Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 26
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriagePage 2 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
The UK has legalized same sex civil unions, not same sex marriages. I don't know what the exact differences are, but the use of the word marriage seems to carry a lot of weight with different factions. As well, in the UK, civil unions have only been legal since 2004, not that long ago.

And anyone with the ability to think clearly and with a broader vision would realize that the US is a much bigger and more diverse country. The UK has 62 million people, the US has 312 million. As well, in the US, each state has the right to approve or not approve and legalize same sex marriage. Seven states have already legalized same sex marriage


I think you may be ranting up the wrong tree. The prime minister the poster was referring to is most likely Canadian.....going on to his second mandate and all. We have prime ministers too. Sooooo, since you brought it up. Canada was one of the first, actually I think the very first, to legally recognize a gay marriage in 2001. The actual omni legalization was ascended in I think 2006 which made us like the forth country to do so. So 2004 is actually a long time ago in terms of legalized marriage. Diverse or not, 312 milliuon people or 33 million people, representative democracy or parliamentary democracy, the US is behind other non politically dithering countries without Bible Belts.


Oh, and btw, when is the UK going to elect a black prime minister?


Just as soon as you all elect a woman...twice.


Same sex couples make just as good a parent as hetro couples and should be afforded the same rights in this area too


I agree, but I think it might be more difficult to be equally good parents if you're in a same sex relationship. Kids learn different things from men and women, moms and dads. It's difficult to role model appropriate male behavior when there's no male around. Vice versa, all things being equal, etc etc.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 27
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 7:10:32 AM
If the sanctimonious and hypocritical conservative religious right was so concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage, perhaps they should put their own house in order first and figure out ways to keep them from being the demographic most likely to divorce and have multiple marriages while leading the pack in consumption of pornography, illicit affairs, and sex scandels.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Tom Tancredo prepresents the true face of bigotry in the far right as he called for a return to Jim Crow laws to prevent blacks from voting via States Rights. The same bigotry of "states rights" ignores the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the US in ensuring equal rights for all. The same bunch who hates blacks voting, and gay rights, is also leading a backlash against womens rights.

Then there is the proof that most marriages are already gay marriages.

POSTED June 21, 2011 70% of Existing Marriages May Already Be Gay
New Study Yields Surprising Results
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – As lawmakers in New York clashed over legalizing gay marriage, a new study revealed that well over seventy percent of existing marriages may already be gay.

The study, conducted by Dr. Davis Logsdon of the Marital Behavior Institute at the University of Minnesota, confirmed what many social scientists have long suspected: that within the first five years of marriages, most men become, for all intents and purposes, gay.

“Soon after marrying, most men stop hitting on women and start shopping for furniture,” Dr. Logsdon said. “Scientifically speaking, how gay is that?”

Within ten years of marriage, he added, a significant number of married men stop having sex with women altogether.

“There’s only one way to describe someone who does not have sex with women, does not hit on women, and spends his free time shopping for furniture,” he said. “That word, to be scientific about it, is gay.”

Elsewhere, by a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court asked Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor to make them coffee.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 28
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 7:43:04 AM
Um, Canada may not have the population of the US, but it is easily as "diverse and complex" as America.

If gay marriage was a matter of political will, we still wouldn't have gay marriage in this country. It was a Supreme Court decision that ushered in gay marriage. It was only after it was the law of the land here that opinions changed for the most part. This really is one of those things that once you have it, you realize that it's not exactly radical.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 29
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 9:06:54 AM
[quote... forceing churches ..and every person living in the state to recognise it as a marriage ...Who is forcing any church to do anything? Funny ... I have always felt like it's the "religious" folks who force us non-believers into things we don't want.

Gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter) is just that ... a marriage of two human beings ... right? I mean after all "gays" are not "animals". What about a marriage between two men who don't appear to be "two" men ... one has sexually transformed himself into a woman? Same for two women ... one has sexually transformed herself into a man?

BTW ... if forcing people to follow religious rituals (of any kind) is against the 1st amendment, then where do I go to complain?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 30
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 9:21:42 AM

when it is the fact that each individual state has the right to legalize or not legalize gay marriage. That makes this issue alone far more complicated given how many states there are and how vast is the population.


Each state has that right--so far. Before 1973, each state also had the right to legalize abortion on demand, or not. Just as then, the idea is to get the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution, but in a different way.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court proclaimed abortion was included within a fundamental right to privacy that the Constitution guarantees. Of course it couldn't be bothered with tiresome details like explaining HOW it came to that conclusion, or identifying just WHAT in the Constitution justified it. We just say there's a right, period, and all you states that aren't with the program had better hop to it. Isn't that how it's done in a free country?

But with same-sex marriage, there's a twist. The Court knows very well no claim that homosexuality is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution passes the laugh test. It's discussed why it doesn't. So a handful of cheerleaders for homosexuality on the Court, wanting to impose their personal moral views on a large majority of Americans, have had to find another way to do that.

In its first "gay" case in 1986, the Court upheld a state law against sodomy, finding the Constitution didn't guarantee any such right. And when it overruled that decision ten years later, it wasn't because it had suddenly discovered that right. It was because it found that an amendment to Colorado's constitution, which prohibited cities from making laws that gave any group more rights than they had under Colorado law, was unconstitutional. Why? Because it was motivated by *animosity* toward gays. Since that made the amendment irrational, there was no rational basis for it--and without that, a law cannot be law. Clever, huh?

And in 2003, the Court used almost the same reason. It found that a state law against sodomy was not reasonably related to any legitimate government purpose--at least where the sodomy was private and consensual. Forget that upholding morality has been considered a completely legitimate purpose of state and local governments since before there was a United States. And forget that the reasoning in the 5-4 decision was jaw-droppingly bizarre and totally unprecedented. A lot of people think that decision showed the Court paving the way for same-sex marriage. We will see.

Of course the countermeasure could be a constitutional amendment to give Congress power to overrule Supreme Court decisions--or one making the authority to impeach and remove justices clear.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 31
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 10:50:03 AM

But the Constitution should not be interpreted to force states that do not want to legalize them to recognize them. The Defense of Marriage Act was meant to allow them to do that. Without it, those states would have to give "full faith and credit" to same-sex marriages performed in some other state.


So on the one hand it's fine to legislate DOMA on the states, but on the other hand:


Each state has that right--so far. Before 1973, each state also had the right to legalize abortion on demand, or not. Just as then, the idea is to get the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution, but in a different way.


So, which is it???? You seem to want the argument to wash which ever way suit's your sense of morality.



So a handful of cheerleaders for homosexuality on the Court, wanting to impose their personal moral views on a large majority of Americans, have had to find another way to do that


I fail to see how allowing 2 gay people to legally marry affects my morality in any manor...yet, I do see how people who advocate denying 2 gay people the right to marry, who advocate discrimination, racism, and bigotry have a warped sense of morality, perhaps in the hopes of keeping the white/right/might that there once was in this country...denying that, as time marches on, the only sure thing "change" remains constant.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 32
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 10:51:27 AM
Ya might want to go back and study up on the evolution of democratic law to prevent the tryanny of the majority from becoming unruly. SC rulings on womens rights to vote, black voting, and gay rights are part of the balance of powers to ensure that the majority does not impose it's archaic mores upon the minority. Without it, the US probably would have become a Theocracy already, women and minorities would have second class status, and there would probably be public stonings of "sodomites". There are still people like Tancredo who want to return "states rights" of having Jim Crow laws. With whites to become a minority in the US within a decade or two, it should be a priority for that temporary majority to uphold principles and laws against majority tyranny.

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/majorityrule.htm
http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 2:52:45 PM

Your knowledge of how many modern countries have legalized gay marrige seems to be lacking. Only 9 countries in the entire world have legalized gay marriage. All small countries comparied with the very diverse and complex population of the US


Where did I say there were more than nine countries that have legalized gay marriage? Your argument that having a larger population makes denying human rights and equitable freedoms acceptable/understandable/excusable is kind of illogical. The United States is the greatest nation on the planet, the best and brightest, the wealthiest, the most advanced, the bringers of freedom throughout the world etc etc etc. Let freedom ring....Ask not what your country can do for you...One small step...I am not a crook...etc etc. I'd suggest that those to whom much is given, much is expected. It's actually a greater failure because your population is so large.

Plus your religious right wing movement is not unique. We have the great states of Texas and Arizona alive and well in Canada. Our own Gov. Bush (Ralph Klein) tried to exclude us from the nation legislation supporting gay marriage by trying to add it to an election ballot. Didn't work because somehow Canada, with 33 million non diverse, simpletons figured it out. If you want to say that you have more religious right wing folks than us...fine. But it's not a function of your population being larger. You could have a million people and if enough of them truly believe that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, you'd be in the same predicament.


In the scheme of things, that Canada legalized gay marriage in 2001, does not make it years and years ago. It is a very current thing.


Unless you've spent ten years wanting to be married but not legally being able to.


As far as I can ascertain, Canada has had one woman prime minister


Well yeah. But you missed it again. You were talking about the UK having never elected a black man. They did however elect Margaret Thatcher....twice. And "Chef" was a damn funny show. I'll spell it out next time.


It is one thing for small governments without much power to elect a woman head of state. It is a very different thing for the US to do so


How so? Is that because women can't manage power? Or is it the complexity/diversity thing again?


It is obviously more politically complex when it is the fact that each individual state has the right to legalize or not legalize gay marriage


Each individual province made its own ruling on gay marriage before the national legislation.


My post is not a "rant." It's very telling that the first thing you feel the need to do in responding to it is to insult--shows you have zero argumentative skills of any caliber.


Sorry.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 34
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 5:44:13 PM

Ya might want to go back and study up on the evolution of democratic law to prevent the tryanny of the majority from becoming unruly.


The U.S. is not a pure democracy, but a federal, democratic republic. One big reason--maybe the most important one--why the men who framed its constitution designed it to be one was to protect against the tyranny of the majority. They wrote a lot about this--what Madison wrote in Federalist #10 and #51 is a good example.

One of several ways the Constitution protects against unfair domination by majorities is by providing for each state, no matter how small its population, to be represented by two senators. Reducing that number in any state without its consent is the one thing even a constitutional amendment cannot do. Whatever the "evolution of democratic law" is, what has done the most to prevent any majority in this country from abusing its power is the careful design of its Constitution.


SC rulings on womens rights to vote, black voting, and gay rights are part of the balance of powers to ensure that the majority does not impose it's archaic mores upon the minority.


When blacks acquired the right to vote, in 1870, it was because of the 15th Amendment, and not the Supreme Court. The same is true of women's suffrage. They had had the vote in some territories and states even in the 1880's. In 1920, the 19th Amendment gave them full voting rights. And if gays enjoy any particular rights, I'd like to know where they come from.

The majority in any state has always had the right to impose its moral standards on everyone by making laws which enforce those standards. The only proviso is that these laws can't violate anything in the Constitution. If anyone thinks some of their state's laws are too archaic or bluenose to tolerate, they can work to change them, or move to another state. And non-residents don't get a say in those laws, so they can think whatever they like of them.

The Bill of Rights never limited state governments at all until about 1900. They relied on their own constitutions, which pretty much tracked the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply most--but not all--of the BOR to the states in a long series of decisions. Not too long ago, it applied the 2d Amendment to the states in McDonald.


Without it, the US probably would have become a Theocracy already


Not a chance. The very first clause in the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law with respect to an establishment of religion. Since 1791, that has made it impossible for the U.S. to become a theocracy, barring a constitutional amendment.

But the Establishment Clause doesn't mean a state's laws can't prohibit murder or some other act because a religion also prohibits it, or that state officials can't have strong religious beliefs, or that the local police can't respond to a problem in a church parking lot.


who want to return "states rights" of having Jim Crow laws.


You might want to study up on the design of the federal government. The Constitution designed it to be just that--federal. That's why each of the three branches has only the limited, enumerated powers the states granted it in the Constitution. All other powers, except for the ones prohibited to the states in Art. I, sec. 10, are reserved to the states and the people by the Tenth Amendment. The United States, unlike the states themselves, has NO inherent powers.

The Constitution intentionally divides authority between the states and the United States. Today that design is called federalism, although the term wasn't used in 1787. And far from being a threat to our freedoms, it helps protect them from an overreaching central government. No reasonable person thinks we have to ignore the Constitution and limit the states' rights even further, or we'll go back to Jim Crow law. But people who hope to create an illegitimate totalitarian government in this country use excuses like that to trample on the Constitution. It's in their way.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 35
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/26/2011 6:05:47 PM
One need only look at the last Bush regime, and the far right religious conservatives today to see that the threat of "big government" does not come from the left or regulations, but from moral "authority"," God told me to go to war with Iraq" delusional wingnut chickenhawks, and scared, scared religious people who succumbed to a Crusade, willing to take out any domestic "commies, greens, liburls, and peaceniks" in their way of empire. I see little difference in the past decade in trashing rights and propaganda, than what we studied in the other Bush's/Walker pawn years, of Hitler.

For all the pandering to love of Constitution, Bill of Rights, and threats from the "left", the whiners these days ignore the most egregious assaults on human rights in the past century. Damn...Gays are somehow a threat to the sanctity of heterosexual divorce and porn addiction. BTW...Mississippi, a bastion of states rights, and homo-bigotry, won the prize this year for free gay porn followed by God in Google searches.
http://wonkette.com/448291/mississippi-wins-coveted-free-gay-porngod-google-search-prize

Gotta love religious, self-righteous, total hilarious hypocrisy. State's rights to be fools, pawns, and bastions of bigotry.
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 36
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/27/2011 5:11:40 PM
I'm glad states are legalizing gay marriage.
aside from it being the right and constitutional thing to do.....
should make Divorce Court a much more interesting show to watch.
:-P
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 37
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/27/2011 5:46:44 PM
Agreed. Gay people should have the right to be just as unhappy and hypocritical as hetero Divorce court and Jerry Springer trash. Difference being, most of gays don't hide their hypocrisy behind the Babble.
http://wonkette.com/448291/mississippi-wins-coveted-free-gay-porngod-google-search-prize
 lubdub_lubdub
Joined: 6/21/2011
Msg: 38
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/27/2011 5:58:49 PM

I'm glad states are legalizing gay marriage.

Me too.
I just wonder if they will eventually legalize polygamy.
And then all the organized crime people can marry each other and then no one can testify against each other, and live on food stamps like those in Colorado City AZ.

Personally, I would have preferred to see government go the opposite way and simply stop seeing marriage as an institution or anything. No licenses. Get out of the social relationship market all together.
Just legally treat citizens as individuals in all things.
At most recognize marriage contracts. Specifying actions and child custody and assets and distribution of such and everything upon voluntary or involuntary dissolution of an agreed upon contract.

You want to see your "spouse" in the hospital? Prepare papers before hand.
Spousal immunity in the courtroom? Pshaw.
No more filing taxes jointly. No more child tax credits.
Your spouse cheated on you? What does the contract say.

Decided to go to Vegas and no contract? Contract doesn't cover it? Sorry, figure it out yourself. Here's a number to a good mediator you have to pay $200 an hour for if you can't resolve things amicably, and you will be signing a contract with them that their decisions are legally binding or face fines.
Oh, you can't decide who gets what? We'll sell it for you in a fire sale auction like our seized property, take 10% off the top as a fee for doing so (75% fee for anything less than $10,000 generated), and split the rest between you.

I don't want the government to recognize any marriage, just contracts. As close to absolutes as possible. Let people figure out their relationships with each other, on their own and within their chosen community, and be responsible for the consequences of them.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 39
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/27/2011 7:25:51 PM
My sis and her current 3rd time a charm mate, were both intent on not needing the sanctity of the instituion of taking one another for granted, until, he succumbed to complications from one of those flu bugs of significant impact, was thrown into a medically induced coma for a month, leaving her with no power to counter the inept and crazy responses of his mom and sister, and unable to have any power over both his wishes, and their lives together at that point. He recovered, they married, she has the power that sis and mom had no clue how to deal with, he lived despite their panic, and because of dear sis being the adult in the room...and they are all currently living happily ever after. Even after her youngest came out of the closet and had questions about marriage after going through all that with them. Lots of stupid, and currently legal ground that screws up the lives of people just trying to live the good life.

And Pat Robertson puts it all in perspective, including climate change and hot gay sex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaSqbuc6KWg&feature=player_embedded
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 40
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/27/2011 8:44:52 PM
I just wonder if they will eventually legalize polygamy.


If the Supreme Court ever requires all state marriage laws to provide for same-sex marriages, I don't see how a state could justify treating polygamous ones any differently--or incestuous ones, for that matter.

If the Court ever does that, the only way it can is by saying that state laws which do not allow for same-sex marriage are not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose. That's the Court's way of saying a law is arbitrary, and so not valid, and that's what it did in both the second and third of its three "gay" decisions.

The several justices who are rooting for same-sex marriage have to come at the issue that way. They know the Constitution doesn't give homosexuals or homosexuality any special protection from state laws which treat them differently, any more than it does with minors, or the old, or landlords, or the poor, or the left-handed, or thousands of other classes of people.

One little problem. Congress required some states to prohibit polygamy forever in their constitutions, as a condition of joining the Union. That means there's no way (short of seceding) they can ever legalize it. But if these states had legalized same-sex marriage, polygamists could claim the law violated their 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

And I don't know how those states could counter claims like that. Once you've said it's arbitrary discrimination--and so unconstitutional--to recognize traditional marriages but not same-sex ones, how can you claim it's NOT arbitrary discrimination to recognize same-sex marriages, but not polygamous or incestuous ones? And how about legalizing bigamy, while we're at it? Just think how *that* would promote social order and harmony.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/27/2011 10:55:53 PM
You should know that such a "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than a logical fallacy.


That sounds so profound. You should know it's dead easy just to assert it's a logical fallacy. But it's not so easy to explain exactly WHY it is. Which, I suspect, is why you didn't try.

By the way, that logically fallacious argument didn't originate with me--it's Judge Bork's. So come on, then. If you think your grasp of logic and constitutional law is better than his, too, show us why the argument's wrong.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/28/2011 12:10:12 AM
But it's not so easy to explain exactly WHY it is. Which, I suspect, is why you didn't try


I suspect she didn't try because it should be obvious. Polygamous marriages are different from same sex marriages. Polygamous marriages would create a logistical nightmare given our current laws and would cause great harm existing married couples. Inheritance, child custody, taxes, medical care, insurance, divorce, paternity...a total disaster. More importantly, the balance of power in such relationships is notoriously uneven and it would be especially hard to protect rights for the poly side of any such marriage. You can suggest all day long that these marriages are to be entered into by consenting adults who do so upon their own free will, but mandating this when any old church in Nowhere, Utah is allowed to create these messes is another thing all together. The risk is simply too great to allow it. And finally, all the benefits enjoyed by married couples would fly out the window as polygamous marriages would allow abuse of all such benefits intended for family support. I could go to the marriage store and by myself a paper wife that allows me to claim a dependant on my taxes. Such abuses would soon collapse the a whole system intended to benefit two person family units with or without kids. So all those people who are now shouting incorrectly about gay marriages breaking down the validity of and negatively affecting their own heterosexual marriages would suddenly have a logical and correct argument against polygamous marriage.

Do you really need an explaination for why incestuous relationships aren't allowed? How about beastial marriage?


By the way, that logically fallacious argument didn't originate with me--it's Judge Bork's. So come on, then. If you think your grasp of logic and constitutional law is better than his, too, show us why the argument's wrong


In the late 1980's he also suggested legalizing gay marriage would cause increased divorce rates and more out of wed lock children. Seems like the guy was a bit dim in the logic department. Not that a cause and effect is proven, but divorce rates have fallen in the states that endorse gay marriages.(http://people.virginia.edu/~jse4fp/Eggleston%20Does%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20Affect%20Divorce%20Rates.pdf)
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 43
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/28/2011 9:03:15 AM

Seems like the guy was a bit dim in the logic department.


I haven't read exactly what Judge Bork said about that, so I don't pretend to understand his legal argument. Maybe you have, and maybe you do. But since you haven't shown that, I'm not sure what your judgment about his reasoning is worth.

It's amazing how such a dimwit ever managed to teach constitutional law at Yale all those years, serve as solicitor general and as a federal appeals court judge, and be nominated as a Supreme Court justice. Of course, I realize he never had the intellect of that wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor--but then, who does?


I suspect she didn't try because it should be obvious. Polygamous marriages are different from same sex marriages . . . Do you really need an explaination for why incestuous relationships aren't allowed?


It may be obvious to you that banning the one is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, while banning the other is not. But it's far from obvious to me. I don't find the argument that one type would cause more social disorder than the other very convincing. And I doubt it would stand up against a polygamist's equal protection claim.

A prenuptial agreement could solve the objections you bring up. Inheritance, paternity, child custody, divorce, taxes, etc. are complex issues already, whenever people marry several times and have children from those marriages. Should we also limit how many wives a man can have, even if he has them in sequence?

You seem to be claiming that "any old church" can create polygamous marriages. That makes no sense. Churches can't make illegal acts legal. And why would legalizing polygamous marriages mean that anyone was mandating them, as you're implying, any more than legalizing same-sex marriages would? They'd be entered into as voluntarily as any other marriage. So I don't know just what risk "is simply too great to allow it."

If there were no rational basis for discriminating against people of the same sex who wanted to marry, why not a marriage between, say, two siblings? Yes, I really DO need an explanation for that. All they'd need to do is agree to be sterilized as a condition of the marriage, and there goes the argument based on genetic defects in their children.
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 44
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/28/2011 1:59:34 PM
I'm glad it was passed in my state.Everyone should have equal rights.As for the religious question the United States is not a theocracy and was never meant to be.
 Welsh474
Joined: 9/13/2010
Msg: 45
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/28/2011 2:00:12 PM
To Earthpuppy - you are the best.

Can't believe there are still attitudes like the poster you were responding to.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/28/2011 6:14:46 PM

It's amazing how such a dimwit ever managed to teach constitutional law at Yale all those years


Come on. Eight out of ten profs are dolts. Nine out of ten for tenured ones.


serve as solicitor general and as a federal appeals court judge, and be nominated as a Supreme Court justice


The senate rejected his nomination for the supreme court. Any idea why? The guy has some pretty extreme views of many things, gay marriage leading to the destruction of the planet being one of them. However, even people with otherwise brilliant accomplishments can be dull, uninformed, misguided and wrong-headed at times. Bork's views on gay marriage are all of those things; a painful lapse in logic.


It may be obvious to you that banning the one is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, while banning the other is not. But it's far from obvious to me. I don't find the argument that one type would cause more social disorder than the other very convincing.


Taxes? Here's the most painfully obvious snafu in polygamous marriages...if I can get married as many times as I want, and so can everybody else, why the #@$% would I file a tax return as a single person. I could pay someone a small fee to marry me and then file a lifetime of more lucrative tax returns. Then, when I find a woman I want to marry, I can just go get married again. No issue. All the benefits afforded to married couples would now be available to everyone thus making these benefits unsustainable. Legitimately married couples would soon have these benefits eroded. Here's a better example. In Alberta we have AISH (assured income for the severely handicapped). If suddenly we changed the rules and allowed people without severe handicaps to make a claim for aish, everybody would throw their name in and get the extra 12oo a month bonus check. Pretty soon the money would run out and people with severe handicaps would be SOL.

Divorce? Why bother? Just go get married to someone else who makes you happy. So you've essentially dumped one of your wives but what's your motivation to initiate a divorce? You don't need to be divorced to get remarried now. However, without your co-operation, your wife has a hell of a time divorcing you, collecting any kind of support from you, especially since you have several other dependants and you're not the one starting the procedure. Thus begins the inherent inequitity in polygamous marriages.


They'd be entered into as voluntarily as any other marriage. So I don't know just what risk "is simply too great to allow it."


On paper, both men and women could marry multiple times. However in reality, people who practice polygamy tend to be religious folk. Men tend to have multiple wives, not the other way around. Many wives, one husband does not make for an equitable union in many respects. Nor vice versa however vice versa isn't normally the case. You don't need the gory details spelled out I'm sure. Women in polygamous marriages are typically coerced into living unhappy, though religiously proper, lives. Ask yourself who other than those brought up in churches that teach polygamy would want to share a guy with ten other women? Some, but likely not many. On the other hand, what guy wouldn't want several wives. Secondly, several issues involving money, support, access to children, access to medical insurance and access to the familial assets would be front and center in a barage of new legal precident to evolve. There's no way to sort that out with prenup agreements especially when the women most likely to enter into these unions would never in a million years have access to legal advice informing them of their prenuptual rights.

There is no underlying power imbalance or coercive nature with homosexual marriage.


And I doubt it would stand up against a polygamist's equal protection claim


Fundamentally, polygamous marriage is not a right of any kind. Therefore denying someone the right to marry several people isn't really denying a basic right. We still have the right to marry one person. Denying someone the right to marry someone of the same sex is denying that basic right. It's not like a gay person can just go marry someone of the opposite sex and be just as happy. It's like taking away your ball and replacing it with nothing or taking away five balls but still leaving you with one.


Should we also limit how many wives a man can have, even if he has them in sequence?


No, because once you're divorced, all of the legal ties that bind you financially to your ex, responsibly to your kids, etc have all be established and theoretically you can move forward and legally into another contract because the new wife will be aware of and accept the consequences of her actions. You can have as many husbands or wives as you want, but they all get dealt with in sequence and with knowledge of the preceeding encumbrances.


If there were no rational basis for discriminating against people of the same sex who wanted to marry, why not a marriage between, say, two siblings? Yes, I really DO need an explanation for that. All they'd need to do is agree to be sterilized as a condition of the marriage, and there goes the argument based on genetic defects in their children


Sterilization? For real? That's wacked. Actually the chances of a f'cked up incest baby aren't that much greater than in non related couples. Anyway, just think for a second about incest. It's a fairly major taboo. Oedipus gouged his own eyes out for banging his mom. Banging his mom. Hard to type. Even harder to read. So with such a heavy freak out, gross out, weird out factor naturally associated with such acts, it would stand to reason that most right thinking people would want to avoid the behavior. Again, I'm not saying everybody, but most people for sure. That, plus familial relationships are inherently different than marital relationships and so they often lead again to power imbalances and coersion. Given these two factors, those who would be interested in an incestuous relationship might be slightly, disadvantaged, abused, coerced, crazy, young, dumb, or otherwise incapable of making decisions that best suite their well being. I'm not trying to suggest we legislate protection of weirdos from themselves. However, legal or not, it's not very likely brother and sister will grow up normally, venture off into life, decide they're made for each other and consentually get married.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/28/2011 8:47:58 PM

We still have the right to marry one person. Denying someone the right to marry someone of the same sex is denying that basic right.


That is false. The Court has never even suggested that homosexual sodomy (or same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. By the standards the Court uses to determine what rights are "fundamental" in its equal protection analysis, homosexuality doesn't even pass the laugh test. In one of its decisions, there is a long review of the history of laws against homosexual acts in the U.S., right from the start.


However, legal or not, it's not very likely brother and sister will grow up normally, venture off into life, decide they're made for each other and consentually get married.


Most of your long paragraph may be true. But what of it? Whether incest is repulsive to most people, what proportion of people would engage in it, whether anyone who wanted to must have bad judgment--none of those things is relevant to the issue I raised: What rational basis would any state have for prohibiting incestuous marriages between infertile couples, once it had allowed same-sex marriages? None that I can see.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 48
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/28/2011 10:53:16 PM

That is false. The Court has never even suggested that homosexual sodomy (or same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. By the standards the Court uses to determine what rights are "fundamental" in its equal protection analysis, homosexuality doesn't even pass the laugh test. In one of its decisions, there is a long review of the history of laws against homosexual acts in the U.S., right from the start.


I'm not interested in the American constitution in the slightest, but if the right to marry is a fundamental right, then not allowing two people of the same sex to do so would be a denial of that right. (I know you're saying "well then so is denying brothers and sisters the right to marry" more on that later) As well, sodomy as a fundamental right isn't really that laughable. I remember a SC ruling that said something like sodomy is an exercise of liberty. Not a right exactly, but an exercise of one's liberty. And all those sodomy laws been over turned now. But what I really want to know is, what do you think? Aside from SC rulings, is there something in your mind that suggests gay people have no right to get married? No legal precedent. Just your thoughts.


What rational basis would any state have for prohibiting incestuous marriages between infertile couples, once it had allowed same-sex marriages?


First of all, good luck mandating infertility procedures for same family couples. Seems like a fundamental right or two may throw a wrench in that plan. Second, same sex marriage is legal in several states where incestuous marriage is still illegal. So I don't really see the conflict you're imagining. I think the reason for that is that people do have some common sense and that slippery slopes are really just for dummies.


Whether incest is repulsive to most people, what proportion of people would engage in it, whether anyone who wanted to must have bad judgment--none of those things is relevant to the issue I raised:


Well, they kind of are. The incest taboo didn't just appear out of no where. Mixing roles causes confusion and is ultimately detrimental to societies. Breeding is an issue, one we've only recently been able to deal with. Psychological changes in incestuous relationships can be very unhealthy, including and especially consentual ones. It's not that most people just think it's weird. Sex with vacuums is weird. But we're not freaked green by vacuums. So there are some actual disadvantages to incestuous relationships that are not at all similar to gay relationships. I'm not even opposed to incestuous relationships or marriage. Just giving you some possible reasons for one, but not the other. I'd be perfectly happy with both.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 49
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/29/2011 6:09:42 AM
change the wording from marriage to domestic union......life partner....whatever.i'm fine with it............but calling it "marriage".......[which is .world wide.a religious concept]........and the forceing churches ..and every person living in the state to recognise it as a marriage is a very huge infraction of the 1st amendment.............sorry..but it is


The error in your logic with this is significant. First of all, marriage STOPPED being a purely religious concept, the moment it was adopted as a part of GOVERNED society. As soon as religious people persuade the rest of us to add ANY of their beliefs and concepts into the government structure, they LOSE ALL RIGHT TO CONTROL THEM FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT.

The religious of the world should take this into account before they demand any of their beliefs be codified: it wont actually be a victory for your beliefs at all: it will mean the surrender of your beliefs to the legal system of the government.

As to the continued suggestions that churches will be FORCED to marry couples they don't approve of, that's utter nonsense, which can be easily seen as such, simply by recognizing that EVERY DAY, churches of all kinds turn away couples for reasons OTHER than their being gay, and nothing is said about it. Unless the churches managed to force a change in the law of the land, such that ONLY they could conduct legal marriages, there is no REASON for anyone to bother to force them to change. MIGHT a gay couple here or there conduct some protest against a church, by calling for themselves to be accepted, despite the fact that they refuse to accept all of the precepts of the church in question? Probably. Selfishness and idiocy is present in every segment of society. So what?

As to the Supreme Court forcing ALL states to enact gay marriage laws, there's no reason to. The current situation is, that ALL states must recognize marriages conducted legally in other states.

Also note: there IS no "right to marry ONE person." There is no "right to be married." That would imply that anyone who wants to be married, but can't find someone who likes them, could legally force marriage on someone else.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 50
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 6/29/2011 8:10:19 AM
If bans on polygamy are unconstitutional, then that's an entirely separate issue. Here in BC we have a polygamous community called Bountiful. It's been around since the 60's when a group moved here from Utah. Successive governments have hesitated to prosecute because they were afraid that the polygamy laws would be struck down. All of this was going on long before gay marriage became the law of the land here.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. Allowing gay marriage won't make the arguments for polygamy stronger or weaker.

There are a lot of churches here that refuse to officiate gay weddings.

If you really want to know what happens when gay marriage is introduced, look where it is allowed. You don't even need to look past your own borders. Nothing much changes - no earthquakes or wrath of God plagues. Just a few more people who love each other spend money on a big party for their friends and family every year, and they commit themselves to each other.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage