South Carolina officially bans gay marriage; New Hampshire takes step toward civil unions

[one...two...tree 2,762]

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina officially banned gay marriage Thursday as legislative leaders ratified a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November.

New Hampshire, meanwhile, moved in the opposite direction, with a state House panel endorsing the creation of civil unions for same-sex couples.

South Carolina was among eight states with gay marriage bans on the ballot last year. The measures passed everywhere except Arizona.

Nearly four out of five South Carolina voters approved the amendment, which reads, "A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

The state already had a law against same-sex marriages, but proponents said the amendment was needed to prevent judges from opening the door to civil unions, which offer gay couples the legal benefits of marriage but not the title.

Only Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey allow civil unions, and California has domestic partnerships that offer similar benefits.

In New Hampshire, the House Judiciary Committee recommended the passage of civil unions Thursday by a bipartisan 15-5 vote.

"I am very pleased that we have taken this step," said one of the bill's sponsors, Democratic Rep. Marlene DeChane, who is gay.

A vote by the full New Hampshire House is expected next week. The measure also must pass the Senate, where Republican Bob Clegg has proposed legislation for "contractual cohabitation" giving unmarried adults the same legal rights as married couples.

Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but supports providing health care benefits to state workers' same-sex partners. He has not taken a public position on civil unions.

___

Associated Press Writer Beverley Wang in Concord, N.H., contributed to this report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...22/gay-marriage

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The people (of SC) have spoken.

[eric&gen 0]

Good for job for SC. Now the rest of the remaining states should follow by banning gay marriage.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Why are there so many gay people in highly developed countries versus under developed countries?

[pedroh 21]

Why are there so many gay people in highly developed countries versus under developed countries?

ah, cuz they don't get lynched (not that often)

[Niels Bohr 72]

LOL

[GaryC 7]

SPRINGFIELD: Legislation recognizing civil unions narrowly passes committee

By Dana Heupel

of Copley News Service

SPRINGFIELD - Legislation to allow civil unions for same-sex couples narrowly passed an Illinois House committee Wednesday, and its sponsor doesn’t expect easy approval by the full House.

“This is very new territory we’re embarking on here,” Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, said after the Human Services Committee approved House Bill 1826 on a 5-4 vote. “It’s going to be very hard work.”

Harris also introduced legislation this year to permit same-sex marriages but said he decided to pursue civil unions after legislative colleagues expressed concerns about the marriage bill.

Some opponents said, however, they didn’t see much difference between the two.

“It is marriage by another name,” said Ralph Rivera, representing the Illinois Family Institute.

The legislation would create a separate statute from the state’s marriage law but would provide partners in a civil union with nearly all of the same benefits of married couples, Harris said. Those would include participating in health care decisions for the partner, rights in determining the welfare of non-adopted children, division of property upon dissolution of the union and decisions regarding the remains of a deceased partner.

The bill also would allow civil unions among opposite-sex couples who did not wish to be married, Harris said.

An Illinois House of Representatives committee approved legislation Wednesday that would allow gay couples to enter civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage. The legislation still has to pass the full House, the Senate and be signed by the governor before becoming law. Below are quotes from area legislators:

"I'll take a close look at that. I'm inclined not to support it. I want to understand what the impact of the bill is."

Rep. David Leitch, R-Peoria

"It's not a bill I'll support. I'm opposed. Is there anything more fundamental than that?"

Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Peoria

"It's contrary to my belief. I do not believe we should recognize nor should the state recognize the civil unions."

Rep. Keith Sommer, R-Morton

"I'm opposed to the legislation. I think that marriage and the protections that go along with marriage, legal protections, should be between a historically and socially accepted norm, which is between a man and a woman. I don't think that we're ready for civil unions in the state of Illinois."

Rep. Mike Smith, D-Canton

"I have not looked at it yet. . . . I do have some concerns on what impact that would have on such things as if you have a job and you have group health insurance, your family can be put on that group health insurance. If this applies to that, too, what that would do to the cost of doing business in Illinois. . . . I have some serious concerns."

Rep. Don Moffitt, R-Gilson

"The state of Illinois recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman. As far as civil unions go, that's a new step as far as what we would have in Illinois law. It's not something that I feel that I can support. I don't believe that when we have a lot of different areas of concerns still out there, and what the union of marriage really should be, that we should take off in a direction of starting civil unions."

Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington

"I'm not in support of that measure because I still believe the traditional marriage should be between a man and a woman. Even though it's called civil unions, I think we should preserve all of the rights for what the traditional marriage is supposed to be."

Rep. Rich Myers, R-Colchester

"I haven't seen the legislation. I would tend to be against it. I talked to some local attorneys. If you want it for death benefits and things like that, you can go to your attorney and make sure this person gets your estate. . . . You can take those legal precautions without doing a civil union."

Rep. Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth

http://www.pjstar.com/php/index.php?/news/...sses_committee/

[beameup 0]

Oh they are there as well, they just accept who they are and don't make such a big deal out of it - kind of like the "Log Cabin" Republicans - they are not into this yelling and screaming and demanding this and demanding that like the liberals - they just go on quietly with their lives - what goes on behind closed doors is their own private business, NOT A NATIONAL CRISIS - and certainly not worth completely revamping the Immigration rights of U.S. citizens.

Why are there so many gay people in highly developed countries versus under developed countries?

[Ban Hammer 14,451]

Why are there so many gay people in highly developed countries versus under developed countries?

something in the water

[Danno 1,228]

I am afraid the will of the People in SC (or any other state) will in the end be trumped by the supreme court.

The constitution clearly says states must honor such oaths and privilages.

An amendment to the constitution is really the only hope of thwarting the will of those few people in Black robes who have become the "last voice" to be heard.

In almost every case where these social changes are put in place, it is always at the gavel of some judge and seldom if ever by the vote of the people you put in office to represent you.

If there are really three "equal" branches of Govt..... when was the last time the Supreme Court was over ruled?

[MairzyDoats 0]

I too am worried about the Supreme Court creating laws. Someone posted a poster saying "Power to the People" and it is true for each state: both NH and SC held votes and the power of the people won out in both states. That's how it works and should be respected.

"A vote by the full New Hampshire House is expected next week. The measure also must pass the Senate, where Republican Bob Clegg has proposed legislation for "contractual cohabitation" giving unmarried adults the same legal rights as married couples."

This is interesting. So any "domestic partnerships" could now hold the same rights as marriages...but do they also hold the same legal responsibilities? A very important question, that.

[homesick_american 1]

I don't see why anyone cares whether gays get married. Personally I don't care if it's legal or not...it will not affect me in any way whatsoever.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No surprise about SC really - I don't expect much originality from that part of the country

[mmarlo 1]

It appears that since there have been some improvements in protecting women and ethnic minorities through the law, people who live to discriminate have made gays their latest target. It is really terrible that two people who love each other cannot enjoy the same legal rights as others. In Michigan right now, the anti-gay marriage bill has even extended its reach into partner benefits in Michigan businesses and universities. And of course this discrimination extends across borders; since gays cannot legally marry in the US, there is no possibility for K1 visas. I wonder, though, if a K3 visa would be possible if a gay marriage took place in a foreign country.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It appears that since there have been some improvements in protecting women and ethnic minorities through the law, people who live to discriminate have made gays their latest target. It is really terrible that two people who love each other cannot enjoy the same legal rights as others. In Michigan right now, the anti-gay marriage bill has even extended its reach into partner benefits in Michigan businesses and universities. And of course this discrimination extends across borders; since gays cannot legally marry in the US, there is no possibility for K1 visas. I wonder, though, if a K3 visa would be possible if a gay marriage took place in a foreign country.

Whether you call it "marriage" or not (which is what seems to get the religious communities panties in a twist), I agree that they should have the same legal rights pertaining to married couples. Its unfortunate that people don't see this debate as part of the civil rights movement, which is where it really belongs.