New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Joanna vander Poele]

Party hard, New York!

[Snarfy]

So who is right in the cosmos of the universe? I don't know.

I know, and here is a hint, its not you.

Please stop comparing gay marriage to child exploration, your making other Christians look stupid.

[TrueMetis]

I know, and here is a hint, its not you.

Please stop comparing gay marriage to child exploration, your making other Christians look stupid.

You know that's probably not the word you meant to use, but somehow it still works.

Now Sturn just stop you're not helping yourself here.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

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.

I understand what Sturn is trying to convey; I dont really agree with it but I dont see him as homophobic either. He is merely making the point that to some people, homosexuality is immoral...and to those people, the idea of homosexuality is as repugnant to them as the idea of rape of a child would be to me.

I am of two minds in this. On one hand, I am thrilled that finally, a wrong has been righted; it is abhorent to deny people equal treatment under the law and forbidding gays from the legal rights of marriage did just that.

On the other hand, I am one of those libertarians you all were mocking a few pages back. Regardless of thoughts of bloodlines or inheritance, the root of marriage...at least in this nation...is a religious one. So, for the GOVERNMENT to grant or perform or be involved with any marriage gay or straight to me is a violation of the first amendment.

Ideally, the Government should only grant civil unions, the legal protections, to all truly consenting people who would wish such a cohabiting agreemnent. Those who wish the religious stamp of approval could get the marriage from whatever church, temple, mosque, pagan grove, or whatever they would wish that would grant it.

However the real world is not the ideal one, so I am pleased that gay people have the same legal protections in marriage as straights do...at least in NY.

[Lucky Pierre]

Here is the bill if you'd like to read it. It is barely 4 pages long and very simply states that marriage is a fundamental right and that same sex couples should have the same access as others to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations and benefits of civil marriage. All marriages of same sex or different sex couples be treated equally in all respects under the law.

That's about it.

[kungtotte]

To those of you who say you are libertarian and think the government should stay out of the whole marriage deal all together, why do you only bring this point up in threads regarding gay marriage?

[Lord Mord]

Sturn,

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.

So what? What, we allowed gay marriage, suddenly we have no moral credibility? We said yes, gays are whole people, we suddenly lose our tongues? We forget what the word "no" is? What has one to do with the other?

Let's suppose gay marriage goes national. Someone wants to marry a child, you know what you can tell him?

"Um. ... No."

Whew! Crisis averted!

[denstorebog]

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).

"I think the idea of Africans reproducing is immoral but that doesn't mean I'm a racist." This could become an internet meme! Here's the template:

I THINK THE IDEA OF (insert minority group) (insert naturally occurring action in present continuous tensse) IS IMMORAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M A (insert commonly used term for people hating selected minority group).

Take it away, guys.

[Hazl]

Would just like to add my slightly belated congratulations!

Good job, New York, joining my home country among those who've seen the light. Just hope my "home" state will come around as well!

[Commodore]

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.

No you just use the system of enforceable contracts we have now, that applies to everyone.

Marriage is a special state status that applies carrots and/or sticks to a certain class of people. Not the same.

The way we have coupled marriage to the state really distorts the debate. There is no ban on gay marriage, this isn't Saudi Arabia where you could be imprisoned for having a gay wedding. It's true ssm isn't/wasn't part of the definition that comes from the state. But the state has no business defining marriage at all, and whatever definition it decides upon is exclusionary. Even if you say it encompasses any and all number of consenting adults, it still creates a system where married and married people are treated differently by the state.

In my libertarian utopia, you go to LegalZoom.com and choose from a myriad of marriage contracts, or get one custom made, or don't have one at all. Then you go to your church or temple or sweat lodge, have your wedding, and the state is entirely oblivious, until/unless there is a contract dispute.

[Maltaran]

So no tax benefits for married couples in your utopia? No special inheritance rights, next of kin status, etc?

[Commodore]

So no tax benefits for married couples in your utopia?

No, tax code shouldn't be used to encourage/discourage private behavior.

No special inheritance rights, next of kin status, etc?

Unnecessary, easily stipulated in a contract.

[Xenophon]

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 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.

Well, at least this is a much better argument that your initial one. However, as others have pointed out, the age limit on marriage is not simply set by the fact that people find it icky, it's part of a whole doctrine of age of consent. You'd be better off making Commodore's argument that there's no difference between gay marriage and polygamy, except that we approve of the one and not the other.

On the other hand, I am one of those libertarians you all were mocking a few pages back. Regardless of thoughts of bloodlines or inheritance, the root of marriage...at least in this nation...is a religious one. So, for the GOVERNMENT to grant or perform or be involved with any marriage gay or straight to me is a violation of the first amendment.

Except that it isn't. You might think of marriage as inherently religious, but the US does not (nor does the common law). Marriage, in the eyes of the US government is a contract between two consenting adults, which the state permits various religious figures to officiate, but when they do so they are acting as agents of the state (hence the "by the power invested in me by the state of x"). Hence, it is civil law that governs divorce, regardless of whether you had a religious wedding or not, and people are still considered married even if they change religions after getting married in one (just to give a couple examples).

[SkynJay]

Well, the big bad gov't IS involved in marriage. So that is the starting point we have to work with.

NOW, since we are allowing some couples to marry, and others not too, all the perks that are associated with the marriage are arbitrary available to some and not others.

We can start small, with tax status changes. Then we can move on to some of the heavy hitters.

Hospital visitations rights- A family member can still block a persons life partner from visiting in some states, against the sick persons wishes.

Inheritance rights - It took a court ruling THIS YEAR(ironically in New York), to allow a the surviving member of a 25 year relationship to get the inheritance their partner obviously wanted them to have, solely because their marriage wasn't valid in the state they ended up residing in.

Sorry libertarians, the Goverment IS involved in marriage, so start a new thread if you want them out of it completely. As someone pointed out, it only seems to brought up when we get a step closer to some sort of equality for homosexuals.

[Ormond]

Inheritance rights - It took a court ruling THIS YEAR(ironically in New York), to allow a the surviving member of a 25 year relationship to get the inheritance their partner obviously wanted them to have, solely because their marriage wasn't valid in the state they ended up residing in.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that that was a state court ruling, so it only applies in New York. Unfortunately I am sure there are many other states in the USA where the courts would ruled differently in that matter.

[Xenophon]

Sorry libertarians, the Goverment IS involved in marriage, so start a new thread if you want them out of it completely. As someone pointed out, it only seems to brought up when we get a step closer to some sort of equality for homosexuals.

I don't think that's fair to libertarians. Gay marriage is the main topic that provokes discussions of marriage law these days. And as Commodore has been perfectly clear about in this thread, they generally also think the ban on polygamy is unjust. In my experience most libertarians are fairly principled about applying their arguments widely. I just think they seriously misunderstand human nature and the relationship between the individual, the state, and society.

[Kelli Fury]

The problem is that Commodore does not really understand how the law works regarding contracts in general. You can write a personal agreement that someone is entitled to your 401k and health insurance benefits all day long, but the only people that can be held to the agreement are the two of you, not your employer and your HMO. In order to enforce such an agreement, even among yourselves, you must sue the other person, which would be both more expensive and require more use of the legal system. Most divorces are pretty simple and a lot of precedent is out there to give people an idea of how it will be sorted out. Personal contracts are trickier and if worded incorrectly or promise something unreasonable, can be completely unenforcible. The polygamy argument is a straw man, since most people here would also be fine with that. I know I think it's fine so long as you can only claim one spousal dependent for tax purposes.

But anyway, so few people want to abolish state marriage that this argument is about as useful as arguing about what the best use for a monkey that flew out of your ass would be.

[Sturn]

Here's a stunner. I actually agree that homosexual couples should have all of the benefits of married couples. Even if I don't agree with your morals, I believe in equality in the US. I just don't want my culture's concept of marriage to be further turned into something else.

Please give couples of any sort all of the benefits of a religiously married couple: tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, and anything else mentioned above. Even if some of your society is against your way of life, it doesn't mean your freedoms should be any less.

BUT, don't infringe on my way of life either by changing another piece of my religious culture. But, wait, we aren't pressing on your freedom of religion, you can still get married you idiot! It's the change of what marriage is, I'm of course not arguing this is the end of marriage.

I will try to use a different example to explain what I mean. Christmas historically and religiously was the celebration of the birth of Christ. Many still want it to be such. But, now Christmas is becoming an exchanging of gifts, we have to call it a Winter Celebration in schools, and our town halls have to errect Holiday Trees. Yes, I can still celebrate Christmas in my own home the way I want it to be. That freedom has not been removed. But the culture of the land I live in has completely changed what Christmas is. It appears marriage may be next.

[Relic]

It appears marriage may be next.

You know what they say about static and unchanging systems, right?

I guess the way you feel about gay marriage is the way i feel about GoT on HBO.

[kungtotte]

I will try to use a different example to explain what I mean. Christmas historically and religiously was the celebration of the birth of Christ.

Well now. Historically Christmas was the pagan mid-winter ritual celebrated around the darkest time of the year as a sort of reassurance that the warmth and light would return once spring and summer came. Then of course this was co-opted to create the Christian celebration of Jesus Christ, same as how the spring-time festival of fertility was co-opted and turned into Easter and so on.

But thank you for playing.

(Your 1950s idealised version of marriage is also not very similar to the historic origins of marriage, by the way.)