New York's same-sex marriage ban struck down
 

Looks like this is an issue that just isn't going to go away. Is it possible for the country to come to an agreeable resolution of the whole same-sex marriage flap?


http://www.newsday.com/news/local/st...span-headlines

This is the best news I've heard all day. For weeks, really. Thank you, New York.

No, it isn't. There are those who demand that they receive special privileges. As long as they keep demanding this, there is no accomodation that can be reached which will satisfy both parties.

There WILL eventually be a Constitutional Amendment along the lines of DOMA. And it's going to suck for the gays, but they've brought it upon themselves by advocating so vehemently for the "right" to marry.

I've got nothing against perversion. In fact, I SUPPORT perversion. But when perverts try to force their beliefs upon the rest of the population, they're going to get smacked down.

And thus....we have my reasoning for living in NY.
It sure ain't the freakin' weather.

You do realize just how these types of statements make you look......don't you?

And how does allowing them to marry "force their beliefs on the rest of the population"? Seems to me that our open acknowledgement of their right to be "perverts," as you put it, has led to their beliefs being a regular part of what we see, read, and talk about, even if the marriage question had never come along. Gay beliefs are already widely-discussed in America. How does legalizing same-sex marriage "force their beliefs" on the rest of us when their beliefs are already out there for everyone to see. If two guys get married, how does that force anything on YOU?

I've been saying for a long time that the best way to solve this problem is to make civil-unions cool for any two human beings, and take away tax benefits for ALL couples. Us single people have been screwed long enough!
Just using the term marriage is what started the whole problem. Dont take the word for a sacrament and make it the same word for something else... thats just like poking the religious crazies with a stick.

thinktank wrote:


Like that's ever going to even have a chance of making it through Congress.

Hahahaha. :lol:

As of January 1, 2005, registered domestic partners in California have many of the same rights and obligations as legally married spouses under state law, including community property rights and the right to receive support from one's partner after a separation. Domestic partners will both be considered legal parents of a child born into the partnership, without the necessity of an adoption. I am proud to be a Californian for things like this. Welcome to the club, NYers.

Now how to give you our weather....

C'mon daswig, you're baiting us.....I hope. On the slim chance that you are
serious, you diminish only your own stature with your intolerant rhetoric, but I'm
sure that you know that! The state has nothing to gain by introducing
restrictions on the ways adults physically express their affection for each other,
and much to gain by not interfering with the intent of any adult couple to
form a legally recognized, civil union.

I'll take this one.

Once gay marriage is legitimized through the public arena (ie, the govt), everything associated with it will be shoved down our throats. It'll start in the public school system with sex ed. They'll be teaching about gay sex to our kids.

Next, will be the churches. You think it's gonna sit well with the gay intifada that some churches will not permit them to marry in their particular church? And with the legitimization from the govt, the churched won't have too much to stand on.

Then of course will come the change in Title VII, which will now include sexual orientation and thus, even more lawsuits.

I could go on and on, but you catch my drift. Look, I'm not opposed to having safeguards in place for life partners when it comes to hospital visits, estate issues, ect.. Most people aren't. The fact that this would change thousands of years of Western culture bothers me. Most people really do not think through this issue and thus dismiss prematuraly; saying why do people oppose something that won't affect their own lives.

Maybe I just dont understand the associated legislation well enough, but really, how can legal civil unions do harm to anyone? They wouldnt raise taxes at all, right? If anything it wouldnt it just bring in more income for the state through more marriage licenses? Or am i wrong, is there something underlying that I'm missing?

I'll take this one. :thumbsup:

Isn't gay society already out there? Just because legislation would allow homosexual unions does not mean that people have not been gay for thousands of years. Hvae you ever watched the Bravo channel? A great deal of the programming on the channel is intended for homosexual men. Is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy shoving anything down your throat? Somehow I doubt it.

I think it would be responsible to teach gay kids about sexual education, just as it is responsible to reach straight kids about it. If responsible people can expose the kids to a safe way to have sex before they hear it from a less responsible cource, it could slow AIDs. I'm sure you dislike AIDs as much as the rest of us. Kids are going to be straight or gay no matter what congress says, this simply allows them equal rights to other sexual prefrence groups. Would it bother you if two gay guys you've never met were able to have community property rights? Somehow I doubt it.

Churches have the right to refuse to marry anyone they please. That isn't an issue. It is still legal for a church to refuse to marry people because they are black or disabled. Whether it's right or not, they are allowed to make that decision on their own.

This will effect your life if you are friends with some gay guys and they invite you to their wedding. I really don't see how this will negatively effect your life.

That is a question for your local school board. They have the power right now to choose their curriculum and authorizing gay marriage will not change that power one iota. A local school board can teach gay sex right now if they want. Changing marriage law does not force anything on local school boards in any way. Each locality would still retain complete authority over what it teaches. Frankly, your comment above amounts to nothing but scare-mongering tactics.

They'll have the 1st Amendment to stand on. No church has EVER been forced to marry anyone. That will not change.

Changing marriage law is does not change Title VII.

Born and Raised in San Diego....been there, done that.
tecoyah asks someone to remind him why he actuallt DID move to NY

That and the "Gay Intifada"...

Damn, i had thought i had heard it all. That language is low and insulting, and i don't think it is in keeping with the spirit of this place. You're not talking about someone out here, some mysterious kind of thing you can hate. You're talking about people. People in your neighborhoods, your family, this community right here. It's sad what you're doing.

Anyhow, here's one queer who's raising a glass to the hope that we can love who we want to love.

Cheers to that, friend. We're all in this together no matter how we choose to live.

The only reason a constitutional amendment was brought up last year was to get naive social conservatives on the gwb bandwagon. Notice how all mention of a constitutional amendment has dissappeared.

OK, maybe I'm the stupid one, but didn't this go up for vote and the people already decided? Aren't we, the people, the ones who decide what is constitutional, then our government act accordingly to what the people vote for? That's how it's supposed to work, right? The people spoke, and spoke overwhelmingly as to what they want. Our government is supposed to listen. I couldn't possibly disagree more with this bullshit.

Here's a news flash people. Everyone is not equal, never have been, and never will be. I'm not treated as well as a married couple so maybe I should bitch and whine and cry and sue so I can get tax breaks without being married or having kids......... Now, does anyone else see why this is complete fucking horeshit?

um...i have no idea how the above is relevant.
look, this is an equal protection issue. period. the right knows that, if the matter is allowed to stay framed on these grounds, they will loose every time. and it puts them in a bad place. so what you get instead is crap left over from the christian coalitions mobilizations against proposition 2 in colorado (i think) about "special rights"--which is idiotic--and then a newer, more vile stream of simple bigotry wrapped up as a defense of tradition. with a little dollop of persecution complex thrown in for good measure.

so what results is that you have the christian right whining loudly about their fears of having the "homosexual lifestyle" "shoved down their throats" while they work to stuff their reactionary (breeder) conceptions down everyone's throat by every available political means.

what you also get is an effort to gut the entire idea of equal protection by gutting the idea of equality BEFORE THE LAW...which is a move that is so abysmal in its logic and possible consequences that i cannot imagine how any conservative--who in the main are about a version of equality before the law, framed in the fetishism of the fiction of the isolated individual--are able to choke out the sentences out without difficulty.

the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love.
it is as simple as that.
even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love.
great program, folks.
you should be proud.

what possible state gain is there for a "legally recognized civil union"? And how does a "legally recognized civil union" differ from a MARRIAGE?

It has? That's NOT what I'm hearing, and judging by the fact that 11 out of 11 states that held referendums on gay marriage (including Washington State, which ios as Left Coast Liberal as you can get) went AGAINST it, often by HUGE margins, it has a decent chance of passsage.

Marriage is in a church... it's a sacrament. From the stuff you've been saying i would have figured you knew that. The other, is for two people like me and my fiance who dont believe in God, but still want to commit to eachother and to get better financial aide for school and the tax break.

just as irrelevant as the post before yours. no one is trying to dictate who can love another person. the issue is a a legal one, it's about changing the definitions of marriage in a legal sense. do you really think state's have put issues concerning personal feelings toward another person on the ballot? surely not.

Anybody here who does NOT think that they're a pervert is suspect. I'm a heterosexual male in a 10+ year long monogamous relationship with my wife, and guess what? I'm a pervert. I enjoy sexual acts with my wife which could get me arrested in the State that I live in if performed outside of the bedroom, despite the fact that we're married. I'm sure that if I went into my personal kinks with my neighbors, I'd get a whole lot of "Ewwwwww!!!!" as a response.

I don't CARE who you love, or how you love them, or what other fetishes or whatever you're into (and YES, EVERYBODY has SOME kind of fetish unless they're dead). Hell, if your spouse dies and leaves you their body for your necropheliac tendencies, hey, that's just dandy in my book. You into Bukkake? No problem. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. But taking your personal perversions PUBLIC and demanding recognition for them is entirely another matter.

I do know that, which is why I see "gay marriage" as a problem. It infringes upon freedom of association (churchmembers being able to associate with whom they want), and is a matter of the State sticking it's nose into a RELIGIOUS matter.

You want better financial aid and tax breaks? Fine. Work for them. But don't try to codify your lifestyle.

Maybe we should take away your right to have sex with women. Then let's see you "bitch and whine and cry and sue". Let's take away your freedom to marry, and take away your freedom to love. Let's say "the world isn't fair, and there's nothing we can do about it" as we slowly die away.

-OR- we can be brave in the face of something we may not understand and say "I will do everything I possibly can to make sure that the law sees all people as being equal, whether I like it or not". I say it's horseshit to let bigoted people try to impose their small beliefs on other people.

It would give State recognition and legal standing to homosexuals. That opens up a whole can of legal worms.

Hmm? I thought codify meant something similar to arrange/organize...?
Also... never said i supported gay marriage... i suggested no marriage, remember? CIVIL UNION... as in living with someone, property rights, and all that... nothing about it happening in a church. the Church is your problem, i leave those places alone.

That doesn't seem to stop you from trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of us, does it?

Man, that shoe sure does pinch when it's on the other foot, don't it?

I need some specifics though, because as of right now, i've seen nothing factual as far as negative effects on me. Please explain, I'm honestly curious. My stance as of now is the fact that i dont think it'll do anything that effects me, which is why i support it. If it's what someone wants and it doesnt hurt me, why would i care?

Codify = introducing into the legal code, seeking to give a statutory base to a particular viewpoint.

What rights are you currently denied that cannot be gained by simple, straightforward contract law?

What harm do those worms bring? Legal equlity just seems like it'd be worth the small trouble (lawsuits) that might come with it. Heterosexual marriages bring plenty of lawsuits, but no one is trying to have heterosexual marriages banned. The worst thing that might happen if they are found to have equal legal standing is the uproar from bigots, and not making a law simply to protect people from bigots seems extremly wrong.

Whoa, i'm straight. This isnt about me personally, i'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I think it all comes down to the difference between tolerance and open acceptance as "normal". You do understand the difference, yes?

Your sexual orientation is immaterial. What can't gay couples gain through standard contract law rather than legalization of "civil unions"?

visitation rights in hospitals don't usually allow for such contracts, or family can override them.

adoption rights don't often work otherwise.

health benifits don't transfer from your employer to a partner by contract of your making.

the list goes on.

oh, and some states are trying to ban contracts that would approximate civil partnership.

It is a Rarity
 

I will very rarely call someone out in public, It is always prefered to handle these things behind the scenes.

BUT.........outright Bigotry is unacceptable in these forums.
IT WILL CEASE NOW.........or someone will no longer be with us.

I do hope this is understood.

What can't strait couples gain through a standard contract law rather than a civil union? Whats the point of marriage if there's no point to marriage? There are plenty of things they cant get w/o being recognized as a civil union. Tax breaks, financial aid.. etc.. these have ben mentioned by previous posters.

We're talking about the u.s. constitution here, not state referendums.

But clearly you consider being gay to be an extra perversion. If you do not favor gay marriage because you disapprove of public perversion, and then you go on to list what you consider to be some heterosexual perversions, you must surely disfavor heterosexual marriage - for most certainly hetersexual behavior is EXTREMELY public (whether you personally get arrested for it or not). Somewhere around 99% of all public signs of affection and intimacy, on television, print, radio or in the park, are heterosexual in nature. But you don't consider that unecessarily public to the degree that you oppose their right to marry. So clearly you consider homosexual behavior to be beyond simply perverted in the sense that everyone is perverted.

Which means your excuse of perversion is no longer valid or you are simply anti-gay, in which case you are a bigot.

I think the "can of worms" so many people seem so terrified of opening contains their own insecurities and mirror reflections of their own ages-old bigotry. No one likes to have to admit that they're on the wrong side of justice and equality; some are more reluctant to face that about themselves than others. Some are so intent on preserving that facet of their psyche that they're willing to resort to violence to protect it.

The rhetoric that proclaims that allowing one group of citizens to engage in the exact same activity that every other citizen legally engages in is a "special right" is beyond disingenous and borders on the insanely asinine. If this were a "special" right for gays, then they would be the only group allowed to enjoy this right. The fact that everyone in this nation except gays are allowed to marry is proof enough that they are not receiving equal treatment under the law. Those holding to the "special rights" argument is either an outright liar or grossly naive.

Not a single argument made against allowing civil unions holds water when scrutinized under the microscope of logic and reason.

The matter is plain and simple. Those against recognizing that gay couples be allowed to enjoy the same rights as other citizens are basing their arguments not on logic and reason but on emotion - namely fear. History has shown innumerable times the wisdom of basing public policy on fear.

irate: your distinction is baseless, above.
marriaga is a legal institution predicated (in this context) on questions of love committment, etc. if you think that something seperate than that is at stake in the question of whether people who happen to be gay can afford themselves and their ehirs the legal protections afforded throug marriage, you are fooling yourself.

I suppose a gay couple could just hire a lawyer and have a document drawn up to do this:

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
t status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.


Should only cost a couple thousand dollars, and maybe half a year.
Interesting.......my marriage liscence cost me all of $15 and I got it that day.

I didn't see you comment on the "religious crazys" comment earlier in the thread. What makes that any less low and insulting (although judging by most posts it is keeping with the spirit of this board)? Apparently Christians aren't to be allowed the same civility as gays.

More on topic, this is just the first in a number of appeals. IIRC, the NY Supreme court isn't actually the highest in the state, the highest is called the Court of appeals. Meaning this is only a preliminary judgement. A similar thing happened in Florida, where an initial pro-gay ruling was overturned upon appeal.

Christians are more than welcome to believe what they (we) want, so long as it doesn't persecute poeple. I am a Christian, but I also think that being gay isn't a sin, it's a way of life. It's not better or worse than heterosexuality. Just like Christians don't kill people for not beliveing in God, I choose to see the part of the bible that condems homosexuality as what it is: cultural leftovers from when men allowed their beliefs to enter the bible along with the word of God. Somehow God doesn't seem the type to presecute people, as it's usually the followers who are responsible for any persecution.

For the record, any decent and informed catholic knows that being gay isn't a sin. The sin is in homosexual sex, gay's aren't allowed to marry, marriage is reserved for man and woman as the foundation for family and life, gay's can't have kids, gay's can't marry, no sex without marriage. Boom.

Just give them the civil unions and be done with it already.

Since everyone here is talking about Christains I feel I should post what the bible says about this.

Romans 1:26-27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with out men, and recieved in themselfs the due penaly for their perversion.


Here are a few things I think Christians should take out of this verse that most do not. First God gave them over to their sins. God let them become like they are, in fact he intended them to do so. Second they have already recieved their due penalty for their perversion. It is not our duty as christians to punish people who are gay, the bible does not tell us to do that. What the bible does tell us to do is love them as ourselfs. Love the sinners says the bible. Jesus came down for the sinners not the righteous. Perhaps those of you who call yourselfs Christians should consider that before you are so quick to be bigots.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Christianity is not by any means a reason for bigotry. Bigorty comes from ignorance and fear alone, so leave God out of it.

No, I think you should do all of that.

I don't know about all these breaks, though, I've always heard of a marriage penalty.
But perhaps that is just with school. Since my wife and I are students, that could explain the lack of breaks.

lol, well for the record, neither my wife nor myself have exchanged anything. We enjoy our shameful lusts and unnatural relations in addition to our natural relations ;)

My point wasn't about Christianity and its beliefs, it was about the fact that stating someone's beliefs about homosexuality in terms that aren't glowing is considered bigotry and gains warnings from moderators, but people are allowed to post whatever they feel about Christians without repercussions. People routinely label Christians as fanatics, crazys, ignorant, and even more inflammatory terms but if someone dares speak any word against homosexuality they are likened to Hitler.

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order.
There is a difference between a Glowing portrayal, and calling a class of people Perverted. Context is quite important in these types of debates, and judgement calls are made based on member posting history, as well as thread content. As far as Christian bashing......We do not take kindly to any inflamatory statement, regardless of who/what it is directed at. There is a fine line between open debate, and nasty argument, we try very hard to allow you all to walk that line. It is VERY important to let members know when they have crossed it.
The Moderator staff here maintains the civility so many enjoy, and rarely find on the internet. And that civility is meant to encompass all who come here, no matter the background, as long as they adhere to community rules. If indeed you feel persecuted by ANYONE.........staff included.......report it and it will be dealt with.

"Just give them the civil unions and be done with it already."

Praise the lord. Unfortunately, this is one of those demographics that thrives on their own persecution, regardless of the extent to which it exists.....

"the christian right wants to dictate who other people can choose to love.
it is as simple as that.
even as they wave the flag and talk about "freedom" they want to dictate who others can choose to love.
great program, folks.
you should be proud."

Wow, no offense...but that's the most ignorant thing i've ever heard you say. You're gay aren't you? (that was a joke)

Are you talking about homosexuals or the religious right? There are some in every demographic who thrive on their own persecution. Ever heard a white male blame affirmative action for all of their woes? Ever heard a christian fundamentalist claim that the morality of america is threatened by effeminate children's how characters?

"Ever heard a white male blame affirmative action for all of their woes?"

Nope, no sir i haven't.....and i'm seriously doubting that you have as well.

I'm in favor of gays marrying. However, we live in a democracy and maybe it's time we listen to the majority of Americans on this issue at least. Civil Unions with benefits? Ok. Marriage? No. Is that so hard? I believe that the gay community should take what they can get. In 20 years people may adjust a little. In the 1950's no one ever thought this is a topic that would be even be discussed. Gays should demand Civil Unions and equal rights now, worry about the rest later.

This may not be the best analogy, but every time I hear arguments in favor of civil unions and against marriage I keep thinking "separate but equal".

It may be a bit overblown, since the level of discrimination doesn't reach that high, but the notion - to an extent - is still there.

My only reasoning as to why this keeps being disputed is the fact that many people refuse to accept the rules of the constitution that they live under. Our nation's constitution, in more words than this, tells us that we are free to live in peace with our fellow man in equality. If men are not being treated equally, then we should adjust our treatment of *them*, not the constitution.

Does anyone have a rational arguement against me?

At the risk of being branded a "bigot" again, I'm going to wade back in. You list (or cut and paste) a whole bunch of incentives for people to get married/benefits of being married. Not heterosexual people, not homosexual people, but people in general (this is important because some homosexuals do indeed currently get married to members of the opposite sex and are reaping the state-granted benefits of marriage, and they've been doing so since marriage came into existence).

Looking at your list, you'd think that the state had some "compelling governmental interest" to encourage people to get married. Otherwise, why would they be in the marriage game at all? I mean isn't marriage a religious institution that's been recognized by the State? I wonder what it could be.... Hmm...The courts have said CHILDREN. Yes, indeed, the State has been deemed to have a "compelling governmental interest" (it's "legalese", I know, but hey, sometimes you have to use the words that the courts have used to get the idea across) to encourage people to procreate, and to create and encourage the formation and continuation of stable homes for those children, so that the species does not disappear or begin turning out even larger hordes of poorly socialized kids that the State then has to either care for or incarcerate.

Now we undoubtedly could all agree that the State has no business checking up on the health of people who want to be married, right? (Or am I stepping on some unknown psychic landmine with this assumption? Only time will tell.) So the State can't check the fertility of the parents before they get married, since that would be an unwarranted medical intrusion, right?

And we'd all most likely agree that the State couldn't require actual live offspring from a union before such a union became "legally blessed", right? Therefore, requiring statements of intent to procreate is out, right? So what do they do to encourage people to breed within the confines of a long-term stable family structure? They offer "bennies". No, not the pharmaceutical kind, the financial incentive kind (if this offends the pro-drug crowd, I apologize in advance. I LIKE drugs, and take as many as my physician prescribes for me, so PLEASE DON'T LYNCH ME for saying this even in a figurative sense, 'k???).

Now why would there be a need for the State to offer bennies to get people to breed within a structure of a married family? Could it be that a conventionally structured family is one of the most cost-effective and proven ways (in an across the board sense) of producing healthy, well socialized future adults? Could it be that so-called "broken homes" or "single-parent homes" don't do as good a job (in an across the board sense) of raising healthy, well socialized future adults? Are there exceptions to this? Sure. But as a rule, this "conventional wisdom" appears to hold true.

So, the State recognizes marriage between couples who potentially might be able to breed in an effort to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society as a whole (the conception and raising of children who will become productive, well adjusted members of society, as opposed to kids who end up in jail at State expense because they come from a broken home). You'll notice that in most States, the husband of a woman who gives birth is presumed to be the father of the child even if he is not, which is how you end up with situations where the husband of an adulterous wife ends up paying child support for a child that he is not the biological father of. The State does not recognize marriages because, well, gosh, it gives us warm fuzzy feelings to see people married, and weddings stimulate the flower and wedding-cake industries, and they SURE as hell don't recognize it to get the 15 bucks.

It's a simple "carrot and stick" approach. The State offers the carrot (bennies) to get people to form long-term breeding pair families, and the stick (loss of marriage benefits, plus alimony, child support, social stigma, et cetera) to keep people from breaking up their families. This is why divorce rules differ in many states between married couples who have produced offspring and married couples that haven't produced offspring. It's generally a longer process to dissolve a marriage with kids involved than one without kids involved, not because it has to be, but because, once again, the State has a "compelling governmental interest" in keeping these family units together if it's at all possible. And people who breed outside of the confines of marriage generally do not get the same level of bennies from the government that people who breed within the confines of marriage do, right?

Are you with me so far?

Now we get into the whole gay marriage issue. Now obviously, same sex couples generally can not produce offspring between the two parties of the marriage, right? (This isn't "bigotry", it's "biology".) And since marriages of same-sex couples cannot produce children without some intervening third party (and incidentally, for the parties to produce offspring, there would have to be adultery with a person of another gender, something the State doesn't want to encourage, probably because of the "bleed-over" affect saying "adultery is OK in our book if it produces children!" would have amongst heterosexual couples, and remember, the State has a "compelling governmental interest" in encouraging that NOT to happen, the idea is to produce children who then live with both biological parents, rather than to encourage the production of children through infidelity, which may very well result in the dissolution of the marriage) , why would the government want to provide incentives to form such families or to keep such families together? What, exactly, is the "compelling governmental interest" that would allow the State to get involved in a religious issue and recognize same-sex marriages? It's not enough to simply say "heterosexual couples get bennies for being married, so homosexual couples should be able to marry and get the same bennies", since the bennies are there not "just because", but rather to encourage a certain specific conduct (being a married couple in a stable long-term relationship) which is geared towards producing a concrete biological result (children) that are socially well adjusted. And please keep in mind that the carrot isn't there for married heterosexual couples permanently....if they stop the conduct that the bennies are there to encourage (ie being married to promote breeding and provide a stable home environment for those kids) the bennies disappear.

I think you're greatly oversimplifying the Constitution. If it says we're free to live in peace with our fellow man in equality, doesn't that mandate a complete redistribution of wealth and a voiding of personal property, or a complete lack of discrimination in employment (before you freak, think about it. If all men are truly to be treated equally, what's to prevent a junior high school dropout from declaring himself to be a surgeon and operating on people, or somebody who has never been on an airplane opening his own air charter service with him as the pilot) or a wide variety of things that it clearly doesn't intend?

In all 50 states, a homosexual is legally free to marry any person of the opposite sex who can legally be married. There are lots of people who can not legally get married to their potential partner of choice. These include but are not limited to cases of incest even if both parties are consenting and of age, or bigamists or polygamists, or people who wish to marry a person not of age. They all have the same rights as everybody else: There's a statute which specifies what constitutes a legally valid marriage, and anything else which doesn't meet the criteria doesn't count as a valid marriage in the eyes of the law. I recall a case recently from overseas where a woman wished to marry her recently and unexpectedly deceased fiancee, so that she could take his name. Under the statute, such a marriage was prohibited, so the legislature basically passed an "in this specific case only" law to allow it.

Under DOMA, IIRC, marriage is explicitly defined as a union between one man and one woman. That's the law. If people don't like it, they can lobby to change it, just as they can lobby to legalize any other form of currently prohibited marriage, or any other law they don't like. But I wouldn't suggest holding your breath waiting for it to happen.

daswig -

No one would label you a bigot if you did not act like one. This latest post of yours, although not on the surface bigotted, is an attempt at excusing the act of limiting the rights of gays. In that sense, it is almost a complete divergence from your previous posts in this thread which have focused exclusively on the various forms of the act of sex. You received the, accurate, label of bigot for your opinions that gay couples are above and beyond the "normal" perverted nature of breeder couples and therefore should not be given the same rights as breeder couples.

Now your tune is that the gov't is attempting to promote reproduction. This is clearly an attempt on your part at logically excusing your known bigotry. The gov't is not in the business of promoting reproduction - if it were, a heterosexual couple who have created a child would receive benefits, not simply the generic heterosexual couple, who may or may not be reproducing. Additionally, you ignored the aspect of adoption. If it were the case that the gov't was promoting reproduction (though it is not) the gov't would also assuredly promote adoption by providing benefits to couples, regardless of sexuality, who adopt - it saves the gov't from having to care for orphaned children and puts orphaned children in an environment (whether that be with a hetero or gay couple) that is far more capable of producing a "quality" adult than an orphanage. But the gov't does not give benefits to couples who adopt, beyond the minimal benefits the gov't already provides for couples (heterosexual) who have children. Marriage is an entirely seperate issue to children in the eyes of the gov't. The support for marriage is based on the false pretense of some underlying religion to our gov't. And it is propogated in this day by bigots, particularly those who produce 8 paragraphs attempting to excuse their bigotry.

well dawsig, you couldn't possibly have based your conjecture on the large corpus of literature studying "traditional" versus "broken" homes and crime rates. Why can I say that? Well, for one, it doesn't support what you said.

You're just flat wrong. Next time preface your conjecture with acknowledgement that you are just opining rather than trying to pass your opinion off as though you had read it in a scientific journal.

Feel free to refute what I just stated with citations of the peer-reviewed criminology journals you obtained your information from. I'll look them up and post the content in this thread.



*still wondering about all these financial benefits from my marriage.

Manx,

As incorrect as Dawsig is in his opinion regarding the linkage between "traditional" families and crime rates, he appears to be correct on at least some of the language the US Supreme Court's majority opinion claims in regard to encouraging child bearing and family rearing as a compelling state interest.

The dissenting opinion, however, in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) claimed "We protect those rights not because they contribute, in some direct and material way, to the general public welfare, but because they form so central a part of an individual's life. [T]he concept of privacy embodies the moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole."

That was the dissenting opinion, however, and was not established as the correct view until about 15 years later in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

All that said, the Supreme Court has so far recognized that stretching back into common law England, our laws have recognized the importance of child-bearing and rearing and established punishments for sexual acts not intended to procreate. Not until the late 19th century, however, has there been a distinction between hetero and homosexual acts that were done without the purpose of procreation.

Sodomy laws, for example, were actually aimed at married couples who performed non-procreational acts of sex in the bedroom. Although rarely punished, mainly because the complaining party was also considered an accomplice in the act according to English common law.

The fact remains, however, that the courts agree there exists a compelling state interest to regulate marriage--but the reasons vary. Sometimes due to procreation and child-rearing, as our common law heritage attests to, but sometimes just to uphold the moral opinion of the people, as Scalia and Thomas argue in their dissenting opinions of the case I referenced above.

Whether homosexuals can or can not procreate, adopt, or adequately rear children is a more profitable discussion, in my opinion, since that is sometimes the legal hinge these marriage rights are being denied upon--at least by the people within certain states. What they have argued is that the right to privacy is limited to matters of "family, marriage, or procreation." But now the argument has changed to propose that homosexual acts (and marriage rides in on the tailcoats, even though O' Conner tried to squelch it while concurring with the majority) fall under equal protection. While religious reasoning may be the underlying logic of the justices, it certainly can not be stated in such terms jurisprudentially.

Force their hand.

I may refer you to any one of the threads about affirmative action.

daswig may want to review marbury vs. madison.

just because something is "The Law" does not mean it is not subject to review by the courts. This is a long standing part of American political and legal life.

Please quote where I said that homosexual couples are "above and beyond the 'normal' perverted nature of breeder couples". Have you actually ever READ the statutes regarding what is considered legal or "normal" sex? I have what I would consider to be a fairly "vanilla" sex life. Yet under the criminal code of the State that I live in, my tastes are probably 80% illegal, even though I'm married to the other party and am heterosexual. For example, oral sex is illegal. It doesn't matter what the combination is....man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, it's all statutorily banned. If the standard for what "normal" sex is constitutes "sex which is not illegal", then my sexual appetites are abnormal, which is why I self-classify as a pervert.

They're not in the business of ONLY promoting reproduction, they're also in the business of trying to keep families together. It's a multi-pronged issue. That's why, all other things being equal, a single mother with one child gets fewer financial "bennies" than a married couple with one child.

Adoption is viewed as a different issue, and a far less optimal solution than the child being with his or her biological parents. Yet even so, when one adopts a child, they do get certain financial bennies, such as the dependent status on their tax returns. If a married couple adopts, they get the full bennie package as if the child was indeed their own biological offspring.

So you're saying the bennies of marriage and children are suddenly "minimal"? If the combined bennies are so minimal, then why all the fuss over a fraction of them that comes with marriage?

As for your explicitly accusing me of being a bigot, well, there's only one response I can give you:
:icare:

didn't see that part of the thread, apologies for double postage. i don't always comment on it because that one also hits home. Being Baptist and queer means that sometimes seems like there's damn few people in the world who don't hassle me in some way shape or form for my idenity.

i don't give up on either fight. check my postings, and i think you'll see that.

yes dawsig, but you know as well as I do that your state's statutes exist as legal only because they fail to distinguish between the sexes engaging in the act.

The Texas discriminatory statute was the door opener to the equal protection argument of homosexuals.

martinguerre, in all fairness, I'm certain dawsig is well aware of marbury v. madison. he is an attorney, after all. and wouldn't be worth squat if he didn't ;)


The thing I can't remember is whether the court came up with judicial review in regards to anything other than acts of congress. Of course, that whole fiasco was political and still contested as a properly reasoned legal argument. Brilliant, one could argue, but not particularly sound.

I don't quite remember if it provided the reasoning for judicial review of state enacted legislature, though. perhaps dawsig will post the info for me and save me digging through my past notes instead allowing me to work on my family & law section due next week ;)

no...i get it. but the point i'm trying to draw is that he is assuming that popularist support is the only authority, second to the courts. i suggest that if we're being realistic...it's not that way and hasn't been for some time.

activist judges? Marshall was the granddaddy of 'em all. and i think part of the blessing of that...there are curses as well...is that sometimes we don't have to wait as a nation for everyone to realize that it's not okay to be bigots.

Are you suggesting that DOMA has been judicially challenged and overturned? Cite, please.

Until a law has been SUCCESSFULLY challenged and overturned by the courts, it's still considered valid law.

I'm oversimplifying? You're overcomplicating!

The world is not a hard place to live in if you stop cluttering it with exceptions. The only words that should affect anyone's opinion of anything are: hurt and help.

and yes, it IS that simple.

Thank you and good night.

I can't even believe some of the discussions going on in this board. Let me boil this one down:

All couples deserve the right to marry. To deny same-sex couples this is bigoted.

The end.

If that's so, then should the hypothetical mother/son or father/daughter couple be allowed to marry if they're both over the age of consent? If not, why not?

The Constitution and BoR are very complicated. If it was simple, there wouldn't be any debate about it, it'd all have been resolved by now. ;)

In my experience, there are very few things which are truly "black and white" with no areas of grey.

Hey, why not?

They're only complicated because people are too obsessed with creating rules for their life and the lives of others (control) to just LIVE and BE - because none of this really fucking matters, does it?

Thanks for putting a smile on my face, Halx!!! :)

You didn't state it in those words, rather, you stated it in your first post of this thread and your subsequent follow up post. That you contradict yourself may confuse your opinion of what you have stated, but it does not confuse my opinion of what you have stated.

Yes, you are repeating yourself now. So apparently, since you are perverted, you oppose your own marriage just as you oppose the marriage due to perversion of gay couples. Since I doubt you oppose your own marriage but you do oppose gay marriage, you must be telling me that gay sex is above and beyond the perversion that you practice yourself. This is that contradiction I pointed out to you, twice now. This is your bigotry, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
This is illogical. If the gov't was not primarily interested in promoting what it views as morally appropriate behavior, it would heavily promote adoption, above and beyond the methods by which it promotes childless marriage. It is far more in the interest of gov't, as you have described, to provide more palatable environments for orphans than it is to promote the joining of a man and woman, who may or may not breed. An orphan already exists and can benefit immediately if the gov't actually intended to promote the well being of children in this manner. The effectively round-about manner of promoting marriage to promote "healthy" children is highly inefficient.
Obviously I'm not suprised. Just to note, I am not accusing you of anything. I am pointing out the accurate label for the opinions you have expressed.

I'm serious! Why not? I personally wouldn't do it, but it wouldn't bother me if someone did.

Well, since inbreeding is not a good thing maybe?

ok, personal story here that tells WWAAAYYYYY WWAAAYYYY too much about my extended family.

I believe he is a distant cousin twice removed, but everyone has someone like this in his/her family...

Basically, the guy had a hard childhood, abuse, etc, and ended up basically raising his sister, a lovely girl about 2-3 yrs younger than he was. He grew up, married at the age of 20 and stayed married until about 26-27 where he and his wife decided the marriage was not going to work out. After a not so drawn out divorce, he and his sister renewed their childhood closeness and decided to marry. I am not joking here. They were allowed to marry by basically telling the state that they would never have children. I think the guy had to have a vasectomy, but details in that area are sketchy at best. He and his sister/wife lived out their years in happiness before passing away in the early 1980's.
Basically, the state will allow you to marry a relative, but there is a hodgepodge of paperwork, etc, that you must complete and from what i can gather about their life, the state seemed to be most concerned with birth defects that may arise from a bro/sis having children. Then again, this is SC we are talking about....

i know it sounds like heresay but it is traceable in my family line...although that branch died off when the only 2 children married and did not procreate.....

not sure what relevance that adds to this discussion other than a response to 'why can't you marry a relative"

not doma, at least not yet. i'm talking about the start of the thread.

My first reaction to this is: because they're brother and sister! That's why! beyond that, though, there really isn't a reason why not. I'm sure there are probably some very deep psychological issues involved in a case like this, but it still begs the question: why not?

Let's think about it: aside from the possible genetic effects of siblings reproducing, what's the issue? Who is harmed in this? Women over the age of 35 risk having children with defects, but we do not legally disallow this, so the genetic argument does not stand up to scrutiny. One could logically argue that the emotional harm to the family would be a reason, but if a brother and sister are even considering marriage, hasn't the emotional damage already been done for some time? If we were so concerned about emotional damage, we'd take a much more proactive role to prevent emotional abuse. So this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Another argument could be that the law disallows it. Okay, but why? On what grounds? What justification is there for disallowing marriage between 2 people who want to marry? Another argument can be the slippery slope argument - that by allowing this, then we'll be forced to allow adults to marry children or that we'll be forced to allow adults to marry microwave ovens. No we won't. There is nothing wrong with stating that 2 human adults may enjoy the institution of matrimony regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or voltage. Slippery slope arguments rarely stand up to scrutiny.

The fact of the matter is that segments of the population only wish to witness that with which they themselves are comfortable. I truly believe that this arises from one's own insecurities. A heterosexual man who enjoys lesbian pornography is violently repulsed by gay pornography. It's not the act of homosexuality with which they have a problem, it's the raging fear that they themselves may get aroused by the sight of two men engaged in romantic or sexual activity. The reasons behind this are meant for another thread so I won't go into them here, but I think it's quite plain to anyone who gives it serious thought.

Therefore, in order to avoid any discomfort or unpleasantness, it's easier to just hide or stigmatize that which makes us uncomfortable, even though aside from the icky feeling we get, it does us absolutely no harm whatsoever.

Why can't a brother and sister get married? I highly doubt that more than a miniscule percentage of the population would ever consider this for themselves, but allowing that there is nothing wrong with this forces us to re-examine what there is wrong with homosexual marriage or adoption. Some people are just not ready to undergo that kind of self-examination.

matthew: if you, as a conservative, are going to accept how your political machine chooses to frame this issue, then you have to accept the consequences. so given that the christian right has chosen to frame their side of this conflict in terms of mobilized bigotry directed at folk who happen to be gay BECAUSE they are gay, then it follows that the issue, for people like yourself, can be little other than restricting the right of others to love as they choose. and the question of marriage is but a pretext.

it's your position, friend.
i would attempt to swat it away with ad hominem attacks too, if i were in your place.
because the consequences of it are indeed ugly, and they smack of something well beyond the relatively benign problems of ignorance.

I am happy to see this. Personally I see no reason why homosexuals cannot marry, probably partly because of the enviroment I came from (an area with a strong gay community). This will not destroy marriage(the legal institution). this isn't giving any sort of "special protection" this is just making everything fair.

You know people claimed that interracial marriage would destroy the institute of marriage too....

I don't think that necessarily follows. In fact, I think it very often doesn't. If there existed a desire in all gay marriage foes to restrict the right of others to love as they choose, then why are many in favor of civil unions? I'd estimate that the primary worry is that the government will be endorsing homosexual behavior and, therefore, undermining the opposing positions.

Aside, to anyone: If civil unions were allowed and made sufficiently similar/identical to the legal aspects of marriage, would the issue bother you as much? I'd agree that it wouldn't be a perfectly ideal situation, but it could be a situation where it really is separate yet equal. Would it not be a much less important semantics argument at that point?

foolthemall:

all i'll say in response is to suggest that you look through this thread--or any number of others like it--and notice the gap that seperates the content of the (often venomous) posts directed at gay folk from the goal you (and others) assign them above. it does not take a rocket scientist to note the assymetry. but i do notice that conservatives tend to adopt a kind of crackhead legalism when it comes to reflecting on the matter.

again, this is basically an equal protection issue.
on those grounds, the right is powerless to stop the extension of the protections of the legal institution of marriage to folk who are gay.
so the idea is to switch the ground.
the right apparently thinks it ok to exploit, structure and unleash bigotry so long as they are able to pretend that it is focussed on a narrow objective.
what matters, it seems, is that it is agreed upon amongst christian right conservatives that this linkage is logical.
but it isnt.
the implications of the sentiments expressed run far beyond the stated objective.
i simply think that, at some point, it would be nice to see folk from the right recognize what their machine is doing.
but i also know that self-criticism is not a long suit in that world, so i expect very little.

So where would the line recognizing marriages be drawn? Polygamy? Necrophelia? Pedophelia? Bestiality? Sock and hand puppets? Fark had a thread not too long ago about a woman who came home to find her husband having sex with the family canine. It was reported that what upset her the most was that her husband said he loved the dog more than he loved her. Should he be free to marry the dog?

It's one thing to say "live and let live" in the libertarian sense, but once you get into the government recognizing it, problems are presented.

And that 'crackpot legalism' is exactly what makes me think that your assertion in response to matthew is widely inaccurate.

Ability to consent. Dogs don't have it, corpses don't have it, inanimate objects don't have it, and it's generally agreed that children don't have sufficient maturity to take in fully what they'd be consenting to.

Perhaps we should tackle this one equality at a time. This thread isn't about beastiality, polygomy, or incest. I can see why someone might say, "When will it go too far?", but those things are arguabally much farther away from the norm than homosexuality. Obviously beastiality, pedophilia (outside of parental permission), necrophilia, and sock puppets are out considering that both members cannot enter into a contract. Polgamy is another thread, but I suppose that that and this are not completly dissimilar, though they are far from the same.

This needs to be argued on it's own merrits, not by trying to associate it with socially unacceptable behavior like necrophilia or beastiality.

Ability to consent? What if the person leaves their mortal remains to the potential spouse for the purposes of necrophelial marriage? What if the child's guardian consents to it for them? What if the child's guardian is the person seeking to marry the child? What about cultures where the societal norm is for girls to wed in arranged marriages between the ages of 7 and 10 years old? You say inanimate objects can't give consent...does that mean that a person who uses a sex toy is raping it? Or that a person who has sex with an animal is raping the animal, despite the fact that legally the animal is property?

foolthem: i am unclear what you are trying to argue.
what you write seems self-defeating..

Like I said, yes there are special circumstances. A parent can sign a contract that is validated through the court system that allows a child to marry and have sex legally, so as to avoid stagitory charges. Those are the exception, not the rule. I'm not sure the court would allow someone to leave their remains to someone for sexual or marriage reasons, it really depends on how open minded the judge is. After a person dies, legally their body becomes property. Can you marry property? No. You cannot marry a dog or dead person or sock or loaf of bread because they do not have any legal standing as far as matrimony is concerned. Animals have limited rights, but that does include abuse (rape is a type of abuse). If you were to have sex with an animal, it is considered both illegal because of beastiality laws and illegal as animal abuse. Entering into a marriage with an animal would really do nothing as you already have visitation rights and such being their owner. As having children with a dog is impossible, childrens rights would not come up (that also applies to inatimate objects and dead people).

Gay people can reproduce if they so choose by adoption or a third party donator (sperm or egg, depending on the gender of the partners). A dog, dead person, or inatimate object cannot legally own property or be a parent to human children.

I hope that clears it up.

Edit: If a parent gives a last wish for a child (such as who the child will stay with, or wills, or what have you) that is to be respected by the court, it is considered that the parent was alive when the order was given, so it is not a wish or request from a dead person. Someone who is dead does not have legal rights to anything after the death that was not arranged while he or she was alive.

Why would someone who wishes to restrict the rights of homosexuals to 'love as they choose' be in favor of civil unions for homosexual couples?

I don't see a necessary contradiction in having contempt for homosexuality, yet approving of civil unions. Where you see asymmetry, I don't.

Ah, but isn't homosexuality something which has only recently become relatively "normalized"? Don't the results on the recent State referendums strongly suggest that homosexual marriage is in fact NOT normalized? (Percentages voting in 2004 to ban homosexual marriage by state: AR: 75%, GA: 76%, KY: 75%, MI: 59%, MS: 86%!!!, MT:67%, ND: 73%, OH: 62%, OK: 76%, OR: 57%, UT: 66%, as reported at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...llot.measures/ ). In the 11 states where the question was asked on the ballot, the answer was not only "no", but "HELL NO!", even in Oregon, which is generally seen as a relatively "progressive" place. These numbers are hard numbers, not based upon a survey or poll, but upon actual votes cast. How long ago was it that homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by psychologists? So how "normalized" has homosexuality actually become in society as a whole? Those numbers suggest that while there may be some tolerance for homosexuality, but that homosexual marriage certainly is NOT "normalized" amongst a supermajority of American voters, at least in the 11 states that we have unassailable figures for. Even among the Democratic party hierarchy, homosexuality is not universally "normalized", as demonstrated by Sen. Robert Byrd's comments and the party's general very recent backtracking on "God, Guns, and Gays" (never before November 2004 did I think I would see Hillary quoting the Bible), which are seen even amongst the party faithful as having cost the Democrats the 2004 election.

As for members not being able to consent, why would there need to be consent or a contract at all? After all, in most of the cases we're talking about, the "second partner" is alienable PROPERTY, not a legally recognized individual. It's like the definition of murder...murder is generally defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought." If your dog shoots you, it's not murder, and yes, that has actually happened. And a corpse at one time could indeed enter into a contract for the disposition of their remains, yes?

Interesting....are you sure? Because I can think of several things off the top of my head that would contradict that statement...

And a married couple of a human and an animal could not reproduce in the same exact manner, through adoption or third party "donator"? After all, one of the partners is indeed human, and DNA is not required from both partners if there's a third party donor involved. As for owning property, have you ever heard of an "estate"? And does death render a parent no longer a parent? Legal causes of action routinely survive the death of a party, yes?

Complication. You add too much complication. My answer to everything, assuming the consequences have no direct adverse affects on others is, "Sure, why not?"

And why can't you marry property? Isn't the case that you can't marry property simply because the law states that you can't? Doesn't the law also state that marriage is between one man and one woman? So if you're changing the law on one part, why can't you change the law on the other part too? It seems like you're arguing the sanctity of the law (which states no marriage to property) on one part, and the non-sanctity of the law (which states no marriage between same-sex couples) on the other part. Isn't that a contradiction in your argument?