-Sex Marriage Issue

By DANIELA ALTIMARI |The Hartford Courant April 21, 2009 Six months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut, opponents are opening a new front in the contentious battle.

Through a high-profile campaign that includes robocalls, TV spots, newspaper ads and messages from the pulpit, the Roman Catholic Church and other groups, both local and national, are making a last-ditch effort to carve out legal protections for business owners and professionals who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

"Freedom of religion [is a] fundamental right that [has] been inscribed in our federal constitution forever," said attorney John Droney, who is providing legal advice to the Knights of Columbus. "It doesn't suddenly get put on the shelf because of this new, emerging right."

The push for a religious exemption in Connecticut is unfolding amid a national debate over gay marriage and the rules that should apply in the four states where it is legal: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa.

nesea wrote:

---

---

A friend sent me Steve Colbert's take on that ad .. pretty funny .. the weather channel meets the 700 Club 

oops .. forgot to add the link: The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad | April 16th | ColbertNation.com

that was funny! i actually got an email from that nom org today warning me about how the public schools are going to have to teach gay pride in schools now. i wrote back and said really? damn. its about time this happened! thanks for sharing the good news! lol. i doubt if ill hear back from them.  apparently they are blitzing everyone in the northeast with a lie filled behind the scenes hate campaign.


-- Edited by nesea on Saturday 18th of April 2009 06:05:03 AM

-- Edited by nesea on Saturday 18th of April 2009 06:05:53 AM

 

---

 

Psych Lit wrote:

---

nesea wrote:

---

 

The Honorable Mr. Corzine is currently trailing in the polls (he's p*ssed off the unions in his attempt to come in with a reasonable budget) so it doesn't bode well that this is waiting until after the November election ........

thats unfortunate. the phobes are on the warpath. have you seen the ad campaign aimed at the northeast?  look at the coming storm crap. i guess they saw how well the fear factor worked with the bush supporters and thought this was the way to go.

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=3837659&content_id={3CA8DD92-88A1-48B5-B739-E0CB33AFEF4E}&notoc=1

---

 wow ..no I hadn't seen that yet .. but I expect I will be seeing it soon .. and often.

 

Psych Lit wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 -- 11:35 AM ET
-----

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

---

Four down, forty six to go. ;)

 

---

by the end of the month it may be 7 down and 44 to go if we count washington dc.
new jersey is poised to go and new hampshire is a crap shoot.  ive been reading the online newspapers in both of those states and couldnt find a mention in the jersey papers and the nh papers contained only the national article. if the comments following the published articles are an indication things arent looking good tho this issue tends to bring the whackos out from under their rocks.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

NJ Governor Wants to Sign Marriage Equality Law

PolitickerNJ, a website that follows politics in the Garden State, is reporting that New Jersey's Gov. Jon Corzine announced he is behind complete marriage equality.

Gov. Crozine attended Garden State Equality's gala dinner last night. With the New Jersey legislature expected to consider same sex marriage legislation after the November election, Corzine announced that he "would sign a marriage equality law, saying he hopes he gets to do that in 2009."

---

The Honorable Mr. Corzine is currently trailing in the polls (he's p*ssed off the unions in his attempt to come in with a reasonable budget) so it doesn't bode well that this is waiting until after the November election ........

 

Psych Lit wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Dar doesn't have a video and song called Vermont, but here's the latest news.

this isnt dar but its the gayest i could find. this one goes out to all those in love in vt and iowa who want to take that ultimate leap of faith. goddess bless you all you brave people you. ps dont rush into anything in the heat of the moment.  how does that saying go? marry in haste repent in leisure? lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE4MaOGCEsk&feature=related

---

 

---

Can't wait to watch the "gayest one" you could find. ;) Though I didn't realize till last night the VT legilslative vote, though at face value a significant passing margin, isn't enough to prevent the Gov from a veto. Corzines been talking the talk for some time now it would be nice to see him have a healthy functional piece of legistaure in front of him TO sign.

I've taken a new position when discussing this with hardline hets that won't bend on the man/woman deal AND will not agree that it's a religious fear that prevents their broader thinking. There's an argument out there that marriage "promotes or lets children believe it's okay", my two fold response is not just that it is okay but that regardless explaining the marriage issue, we're here, queer and still there for the kids to live amongst. The differences in sexual identity will still require parental discussion. Marriage is a mostly financial and emotional and protection add-on to the gay equality issue.

As for marriage? I've always said it's far more practical to plan for a neat divorce than a blissful marriage.

bd

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

Dar doesn't have a video and song called Vermont, but here's the latest news.



Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 -- 11:35 AM ET
-----

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

The Legislature on Tuesday voted to override the veto by Gov.
Jim Douglas of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry.


BD

---

Four down, forty six to go. ;)

 

---

by the end of the month it may be 7 down and 44 to go if we count washington dc.
new jersey is poised to go and new hampshire is a crap shoot.  ive been reading the online newspapers in both of those states and couldnt find a mention in the jersey papers and the nh papers contained only the national article. if the comments following the published articles are an indication things arent looking good tho this issue tends to bring the whackos out from under their rocks.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

NJ Governor Wants to Sign Marriage Equality Law

PolitickerNJ, a website that follows politics in the Garden State, is reporting that New Jersey's Gov. Jon Corzine announced he is behind complete marriage equality.

Gov. Crozine attended Garden State Equality's gala dinner last night. With the New Jersey legislature expected to consider same sex marriage legislation after the November election, Corzine announced that he "would sign a marriage equality law, saying he hopes he gets to do that in 2009."

Corzine also supported transgender New Jerseyans, announcing "a new regulation allowing transgender New Jerseyans to provide an affidavit of their gender identity to get the Motor Vehicle Commission to change the gender on their license to drive. In the past, the state had required gender reassignment surgery." Thus the new regulations would make life (and getting appropriate I.D.) easier for transgender people in New Jersey.

http://pflagblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/nj-governor-wants-to-sign-marriage.html

and the federal inroads have begun. from the boston globe:

By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff

Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages filed a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died -- one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds -- said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The 92-page complaint was filed in US District Court in Boston.

The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.

"It hurts," said Dean T. Hara, who was married to Studds from May 2004 until the retired congressman's death in October 2006, as he discussed the federal government's denial of a $255 lump-sum death payment and thousands of dollars in benefits as the surviving spouse of a retired federal employee. "But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."

Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health--the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time--said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.

"This is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and in all likelihood will go to the Supreme Court," she said.

If the plaintiffs win, she said, it would not extend same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts and Connecticut, the two states where it is legal.

But it would dismantle a federal statute that affects more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits, and it would be a huge victory on symbolic and practical levels for supporters of same-sex marriage, according to legal specialists.

"We've got this major federal statute that inflicts really substantial harm on very large numbers of gay people just for being gay people," said Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor. "The federal government declares to these people that it regards their marriages as worthless and would not give those marriages the protection and recognition that it gives to all other marriages. It's quite significant if that is invalidated."

A handful of federal agencies and officials are named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for President Obama, who has spoken of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but does not support same-sex marriage, said the White House had no comment.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the lawsuit represents the latest effort to export gay marriage to other parts of the country. He noted that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, known by its acronym GLAD, has a "Six by Twelve" campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012, and he said some gay-rights groups want a federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

But the tide of public opinion is strongly against them, he said. Voters in 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Mineau said, including California, which in a November referendum overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had recently given gay couples the right to marry.

"There's no doubt that the desire of the citizens of America . . . is that marriage is to remain one man and one woman, and that's what the intent of DOMA is as well," he said, using the acronym for the federal law.

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it appeared increasingly likely that some state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.

Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Same-sex weddings began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, and about 10,000 couples have married. Two years later, GLAD quietly began surveying couples to determine whether they wanted federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.

Among those who say they have been discriminated against are Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, a Bridgewater couple who have been together nearly 30 years and married four days after same-sex weddings began. They have two children.

Gill, 51, who has worked for the Postal Service since 1987, has repeatedly tried to put Letourneau on her health insurance plan, but her employer has rejected her applications, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Letourneau, 47, has health insurance through her employer, Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice, but the couple estimates that it costs them $800 more a year than it would if she could be on Gill's plan.

"I feel like I am not being treated the same as my other married co-workers," Gill said. "I earn those same benefits as my co-workers, yet I'm not allowed to use them."

 

Dar doesn't have a video and song called Vermont, but here's the latest news.



Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 -- 11:35 AM ET
-----

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

The Legislature on Tuesday voted to override the veto by Gov.
Jim Douglas of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry.


BD

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

(photo via BD)

Ah, if there's a deity in heaven YES! I'd contribute mightily to her primary race. :) Make it so, number one... BTW -- is this one of your photos? If so, good job!

rut roh remember that this country sort of elected bush twice. be careful whatcha fund for she just might win! could we imagine her facing the multitude of problems facing obama at the moment? i shudder thinking of it tho maybe that shopping spree thing might work in a single handed effort to bail out neiman marcus

Oh, and love your avatar -- gearing up for a little extra special Easter frolicking, this year, are ya?

lol that is some avatar yes it is!

Or just the ususal?


-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 4th of April 2009 03:32:50 PM

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 4th of April 2009 03:34:50 PM

 

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

. Anyway the bunny is indeed gearing up for the annual Easter gun hunt! That's what rednecks do, aint it?


dont make me give you THAT look.  

---

What, that "Palin' around with rednecks" look?  

Pal-in, not Palin.
AlTHOUGH ...

 

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 4th of April 2009 07:01:24 PM

---

Sure, poke fun. She's protecting our borders as we speak. Si?

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

(photo via BD)

Ah, if there's a deity in heaven YES! I'd contribute mightily to her primary race. :) Make it so, number one... BTW -- is this one of your photos? If so, good job!

Oh, and love your avatar -- gearing up for a little extra special Easter frolicking, this year, are ya?

 

Or just the ususal?


-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 4th of April 2009 03:32:50 PM

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 4th of April 2009 03:34:50 PM

---

oh yeah that was mine. Took it The Sunday before the election. Or the one before that. Anyway the bunny is indeed gearing up for the annual Easter gun hunt! That's what rednecks do, aint it?


dont make me give you THAT look.

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

BoxDog wrote:

---

... they also should have seen the strategic element of knowing full well chat room Charlie Crist is a mostly silent though very supportive gay advocate, ad litem. Until such time he faces the truth, again.

---

Sure, but he seems to be posturing for a GOP presidential run in 2012, so I don't anticipate much vocal support from him for a good long while.

 

---

I was just heading out so I'm going to look anonymous. But Charlie Crist can posture from a chandelier and he will NOT be appointed the GOP or Dem candidate. He can swing however he likes. It won't happen. Beside the fact his record is horrendous and he has no experience at, well, anything. He was education commish for one day, AG during the worst hurricanes we've ever seen, was chief counsel for the minor league Devil Rays and never owned a home in his life, here or anywhere. Aside from that? The one challenge he vowed to rectify was the insurance industry. So, now the largest insurer in the state of FL , is the state of FL . Bye Bye State Farm! He reminds me of a gay Guiliani, with that I thought you like me look. This guys closet is very, very crowded. Won't happen.

Oh and now, beside charging cigarette smokers 800 bucks a pack he wants to impose a fishing license on people who are simply standing in the water now. Really? He's been a nightmare to this state. Environmentally, educationally, just a blank stare. I doubt the democrat Davis would have done ANY better, but my god when you have to say jeez Jeb Bush did a pretty good job? uh-oh.

 

---

Three words: George Walker Bush.
I think you'll see him giving Newt a run for our money come 2012.

"You heard it here first"

 

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 4th of April 2009 01:01:49 PM

---

Noted. Too, he doesn't have any money of his own worth discussing. And Carol Rome is batshyt nuts. Two words for Newt? Enter, Jeb Bush.

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

... they also should have seen the strategic element of knowing full well chat room Charlie Crist is a mostly silent though very supportive gay advocate, ad litem. Until such time he faces the truth, again.

---

Sure, but he seems to be posturing for a GOP presidential run in 2012, so I don't anticipate much vocal support from him for a good long while.

 

---

I was just heading out so I'm going to look anonymous. But Charlie Crist can posture from a chandelier and he will NOT be appointed the GOP or Dem candidate. He can swing however he likes. It won't happen. Beside the fact his record is horrendous and he has no experience at, well, anything. He was education commish for one day, AG during the worst hurricanes we've ever seen, was chief counsel for the minor league Devil Rays and never owned a home in his life, here or anywhere. Aside from that? The one challenge he vowed to rectify was the insurance industry. So, now the largest insurer in the state of FL , is the state of FL . Bye Bye State Farm! He reminds me of a gay Guiliani, with that I thought you like me look. This guys closet is very, very crowded. Won't happen.

Oh and now, beside charging cigarette smokers 800 bucks a pack he wants to impose a fishing license on people who are simply standing in the water now. Really? He's been a nightmare to this state. Environmentally, educationally, just a blank stare. I doubt the democrat Davis would have done ANY better, but my god when you have to say jeez Jeb Bush did a pretty good job? uh-oh.

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

 

 It really does become more of a marriage "visa" than a reality. Now you see it now you dont, poof. <BD

Yeah, but in a WAY, that's kind of good for us, really. It's one thing to simply not grant a bloc certain rights, and something very different to deny that same group rights they've already enjoyed -- to take those rights away from them.



 This is not something that should be a state issue. Not at all. <BD

I really do see this as prelude to a federal ruling somewhere along the line. "Setting the stage" as it were. The High Court does take the national pulse on social mores and trends before handing down a decision somewhat, because some issues (like "cruel and unusual treatment") are so subjective.

California matters in this fight because it, coupled with Mass. constitutes about one seventh of the national population. California acutally is the highest populated state in the country. If/when other highly populated states extend this basic human right to gay and lesbian citizens, shifting that balance even further to our favor, we stand a better chance of success with the US Supreme Court. That sort of sucks, of course, but it's the reality I see, anyway. So in that light, Iowa (and my own Arizona) don't really matter all that much, because of their smaller populations. I think we can forget about Texas extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian people for the time being, but New York? Possibility there, maybe. Florida? I'm guessing not -- would you agree? Ditto Illinois.

PS I agree HRC dropped the ball in not putting more effort into Florida this last election cycle.

---

 

---

While Cali should matter based upon population and other factors it is also happens to carry the largest state deficit of any state budget. So, no matter how hard fought ANY social change(eyeroll) is it will continue to take a backseat while the state financial, medical and immigration policies collapse. HRC should have recognized that despite FL not having democrat politicking here prior to the primaries, they also should have seen the strategic element of knowing full well chat room Charlie Crist is a mostly silent though very supportive gay advocate, ad litem. Until such time he faces the truth, again. I think Joe Salmonella,whats his face,  should have been shyt canned or stepped down  immediately upon the domino failure of HRC in respect to well, ANYTHING. What do we expect of a MAN that's former ceo of Emilys List. What a joke. There wasn't a qualified WOMAN in this planet to hold that position? That should speak volumes of what gay sisters are doing to handle our own direction, handed it over to a man. One who has now helped fail the entire national interest of LGBT and their families. emineffa. This WAS one of the few orgs that I regularly donated to outside of physical and mental charities. Never again.

Oh, about "taking away" the rights? I am in total support of any measure to outlaw heterosexual marriage and any benefit or albatross it may present those towo people. Fully embrace outlawing it.

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

Yeah, I suppose you could say Justice Warren was an "activist" judge too (that's what people are saying about the Iowa ruling today) but you know? Activism isn't a "bad" thing if it sustains the US Constitution, and defends it from subterfuge and abuse.

Parenthetical Trivia: I was living in Iowa the day the initial guilty finding of 1959 was handing down in the Loving case. Now, I might conceivably one day return to get married to the woman of my dreams there. LOL.

The longer I live, the more amazing things become.

---

Really, sustaining the Constitution and rewriting it are two very different concepts. Remember the uproar when the gop wanted to sneak a bill in to allow for the option of Schwartzenegger to run for pres one day? That was a slam dunk NO way. I see it very hypocritical here that we would allow a rewrite on this auntie o issue. That's all. Really. But this Iowa one, who'd have thought, Iowa. Good for them. And they did it on the heels of HRC dumping MILLIONS of dollars focusing on Cali and leaving FL and AZ in the dust for funding the state bills. I'm still furious that the HRC is so mismanaged and focused on California AS IF Cali will pave the way just because it's California. It's just not the reality and Iowa proved that.

---

Well, California DID sort of pave the way here. They went through the same steps Iowa has now taken, and if Iowans choose to have a constitutional referendum on the ballot to amend their state constitution, and the Iowa legislature changes from democratic to republican in two years, Iowa could (and probably will) be in the same situation California now finds its self. The (national) situation in which we're now finding ourselves is that the majority of American citizens don't seem to want to "allow" gay and lesbians Americans to wed, and it simply flies in the face of the constitution, IMO. So? Judges will be almost obliged to extend equality to the disenfranchised, and the populus (and more importantly, those wealthy conservative activist movers and shakers) will try to find ways around it state to state. A federal "once and for all" ruling would seem to resolve this, and I THINK we now have the court to do that. Not sure, but I think it would be 5-4 in our favor, if it came right down to it.

 

---

 It really does become more of a marriage "visa" than a reality. Now you see it now you dont, poof. This is not something that should be a state issue. Not at all. Not unless the federal government wants to relinquish its stake in my paycheck, benefits, death, gifts, anything I do, or anyone. Forget dont ask dont tell, how about dont ask, dont show. This is ridiculous. They have no idea what size class action suits could be filed when this nightmare is finally settled, nationally. Yes you are, no you aren't tax break this, no break here. Retroactive military benefits? Dead spousal payouts? Just making it a non issue would be so much neater. We can reach across the world to terrorists and reach across "party lines" for pig **** research and can't settle something as elementary as a recognized legal partnership, marriage of two human beings. I hate the world.  

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Yeah, I suppose you could say Justice Warren was an "activist" judge too (that's what people are saying about the Iowa ruling today) but you know? Activism isn't a "bad" thing if it sustains the US Constitution, and defends it from subterfuge and abuse.

Parenthetical Trivia: I was living in Iowa the day the initial guilty finding of 1959 was handing down in the Loving case. Now, I might conceivably one day return to get married to the woman of my dreams there. LOL.

The longer I live, the more amazing things become.

---

Really, sustaining the Constitution and rewriting it are two very different concepts. Remember the uproar when the gop wanted to sneak a bill in to allow for the option of Schwartzenegger to run for pres one day? That was a slam dunk NO way. I see it very hypocritical here that we would allow a rewrite on this auntie o issue. That's all. Really. But this Iowa one, who'd have thought, Iowa. Good for them. And they did it on the heels of HRC dumping MILLIONS of dollars focusing on Cali and leaving FL and AZ in the dust for funding the state bills. I'm still furious that the HRC is so mismanaged and focused on California AS IF Cali will pave the way just because it's California. It's just not the reality and Iowa proved that.

Ya know, it was just a hair over 50 years ago (January 6, 1959) Mildred and Richard Loving were found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage. Because their marriage was illegal in Virginia, they went to another state to tie the knot, and then returned and started setting up house as husband and wife. At the time, the Virginia statue read (in part) as follows:

VA Code re: Miscegenation:

Section 20-59:

"Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

3 Section 20-57:

"Marriages void without decree. -- All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." Va. Code Ann. § 20-57 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

4 Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:
"Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term 'white persons.' -- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term 'white person' shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter." Va. Code Ann. § 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

--------------------------------------------------

The Lovings plead guilty, and were sentenced to a year in prision for their "crime" but it was postponed for 25 years if they left the state and "never came back" according to the judge. 


This case eventually found it's way to the US Supreme Court, and they overturned the ban against inter-racial marriage (Loving v. Virgnina)

Justice Warren, in delivering the court's unanimous decision said, in part:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.": (End of exerpt)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I see the comments from people up on their high horses about Iowa's high court ruling today, I cannot help but think 50 years from now, people will look upon this time and just shake their heads at the silliness of it all, and say to one another: "Can you believe gay and lesbian people didn't used to be able to marry??" And they will shake their heads, and wonder what kind of people we were then, and how we could allow something so absurd to stand.

Yeah, I suppose you could say Justice Warren was an "activist" judge too (that's what people are saying about the Iowa ruling today) but you know? Activism isn't a "bad" thing if it sustains the US Constitution, and defends it from subterfuge and abuse.

Parenthetical Trivia: I was living in Iowa the day the initial guilty finding of 1959 was handing down in the Loving case. Now, I might conceivably one day return to get married to the woman of my dreams there. LOL.

The longer I live, the more amazing things become.