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

[homesick_american 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.

I don't think they've made gays their 'latest' target. Gays have always been a target, and it will take time for people to accept them. (Some people never will, though.) They're using the religion argument the same way they used it against women and against black people. Things will change, but they won't change overnight. You see more of this in the South because people in the South are A.) more religious and B.) more politically conservative. Ergo, it's no surprise that they elect politicians who share those views. I vote Democrat but I find Nancy Pelosi horrifying. It goes both ways.

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.

No. The US would not issue a K3 visa to a same-sex partner. The UK would, though.

[Fuzzness 2]

SC is one of the most backward states in the south. What is the big deal with calling it marriage rather than civil union? If it is a bible thing, then why allow muslims and buddhists to marry? They aren't christian like the majority of the south, or even america.

[mmarlo 1]

I don't think they've made gays their 'latest' target. Gays have always been a target, and it will take time for people to accept them. (Some people never will, though.) They're using the religion argument the same way they used it against women and against black people. Things will change, but they won't change overnight.

Good point. Of course, the persecution has always been there; it's not some new-fangled idea in Western culture to discriminate against homosexuals. It's being going on since Biblical times, although there have probably been some communities in which it has been more acceptable than others.

[homesick_american 1]

I don't think they've made gays their 'latest' target. Gays have always been a target, and it will take time for people to accept them. (Some people never will, though.) They're using the religion argument the same way they used it against women and against black people. Things will change, but they won't change overnight.

Good point. Of course, the persecution has always been there; it's not some new-fangled idea in Western culture to discriminate against homosexuals. It's being going on since Biblical times, although there have probably been some communities in which it has been more acceptable than others.

...and there are some communities where it will get you killed, specifically in some African and Middle Eastern communities. The US is comparatively progressive with regards to its treatment of homosexuals; of course it hasn't gone all the way yet and I think it has a ways to go still. I'd like to see gays in the military and I'd like to see gay marriage/civil partnerships legalized in all fifty states, mainly because I don't see any reason NOT to. It will happen eventually. The US is slow to implement ideas like this usually because matters like this have been left to the states. Some states go for it, others don't. The ones that don't will get swept aside by any legislation at the federal level, but the popular support just isn't there yet. Yet. Activists just need to keep plugging away...keep suing...keep fighting. They'll get there eventually. Change happens slowly, but it always happens.

[Mags 112]

No. The US would not issue a K3 visa to a same-sex partner. The UK would, though.

That's a good thing about the UK, IMO.

[homesick_american 1]

No. The US would not issue a K3 visa to a same-sex partner. The UK would, though.

That's a good thing about the UK, IMO.

I think people in the UK just don't really care what the homosexuals get up to, as long as they're not TOO foreign.

[Ban Hammer 14,648]

I'd like to see gays in the military

then open your eyes. they are already there.

[homesick_american 1]

I'd like to see gays in the military

then open your eyes. they are already there.

I'll rephrase. I'd like to see gays OFFICIALLY in the military, acknowledged and recognized. Precise enough?

[Ban Hammer 14,648]

I'd like to see gays in the military

then open your eyes. they are already there.

I'll rephrase. I'd like to see gays OFFICIALLY in the military, acknowledged and recognized. Precise enough?

yet the military isn't an experiment in society. it's there to defend democracy, not practice it. you'll find the rules and the punishment for breaking such stricter than in the civilian world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd like to see gays in the military

then open your eyes. they are already there.

I'll rephrase. I'd like to see gays OFFICIALLY in the military, acknowledged and recognized. Precise enough?

yet the military isn't an experiment in society. it's there to defend democracy, not practice it. you'll find the rules and the punishment for breaking such stricter than in the civilian world.

What is the reasoning for those rules?

[Ban Hammer 14,648]

What is the reasoning for those rules?

i'm sure you can look up the ucmj.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is the reasoning for those rules?

i'm sure you can look up the ucmj.

I'm sure it will have the "what" but not the "why". Just curious.

[mmarlo 1]

it's there to defend democracy, not practice it.

If by "defend democracy", you mean "defend democracy when it suits US strategic and business interests or only if compelled to do so by overwhelming popular resistance", OK, but just as often our government uses the military to undermine democracy while stating noble intentions, not unlike previous imperialist governments, not to mention Nazi Germany among others.

[Ban Hammer 14,648]

it's there to defend democracy, not practice it.

If by "defend democracy", you mean "defend democracy when it suits US strategic and business interests or only if compelled to do so by overwhelming popular resistance", OK, but just as often our government uses the military to undermine democracy while stating noble intentions, not unlike previous imperialist governments, not to mention Nazi Germany among others.

take that up with your congressman

What is the reasoning for those rules?

i'm sure you can look up the ucmj.

I'm sure it will have the "what" but not the "why". Just curious.

sounds like you got lots of research to do. or you can just call your local recruiting office

[homesick_american 1]

I'd like to see gays in the military

then open your eyes. they are already there.

I'll rephrase. I'd like to see gays OFFICIALLY in the military, acknowledged and recognized. Precise enough?

yet the military isn't an experiment in society. it's there to defend democracy, not practice it. you'll find the rules and the punishment for breaking such stricter than in the civilian world.

So...as you pointed out, gays are already in the military. What would change when we acknowledge them? I'm sure finding out OFFICIALLY who is gay won't come as much of a surprise to the soldiers themselves.