New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Ormond]

Yeah, I can only assume you guys haven't been following this issue for very long if you don't know about the massive debates marriage used to cause in the gay community. Even 10 just years ago it still pretty was viscous, with the people taking sides in the Sullivan-Warner fight. (Andrew Sullivan gave a conservative argument for gay marriage in his book, Virtually Normal, Michael Warner claimed in The Trouble With Normal that the push marriage equality was detrimental to the gay rights cause as it stigmatized non-matrimonial sexual relations.) Here's a pretty decent synopsis of the debate, if anyone's interested.

This certainly was a debate that raged in the gay media among what might be called the intellectual column writing class.

However, I really think that the majority of everyday gay and lesbian people have been in favor of same sex marriage in the abstract ever since they idea was seriously talked about (though they might have thought it wasn't politic to push it at certain times in the past).

[Kelli Fury]

Being married should not entitle anyone to benefits or special treatment, straight or otherwise. You are spreading discrimination by advocating state sanctioning of marriage. A state definition of marriage is discriminatory by it's very nature. The law passed in NY defines what is and isn't a marriage.

No one was stopping gays from marrying before. There were no police going around shutting down wedding ceremonies.

It's sad that people think matrimony is only valid if it is state sanctioned. To see people cheering in the streets for the state's blessing, very depressing.

Your argument is completely irrelevant. While the state DOES issue marriages that DO guarantee specific rights and benefits, it should not deny it to same sex couples. Whether or not the state should be doing those things is not what we are talking about and if you want to discuss that, bring it to another thread.

The problem with your argument is also that marriage, the legal institution is a lot about property rights and mutual finances. Without legal marriages to prove a spousal claim on health benefits or pension benefits, the business world your type is on its knees fellating constantly would be FAR less likely to give spouses access to those benefits than they are now. Legal marriages makes a number of property and benefits related issues easier. Your spouse and children are automatic beneficiaries after you die, even without a will. Your spouse is legally able to make medical decisions for you in event that you can, even without a signed power of attorney. In event of your death, your spouse has authority to carry out your wishes regarding your remains. These are things that become much more complicated and bemuddled with red tape without a government sanctioned marriage proclaiming you a single financial entity.

[Xenophon]

I don't really remember politics before the 90s, but as long as I can remember gay marriage has been an issue that the left (not all the left) like and the right (not all the right) hate. I do not recall any time when it was the other way around. It was not at all a mainstream issue on the left until the 90's or so but that was because they thought it was futile since public opinion was strongly against it, not because they were somehow against marriage. The radical left did have some very odd theories so maybe you are confusing radical left theorists with the mainstream left.

Left and right within the gay community have always been a fair bit different from the mainstream left and right.

The gay right has pretty much always been pro-marriage (leaving the full-on libertarians out of the equation). Theirs was the argument made famous Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage: that homosexuality and fairly conservative "family values" were in no way incompatible. Opposed to them were two groups, the (to borrow Dan Savage's phrase) "gay establishment" (the HRC, Lambda, etc.) and the gay left. The gay left was totally opposed to the push for marriage equality, because they felt that marriage should not be the only method of recognizing relationship. They felt the task of the gay rights movement should be to validate all sorts of relationships, and accused the gay right of supporting social norms that were either outrightly anti-gay or at the very least anti-sexual-liberation. The "gay establishment" was more divided. Some organizations were opposed to the push for marriage for the sort of purely pragmatic reasons such as you mention above. Others sided with the gay left and opposed it on principle.

Basically, it used to be a huge question in the gay community whether the gay rights movement should push for homosexuality to be accepted within the existing structure of society, or whether it should challenge that structure in the name of sexual liberation. In other words, should it be driven by the desire to belong or a desire to rebel? The gay right wanted gays to be accepted by normal society, the gay left thought normal society wasn't worth belonging to.

Nowadays the gay right has more or less completely won that argument. Pretty much every major gay-rights organization now agrees that marriage equality is something to be desired. The major gay rights issues currently in the US--marriage and military service--are exactly the one that Sullivan pushed as editor of the The New Republic. Even the terms of the debate have shifted. Instead of speaking of homosexuality as an identity in itself, most gay rights advocates now treat it as one among many attributes that make up an individual's identity. Hell, Dan Savage was a grand marshal of a pride parade. That would have been unthinkable not too long ago.

Edit:

sullivan may have been generally conservative, but his argument with respect to marriage was hardly a rightwing one in virtually normal.

What makes you say that? He certainly called it a conservative argument. The book was practically one long paean to normalcy.

[gryphon strike]

Here's a HuffPost article about it. I particularly liked this part:

Reading that actually brought tears to my eyes, sometimes it makes you proud to be a member of the human race.

And if turning gay is now compulsory I am sorry but I will have to have a sex change :P

[Commodore]

Your argument is completely irrelevant. While the state DOES issue marriages that DO guarantee specific rights and benefits, it should not deny it to same sex couples. Whether or not the state should be doing those things is not what we are talking about and if you want to discuss that, bring it to another thread.

The claim is that opponents of state sanctioned ssm are bigots while proponents are not. I'm arguing that any public definition is exclusionary/discriminatory, so proponents need to get off their moral soapbox.

The problem with your argument is also that marriage, the legal institution is a lot about property rights and mutual finances. Without legal marriages to prove a spousal claim on health benefits or pension benefits, the business world your type is on its knees fellating constantly would be FAR less likely to give spouses access to those benefits than they are now. Legal marriages makes a number of property and benefits related issues easier. Your spouse and children are automatic beneficiaries after you die, even without a will. Your spouse is legally able to make medical decisions for you in event that you can, even without a signed power of attorney. In event of your death, your spouse has authority to carry out your wishes regarding your remains. These are things that become much more complicated and bemuddled with red tape without a government sanctioned marriage proclaiming you a single financial entity.

Disagree, a legal document could be crafted to achieve the same effect between any number of consenting adults. No need to create a special class of citizenry which will inevitably be exclusionary.

[Seli]

Disagree, a legal document could be crafted to achieve the same effect between any number of consenting adults. No need to create a special class of citizenry which will inevitably be exclusionary.

I'd hate to be a spoilsport, but I really do not see outside parties respecting these types of inter-person contracts like they'd respect the society and government endorsed marriage.

Basically, it is simply too advantageous to have a type of contract enforced by society that is clear and with the force of tradition behind it to contemplate removing government sanction from any type of marriage at this moment.

[Kelli Fury]

The claim is that opponents of state sanctioned ssm are bigots while proponents are not. I'm arguing that any public definition is exclusionary/discriminatory, so proponents need to get off their moral soapbox

The VAST majority of opponents to same sex marriage are not opponents of marriage in general. They just don't wanna share their marriage institution with gay people because they think they're icky- which is bigoted. Thinking gay people don't deserve to do what other people are doing is bigoted, thinking nobody deserves to do it is not bigoted but also not the issue at hand. Exclusion does not equate bigotry if it is on reasonable grounds and equally enforced.

[Lord Mord]

Commodore,

The claim is that opponents of state sanctioned ssm are bigots while proponents are not. I'm arguing that any public definition is exclusionary/discriminatory, so proponents need to get off their moral soapbox.

No, this pretty much still holds -- all that you've demonstrated is that there is one major exception to the bigoted side, opposing gay marriage, which is "those who oppose marriage altogether" -- such as the libertarians and the sexual liberators.

Disagree, a legal document could be crafted to achieve the same effect between any number of consenting adults. No need to create a special class of citizenry which will inevitably be exclusionary.

Yes, but such a document already exists: it's called a marriage certificate. No need to make it exclusive: everyone is entitled to "marry" as many or as few consenting people as they please.

As such, every time the avenue opens a little wider, surely that is to be applauded?

[IheartTesla]

How exactly are we supposed to get the state out of the marriage business Commodore?

Judicial - Can't have activism from the courts, no sirree bob

Legislative - The will of the people is overwhelmingly against decoupling the state from marriage. Most married people like having the state recognize their union, and most legislators are married people too.

Executive - The President can't pass anything without Congressional approval.

I'm sure you can find a liberatarian state like Wyoming where you can try to to decouple marriage from the state...if you can get past Dick Cheney's pea shooter.

[KyleLitke]

We are clear on the fact that marriage was not an invention of the church and originally had nothing to do with religion, right? Cause it doesn't seem like a few people in here are aware of that. Marriage as it originally existed had nothing to do with religion or even love and was essentially about ensuring (as much as possible at that time) the legitimacy of a mans heirs. If his wife had a son, then it must be his bloodline. Obviously there are problems with that but this was long before any other real way of making that determination. Of course, by that definition it was about a man and a woman (because marriage was essentially solely about the bloodline), but it sure wasn't religious in nature. Religion didn't take it over until much later, and even then, it wasn't until relatively recently that love even entered into it. Now that marriage is (for the most part, arranged marriages aside) considered to be about love, there's no reason for the state to ban anyone from it simply because they're gay.

The idea that Christianity (or any religion) invented marriage and the states stole it (and therefore shouldn't have it) is bizarre. It's not a religious creation.

[Spaceman Hobbes]

How exactly are we supposed to get the state out of the marriage business Commodore?

Judicial - Can't have activism from the courts, no sirree bob

Legislative - The will of the people is overwhelmingly against decoupling the state from marriage. Most married people like having the state recognize their union, and most legislators are married people too.

Executive - The President can't pass anything without Congressional approval.

I'm sure you can find a liberatarian state like Wyoming where you can try to to decouple marriage from the state...if you can get past Dick Cheney's pea shooter.

You're letting reality get in the way of Libertarianism! How dare you!

Disagree, a legal document could be crafted to achieve the same effect between any number of consenting adults. No need to create a special class of citizenry which will inevitably be exclusionary.

So you're saying that we should abolish marriage and replace it with....something that's not 'marriage' but functions in a similar way between and number of consenting adults? These documents need to be recognized by the state otherwise they would be worthless. If they're recognized by the state then there will be a formal process to obtain them.

It be easier to get ride of DOMAs, un-define marriage at a government level and keep the current system intact.

[KyleLitke]

By the way, to the earlier question of which state will be the last...I don't think there will be any one state. I think other states will follow New York, but eventually it'll take a federal decision to get the other states to agree. Honestly, I still think it's far down the line unless the Supreme Court decides differently, but I do think eventually we'll get there.

[Xenophon]

Exclusion does not equate bigotry if it is on reasonable grounds and equally enforced.

But I imagine Commodore would say that many if not most of the distinctions we make about who can marry and who can't are unreasonable. I actually sort of agree with him/her(/it?) about that. I don't think the ban on polygamy is particularly reasonable. I think relationships between two individuals have a greater potential for intimacy and happiness for the overwhelming majority of people, and I think it is good for the state to promote them, but that's not the standard we use for most of our laws, so I can see the argument against it too.

We are clear on the fact that marriage was not an invention of the church and originally had nothing to do with religion, right?

Exactly. (Although "nothing to do with religion" is putting things a bit too strongly, IMO. Most societies made some sort of connection between marriage and a divine cult. But then, the ancients generally made those sorts of connections for everything, so marriage wasn't that much more religious than, say, basket-weaving for the Greeks or Romans.)

Edit: But just try telling that to most people today and they'll look at you like you're crazy--organized religion has certainly done very well at co-opting marriage in the popular consciousness.

[Sturn]

And stop comparing being gay to pedophilia.

Just. Stop.

From my post of: "Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!"

Let me more full attempt to describe what I meant by this sarcastic sentence.

Do you think it should be legal for a grown man to marry a 12 year old? You respond, no of course not, as you should. Why? Because you personally find it immoral or disturbing.

Many (a majority in the world?) still find homosexuality immoral or disturbing. So, the same reaction comes from us when marriage, once reserved for a man and woman, is corrupted into between a man-man or woman-woman. Some of us feel the same outrage that you do if a law to allow pedophiles to marry their young victims was passed.

But, you say, that's different. No one thinks marrying a 12 year old should be allowed!

I take it that we have all read GRRM here. Any outrage over the fictional presentation of similarly aged girls getting married? Having sex? But that's just a book you say. But, SoIaF is based upon a medieval setting when such a thing was morally accepted. Do some Googling and I bet you can find some modern cultures that still find this moral. Does that make it right? I guess it depends on what culture you were raised in whether certain mores are moral or immoral. Me, and many, many, others were apparently raised in a culture that does find same sex mating immoral (but that doesn't mean we hate gay people). You of course may have different experiences. So who is right in the cosmos of the universe? I don't know.

But before you automatically say the more open, liberal, free, answer is the right one, remember that the pedophile that wants to marry a 12 year old may agree with you.

[Underfoot]

From my post of: "Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!"

Let me more full attempt to describe what I meant by this sarcastic sentence.

Do you think it should be legal for a grown man to marry a 12 year old? You respond, no of course not, as you should. Why? Because you personally find it immoral or disturbing.

Many (a majority in the world?) still find homosexuality immoral or disturbing. So, the same reaction comes from us when marriage, once reserved for a man and woman, is corrupted into between a man-man or woman-woman. Some of us feel the same outrage that you do if a law to allow pedophiles to marry their young victims was passed.

But, you say, that's different. No one thinks marrying a 12 year old should be allowed!

Sarcastic or not, that is a comparison.

[SkynJay]

Ok, since you are too damn dumb to understand simple things, lets do this slowly.

If two adult, consenting people want to do something that in no way harms someone else, that is one thing. No one cares if you find it "icky," there is no sane reason to keep them from it. I notice you have ignored the posts on the board that point out factually that marriage is not tied hand in hand with Christianity.

On the other hand there is no way a 12 year old is able to mentally consent to marriage to a pedophile. See the difference?

Consensual sex vs rape should in no way, ever be compared.

Edit: Not to mention narrowing this down to the act of sex alone is a dumb way of keeping this argument off of what is important. Equal rights, including such things as end of life decisions, hospital visitations, etc.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

No, I think that a 12-year old should not be able to marry because I do not believe that they can consent in an informed manner, and I do not personally think that even parental consent should be enough at that age. (CA, MA, MI, MS, NC, OH, WA, WV: I'm looking at you. You see, it is actually entirely legal to marry a 12-year old in some parts of the US, however disturbing I may find it.)

I don't think anyone should be able to marry a gay 12-year old either, come to think of it. Two adults? No problem. (More than two, too, but it's apparently difficult enough to start expanding the definition of 'two consenting adults' that I think it will be a long time before the state starts getting into multi-party marriage contracts.)

Just because something is 'icky' or even 'immoral' doesn't automatically mean it should be illegal.

[Lightsnake]

From my post of: "Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!"

Let me more full attempt to describe what I meant by this sarcastic sentence.

Do you think it should be legal for a grown man to marry a 12 year old? You respond, no of course not, as you should. Why? Because you personally find it immoral or disturbing.

Many (a majority in the world?) still find homosexuality immoral or disturbing. So, the same reaction comes from us when marriage, once reserved for a man and woman, is corrupted into between a man-man or woman-woman. Some of us feel the same outrage that you do if a law to allow pedophiles to marry their young victims was passed.

Yeah? Then you ARE a homophobe. Because a 12 year old cannot consent to a marriage contract. They aren't mentally advanced enough. Man-man or woman-woman marriage consists of two people who wish to legalize their relationship. They're both consenting adults and there is no rational or logical reason their relationship is wrong unlike marriage to a child

[Spaceman Hobbes]

From my post of: "Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!"

Let me more full attempt to describe what I meant by this sarcastic sentence.

Do you think it should be legal for a grown man to marry a 12 year old? You respond, no of course not, as you should. Why? Because you personally find it immoral or disturbing.

Many (a majority in the world?) still find homosexuality immoral or disturbing. So, the same reaction comes from us when marriage, once reserved for a man and woman, is corrupted into between a man-man or woman-woman. Some of us feel the same outrage that you do if a law to allow pedophiles to marry their young victims was passed.

But, you say, that's different. No one thinks marrying a 12 year old should be allowed!

I take it that we have all read GRRM here. Any outrage over the fictional presentation of similarly aged girls getting married? Having sex? But that's just a book you say. But, SoIaF is based upon a medieval setting when such a thing was morally accepted. Do some Googling and I bet you can find some modern cultures that still find this moral. Does that make it right? I guess it depends on what culture you were raised in whether certain mores are moral or immoral. Me, and many, many, others were apparently raised in a culture that does find same sex mating immoral (but that doesn't mean we hate gay people). You of course may have different experiences. So who is right in the cosmos of the universe? I don't know.

But before you automatically say the more open, liberal, free, answer is the right one, remember that the pedophile that wants to marry a 12 year old may agree with you.

The bold bit is your homophobia. No one is asking for you to be gay, have gay friends, interact with gay people anymore than you realistically have to in day to day life. But they should be treated equally under the law. And that's why the pedophilia argument doesn't make any sense. You're talking about a law that clearly is protecting someone(ie the 12 year old) and comparing it to laws that discriminate against people. Who is protected by a DOMA? Saying that someone is disturbed by something is not a reason in itself for something to be illegal. If I don't find marriage to 12 year olds to be illegal it doesn't become OK. These laws exist to protect people, not my personal sensibilities.

This is not an issue of morality. There is no victim here. This is not something equatable to murder, rape, or theft. It offends your religious sensibilities, but in this case no one is forcing your religion to be OK with that. But your religion is not the state(nor should it be) and in the area in question most people don't find homosexuality immoral or disturbing.

That said, I find your position on gay marriage to be disturbing. Additionally I find it to be immoral because it denies rights to people who make choices that do not negatively affect others.

[Shael]

...snip...

Jesus, how I long for the day when these people come up with an argument that doesn't remind me of a zombie horse plowing a wasteland. Something new. FFS. I'm getting serious fatigue here. And yet these people are always FIRED UP WITH RIGHTEOUSNESS!!! It's obscene.

Yeats. Demographics. Pat Robertson. Blah blah blah.