Same-sex marriage fails in NY State

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091202/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_newyork

New York's State Senate today voted down gay marriage in a big way. 38 to 24. That's no small defeat.

Am I right that gay marriage has passed every vote in a State legislature...except for New York?

New York is a pretty liberal state, so I am a little surprised that this measure failed..with such a margin.

More surprising, is that NYS does not have any domestic partnership law that gay marriage qualifies under. That means that not only can gays not marry, but they also have no way to even qualify for marriage-like rights and privelages (i.e. domestic partnership).

What does this say about the fight for same-sex marriage in the USA? Maybe too much..too soon?

:boggled::eye-poppi

[tyr_13]

I was going to start a thread on this too. It saddens me. I'm a New Yorker too, and I wanted legal gay marriage pretty badly. (Make Niagara the honeymoon capital again!)

New York isn't as liberal as it seems. Upstate is much, much further right than NYC. Believe me.

[Thunder]

New York isn't as liberal as it seems. Upstate is much, much further right than NYC. Believe me.

Don't forget our very Roman Catholic Irish and Hispanics..and our not soo liberal Orthodox Jews.

[Fnord]

I wonder ... are those same senators that voted down gay marriage also willing to pass legislation to prohibit divorce?

I mean, whatever reasons they may have had (i.e., "Sanctity of Marriage" or "Traditional Family Values"), might be just as readily applicable to keeping families together.

And before anyone starts blasting away at me, please understand that this is not my idea. It seems that a fellow named John Marcotte (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/john-marcotte-california_n_287796.html), a writer who runs the site BadMouth.net (http://www.badmouth.net/), is collecting signatures to get the "California Protection of Marriage Act (http://rescuemarriage.org/)" on the ballot. If passed divorce would be illegal in California.

What are the chances?

[KingMerv00]

OK New york, you lost your right to make fun of New Jersey.

[fullflavormenthol]

I wonder ... are those same senators that voted down gay marriage also willing to pass legislation to prohibit divorce?

I mean, whatever reasons they may have had (i.e., "Sanctity of Marriage" or "Traditional Family Values"), might be just as readily applicable to keeping families together.

And before anyone starts blasting away at me, please understand that this is not my idea. It seems that a fellow named John Marcotte (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/john-marcotte-california_n_287796.html), a writer who runs the site BadMouth.net (http://www.badmouth.net/), is collecting signatures to get the "California Protection of Marriage Act (http://rescuemarriage.org/)" on the ballot. If passed divorce would be illegal in California.

What are the chances?
I wasn't going to bash on you, because I had "LOL WUT?" moment when I heard about that legislators "Defense of Marriage Act".

I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing, but it is something that should make people really question if their opposition to gay marriage is really about the sanctity of the institution.

[Thunder]

OK New york, you lost your right to make fun of New Jersey.

New Jersey? The armpit of America?

Ohh..I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

:)

[BobTheDonkey]

New Jersey? The armpit of America?

Ohh..I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

:)

Yeah, I completely agree.

Dirty Jersey will forever live in infamy as the home of the homophiliac douche Jager-bombers.

I'd be surprised if gay marriage were passed in Jersey...those guys are even more afraid to admit their homosexual tendencies than the NY State Senate.

[Thunder]

Dirty Jersey will forever live in infamy as the home of the homophiliac douche Jager-bombers.


who?

:confused:

[BobTheDonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JMOh-cul6M

[NobleXenon54]

What is really pathetic was that only ONE senator spoke out against same-sex marriage, and it was a pretty bad reason not to legalize it. The other fourteen people who spoke out in favor used every great talking point. What was the outcome? Epic Fail. I guess the other 37 slimeballs, err senators who voted no but didn't speak didn't want to be on footage for future use?

[Thunder]

I am ALL for giving same-sex couple all the same rights and privaleges as straight couples.

however, i do believe that the legal status known as "marriage" should stay between a man and a woman.

no one has the "right" to a title. but they do have the right to be treated equally.

and that is all i am gonna say on this issue. :)

[Marquis de Carabas]

I bet opposite-sex marriages in NY fail more often.

[NobleXenon54]

Honestly though, they should do the Domestic Partnership Registry first, then marriage. Don't forget though, the Supreme Court of New York did rule a couple of days ago that same-sex marriages issued outside their state will be recognized as valid.

[Thunder]

Honestly though, they should do the Domestic Partnership Registry first,

yuppers.

baby steps folks. some things in the USA require baby steps.

how long did it take us to be comfortable with a black President?????

[NobleXenon54]

yuppers.

baby steps folks. some things in the USA require baby steps.

how long did it take us to be comfortable with a black President?????

That's how DC did it, and look at the first round of votes for it, nearly unanimous...

[Thunder]

That's how DC did it, and look at the first round of votes for it, nearly unanimous...

well, don't forget that gay marriage did easily sail through the NY State Assembly.

Its the Senate..that fails. The damn Senate!! I wonder if Chancellor Palpetine was involved?

KKH9SlrYp98&feature=related

[tyr_13]

Who could have known that the New York State Senate had a bunch of asshats on it?

Besides people who have been paid any attention at all or even being with ear shot of the news around them this year that is.

[BobTheDonkey]

It's pretty interesting that this happened in the middle of a budget crisis. The guys in Albany can't figure out how to keep the State afloat, but by God, gays can't marry!

I suppose it's petulant to point out that marriage is one thing that keeps our economy going - and allowing homosexual couples to marry could increase that revenue stream (license/filing fees, goods/services paid for, etc).

[Skeptic]

That's OK folks. Since the masses have voted the wrong way, I'm sure it's only a matter of time until some judge declares the ban on gay marriage in New York "unconstitutional".

[GreyICE]

New York State is liberal?

A 23 square mile island is not a state.

[KingMerv00]

That's OK folks. Since the masses have voted the wrong way, I'm sure it's only a matter of time until some judge declares the ban on gay marriage in New York "unconstitutional".

You do know that's how constitutional review works, right?

You seem to be in favor American democracy but opposed to American democracy.

[Skeptic]

You do know that's how constitutional review works, right?

Yes, I know. Only that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, of course. There is a rather annoying tendency to take every currently popular scheme and magically declare it a "constitutional right". But saying doesn't make it so.

[Redtail]

Yes, I know. Only that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, of course. There is a rather annoying tendency to take every currently popular scheme and magically declare it a "constitutional right". But saying doesn't make it so.

Is there a constitutional right to marriage?

[KingMerv00]

Yes, I know. Only that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, of course.

Just to be clear, there is no explicit right to marriage in the US constitution for ANYONE.

Marriage is a contract recognized by state law. The laws are applied differently based on the gender of those in the contract without rational cause. Therefore, it is gender discrimination. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

[KingMerv00]

Is there a constitutional right to marriage?

Not explicitly, but the Supreme Court declared it a right in Loving v. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision).


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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.

[Redtail]

Not explicitly but the Supreme Court declared it a right in Loving v. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision).



;) That was my point.

ETA: Wait, let me 'slpain.
The courts decided that, not a popular vote. Many said... well, the arguments sounded very similar. As for the decision....

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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.I have yet to find a good reason why "race/racial" in the above should not be replaced with "sex/sexual".

Ok, in the last bit it would have to read "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." but there you go.

[Robin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091202/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_newyork

New York's State Senate today voted down gay marriage in a big way. 38 to 24. That's no small defeat.

Am I right that gay marriage has passed every vote in a State legislature...except for New York?

New York is a pretty liberal state, so I am a little surprised that this measure failed..with such a margin.

More surprising, is that NYS does not have any domestic partnership law that gay marriage qualifies under. That means that not only can gays not marry, but they also have no way to even qualify for marriage-like rights and privelages (i.e. domestic partnership).

What does this say about the fight for same-sex marriage in the USA? Maybe too much..too soon?

:boggled::eye-poppi
Which means that gay marriage goes on as normal, but the government choose to be in denial of the fact.

[BobTheDonkey]

;) That was my point.

ETA: Wait, let me 'slpain.
The courts decided that, not a popular vote. Many said... well, the arguments sounded very similar. As for the decision....

I have yet to find a good reason why "race/racial" in the above should not be replaced with "sex/sexual".

Ok, in the last bit it would have to read "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." but there you go.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'd think that about covers it :)

[Skeptic]

Just to be clear, there is no explicit right to marriage in the US constitution for ANYONE.

In which case there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, either.

The "but it's discrimination" issue is merely a smokescreen. One might as well claim that a Jew cannot be the official chaplain of Congress.

[Skeptic]

Am I right that gay marriage has passed every vote in a State legislature...except for New York?

The opposite. Gay marriage had failed in every state it was tried, from California to Maine, and now in New York. I know, I know -- this just means the people are backward and stupid and must be shown the light, but still, that is the situation. Where there is gay marriage, it is strictly due to the courts deciding it must be so.

[Redtail]

In which case there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, either.

The "but it's discrimination" issue is merely a smokescreen. One might as well claim that a Jew cannot be the official chaplain of Congress.

What?

ETA:
The opposite. Gay marriage had failed in every state it was tried, from California to Maine, and now in New York. I know, I know -- this just means the people are backward and stupid and must be shown the light, but still, that is the situation. Where there is gay marriage, it is strictly due to the courts deciding it must be so.

And the reason I'm allowed to be married to my wife is because a court decided it.

[BobTheDonkey]

In which case there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, either.

The "but it's discrimination" issue is merely a smokescreen. One might as well claim that a Jew cannot be the official chaplain of Congress.

So, you're saying it's not discrimination?

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing legally keeping a Jew (specifically) from being Chaplain of Congress. Were there a law stating that only Protestant Ministers/Catholic Priests/etc could be or a law stating specifically that a Jew cannot be, that would be a violation of that whole "Congress shall make no law..." bit.

Slight difference here is that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress is prohibited from making laws respecting the establishment of marriage, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

[BobTheDonkey]

The opposite. Gay marriage had failed in every state it was tried, from California to Maine, and now in New York. I know, I know -- this just means the people are backward and stupid and must be shown the light, but still, that is the situation. Where there is gay marriage, it is strictly due to the courts deciding it must be so.

And rightfully so. Check my previous quote of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The opposite. Gay marriage had failed in every state it was tried, from California to Maine, and now in New York. I know, I know -- this just means the people are backward and stupid and must be shown the light, but still, that is the situation. Where there is gay marriage, it is strictly due to the courts deciding it must be so.

Vermont.

And as to people saying they should have gone with X version first, I disagree. Firstly, The Gay Agenda don't have that power. Multiple senators will send multiple union bills to different committees. Most of the time they just stagnate there until they die a lonely, vote-less death.

Secondly, it is good to get people on the record.

[Fishstick]

The opposite. Gay marriage had failed in every state it was tried, from California to Maine, and now in New York. I know, I know -- this just means the people are backward and stupid and must be shown the light, but still, that is the situation. Where there is gay marriage, it is strictly due to the courts deciding it must be so.

So other than "but the constitution!" what are the actual reasons not to have gay marriage that you support?

[BobTheDonkey]

So other than "but the constitution!" what are the actual reasons not to have gay marriage that you support?

I'm going with "Aristotle wouldn't believe homosexuality is manly" (pulling from the "Hitting a Woman" thread)

or

It's icky.

[TragicMonkey]

I am ALL for giving same-sex couple all the same rights and privaleges as straight couples.

however, i do believe that the legal status known as "marriage" should stay between a man and a woman.

no one has the "right" to a title.

Seems to me you think that straight couples not only have "right" to the title "marriage", but they have exclusive intellectual property rights over that title.

If same-sex relationships don't bother you, then what's your justification for reserving the word "marriage" to different-sex relationships? Dedication to linguistic tradition? Trademark concerns?

I can understand the people who are completely opposed to gay marriage because they don't like the gays, and I can understand the people who believe gays can't maintain a stable relationship (guess what--the straights can't do it either), but not the people who say they're for the relationships as long as they're called something different. What's the point of that? Is what something's called more important than what it is? That seems....well, irrational.

[ponderingturtle]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091202/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_newyork

New York's State Senate today voted down gay marriage in a big way. 38 to 24. That's no small defeat.

Am I right that gay marriage has passed every vote in a State legislature...except for New York?

Well this is more a question of if they will let it come to a vote with out enough support to know it will pass. Given the number of states that had laws and amendments against gay marriage, they should count as not passing a gay marriage into law I would think.

New York is a pretty liberal state, so I am a little surprised that this measure failed..with such a margin.

More surprising, is that NYS does not have any domestic partnership law that gay marriage qualifies under. That means that not only can gays not marry, but they also have no way to even qualify for marriage-like rights and privelages (i.e. domestic partnership).

Well unless they say get hitched in Canada or Connecticut, then they are considered legally married by NYS.

[ponderingturtle]

I am ALL for giving same-sex couple all the same rights and privaleges as straight couples.

however, i do believe that the legal status known as "marriage" should stay between a man and a woman.

Yea seperate but equal works so well. Think of the forms that will now become clear indicators of sexual preferance with the question

Married {}
Single {}
Partnered {}

It is vitaly important that everyone know someones sexual preference when they say go to the hospital. Or you could be like britian who is doing the whole seperate but equal thing and just not have a place for domestic partners on many of the forms.

And look at the fun when you get arguments "hey we only want married couples, we are discriminating on if someone is married or not, not their sexuality"

Creating parrelel legal institutions is rife for there to be all sorts of subtle discrimination in treating the institutions slightly differently.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, I know. Only that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, of course. There is a rather annoying tendency to take every currently popular scheme and magically declare it a "constitutional right". But saying doesn't make it so.

Yea, damn civil rights. Why didn't they leave it up to popular referendum in the past anyway?

[ponderingturtle]

The opposite. Gay marriage had failed in every state it was tried, from California to Maine, and now in New York.

Well except for say Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Holland, Canada...

[ponderingturtle]

And the reason I'm allowed to be married to my wife is because a court decided it.

And clearly that was a bad decision and it should have been left to popular referendum. Just listen to the rhetoric.

[Fishstick]

Well except for say Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Holland, Canada...

Ironically Massachusetts is also the state with the lowest divorce rate.

[KingMerv00]

The "but it's discrimination" issue is merely a smokescreen. One might as well claim that a Jew cannot be the official chaplain of Congress.

Religion is a "bona fide occupational qualification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications)" to be a chaplain so I have no objection to "discrimination" in such a case.

One example of bona fide occupational qualifications are mandatory retirement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_retirement) ages for bus drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_driver) and airline pilots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_pilot), for safety reasons. Further, in advertising, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models. Religious belief may also be considered a BFOQ; for example, a church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_(building)) may lawfully require that members of its clergy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy) be members of that denomination, and may lawfully bar, from employment, anyone who is not a member.

Wanna try again?

[KingMerv00]

I am ALL for giving same-sex couple all the same rights and privaleges as straight couples.

however, i do believe that the legal status known as "marriage" should stay between a man and a woman.

no one has the "right" to a title. but they do have the right to be treated equally.

So being "treated equally" means being treated differently?

[GreyICE]

Seriously, what the hell happened to history classes?

Does no one remember the phrase 'Separate but Equal?'

[Thunder]

So being "treated equally" means being treated differently?

no....i said they should be treated equally. same rights and privelages as married couples.

[ponderingturtle]

no....i said they should be treated equally. same rights and privelages as married couples.

Of course it raising fun issues for trans and intersex individuals as well, as now they have do decide if marriage applys to them or they are civil unioned.

[DDWW]

The really sad news is that this vote not only is a slap in the face of the civil rights of gays & lesbians but will also set back the civil rights of the cross-species marriage rights groups, the civil rights of marriage to children groups, multiple wives and/or husbands (or both for cross gender people) groups…the list goes on and on…..what a rotten country we are. Denying all those civil rights!

DD (I think I'll just cry now) WW

[KingMerv00]

no....i said they should be treated equally. same rights and privelages as married couples.

If they are so identical, why not call it "marriage"?

[Thunder]

If they are so identical, why not call it "marriage"?

:D;):):p

[KingMerv00]

:D;):):p

I don't get it. Were you kidding before are you unwilling to answer?

[Fnord]

New Jersey? The armpit of America?

I think Gary, Indiana has copyright to that title ... ;)

[marksman]

I know it's nice to imagine that everyone in NYC voted for gay marriage and all the redneck upstaters voted against it. Of the senators who voted against it (http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/api/html/bill/S66003), here are the ones from NYC:
ADDABBO: Brooklyn
DIAZ: Bronx
GOLDEN: Brooklyn
HUNTLEY: Queens
KRUGER: Brooklyn
LANZA: Staten Island
MONSERRATE: Queens (also one of the two "defectors" in the recent brouhouha)
ONORATO: Queens
PADAVAN: Bronx/Queens

Basically, every borough in the city except Manhattan. (Happily, my State Senator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, of Westchester County, was one of the upstate senators who voted for it.)

[GreyICE]

I know it's nice to imagine that everyone in NYC voted for gay marriage and all the redneck upstaters voted against it. Of the senators who voted against it (http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/api/html/bill/S66003), here are the ones from NYC:
ADDABBO: Brooklyn
DIAZ: Bronx
GOLDEN: Brooklyn
HUNTLEY: Queens
KRUGER: Brooklyn
LANZA: Staten Island
MONSERRATE: Queens (also one of the two "defectors" in the recent brouhouha)
ONORATO: Queens
PADAVAN: Bronx/Queens

Basically, every borough in the city except Manhattan. (Happily, my State Senator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, of Westchester County, was one of the upstate senators who voted for it.)
Upstate is not a bunch of redneck hicks. That being said, it tends to be dramatically more conservative than Manhattan.

Manhattan is one part of the largest city in America, but people tend to think of it as the entire thing.

[marksman]

I agree. NYC is decidedly more left-leaning than, say, Erie County. But it's not uniform. And had NYC been a monolith of liberalism, we'd have gay marriage in NY, no matter what the upstaters who voted against it thought.

[Undesired Walrus]

no....i said they should be treated equally. same rights and privelages as married couples.

So why not go the extra yard and have it recognised as a marriage?

[tyr_13]

I agree. NYC is decidedly more left-leaning than, say, Erie County. But it's not uniform. And had NYC been a monolith of liberalism, we'd have gay marriage in NY, no matter what the upstaters who voted against it thought.

This last part is true.

The first part is just nonsesne. Erie county doesn't count for anything because they are ******* crazy. :D

[kuroyume0161]

The really sad news is that this vote not only is a slap in the face of the civil rights of gays & lesbians but will also set back the civil rights of the cross-species marriage rights groups, the civil rights of marriage to children groups, multiple wives and/or husbands (or both for cross gender people) groups…the list goes on and on…..what a rotten country we are. Denying all those civil rights!

Slippery slope argumentation. Children have protections and are not considered 'consenting'. Same for animals (how do you determine if an animal has consented let alone can consent?). On the other hand, rails against polygamy are just as stupid. They are more about tradition than anything. If one person can support and maintain multiple partners so be it.

[ponderingturtle]

Slippery slope argumentation. Children have protections and are not considered 'consenting'. Same for animals (how do you determine if an animal has consented let alone can consent?). On the other hand, rails against polygamy are just as stupid. They are more about tradition than anything. If one person can support and maintain multiple partners so be it.

Well polygamy also raises a lot of issues on how marriage laws should be changed to recognize multiple spouces. Legalizing polygamy would be a very complicated legal question, and it might well change what rights are granted to binary marriages unlike gay marriage which will have no effect on straight marriage.

[Praktik]

What's next, I say, if they allow gay marriage.

Allowing people to marry videogame characters?? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10404956-71.html)

[Skeptic]

The really sad news is that this vote not only is a slap in the face of the civil rights of gays & lesbians but will also set back the civil rights of the cross-species marriage rights groups, the civil rights of marriage to children groups, multiple wives and/or husbands (or both for cross gender people) groups…the list goes on and on…..what a rotten country we are. Denying all those civil rights!

While this post is sarcastic, please, someone, explain to me: if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why not polygamy? If the sex of the partners in a marriage is as irrelevant as their race, so should their number be.

Note that this is not a slippery slop argument. A slippery slope argument means that if people recognize gay marriage they will have to recognize polygamy. This is not true if the recognition is by the public, not the courts: because the public has the right to recognize one union as marriages and others not. The public can, quite legitimately, recognize gay marriage and not polygamy, for example.

My argument here is different: if gay marriage is a right, polygamy is a right by the very same argument. So, for that matter, should the "temporary marriages" recognized in Islam as a justification of prostitution: if sex and number of partners doesn't void their right to marriage, neither should the length of the marriage. De facto, recognizing gay marriage as a "constitutional right" would mean that any union whatever must be recognize as marriage. But when everything is a marriage, nothing is.

For this reason, while the fight of some gay groups to convince the public that their union should be recognized is marriage is NOT a fight against marriage, the fight of others to convince the courts that gay marriage is a "constitutional right" is, indeed, de facto a call for the elimination of marriage.

[Skeptic]

What's next, I say, if they allow gay marriage.

Allowing people to marry videogame characters?? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10404956-71.html)

His parents must be so proud.

[Praktik]

And I'll just say, gay New Yorkers - move to Toronto. You'll find one of the most vibrant cities for gay culture in the world, we won the bid to host World Pride 2014 (http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4723&MediaType=1&Category=24), you can get married here, and since gays are generally higher earners and more well-educated we'd be happy to benefit from your skills.

we all know what happened when the Nazis discriminated against jews - another high-earning, well educated group - the rest of the world that had no problem with them benefitted enormously from what they brought to the table.

Let's start a "Gay Brain Drain" northwards!

[Cainkane1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091202/ts_nm/us_gaymarriage_newyork

New York's State Senate today voted down gay marriage in a big way. 38 to 24. That's no small defeat.

Am I right that gay marriage has passed every vote in a State legislature...except for New York?

New York is a pretty liberal state, so I am a little surprised that this measure failed..with such a margin.

More surprising, is that NYS does not have any domestic partnership law that gay marriage qualifies under. That means that not only can gays not marry, but they also have no way to even qualify for marriage-like rights and privelages (i.e. domestic partnership).

What does this say about the fight for same-sex marriage in the USA? Maybe too much..too soon?

:boggled::eye-poppi
georgia USA has a state constitutional amendment forbidding the marriage of same sex couples.

[ponderingturtle]

While this post is sarcastic, please, someone, explain to me: if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why not polygamy? If the sex of the partners in a marriage is as irrelevant as their race, so should their number be.

Because sex is a protected class against discrimination but number of people is not a protected class at all. As this is about samessex marriage you can see that it is about discriminating based on the sex of those involved.

So from a legal stand point they are not similar at all. And I know this has been explained here many times/

My argument here is different: if gay marriage is a right, polygamy is a right by the very same argument.

Not really. There are many arguments for them both that are the same but same sex marriage does nothing to effect already existing marriages, rewriting marriage laws and regulations so that they make sense for more than two people in a marriage or a person being in more than one marriage at a time could well effect existing marriages.

So while I am broadly in favor that people in poly relationships should have some legal means of having their relationship recognised it is not something that marriage as it is legaly defined now can streatch to with out changing its legal framework.

As marriage is between two equal people, there are not laws or regulations that define marriage that need to change to premit same sex marriage, they just need to let them get married. Now if this was real traditional marriage where only husbands owned property and such, then it would be an agrument against gay marriage. But once women got equal rights and are recognised as equal under the law, no laws need to be changed that relate to marraige other than a law preventing marriage between people of the same sex.

For this reason, while the fight of some gay groups to convince the public that their union should be recognized is marriage is NOT a fight against marriage, the fight of others to convince the courts that gay marriage is a "constitutional right" is, indeed, de facto a call for the elimination of marriage.

People call for a lot of things. The only one of those that has any real support is allowing people to marry with out discriminating based on the sex of the person they want to marry.

[Praktik]

Oh man you wouldn't believe the carnival we have up here in Canada, where allowing gay marriage has Destroyed the Canadian Family and we have all sorts of crazy stuff happening like people marrying ducks and people marrying 13 wives...

oh wait

no Im wrong that was a fanciful dream I had.

none of that is happening here.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh man you wouldn't believe the carnival we have up here in Canada, where allowing gay marriage has Destroyed the Canadian Family and we have all sorts of crazy stuff happening like people marrying ducks and people marrying 13 wives...

oh wait

no Im wrong that was a fanciful dream I had.

none of that is happening here.

Well you gay marrying folks do have those of us in NY almost surrounded. If you get pensulvania on your side NY will be totaly surounded by gay marrying states and nations.

[Praktik]

Ya I guess the biggest damage was to my parent's heterosexual marriage.

After the gays were married they suffered irreparable harm.

oh wait

that was another dream

carry on

[AvalonXQ]

What's the point of that? Is what something's called more important than what it is? That seems....well, irrational.

And yet we have the opposition to Prop 8 getting violent when it passes in California. Clearly somebody thinks the name matters.

[KingMerv00]

The really sad news is that this vote not only is a slap in the face of the civil rights of gays & lesbians but will also set back the civil rights of the cross-species marriage rights groups, the civil rights of marriage to children groups, multiple wives and/or husbands (or both for cross gender people) groups…the list goes on and on…..what a rotten country we are. Denying all those civil rights!

DD (I think I'll just cry now) WW

I didn't know people were still using that straw man. Thanks for the the blast of nostalgia.

[AvalonXQ]

I didn't know people were still using that straw man. Thanks for the the blast of nostalgia.

I think it's a slippery-slope argument, not a straw man.

[Praktik]

ya, "dumbass" argument also comes to mind

[Skeptic]

Because sex is a protected class against discrimination but number of people is not a protected class at all.

Yet.

As marriage is between two equal people,

Why two? Why not three of seventeen?

If the sex of the partners doesn't matter, neither should the number.

[AvalonXQ]

Well except for say Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Holland, Canada...

Just Vermont. MA and CT are both the result of court decisions.

[AvalonXQ]

If the sex of the partners doesn't matter, neither should the number.

I entirely agree. There's no legitimate reason to disallow polygamy in the 21st Century.

[GreyICE]

Yet.



Why two? Why not three of seventeen?

If the sex of the partners doesn't matter, neither should the number.

And if the sex of the partners does matter, so should the race.

[AvalonXQ]

And if the sex of the partners does matter, so should the race.

I agree -- humans should only be allowed to marry other humans, not members of races other than the human race.
If you can prove, biologically, that any two humans are actually of different races, then we'll talk.

[Praktik]

Remember when the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down and legalized polygamy followed, just as we were warned?? (http://lists.powerblogs.com/pipermail/volokh/2008-May/012966.html)

[ponderingturtle]

Yet.

Never. Number of people is not a protected class and makes no sense as a protected class.

Should a hotel be forced to let say 50 people sleep in the room? After all if they let 2 people they should have to let 50, or else they will be discriminating based on number.

Why two? Why not three of seventeen?

Because the laws are set up for two, not any number of people. The laws do not currently differentiate husbands from wives, they just make it illegal for people of the same sex to get married.

If the sex of the partners doesn't matter, neither should the number.

And you can feel that way, but the legal arguments are nothing alike. I could just as easily say "If the race doesn't matter then neither should the sex". This is actualy a fairly good argument as both race and sex unlike number are protected classes.

[ponderingturtle]

I entirely agree. There's no legitimate reason to disallow polygamy in the 21st Century.

I agree in principle, but recognise that in practice the legal issues of gay marriage are no different from straight. The legal issues of poly marriage are very different from the legal issues of binary marriage

This is not an unsolveable problem, but it is not as legaly easy as same sex marriage. In same sex marriage we don't have to figure out what it would mean for them to be married. With polygamy we need to ask a lot of questions about what being polygamous means legaly.

For starters is it multiple people in one marriage, letting one person be in multiple marriages or both?

So same sex marriage really is much simpler legaly than polymarriage.

[babbits]

I think all marriage should be disallowed, EXCEPT for people who have produced children or who plan to have or adopt children (if they're qualified to adopt).

Marriage should be to create a climate for the nurturing of children. It's not about people's egos, or pension rights, or any such selfish nonsense.

How many divorcing couples are so self-centered that they will split up for no good reason, just because they want to change spouses, or have got caught in adultery, or some such evidence of immaturity? And then 'use' the kids to hurt each other? Women who say, "you'll never see your child again"? Men who don't pay child support, and insist on seeing their children each weekend but then never show up? Just do it so their ex-wives have to stay home with the children, waiting for a guy who doesn't show?

Having children should be a privilege.

[ponderingturtle]

I think all marriage should be disallowed, EXCEPT for people who have produced children or who plan to have or adopt children (if they're qualified to adopt).

Marriage should be to create a climate for the nurturing of children. It's not about people's egos, or pension rights, or any such selfish nonsense.

How many divorcing couples are so self-centered that they will split up for no good reason, just because they want to change spouses, or have got caught in adultery, or some such evidence of immaturity? And then 'use' the kids to hurt each other? Women who say, "you'll never see your child again"? Men who don't pay child support, and insist on seeing their children each weekend but then never show up? Just do it so their ex-wives have to stay home with the children, waiting for a guy who doesn't show?

Having children should be a privilege.

Chastity belts for everyone.

ETA:
The problem with this is that there are lots of things that marriage is the only way to do that have nothing to do with children. Do you honnestly think that a couple who don't have kids should be treated as roommates forever and that their parents are considered to be those closest to them?

Marriage as it stands now, as defined by how it is treated in law and regulation, has very very little to do with children. It is about family sure, as it is the only way to give a spouce legal standing to say sue for wrongful death.

[tyr_13]

Won't someone think about the children?

[Safe-Keeper]

While this post is sarcastic, please, someone, explain to me: if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why not polygamy? If the sex of the partners in a marriage is as irrelevant as their race, so should their number be.

Note that this is not a slippery slop argument.You're correct, sir, it isn't. It's equivocation of two completely different issues.

It's like me saying that people hailing from Israel shouldn't be allowed to vote, because if they are, then kids will have to be allowed to vote, too, and I will have to be allowed to vote for several candidates at once.

Or that you can't eat cheese, because if you are allowed to eat cheese, then by the very same argument, I have to be allowed to eat my neighbour's kidnapped dog.

Marriage between two people and polygamy are different things, with different inherent issues.

What's next, I say, if they allow gay marriage.What's next, I say, if we allow Negroes to vote. Next people will be asking to marry their sister's 5 year old foster children.

I didn't know people were still using that straw man. Thanks for the the blast of nostalgia. It's actually hugely useful as it says novels about their underlying world view and maturity. To actually make the argument that if one allows gay marriage, one also has to allow adults to marry kids, then one must have the mindset that consenting sex between adults is as bad as a kid having his or her life ruined by sexual abuse. In other words, in the eyes of these people, if you have sex with another man or woman, you're on the same level as a paedophile abusing children.

To lurkers wondering whom they should pay the most attention to, such ridiculous equivocation is highly useful.

[KingMerv00]

I think it's a slippery-slope argument, not a straw man.

I see it as a bit of both. He thinks our position excludes informed consent when that's clearly not the case.

Why two? Why not three of seventeen?

If the sex of the partners doesn't matter, neither should the number.

I have no moral objection to poly marriage but without a major overhaul in marriage law, it doesn't allow for EQUAL protection under, it allows for EXTRA protection.

For example, spousal privilege can prevent your husband/wife from testifying against you in court. If you have multiple spouses, you get multiple chances to exclude evidence from a criminal trial where a "typical" couple would not.

[marksman]

This last part is true.

The first part is just nonsesne. Erie county doesn't count for anything because they are ******* crazy. :D

That's not fair. One of the four Senators from Erie County voted in favor of gay marriage! So they're only 75% crazy. ;)

What surprises me is that Niagara County's senator voted against it. I mean if anyplace in New York should be in favor of more people getting married, it should be the Falls!

[tyr_13]

That's not fair. One of the four Senators from Erie County voted in favor of gay marriage! So they're only 75% crazy. ;)

What surprises me is that Niagara County's senator voted against it. I mean if anyplace in New York should be in favor of more people getting married, it should be the Falls!

Really? I'm actually surprised on both accounts.

I imagine my own Senator (from Chautauqua county) voted against it as well.

[marksman]

Your Senator is Catherine Young, and her district encompasses Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegheny Counties. And, yes, she voted against it.

By the way, Mrs. marksman and I drove through Chautauqua last summer and stayed in a lovely little inn somewhere between Jamestown and Salamanca. Beautiful country!

[Fnord]

Manhattan is one part of the largest city in America, but people tend to think of it as the entire thing.

I've noticed the same issue with other groups -- they believe that (1) they are the best there is, (2) that everybody else wants to be like them, and (3) that anyone who does not want to be like them is either a threat or they don't really matter at all.

California liberals ... American auto manufacturers ... Fundamental Religionists ... New York liberals ... Unionists ... the list goes on.

[linusrichard]

While this post is sarcastic, please, someone, explain to me: if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why not polygamy? If the sex of the partners in a marriage is as irrelevant as their race, so should their number be.
Why do you ask this question? This has been hashed out on other threads. If you didn't get it before, what makes you think you'll get it now?

Okay, fine. First of all, the question is framed backwards. The question is not "if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why not polygamy?" The question is: if sex discrimination in marriage rights violates the constitution, why doesn't number discrimination?

Second of all, it is not up to the opponents of sex discrimination in marriage rights to defend number discrimination. It is up to the opponents of polygamy to justify that discrimination. I don't have a dog in the polygamy fight, so it's not my job to say why such discrimination is or is not constitutional. If you don't like polygamy, you tell me why the state has a legitimate interest in outlawing it. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Third, there are some very good arguments against plural marriage. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not saying those arguments should or should not carry the day. I'm just saying they're there, and they're good arguments. Marriage is set up in our society to be a relationship between two people. I hear you now: it's also set up to be a man and a woman. But legally, it's just not. There are no laws I can think of that would cause a problematic situation if two men or two women were married. There is only one law I can think of that even depends on the genders of the married partners. But there are many, many, many laws that depend on the number of married partners, and they all require exactly two. For examples: if I die without a will, a certain amount of my property will go to my wife by operation of law. If my wife were a man, there would be no complication - it would go to her him. But if I have three wives, how does that work? Do they all get that portion - no, that adds up to more than 100%. Do they all get an equal share of that portion? That's not very much apiece. What happens? If I file a joint tax return, there's a spot for me and a spot for my wife. If my wife were my husband, I could put him in there. If my wife were two wives, what would I do? If I marry one woman, and then want to marry another, do I have to get the permission of the first one? Do I have to inform the second one that I'm already married? Are the first and second one then married to each other, or only to me? What if the first one wants to marry another man? Am I married to him? Is my second wife married to him? What about divorce - if I, my first wife, and my second wife are all married to each other, and then they get divorced, where does that leave me? And where do we spend Thanksgiving?!?!
Note that this is not a slippery slop argument. A slippery slope argument means that if people recognize gay marriage they will have to recognize polygamy. This is not true if the recognition is by the public, not the courts: because the public has the right to recognize one union as marriages and others not. The public can, quite legitimately, recognize gay marriage and not polygamy, for example.

My argument here is different: if gay marriage is a right, polygamy is a right by the very same argument.
Not at all, and the fact that you say this shows that you don't understand what the argument is. If the argument for gay marriage were "government should have no say in restricting who can marry," then you'd have an excellent point - well, a decent one, anyway. And maybe you can find some people making that argument, and you can try this point out on them. The actual argument is that in order for the state (and now we're talking about the US specifically) to discriminate on the basis of sex, it has to have an important interest, and the discrimination has to be substantially related to the important interest. That's basic Con Law. Note that this argument has nothing at all to do with bans on polygamy, which are not sex-based discrimination.
So, for that matter, should the "temporary marriages" recognized in Islam as a justification of prostitution: if sex and number of partners doesn't void their right to marriage, neither should the length of the marriage.
And again, since the argument is that the state cannot justify its sex-based discrimination, arguments about temporary marriages are irrelevant.
De facto, recognizing gay marriage as a "constitutional right" would mean that any union whatever must be recognize as marriage. But when everything is a marriage, nothing is.
Not that it matters, but do you have a justification for that statement?

Anyway, when you find someone arguing that "everything" should be a marriage (and I'm sure there are some out there), you give them this argument, and give it to them good. When serious people debate the topic, however, you need a serious argument.
For this reason, while the fight of some gay groups to convince the public that their union should be recognized is marriage is NOT a fight against marriage, the fight of others to convince the courts that gay marriage is a "constitutional right" is, indeed, de facto a call for the elimination of marriage.
This is of course pure silliness. I won't waste my time explaining: if you read and understand what I've already written, you'll understand why, and if you don't, then, why bother?

I note that, like most arguments against gay marriage, this argument could have been (and probably was) deployed by the opponents of mixed-race marriage way back when. Which makes me wonder: do you think those who were arguing that mixed-race marriage should be legalized back then were making a de facto call for the elimination of marriage? Or what is the difference?

[tyr_13]

Your Senator is Catherine Young, and her district encompasses Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegheny Counties. And, yes, she voted against it.

By the way, Mrs. marksman and I drove through Chautauqua last summer and stayed in a lovely little inn somewhere between Jamestown and Salamanca. Beautiful country!

Yeah, I know who she is, and have personally spoken with her before a few years ago. I figured that she did vote against it. There is a pretty big religious block in Jamestown and all of Cattaraugus. Now I get to write another disapproving letter to her office.

And thank you. It's actually pretty amazingly beautiful around here, and there are plenty of interesting places along the I-86 corridor. That little inn wouldn't have happened to be the Seneca Allegany Casino would it? :p

[NobleXenon54]

The opposite. Gay marriage had failed in every state it was tried, from California to Maine, and now in New York. Where there is gay marriage, it is strictly due to the courts deciding it must be so.

Same-Sex Marriage Voted Successfully Via Legislature:

New Hampshire
Washington DC
Vermont
California (Vetoed)
Maine (Vetoed)

Same-Sex Marriage Via "Judicial Activism":

Connecticut
Massachusetts
Iowa
California (Overturned)



Seems like the legislature list is bigger than the courts...

[fullflavormenthol]

Here is my thing. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man if I am in love with him?

Seriously...give me one good reason.

[BobTheDonkey]

Here is my thing. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man if I am in love with him?

Seriously...give me one good reason.

You mean "It makes me feel icky/uncomfortable" isn't a good reason?

[kuroyume0161]

Here is my thing. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man if I am in love with him?

Seriously...give me one good reason.

Because it's wrong, wrong, wrong. And it's icky. And it goes against nature. And god said it was wrong (somewhere, if you interpretate it correctly). ;)

Any of those work for you? :D

[BardKesnit]

Religion is a "bona fide occupational qualification" to be a chaplain so I have no objection to "discrimination" in such a case.

One example of bona fide occupational qualifications are mandatory retirement ages for bus drivers and airline pilots, for safety reasons. Further, in advertising, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models. Religious belief may also be considered a BFOQ; for example, a church may lawfully require that members of its clergy be members of that denomination, and may lawfully bar, from employment, anyone who is not a member.

Wanna try again?

Chaplain does not mean a certain religion. It only means someone is an ordained member of the clergy. The US military chaplain corps have Christians, Jews, and Muslims that I know about for sure. Probably more.

[Skeptic]

Never. Number of people is not a protected class and makes no sense as a protected class.

Neither does gay marriage make sense... but that doesn't stop people from promoting it as a right.

In any case, whatever rights people have surely are an objective thing, and do not depend on the current legal definition of a "protected class". So again: why are you saying that marriage is between two people? If three or seventeen people love each other, who are you to deny their rights?!

Oh, and we should get rid of anti-incest law. If a father and his (adult) daughter, and his son for that matter, want to live in a menage a trois, who is to say it's not a loving family?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Here is my thing. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man if I am in love with him?
Well, if you're that eager to just present your thing to any and all, perhaps you're not ready for the commitment.

[KingMerv00]

Neither does gay marriage make sense... but that doesn't stop people from promoting it as a right.

In any case, whatever rights people have surely are an objective thing, and do not depend on the current legal definition of a "protected class". So again: why are you saying that marriage is between two people? If three or seventeen people love each other, who are you to deny their rights?!

Whoops. Guess you skipped my post. (On my birthday no less. Shame on you.)


I have no moral objection to poly marriage but without a major overhaul in marriage law, it doesn't allow for EQUAL protection under the law, it allows for EXTRA protection under the law.

For example, spousal privilege can prevent your husband/wife from testifying against you in court. If you have multiple spouses, you get multiple chances to exclude evidence from a criminal trial where a "typical" couple would not.

[KingMerv00]

Here is my thing. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man if I am in love with him?

Seriously...give me one good reason.

Because he leaves the toilet seat...half down?

[KingMerv00]

Chaplain does not mean a certain religion. It only means someone is an ordained member of the clergy. The US military chaplain corps have Christians, Jews, and Muslims that I know about for sure. Probably more.

Yes I know that but I refuse to get bogged down in semantics with Skeptic.

Edit: Or anyone for that matter.

[Fishstick]

Neither does gay marriage make sense... but that doesn't stop people from promoting it as a right.

In any case, whatever rights people have surely are an objective thing, and do not depend on the current legal definition of a "protected class". So again: why are you saying that marriage is between two people? If three or seventeen people love each other, who are you to deny their rights?!

Oh, and we should get rid of anti-incest law. If a father and his (adult) daughter, and his son for that matter, want to live in a menage a trois, who is to say it's not a loving family?
Why are you bringing completely different laws like incest into this and polygamy? Is it because you can't find a good reason to defend prohibiting same-sex marriage other than your personal feelings? Sooner or later you're going to run out of ways to present your slippery slope arguments.

[Eyeron]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

[linusrichard]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Exactly what I said when they proposed letting Jews move into my neighborhood, and blacks golf at my country club, but it availed me not at all.

[Belz...]

While this post is sarcastic, please, someone, explain to me: if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why not polygamy? If the sex of the partners in a marriage is as irrelevant as their race, so should their number be.

I've nothing against polygamy, though I suspect the financial aspects of such a marriage would be complicated to manage during a divorce.

[AvalonXQ]

Here is my thing. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a man if I am in love with him?

Seriously...give me one good reason.

Because that's not what "marriage" means.
I think cakes are delicious, and I love cherry. Why shouldn't I be able to bake a cake by filling a flaky pie crust with cherry pie filling? Not because there's anything wrong with my dessert, but because what I'm doing isn't baking a cake. It's baking a pie.
Whether or not you should be allowed to make a commitment to live with someone of your own gender is a separate question from whether it should be called "marriage" when you do.

[DDWW]

OK, Allow gay marriage, just call it something else. Let’s call it “garriage.” Could start a whole new industry with issuing garriage licenses, garriage greeting cards, and specialist garriage planners. Garried people would have the same rights as married people.

The religious/traditionalist people could not complain that the traditional meaning of the word marriage was being corrupted and the gay community would have the civil rights they desire, plus a whole new money/job making industry. Looks like a win-win situation.

DD (“Tom & Steve are getting garried.”)WW

[AvalonXQ]

OK, Allow gay marriage, just call it something else. Let’s call it “garriage.” Could start a whole new industry with issuing garriage licenses, garriage greeting cards, and specialist garriage planners. Garried people would have the same rights as married people.

The religious/traditionalist people could not complain that the traditional meaning of the word marriage was being corrupted and the gay community would have the civil rights they desire, plus a whole new money/job making industry. Looks like a win-win situation.

They've done that in places like California, and yet gay rights activists still threaten and vandalize others when they can't also get the name.

[Fishstick]

OK, Allow gay marriage, just call it something else. Let’s call it “garriage.” Could start a whole new industry with issuing garriage licenses, garriage greeting cards, and specialist garriage planners. Garried people would have the same rights as married people.

The religious/traditionalist people could not complain that the traditional meaning of the word marriage was being corrupted and the gay community would have the civil rights they desire, plus a whole new money/job making industry. Looks like a win-win situation.

DD (“Tom & Steve are getting garried.”)WW
You've just replaced "civil union" with "garriage", it's still seperate but equal.

[GreyICE]

Because that's not what "marriage" means.
I think cakes are delicious, and I love cherry. Why shouldn't I be able to bake a cake by filling a flaky pie crust with cherry pie filling? Not because there's anything wrong with my dessert, but because what I'm doing isn't baking a cake. It's baking a pie.
Whether or not you should be allowed to make a commitment to live with someone of your own gender is a separate question from whether it should be called "marriage" when you do.

Because that's what our society traditionally calls relationships like that? Because there are a host of legal benefits and responsibilities that come from being married? Because a lifelong commitment to another person is one of the most important rituals in our society, and telling people they can't participate because they like 'the wrong people' makes them second class citizens?

[AvalonXQ]

Because that's what our society traditionally calls relationships like that?
The relationship that our society traditionally calls "marriage" has a husband and a wife running a family. Once you get away from that, the force of tradition is gone.

Because there are a host of legal benefits and responsibilities that come from being married?
I agree. People who are equal in the eyes of the law should have the same rights in the eyes of the law. The law should offer the same rights for the same behavior regardless of the gender of the applicants.

Because a lifelong commitment to another person is one of the most important rituals in our society, and telling people they can't participate because they like 'the wrong people' makes them second class citizens?
Social rituals are a matter for social customs, not for the law. If people in society do not approve of teenagers living together, or two women living together, or a 25-year-old woman and a 50-year-old man living together, or a brother and sister living together, then they should feel free to socially ostracize those people. They should certainly feel free to deny them rituals that give them legitimacy.

[GreyICE]

The relationship that our society traditionally calls "marriage" has a husband and a wife running a family. Once you get away from that, the force of tradition is gone.

I agree. People who are equal in the eyes of the law should have the same rights in the eyes of the law. The law should offer the same rights for the same behavior regardless of the gender of the applicants.

Social rituals are a matter for social customs, not for the law. If people in society do not approve of teenagers living together, or two women living together, or a 25-year-old woman and a 50-year-old man living together, or a brother and sister living together, then they should feel free to socially ostracize those people. They should certainly feel free to deny them rituals that give them legitimacy.

Okay, so if society doesn't approve of a person with black skin living with a person with white skin, they should feel free to deny them rituals that give the relationship legitimacy?

That's mob rule at its finest.

[Fishstick]

The relationship that our society traditionally calls "marriage" has a husband and a wife running a family. Once you get away from that, the force of tradition is gone.

.

What is this "force of tradition" ? Does it have anything to do with the 50+% divorce rate? Is it that same-sex couples marrying will make other marraiges suddenly unattractive? Really, i'm curious as to where this argument comes from.

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, so if society doesn't approve of a person with black skin living with a person with white skin, they should feel free to deny them rituals that give the relationship legitimacy?

Yes. That's how society works -- we ostracize what we don't like and accept what we like.
The law treats everyone fairly; social behaviors in a community do not. That's how society requires conformity to culture outside of legal requirements.

[DDWW]

You've just replaced "civil union" with "garriage", it's still seperate but equal.

Like male/female bathrooms?

DDWW

[AvalonXQ]

Like male/female bathrooms?

Exactly like male/female bathrooms.

[Fishstick]

Exactly like male/female bathrooms.

Thank you for confirming your opinion is based on prudism :).

[Praktik]

They've done that in places like California, and yet gay rights activists still threaten and vandalize others when they can't also get the name.

Oh those crazy activists!! Is there anything they won't do?

[AvalonXQ]

Oh those crazy activists!! Is there anything they won't do?

Depends. If they're reasonable, then they won't do anything other than spread the word, demonstrate, collect money, and work to change people's minds / lobby to get what they want.
If they're unreasonable, then no. Extortion, threats, vandalism are all fair game.
What really makes me upset is when others feel like this behavior is okay when it's something you really, really want.

[AvalonXQ]

Thank you for confirming your opinion is based on prudism :).

I'd be perfectly fine with having unisex bathrooms. I just don't think there's anything wrong with the bathrooms the way we have them.

[Fishstick]

I'd be perfectly fine with having unisex bathrooms. I just don't think there's anything wrong with the bathrooms the way we have them.

Then please explain this "force of tradition" argument. What do you think will happen when same-sex couples are allowed to marry under the same benefits and name as hetero couples? Of course churches are free to decide whether to hold it, but you should be able to get married for the state and retain the same benefits, just like an atheist hetero couple might.

[Praktik]

I'd be perfectly fine with having unisex bathrooms. I just don't think there's anything wrong with the bathrooms the way we have them.

My washrooms in residence at uni were unisex. There's a few clubs in town that have 'em too...

[GreyICE]

Yes. That's how society works -- we ostracize what we don't like and accept what we like.
The law treats everyone fairly; social behaviors in a community do not. That's how society requires conformity to culture outside of legal requirements.
Marriage is a legal construct, as well as a social one. Ignoring half of that seems ridiculous.

[AvalonXQ]

Then please explain this "force of tradition" argument. What do you think will happen when same-sex couples are allowed to marry under the same benefits and name as hetero couples? Of course churches are free to decide whether to hold it, but you should be able to get married for the state and retain the same benefits, just like an atheist hetero couple might.

I wasn't making a "force of tradition" argument. I was responding to GreyICE's assertion that we should let gay couples marry because of tradition, by noting that the tradition only extends to a husband/wife pair. Still, I'll address your question.

What do you think will happen when same-sex couples are allowed to marry under the same benefits and name as hetero couples?
Gay activists will use the law to sue, jail, and otherwise harrass churches and individuals opposed to homosexual behavior. Gay activists will use the law to teach young schoolchildren that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

[AvalonXQ]

Marriage is a legal construct, as well as a social one. Ignoring half of that seems ridiculous.

I agree, as I said above, that the law needs to treat equal people equally with respect to what rights they receive and what benefits are accessible to them. We can do that by giving anyone who doesn't fit the definition of "marriage" the same benefits under a different name -- or, if that's not fair enough, we can eliminate the name "marriage" from the laws and give everyone those benefits under a different name.

[Praktik]

Gay activists will use the law to sue, jail, and otherwise harrass churches and individuals opposed to homosexual behavior. Gay activists will use the law to teach young schoolchildren that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

Perhaps the scariest thing in all of this...

[GreyICE]

I wasn't making a "force of tradition" argument. I was responding to GreyICE's assertion that we should let gay couples marry because of tradition, by noting that the tradition only extends to a husband/wife pair. Still, I'll address your question. That wasn't it at all. The point was that we are making gays and lesbians second class citizens.

I'm surprised, as it wasn't really hard to figure out, I stated it outright.


Gay activists will use the law to sue, jail, and otherwise harrass churches and individuals opposed to homosexual behavior. Gay activists will use the law to teach young schoolchildren that homosexual behavior is acceptable.
Oh noes! Children might learn that they're not damned because of their sexual orientation. Ye gods, what a horrible fate. :rolleyes:

[AvalonXQ]

Oh noes! Children might learn that they're not damned because of their sexual orientation. Ye gods, what a horrible fate. :rolleyes:

And, yet, a lot of parents don't want this taught to their children -- enough, in fact, to pass Proposition 8 in California (as this was one of the main arguments used to sway voters there).
It's fine that it doesn't bother you, but it does bother me, and it's enough harm for me to oppose gay marriage.

[DDWW]

The military has separate but equal barracks for men and women. Like most institutions (military, colleges, etc.) where mixed groups have to live together, separate dorms or barracks work well.

Some of the main reasons they do not have mixed sleeping arrangements is due to the sexual tensions that could arise, plus modesty issues.

But, these same concerns could be possible among people that are gay, living and sleeping in same sex situations.

Therefore, the military and colleges should screen applicants beforehand and if any of the 18-20 year old males admit they are gay, they should then have to sleep in the women’s barracks!

DD (Yes, I admit it, I’m gay. Can I go sleep with the women now!)WW

[Praktik]

I think its a good lesson: home morality does not extend to society at large.

There are other people out there with other value systems you're going to have to learn to interact with successfully.

As much as you might want everyone to follow your specific moral code, society is essentially the site of competing moral codes and there will never be one winner.

[AvalonXQ]

I think its a good lesson: home morality does not extend to society at large.

There are other people out there with other value systems you're going to have to learn to interact with successfully.

As much as you might want everyone to follow your specific moral code, society is essentially the site of competing moral codes and there will never be one winner.

I agree. So it's not the role of the public schools to tell my kids what kind of sexual behavior is acceptable or unacceptable, either one. Respecting other value systems means respecting other value systems, not teaching one of the competing value systems to the kids.

[Fishstick]

Therefore, the military and colleges should screen applicants beforehand and if any of the 18-20 year old males admit they are gay, they should then have to sleep in the women’s barracks!


Actually, if they admit they're gay, they're no longer in the military. Ain't DADT a bitch?

I sure don't want schools teaching MY kids they can get married to some darkie or turban-wearin' sandbiter!

[Praktik]

I agree. So it's not the role of the public schools to tell my kids what kind of sexual behavior is acceptable or unacceptable, either one. Respecting other value systems means respecting other value systems, not teaching one of the competing value systems to the kids.

But isn't the schools argument kind of a red herring?

I mean, how much of this is in the curriculae, really? Most exposure would be to peers that are gay, the existence of maybe a gay club or organization of students (when they're allowed) and let's face it, the media. Where gay characters are fleshed out in various ways in sitcoms, film and given complex portrayals in stuff like The Wire, The Shield or Six Feet Under.

Seems to me that this complaint is kind of a paleo-reaction to the changing mores of society and that the focus on school curriculae misses the forest for the trees and does little to change the fact their kids are going to be exposed to people in life and in fiction who have normalized homosexual behaviour.

[GreyICE]

And, yet, a lot of parents don't want this taught to their children -- enough, in fact, to pass Proposition 8 in California (as this was one of the main arguments used to sway voters there).
It's fine that it doesn't bother you, but it does bother me, and it's enough harm for me to oppose gay marriage.

And the second class citizens? You are just going to ignore that it appears.

Dishonesty is a virtue, as long as it keeps your kids from catching the gay!

[AvalonXQ]

I mean, how much of this is in the curriculae, really?

In MA, second graders were taught a book about two men falling in love. When parents complained, those defending the curriculum justified the teaching of the book on the basis that MA allows gay marriage.

[AvalonXQ]

Dishonesty is a virtue, as long as it keeps your kids from catching the gay!

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

[Praktik]

In MA, second graders were taught a book about two men falling in love. When students complained, those defending the curriculum justified the teaching of the book on the basis that MA allows gay marriage.

Anyone got data that we could use to identify how widespread these incidents are?

And even then, aren't they lost in the wash when the culture as a whole will be sending similar messages outside the school setting?

The real answer here is critical thinking. Students should be confronted with material they don't agree with. Avoiding any exposure to such material is a fool's errand, and doesn't teach them the valuable ability to confront material that represents another view. They don't have to agree with it. In fact, another exercise would be getting them to elabourate as to why they don't agree with it.

[KingMerv00]

OK, Allow gay marriage, just call it something else. Let’s call it “garriage.” Could start a whole new industry with issuing garriage licenses, garriage greeting cards, and specialist garriage planners. Garried people would have the same rights as married people.

The religious/traditionalist people could not complain that the traditional meaning of the word marriage was being corrupted and the gay community would have the civil rights they desire, plus a whole new money/job making industry. Looks like a win-win situation.

DD (“Tom & Steve are getting garried.”)WW

You aren't going far enough. I think we should do this every time society begrudgingly hands over a right to someone who should have had it in the first place. For example, when women got the vote, we should have renamed it "woting". I demand the government acknowledge my distinctions without differences.

[GreyICE]

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

And again with the ignoring it Avalon! Good job proving my point.

[AvalonXQ]

And even then, aren't they lost in the wash when the culture as a whole will be sending similar messages outside the school setting?
And that's how kids should get it -- not from having the agenda shoved down the throat of 7-year-olds.

The real answer here is critical thinking. Students should be confronted with material they don't agree with. Avoiding any exposure to such material is a fool's errand, and doesn't teach them the valuable ability to confront material that represents another view. They don't have to agree with it. In fact, another exercise would be getting them to elabourate as to why they don't agree with it.
What you've said makes perfect sense -- for 14-year-olds, not so much for 7-year-olds. I expect high school teachers to challenge kids; I expect early elementary school teachers to help kids learn basic ideas.

[Praktik]

If parents are that concerned about controlling the input of info to their children to ensure they turn out just like them I'd suggest enrolling them in a religious school where they can be rest assured that the values of a pluralistic society won't be "shoved" down their throat.

Instead they'll get nice heapin spoonfuls of Christ, which should put those fears to rest.

I'm not sure what's available in the states but in Canada we have publicly funded Catholic schools due to foundational matters so that's an option even the poorest can use.

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not sure what's available in the states but in Canada we have publicly funded Catholic schools due to foundational matters so that's an option even the poorest can use.

In the States, there's quite a bit of debate about any sort of government funding going to religious schools. The voucher system has kicked up a lot of fuss in both directions. Certainly religious schools are not, on the first order, publically funded.

[Terry]

In MA, second graders were taught a book about two men falling in love. When parents complained, those defending the curriculum justified the teaching of the book on the basis that MA allows gay marriage.

So *********** what? Horrors, children being educated about real life!

[AvalonXQ]

So *********** what? Horrors, children being educated about real life!

Californians had the option of deciding if they wanted to same opportunity for kids to be taught this way in their schools.
They voted against it.

[Terry]

Californians had the option of deciding if they wanted to same opportunity for kids to be taught this way in their schools.
They voted against it.

This whole thing about parents being able to force educators to keep children in ignorance of facts they don't like (like the earth being 4 billion years old, man being a particular species of great ape, the existence of certain kinds of relationships) is just ridiculous.

[AvalonXQ]

This whole thing about parents being able to force educators to keep children in ignorance of facts they don't like (like the earth being 4 billion years old, man being a particular species of great ape, the existence of certain kinds of relationships) is just ridiculous.

I'd think, in a pluralistic society, we'd be okay with being a bit reticent about teaching kids one subgroup's beliefs and values.
But apparently tolerance is only important if it's for a minority view you agree with.

[ToddH]

But think of the kids! If they're exposed to this in school they might catch The Gay and spread it to others! ;)

[MarkCorrigan]

I'd think, in a pluralistic society, we'd be okay with being a bit reticent about teaching kids one subgroup's beliefs and values.
But apparently tolerance is only important if it's for a minority view you agree with.

Not at all. Denial of reality based on bigotry should absolutely not be acceptable in school. Yes, they should be allowed to spout their absurd beliefs and intolerant nonsense at home as much as they like, their house, their disgusting rules, but at SCHOOL? No. School is for learning. There should be no religious rights for schoolchildren that contradict the laws of the school or reality. I don't care what the parents think, they should not dictate the school program or you will end up having, as the USA has had, a deterioration in the ability of pupils because of the stubborn refusal to accept reality by deluded fools.

This should not be acceptable. At all. In any society.

[Terry]

I'd think, in a pluralistic society, we'd be okay with being a bit reticent about teaching kids one subgroup's beliefs and values.
But apparently tolerance is only important if it's for a minority view you agree with.

Every group gets to have their own opinions, and I agree about pluralism when it comes to opinions. No group gets to have their own facts. Gay people exist, and have relationships. That is a fact. Whether or not you approve of gay relationships is your opinion. There is apparently a lot of support for completely censoring all educational material of any mention of homosexuality whatsoever. That's not just being reticent about teaching one subgroups' beliefs and values.

[AvalonXQ]

I don't care what the parents think, they should not dictate the school program or you will end up having, as the USA has had, a deterioration in the ability of pupils because of the stubborn refusal to accept reality by deluded fools.

Wait, wait. You think THAT is the reason that our schools are having problems? Because of too much parental involvement?! Seriously?

Every group gets to have their own opinions, and I agree about pluralism when it comes to opinions. No group gets to have their own facts. Gay people exist, that is a fact.

And homosexual relationships are perfectly natural and acceptable -- that's an opinion.

[Terry]

And homosexual relationships are perfectly natural and acceptable -- that's an opinion.

Yes. (See the additional sentences I added into my post while you were responding, sorry about that.)

[MarkCorrigan]

Wait, wait. You think THAT is the reason that our schools are having problems? Because of too much parental involvement?! Seriously?

Not the only reason, no, but I followed the progress of various lunatic schoolboard court cases. I'm worried this may be a derail, os I won't say any more after this post, but parents who get voted onto boards of schools get to pick what gets taught to children. If intolerant bigots get elected, the school teaches bigotry.

With regard to homosexuality, these parents will want to teach their children that gay people are evil, wicked perverts who can't hold down a relationship, or aren't to be trusted, or even worse, are rapists/paedophiles. This should absolutely not be acceptable in schools.

[kuroyume0161]

This whole thing about parents being able to force educators to keep children in ignorance of facts they don't like (like the earth being 4 billion years old, man being a particular species of great ape, the existence of certain kinds of relationships) is just ridiculous.

This is the outcome when the majority gets to make the decisions and rules and they happen to be idiots.

[tyr_13]

And homosexual relationships are perfectly natural and acceptable -- that's an opinion.

As it is an opinion that heterosexual, monogamous, inter-class, same age, interracial couples are acceptable.

Wait, what were we talking about?

[Praktik]

I'd think, in a pluralistic society, we'd be okay with being a bit reticent about teaching kids one subgroup's beliefs and values.
But apparently tolerance is only important if it's for a minority view you agree with.

But can't this be flipped around?

Aren't you advocating for a different subgroup's beliefs to dominate by censoring the appearance of beliefs of another subgroup?

[Thunder]

Four syllables:

Civil Union

[MarkCorrigan]

Four syllables:

Civil Union

Why does it have to be different?

Giving it another name marks it out as being different. Even if they get the same rights there is still the appearance that it isn't the same thing. It's something...other. Possibly even something lesser. Why the hell not just call it marriage?

[Thunder]

Why does it have to be different?


the states should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. let them issue "civil union" certificates to both straight and gay couples, and let the churches and synagogues, and mosques declare you "married".

marriage is a purely religious issue....civil union is a purely secular and legal one.

[MarkCorrigan]

the states should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. let them issue "civil union" certificates to both straight and gay couples, and let the churches and synagogues, and mosques declare you "married".

marriage is a purely religious issue....civil union is a purely secular and legal one.

I can't argue with that, I guess.

It was the seeming forced difference between the two camps that I was a bit jittery about in your post.

[Neally]

the states should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. let them issue "civil union" certificates to both straight and gay couples, and let the churches and synagogues, and mosques declare you "married".

marriage is a purely religious issue....civil union is a purely secular and legal one.Quite true. The idea of getting a license from the government to have a baby, live together or become engaged seems bizarre yet somehow we accept that it's normal to get permission from the government to be in a committed relationship.

[kuroyume0161]

I can't argue with that, I guess.

It was the seeming forced difference between the two camps that I was a bit jittery about in your post.

There's the crux of the problem. I personally don't care if it is labeled 'civil union' or 'marriage' as long as it carries with it the same properties that the union part of heterosexual marriage does in legal and other terms. The problem is that civil unions (not marriage), where allowed in the US, currently carry only a subset of the properties afforded heterosexual marriage.

I also agree that there should be a delineation between the secular/legal union and the ceremonial religious union. Marriage within a religious institution should be held as tentative pending recognition of the actual secular union. In other words, heterosexual couples married in a church should be considered as married only within the church. They need to do the other to gain the benefits afforded by the state. I think that this is the current condition - correct me if I'm incorrect.

[AvalonXQ]

I also agree that there should be a delineation between the secular/legal union and the ceremonial religious union. Marriage within a religious institution should be held as tentative pending recognition of the actual secular union. In other words, heterosexual couples married in a church should be considered as married only within the church. They need to do the other to gain the benefits afforded by the state. I think that this is the current condition - correct me if I'm incorrect.

People apply for a license to get married. An officiant with a license to marry (which can be a religious figure, or a judge, or other things depending on the state) has to mail the marriage license into the state indicating that he married the couple. The couple is officially married on the day that the officiant puts down as the day he married them; that's the day the completed marriage license will have on it when the state records it and mails a copy to the couple.

[Belz...]

I'd think, in a pluralistic society, we'd be okay with being a bit reticent about teaching kids one subgroup's beliefs and values.
But apparently tolerance is only important if it's for a minority view you agree with.

So... they weren't taught about different-sex love relationships ??

[Belz...]

And homosexual relationships are perfectly natural and acceptable -- that's an opinion.

A valid opinion. We're not the only species to practice it. Besides, whom does it harm ?

[GreyICE]

Moreover, I'd hold that the opposite opinion has its work cut out for it to become valid. If one hypothesizes that a behavior is unacceptable, there should be unacceptable consequences. For instance, we can easily articulate the unacceptable consequences to drunk driving, theft, murder, vandalism, etc. We can also articulate consequences to other actions we don't find socially acceptable but might not be illegal - cheating, lying, badmouthing people, rudeness, mockery, etc.

Saying that homosexuality isn't acceptable means there has to be consequences. Saying that the legal marriage of homosexuals is unacceptable hypothesizes that these consequences are so bad that they have graduated to the level of 'legally worth banning' due to the harm they cause.

Otherwise, society is being irrational. If Avalon wants to hypothesize that an irrational society is equal to a rational one, I'd say 'evidence?'

[Praktik]

Right, the issue is that the True Believers have an arsenal of partisan "research" showing the supposed impacts on children of growing up with two moms and two dads, promiscuity and rates of disease, and regardless of how iffy some of that research might be its enough for people to remain in their bubbles.

These are the stats they'll rattle off in defence of a marriage ban and anti-homosexual attitudes when they know the "sin" argument isn't going to hold water.

[GreyICE]

Right, the issue is that the True Believers have an arsenal of partisan "research" showing the supposed impacts on children of growing up with two moms and two dads, promiscuity and rates of disease, and regardless of how iffy some of that research might be its enough for people to remain in their bubbles.

These are the stats they'll rattle off in defence of a marriage ban and anti-homosexual attitudes when they know the "sin" argument isn't going to hold water.

The only major difference most reputable studies have found in the relationships of children who grew up in an environment with two same-sex parents is that they're more likely to be 'experimental' in that regard (which conservatives treated with gasps of horror, and the rest of us treated with gasps of boredom).

“Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science
as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major
professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support
of gay and lesbian parental rights” (cited in Cooper & Cates, 2006, p. 36)http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

So if any conservative claims that, they don't have a damn leg to stand on.

[NobleXenon54]

I wasn't making a "force of tradition" argument. I was responding to GreyICE's assertion that we should let gay couples marry because of tradition, by noting that the tradition only extends to a husband/wife pair. Still, I'll address your question.


Gay activists will use the law to sue, jail, and otherwise harrass churches and individuals opposed to homosexual behavior. Gay activists will use the law to teach young schoolchildren that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

Funny that video games and television, something that children engage in more often than school, shows same-sex couples and homosexuals in general.

Epic fail argument.

Also, do you even know of the religious exemption clauses in states that passed same-sex marriage? Or are you just that uninformed?

[AvalonXQ]

Also, do you even know of the religious exemption clauses in states that passed same-sex marriage? Or are you just that uninformed?

I'm aware that some states have passed them. I'm also aware that MA and CA, both of whom became gay marriage states through judicial decisions and not legislation, have no such exemptions -- and I know that this exact state of affairs has now occurred in MA. CA citizens, seeing what could happen, decided not to let it and amended their constitution accordingly -- the only option left to them by the CA Courts' decision.

Funny that video games and television, something that children engage in more often than school, shows same-sex couples and homosexuals in general.

And if those video games and television were financed by the government and automatically shown to all second-grade students, I'm sure these people would have a problem with that as well.

[NobleXenon54]

And if those video games and television were financed by the government and automatically shown to all second-grade students, I'm sure these people would have a problem with that as well.

I also take it that you voted for Proposition 6? After all, if you didn't vote for that, children would learn about homosexuals. I mean, there are homosexual teachers, and students! We must expel and fire them at once! :rolleyes:

What is the problem with kids learning about other people's parents? Are you against showing interracial parents too? Also, where in the California Educational Code do they have to teach anything about marriage at all? If anything, Proposition 8 will be taught in schools as a discriminatory thing in history, and everyone will learn about it...

I'm aware that some states have passed them. I'm also aware that MA and CA, both of whom became gay marriage states through judicial decisions and not legislation, have no such exemptions -- and I know that this exact state of affairs has now occurred in MA.

What happened in Massachusetts?

[AvalonXQ]

Interestingly enough, both the passage from the California Educational Code where marriage is to be taught, and the situation with the elementary school teachings in Massacheusetts, were a main subject of the Yes on 8 ads. If you don't mind, I think I'll let you find and watch those yourself.

[NobleXenon54]

Interestingly enough, both the passage from the California Educational Code where marriage is to be taught, and the situation with the elementary school teachings in Massacheusetts, were a main subject of the Yes on 8 ads. If you don't mind, I think I'll let you find and watch those yourself.

"Not Required to Teach Sex Education or Marriage at All"

www [dot] leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51933

www [dot] leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51933

Again with Massachusetts: What is the problem with kids learning about other people's parents?

[AvalonXQ]

"Not Required to Teach Sex Education or Marriage at All"

www [dot] leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51933

www [dot] leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51933

What the Yes on 8 folks explained is that 96% of schools teach sex education, and by law schools that teach sex education MUST teach marriage.
Obviously you're either unwilling or unable to take a look at the Yes on 8 site.

[KingMerv00]

DDWW and Avalon, you still there? Please respond to:

You aren't going far enough. I think we should do this every time society begrudgingly hands over a right to someone who should have had it in the first place. For example, when women got the vote, we should have renamed it "woting". I demand the government acknowledge my distinctions without differences.

Skeptic, you still there? Please respond to:

I have no moral objection to poly marriage but without a major overhaul in marriage law, it doesn't allow for EQUAL protection under, it allows for EXTRA protection.

For example, spousal privilege can prevent your husband/wife from testifying against you in court. If you have multiple spouses, you get multiple chances to exclude evidence from a criminal trial where a "typical" couple would not.

[NobleXenon54]

What the Yes on 8 folks explained is that 96% of schools teach sex education, and by law schools that teach sex education MUST teach marriage.
Obviously you're either unwilling or unable to take a look at the Yes on 8 site.

Then their child has the right to be pulled from school.

www [dot] leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51937-51939

Again: What is the problem with kids learning about other people's parents?

[BobTheDonkey]

"Not Required to Teach Sex Education or Marriage at All"

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51933

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51933


Fixed the links for you. Welcome to the forums :)

[fullflavormenthol]

So basically the only "good reason" in opposition to my hypothetical gay marriage was a strained analogy about pie. It really shows that there are no good reasons why gay marriage shouldn't exist in the United States.

Of course I think marriage shouldn't be the business of the government and everything should just be civil unions.

[WildCat]

the states should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. let them issue "civil union" certificates to both straight and gay couples, and let the churches and synagogues, and mosques declare you "married".

marriage is a purely religious issue....civil union is a purely secular and legal one.
The problem with that is there a slew of legal rights and privileges that only come with marriage.

If the religious nutcases don't like it too bad.

At any rate, this issue will go away once the main opposition, those over 60, die off.

[Thunder]

The problem with that is there a slew of legal rights and privileges that only come with marriage. .

NYS should pass a new law transferring all rights and privelages of "marriage" to "Civil Union".

is it really that complicated?

[ddt]

NYS should pass a new law transferring all rights and privelages of "marriage" to "Civil Union".

is it really that complicated?

Does that then also apply to rights and privileges in federal law?

[ddt]

I also agree that there should be a delineation between the secular/legal union and the ceremonial religious union. Marriage within a religious institution should be held as tentative pending recognition of the actual secular union. In other words, heterosexual couples married in a church should be considered as married only within the church. They need to do the other to gain the benefits afforded by the state. I think that this is the current condition - correct me if I'm incorrect.

That is pretty much the situation in most of continental Europe, thanks to Napoleon. In fact the order in, e.g., Holland is the other way round: you're not allowed to marry in church until after you've been to town hall for the secular ceremony. A bit odd, as I'd think the state should simply ignore the church marriage as a ceremony which has null value for the law. And consequently, I'd argue that priests have no business as government-mandated marriage officiants, only civil servants.

I don't think this semantic quibbling over the meaning of the word "marriage" is worth your while. The word has been transferred to also mean the secular institution. Replacing it with another word without a religious background is not going to sway the religious opponents of gay marriage that suddenly, a gay civil union or what-you'd-call-it - with the same rights as hetero couples - is okay.

[kuroyume0161]

That is pretty much the situation in most of continental Europe, thanks to Napoleon. In fact the order in, e.g., Holland is the other way round: you're not allowed to marry in church until after you've been to town hall for the secular ceremony. A bit odd, as I'd think the state should simply ignore the church marriage as a ceremony which has null value for the law. And consequently, I'd argue that priests have no business as government-mandated marriage officiants, only civil servants.

I don't think this semantic quibbling over the meaning of the word "marriage" is worth your while. The word has been transferred to also mean the secular institution. Replacing it with another word without a religious background is not going to sway the religious opponents of gay marriage that suddenly, a gay civil union or what-you'd-call-it - with the same rights as hetero couples - is okay.

I'm not really quibbling over the words or their meaning. It is the distinction being made of what they determine. Whether or not it is called 'marriage' or 'civil union' is not the issue. It is how marriage 'rights' differ from those leftovers offered under the name 'civil union'. There are currently limitations in civil unions not enjoyed by heterosexual marriage unions. I hope that makes the word usage distinctions more clear. We could substitute different words like 'accepted heterosexual union' and 'other union' to avoid arguing over words. I'm arguing about the status that accompanies the words in use. If general civil union were to be made equivalent to marriage then we would be arguing about allowing homosexual civil union at the same level as general civil union.

It is clear from legislation that 'marriage' (the status, benefits, and rights that it imbues) is the thing being 'defended' - as in the DoMA. You make the point that I definitely agree with. No matter what words are used, those in opposition to secular homosexual 'marriage' are in opposition to giving the status, benefits, and rights to homosexual 'unions' - using religion. This false notion that the USA's laws are based upon god's laws and not English law permeates the dullard masses.

[BardKesnit]

The relationship that our society traditionally calls "marriage" has a husband and a wife running a family. Once you get away from that, the force of tradition is gone.

"Traditionally," marriage is one man and his many wives and concubines.

I agree. People who are equal in the eyes of the law should have the same rights in the eyes of the law. The law should offer the same rights for the same behavior regardless of the gender of the applicants.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that "separate but equal" isn't.

Social rituals are a matter for social customs, not for the law. If people in society do not approve of teenagers living together, or two women living together, or a 25-year-old woman and a 50-year-old man living together, or a brother and sister living together, then they should feel free to socially ostracize those people.

If you, personally, want to shun the same-sex couple in your neighborhood, you have every right to do so. However, the government does not have that ability.

[BardKesnit]

Californians had the option of deciding if they wanted to same opportunity for kids to be taught this way in their schools.
They voted against it.

People throughout the South in the late 19th Century had the option to allow black kids to go to school with white kids, or allow blacks to sit anywhere on public buses. They chose not to. Are you saying they were correct?

[KingMerv00]

Once again...

DDWW and Avalon, you still there? Please respond to:



You aren't going far enough. I think we should do this every time society begrudgingly hands over a right to someone who should have had it in the first place. For example, when women got the vote, we should have renamed it "woting". I demand the government acknowledge my distinctions without differences.

Skeptic, you still there? Please respond to:


I have no moral objection to poly marriage but without a major overhaul in marriage law, it doesn't allow for EQUAL protection under, it allows for EXTRA protection.

For example, spousal privilege can prevent your husband/wife from testifying against you in court. If you have multiple spouses, you get multiple chances to exclude evidence from a criminal trial where a "typical" couple would not.

[ddt]

I'm not really quibbling over the words or their meaning.
I should have made it clear that my second paragraph was not so much directed at you in particular, as well as in general to the audience, and more in response to Parky's ideas in this respect.


It is the distinction being made of what they determine. Whether or not it is called 'marriage' or 'civil union' is not the issue. It is how marriage 'rights' differ from those leftovers offered under the name 'civil union'. There are currently limitations in civil unions not enjoyed by heterosexual marriage unions. I hope that makes the word usage distinctions more clear.
I understand the issue. And one state conferring the rights of married couples to civil unions doesn't help much because there's also a shedload of federal law which uses the word "marriage" to which this would not apply.

In Holland, the government has been conferring perks that once were only for traditional marriage to other unions for decades. Tax and social insurance use the term "economic unit", so the same (small) tax benefits apply to people shacking up as to married couples. Even inheritance law has caught up: people living together with a notarized contract about their relationship get to inherit from each other. But then, the practice of (both gay and straight) couples to not directly marry but first live together for a couple of years has more or less become the norm rather than the exception.

In the sense that such laws reflect social norms, could you say that the US socially also treats, say, straight couples "shacking up" differently than married ones?


We could substitute different words like 'accepted heterosexual union' and 'other union' to avoid arguing over words. I'm arguing about the status that accompanies the words in use. If general civil union were to be made equivalent to marriage then we would be arguing about allowing homosexual civil union at the same level as general civil union.

It is clear from legislation that 'marriage' (the status, benefits, and rights that it imbues) is the thing being 'defended' - as in the DoMA. You make the point that I definitely agree with. No matter what words are used, those in opposition to secular homosexual 'marriage' are in opposition to giving the status, benefits, and rights to homosexual 'unions' - using religion. This false notion that the USA's laws are based upon god's laws and not English law permeates the dullard masses.
QFT.

[BobTheDonkey]

I should have made it clear that my second paragraph was not so much directed at you in particular, as well as in general to the audience, and more in response to Parky's ideas in this respect.


I understand the issue. And one state conferring the rights of married couples to civil unions doesn't help much because there's also a shedload of federal law which uses the word "marriage" to which this would not apply.

In Holland, the government has been conferring perks that once were only for traditional marriage to other unions for decades. Tax and social insurance use the term "economic unit", so the same (small) tax benefits apply to people shacking up as to married couples. Even inheritance law has caught up: people living together with a notarized contract about their relationship get to inherit from each other. But then, the practice of (both gay and straight) couples to not directly marry but first live together for a couple of years has more or less become the norm rather than the exception.

In the sense that such laws reflect social norms, could you say that the US socially also treats, say, straight couples "shacking up" differently than married ones?


QFT.

I would say so. It's quite unfortunate.

[personal anecdote]My current GF and I have "shacked up" together. In this regard, I am her "closest" relative and the most likely to be around should (read when) something happens. In the case of a kitchen fire a few months ago, I was not allowed to tell the Paramedics to take her to the hospital over her own objections (she could barely breathe, but didn't want to cause any more of a hassle for me or the rest of her family - partly due to insurance reasons, but that's another issue). I was forced to convince her to let the Paramedics take her to the emergency room. At the same time, I was forced to drive myself to the emergency room instead of being able to ride in the ambulance with her (I'm damned certain she would have appreciated me being there with her on the ride). This isn't the only time we've been to the emergency room and other times I've had to fight to be in the room with her.
[/personal anecdote]

[ponderingturtle]

Neither does gay marriage make sense... but that doesn't stop people from promoting it as a right.

Why does the state have a strong enough interest in it to discriminate based on sex with regard to who can get married? Your claim that it doesn't make sense is not an argument.

In any case, whatever rights people have surely are an objective thing, and do not depend on the current legal definition of a "protected class".

Nope not at all legally. If I discriminate based on your choice in music in hiring I can do that, provided I am not using it to discriminate based on race, sex, religion or another protected class.

People have many many traits, you can legally discriminate on any of them that are not protected classes or if you have sufficient justification to discriminate against them.

So again: why are you saying that marriage is between two people? If three or seventeen people love each other, who are you to deny their rights?!

Because the current laws and regulations that define the effect of marriage are intended for pairs. They would need reworking for poly relationships, and this reworking unlike gay marriage could well have legal effects on existing heterosexual binary marriage.

Hell the proponents of poly marriage can not even define what they mean, is it more than two people in one marriage or having one person in more than one marriage or both?

What are the legal differences between those two classes as well?

Oh, and we should get rid of anti-incest law. If a father and his (adult) daughter, and his son for that matter, want to live in a menage a trois, who is to say it's not a loving family?

Broadly I would agree with that, but then again they don't really need marriage to be recognized as family.

[ponderingturtle]

Because that's not what "marriage" means.
I think cakes are delicious, and I love cherry. Why shouldn't I be able to bake a cake by filling a flaky pie crust with cherry pie filling? Not because there's anything wrong with my dessert, but because what I'm doing isn't baking a cake. It's baking a pie.
Whether or not you should be allowed to make a commitment to live with someone of your own gender is a separate question from whether it should be called "marriage" when you do.

Yes, this was the whole problem with giving women the right to own property as well. Face it we haven't had real marriage for a hundred years. No we have this equality crap fostered on to us as if it was a real marriage.

[ponderingturtle]

The relationship that our society traditionally calls "marriage" has a husband and a wife running a family. Once you get away from that, the force of tradition is gone.

Yea and we need to get rid of the idea that just because the husband hits his wife he is doing something wrong. How else is a husband supposed to correct his wife? That is pure tradition that is.

Now we have these spousal abuse laws that take no respect for the rights of a husband.

[ponderingturtle]

I'd be perfectly fine with having unisex bathrooms. I just don't think there's anything wrong with the bathrooms the way we have them.

Yea because everyone must fit into categories of male and female, and we will force them to do so if they don't.

[ponderingturtle]

And, yet, a lot of parents don't want this taught to their children -- enough, in fact, to pass Proposition 8 in California (as this was one of the main arguments used to sway voters there).
It's fine that it doesn't bother you, but it does bother me, and it's enough harm for me to oppose gay marriage.

Yea it is even worse than teaching them interracial marriage is OK in the schools too.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. So it's not the role of the public schools to tell my kids what kind of sexual behavior is acceptable or unacceptable, either one. Respecting other value systems means respecting other value systems, not teaching one of the competing value systems to the kids.

So you object to sex ed as well.

[ponderingturtle]

Why does it have to be different?

Because in a gay marriage how do you know who is the husband and thus has the right to own property and the right to beat the other partner? With out these rights how can you define it as being a real marriage?

[ponderingturtle]

the states should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. let them issue "civil union" certificates to both straight and gay couples, and let the churches and synagogues, and mosques declare you "married".

marriage is a purely religious issue....civil union is a purely secular and legal one.

Good then we get rid of the silly idea of marriage being recognized in other countries as well. Civil unions would be unrecognized so it would be clear that you have no rights of being unioned unless you where unioned in that nation.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm aware that some states have passed them. I'm also aware that MA and CA, both of whom became gay marriage states through judicial decisions and not legislation, have no such exemptions -- and I know that this exact state of affairs has now occurred in MA. CA citizens, seeing what could happen, decided not to let it and amended their constitution accordingly -- the only option left to them by the CA Courts' decision.

Are churches forced to marry people that they don't want to marry? You claim that my girlfriend and I could force a specific Rabbi to marry us even though neither of us are Jewish or want to be?

Please back this assertion up.

[ponderingturtle]

NYS should pass a new law transferring all rights and privelages of "marriage" to "Civil Union".

is it really that complicated?

How do you get civil unions recognized as marriages in areas that have a legal obligation to recognize your marriages but not civil unions? See the case of the gay couple married in mass who moved to texas and then couldn't get a divorce because of texas anti gay marriage laws?

[ponderingturtle]

People throughout the South in the late 19th Century had the option to allow black kids to go to school with white kids, or allow blacks to sit anywhere on public buses. They chose not to. Are you saying they were correct?

OF course, they were the majority they were right by definition. Haven't you been paying attention to the arguments of the anti gay marriage crowd?

[ponderingturtle]

I would say so. It's quite unfortunate.

[personal anecdote]My current GF and I have "shacked up" together. In this regard, I am her "closest" relative and the most likely to be around should (read when) something happens. In the case of a kitchen fire a few months ago, I was not allowed to tell the Paramedics to take her to the hospital over her own objections (she could barely breathe, but didn't want to cause any more of a hassle for me or the rest of her family - partly due to insurance reasons, but that's another issue). I was forced to convince her to let the Paramedics take her to the emergency room. At the same time, I was forced to drive myself to the emergency room instead of being able to ride in the ambulance with her (I'm damned certain she would have appreciated me being there with her on the ride). This isn't the only time we've been to the emergency room and other times I've had to fight to be in the room with her.
[/personal anecdote]

In NY at least, a husband can not force his wife to go to the hospital against her wishes. As an EMT in that situation I would have done anything I could to get her to go to the hospital but no matter what you did I couldn't force her if she was of legally competent mind.

As for riding, well you wouldn't have been allowed to ride in the back, and may have been allowed to ride in the front, but it is relatively uncommon.

[tyr_13]

Has the argument really become, 'if gays can get married, we'll have to admit that in school'?

What bs.

[kuroyume0161]

I should have made it clear that my second paragraph was not so much directed at you in particular, as well as in general to the audience, and more in response to Parky's ideas in this respect.

No problem. My position needed clarification anyway. :)

I understand the issue. And one state conferring the rights of married couples to civil unions doesn't help much because there's also a shedload of federal law which uses the word "marriage" to which this would not apply.

This is exactly why DOMA was preemptively passed in Congress (1996) - among other things. Block it at the federal level so that it leaves states in a quandry and acceptance/denial of legitimate gay marriages as a jumble state-to-state rather than something recognized by the nation and therefore extensible internationally. My greatest surprise was that Clinton, who had made all sorts of campaign promises to gay constituents (to get votes, obviously), reneged on most of them and we ended up with pearls like "DADT" instead of open service in the military. Of course, Bush seeded the Supreme Court with more conservative judges so that none of that "legislatin' from the bench" would be used to repeal or overturn DOMA.

In the sense that such laws reflect social norms, could you say that the US socially also treats, say, straight couples "shacking up" differently than married ones?

Yes, this is true. It provides no legal rights except wherein common-law marriage is accepted. Just do a search on 'Cohabitation'. The USA is rather indifferent comparatively.

[Beerina]

I was going to start a thread on this too. It saddens me. I'm a New Yorker too, and I wanted legal gay marriage pretty badly. (Make Niagara the honeymoon capital again!)

New York isn't as liberal as it seems. Upstate is much, much further right than NYC. Believe me.

It also demonstrates why the US is a 2-party system rather than many parties, like the parliamentary systems through much the rest of the world. Parties band together to "win" the presidency, a hugely valuable political prize given the veto powers, among others.

So every issue gets adopted as a poster child for one or the other party, to suck in more votes, even if groups who love that particular issue don't like other issues their party adopts.

[AvalonXQ]

It also demonstrates why the US is a 2-party system rather than many parties, like the parliamentary systems through much the rest of the world. Parties band together to "win" the presidency, a hugely valuable political prize given the veto powers, among others.

So every issue gets adopted as a poster child for one or the other party, to suck in more votes, even if groups who love that particular issue don't like other issues their party adopts.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/two_party_system.png

[Meadmaker]

I would say so. It's quite unfortunate.

[personal anecdote]My current GF and I have "shacked up" together. In this regard, I am her "closest" relative and the most likely to be around should (read when) something happens. In the case of a kitchen fire a few months ago, I was not allowed to tell the Paramedics to take her to the hospital over her own objections (she could barely breathe, but didn't want to cause any more of a hassle for me or the rest of her family - partly due to insurance reasons, but that's another issue). I was forced to convince her to let the Paramedics take her to the emergency room. At the same time, I was forced to drive myself to the emergency room instead of being able to ride in the ambulance with her (I'm damned certain she would have appreciated me being there with her on the ride). This isn't the only time we've been to the emergency room and other times I've had to fight to be in the room with her.
[/personal anecdote]

So....make it legal.

Actually, I think that what we need is a "civil union" that is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals, but isn't marriage. i.e. a relationship that recognizes a legal status between the two people involved, but implies no obligation for maintaining that relationship. Marriage, on the other hand, would imply an obligation to remain in the relationship, and would involve imposing restrictions on the dissolution of the marriage, and possibly penalties for breaking the terms of the marriage.