Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
South Africa
Spain
United States (MA only)
Aruba
Israel
Neth. Antilles
United States (NY, RI)
Andorra
Argentina (C, R)
Australia (TAS)
Brazil (RS)
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary – effective 01/01/09
Iceland
Luxembourg
Mexico (CO, DF)
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States (CA, CT, DC, HI, ME, NJ, VT, WA – NH, OR effective 01/01/08)
Uruguay (pending)
Please share widely!
Altho there are unfortunately still plenty of places where being gay is considered criminal…
This is definitely progress. But as you say, in numerous countries it is illegal to even be a gay person. In the countries on this map that are colored orange, gay people face serious consequences (imprisonment, forced labor, heavy fines, flogging) for merely being gay. In the countries colored brown, you get the death penalty.
for finding countries that have Muslim-led governments, right? It’s not a perfect correlation, but it’s a correlation nonetheless. North Africa, East Africa, Persia, -stans, Malaysia.
north africa, yes. but not all of the other african countries are predominantly muslim. neither are jamaica or others in the americas. india is multi-religious.
<
p>Sure, there are some non-Islamic dominated areas which are legislatively anti-gay [a few bits and bobs in the Central Americas, India, southern Africa], and there are some Islamic dominated areas which are more tolerant [by that I mean it’s not illegal to be gay — see some parts of Africa, some of the -stans, etc] . It ain’t a perfect correlation.
<
p>But, it’s hard to deny the trend.
I won’t argue that muslim-dominated countries tend to have the most severe punishments for being gay, but Christians still have a lot to answer for worldwide. Robert Mugabe is Roman Catholic, for example. And certainly here at home, it is hard for me to ignore that it is the Christians who are largely responsible for gay repression both in the law and in society at large. Who was behind all the vindictive state constitutional amendments? Not Muslims. Not atheists. Nope, it was the “love”-the-sinner-hate-the-sin Christians and their eager political users.
Wait, how can you put the US, or even Massachusetts, in the “Marriage Equality” column? Same-sex marriages in Massachusetts are not recognized at all by the US government. And people in a Massachusetts same-sex marriage can go to any other state and marry someone else. I don’t think you could even put the US in the CU category for those reasons. Though it’s true that marriage in the US is conferred by the authority of the states, and the idea of governments not recognizing a marriage from another jurisdiction is an outrage that offends the institution of marriage, they can’t really be called equal marriages at this point in time, practically speaking.
<
p>Every same-sex couple in the country is currently being denied equal protections, or much real protection at all. And same-sex couples in many states can’t even get really basic protections. The reason for this state of affairs is that the demand for “full equality” and marriage scares and offends too many people, so that they will oppose not only marriage but also CU’s that they see as marriage in all but name and only leading to marriage.
<
p>If only there were some way to gain the support of the people opposed to CU’s, then federal recognition could get passed and same-sex coupels could get equal protections and you could put the US into the “civilized world” category.
<
p>And those aren’t “archaic laws”, those were all passed in the last few years. And the SSM issue is considered to have been pivotal in electing GWB in 2004 (even Kerry supported not just the vote, but would have voted for the Massachusetts amendment).
<
p>Oregon looks interesting on that map. First came the orange, and then the blue. And it’s not quite accurate that red states there ban same-sex unions, they only ban same-sex unions that are “substantially” like marriage or give “the rights of marriage” (in typical language). Those states could still pass CU’s for same-sex unions if they were substantially unlike marriage.
that there are only 26 red or orange states on that map. NC, FL, AZ, WY, and IN all “should” have gone that way at the height of legislative homophobia. Things seem to have settled down now, and while I don’t think that any now orange/red state will undo it’s actions any time soon, if they don’t spread and the purple and blue does spread a bit, we might see a slow cultural trend toward acceptance.
That’s putting a big hardship on thousands upon thousands of couples, needlessly. What is more important, getting equal protections now, or waiting for equal marriage?
You’re right of course, that at the national level, MA marriages, CUs and DPs are utterly worthless. However, for people that have them within the states where they are recognized, they are quite valuable for state and local purposes. They are also valuable while traveling abroad.
<
p>Another reason I list these states is because it would be false to send the message that there is no one in the USA who supports equality. Some don’t of course but, as you know from first hand experience in MA, many do.
What about my point that all the pushing for marriage equality in the US is having the reverse effect, making life significantly worse for same-sex couples and causing republicans to get elected?
<
p>We could have equal protections with CU’s, every candidate supports them, everyone in Congress is in favor of it, a majority of Americans support it, but for some reason it is being sabotaged by the very people that claim to want it most, because they demand marriage equality. Are you more interested in appearances and fantasy, like falsely claiming that the US and Massachusetts has equal marriage, than you are in real protections for real couples?
<
p>
You make a really amazing claim regarding CUs when you state that
every candidate supports them, everyone in Congress is in favor of it, a majority of Americans support it…
Care to back that up with anything concrete? Because what I hear from the mouths of Romney, Hunter, Huckabee etc. and numerous sitting members of congress is that they oppose CUs. You may also recall that MA state Sen Brian Lees ended up voting against his own CU “compromise” amendment. The reason he did so was that no gay person wanted to settle for less than equality, and no anti-gay cruisader could stomach the thought of anything even marginally looking like partner recognition for gay people. So in MA, few besides Bobby Travaglini and you, apparently, wanted CUs.
<
p>And as for this
Are you more interested in appearances and fantasy, like falsely claiming that the US and Massachusetts has equal marriage…
It is pretty clear in the list above that I say “MA only” in the USA listing. Please read it again. And p.s. MA does have marriage equality whether or not you recognize or approve of the fact.
The reality is that if you marry a person of the same sex in Mass, you have significantly less protection and none of the federal benefits that you would get if you marry a person of the other sex. Massachusetts isn’t a country, we aren’t Mass citizens.
<
p>Regarding support for CU’s, what I mean is they all support greater protections for same-sex couples. Yes, there are a few anti-gay crusaders who oppose “anything even marginally looking like partner recognition” and any government acceptance or approval of gay relationships at all, but I doubt we could find one in Congress, and we certainly can’t find one in the Presidential candidates, even though they all oppose SSM. The Dems all oppose marriage, but support CU’s that (presumably) give all the rights of marriage. They probably support the kind of CU that the Republicans all oppose. The Republicans oppose CU’s that are SSM in all but name. But they would support CU’s that weren’t equal to marriage.
<
p>Giullani is the perfect example of what I’m talking about. He supports CU’s, but opposed the NH CU’s because they were marriage in all but name.
<
p>Huckabee feels that legal protections are fine, and seems to have supported state CU’s for a while before clarifying that he opposes them because (lacking principled distinction) they are stepping stones to marriage. That appears to be the main reason he doesn’t support them, along with every state having to have different rules and confusion over how to recognize them.
And also
<
p>Romney is also opposed to CU’s, but he sees them as equivalent to marriage with a different name. He’s not opposed to protections for same-sex couples. Remember he opposed the 2002 amendment as “too extreme” because it would have prohibited CU’s.
<
p>And Bush is pro-CU.
<
p>The thing holding up progress on enacting CU’s, and the thing that might bring down the Democratic candidate that supports them, is that CU’s are seen as leading to marriage.
<
p>People should accept less than full equality with a person of the same sex, in order to get equal protections for same-sex relationships everywhere.
that all those repubican candidates supported protections for same-sex couples?! so, uh, link me to bills they’ve proposed to accomplish these protections. i’m particularly interested to see what lgbt-friendly legislation huckabee and romeny have in store for us. let me know if you have trouble getting the links to work, seeing as they have to connect with that alternate reality and all.
Laurel, in spite of your fantasies, there is not one Ayatollah or Phelps in the race, sorry if your fears are not “exquisite” enough for you. The fact is there is a great big middle where most people are, including the Republicans. They would support Civil Unions if they weren’t equal to marriage, if they weren’t stepping stones, if you weren’t demanding equal marriage rights. So would most people.
<
p>Why do you want to pretend there is no middle course, when it keeps people unprotected, it keeps them from getting benefits they deserve? Who are you to decide that equal marriage is more important than equal protections from CU’s?
We could have equal protections with CU’s,…
<
p>…is incorrect. For two reasons.
<
p>One, there are international treaties regarding marriage, none regarding CUs.
<
p>Two, the US federal government piggy-backs many rights onto state marriages, and it is very unclear whether that would extend to mmbers of a CU.
to deal with state CU’s as if they were marriages. I think it could be a really simple law that just said state CU’s (that meet certain requirements) are the equivalent of marriage for all federal purposes. Voila, it is made clear. That would be the whole point of pursuing a different path, to get federal recognition.
<
p>As to international recognition, there is no guarantee that another country would recognize a same-sex marriage anyhow. England, for example, treats a Mass same-sex marriage the same way it treats a Vermont Civil Union, they both become Civil Partnerships in England. They don’t treat the Mass marriage as a marriage and the Vermont CU as a CP
<
p> The new law, which brings Hungary more into line with E.U. standards for equality…
<
p>probably has a lot to do with it. I’m sufficiently unfamiliar with Magyars to know what Hungary would have done on its own, but it is clear that they want to be fully integrated into the EU, and this kind of thing is necessary for that to occur.