Same Sex Marriage is Law in NY

[msj]

Or an unborn baby.

Are you trying to say that jews and homosexuals aren't people?

[Michael Hardner]

Or an unborn baby.

So you would be against judges striking down abortion laws then ?

[sharkman]

What's wrong with unborn babies!

[Shady]

So you would be against judges striking down abortion laws then ?

That's a bit too generalized. But ultimately it's better off for remedies to come from the legislative process. There's usually much less of a pushback when people can hold their representatives accountable, rahter than having something decreed to them by unelected judges. After all, the judicial branches and legislative brances are suppose to be equal.

[jbg]

The cynical view might be that Republicans can't count on making advances with this issue, so they've thrown their ostensible principles away on the excuse that the economy is 'priority'.

I am not a Republican.

[Shady]

I am not a Republican.

Good point. In fact, many people that disgree with the notion of gay marriage aren't Republican. One only has to look at the current occupant of the White House.

[bloodyminded]

Good point. In fact, many people that disgree with the notion of gay marriage aren't Republican.

Certainly not. But they're all ignorant, so they share that in common.

[Shady]

Certainly not. But they're all ignorant, so they share that in common.

I disagree. I don't think that proponents of say civil unions are all ignorant. I think they have a legitimate belief. We can disagree with them. But to label them all as ignorant only contributes to the negativeness.

[bloodyminded]

I disagree. I don't think that proponents of say civil unions are all ignorant. I think they have a legitimate belief.

If so, they should come and out and state concretely what their issue is with same sex marriage. Incredibly, none of them have yet done so.

We can disagree with them. But to label them all as ignorant only contributes to the negativeness.

No, it's a response to their bigotry. And I mean "ignorant" in its literal sense, not as a euphemism for "stupid" or "rude." I am ignorant of the biological intricacies of the honeybee.

[jbg]

Certainly not. But they're all ignorant, so they share that in common.

There are serious issues concerning insurance rates, immigration and the rights of creditors that this bill does not begin to address. The passage of this bill panders to a small activist audience.

I would not be against a bill that was carefully considered and thought out, not the result of some political panic to appease a one-issue voting bloc.

[August1991]

I'm more wondering what happens when a gay NY couple moves to Texas... Is there are 21st century version of Dredd Scott on the way?

Marriage is not slavery. Marriage is just a contract. When there is a breach of contract (ie. divorce) and it is contested, courts have various ways of deciding how to deal with contracts signed elsewhere.

Some would have us believe that gay marriage is a revolution in the legal system. It's not. Two people have been forming partnerships for centuries or more.

-----

The issue here is not legal. For gays, it's about recognition. Gays want to be accepted.

But it's also about definitions/signals. I once argued on this forum that "to be mayonnaise, it has to have real eggs. Otherwise, it's just salad dressing."

Black Dog convinced me (for better or worse) that recognition matters more than clear signals and so now I favour gay marriage. Mutatis mutandis.

Edited June 26, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

There are serious issues concerning insurance rates, immigration and the rights of creditors that this bill does not begin to address.

Issues that don't exist among heterosexual couples who marry?

What are you talking about?

The passage of this bill panders to a small activist audience.

Those who don't believe sexual orientation makes one a second class citizen. Pretty radical.

Jeez, haven't they listened to Pat Robertson's sober pronouncements on the issue?

Because that's the only type of oppositional voice that has made any concrete claims.

Otherwise, it's only been about "ruining marriage," as if gay people have somehow precipitated a 60% divorce rate.

[Shady]

If so, they should come and out and state concretely what their issue is with same sex marriage. Incredibly, none of them have yet done so.

I've heard and read many alternate opinions of the gay marriage issue. Perhaps it's you that's ignorant of this discussion. You need to keep yourself better informed, even if you don't agree with their opinions.

[Wilber]

There are serious issues concerning insurance rates, immigration and the rights of creditors that this bill does not begin to address. The passage of this bill panders to a small activist audience.

I would not be against a bill that was carefully considered and thought out, not the result of some political panic to appease a one-issue voting bloc.

I think the passage of this bill indicates a desire to move on. The realization that same sex marriage is an inevitability sooner or later. The concerns you mention are not really the province of a state legislature. They will sort themselves out as soon as they know what the law concerning marriage is.

[Shady]

I think the passage of this bill indicates a desire to move on. The realization that same sex marriage is an inevitability sooner or later. The concerns you mention are not really the province of a state legislature. They will sort themselves out as soon as they know what the law concerning marriage is.

I tend to agree.

[bloodyminded]

I've heard and read many alternate opinions of the gay marriage issue. Perhaps it's you that's ignorant of this discussion. You need to keep yourself better informed, even if you don't agree with their opinions.

Name some. Aside from "it's in the Bible" and "it's going to ruin marriage," give me a brief rundown of a few of the concrete objections.

[msj]

Typical knee-jerk response, throw around some slurs and claim it's coming from the other side.

jbg, good point, I hope that New Yorkers vote with their pocket books in 2012. The economy will be a lot worse by then.

Actually, it was an inside joke.

In another thread jbg thought I was an anti-semite and I'm just getting him back.

Now, your response, that's typical....

[msj]

Marriage is not slavery. Marriage is just a contract. When there is a breach of contract (ie. divorce) and it is contested, courts have various ways of deciding how to deal with contracts signed elsewhere.

Some would have us believe that gay marriage is a revolution in the legal system. It's not. Two people have been forming partnerships for centuries or more.

Being able to get married has important legal rights and responsibilities that extend beyond simple common law rules.

Just because you and some gay people not be aware of this does not mean that other people (whether gay or not) are not thankful to have such rules in place (particularly when their partner is on his/her death bed, for example).

So, while it may be "just a contract" it can be one of the most important contracts one ever signs on for in their life.

Perhaps if idiots stopped taking the contract for granted then we would have a lesser "threat" to marriage.

-----

The issue here is not legal. For gays, it's about recognition. Gays want to be accepted.

For some it probably is.

For others who want the benefits of the law, it's about getting the contract.

For many its about being equal which is an important kind of recognition.

[ToadBrother]

Please don't try to compare slavery with gay marriage. That type of comparison is completely disingenuious, and kind of disgusting.

I'll compare it any way I please. I'm not in the business of soothing bigots' feelings.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't get it. Why is it well meaning hetorsexual human beings are the ones most interested in the promotion of same sex unions?I know people that feel this "stuggle" for equality is equal to that of human rights for blacks bach in the 40s. I don't see the connection - if a couple of old ladies want to live together so be it - but why is such a matter of such importance - don't same sex couples understand that once you formally legalize a union - it does NOT gain you more freedom but makes you in some cases property of the state to be controled by so-called family law...If gays and lesbians only knew that it was better the old way. Besides I am getting sick of what I consider in some case mutants expecting to be treated with normalacy....so I suppose it is a lot like calling a mentally hindered child "special".....I am sick of special things that are not.

[Wilber]

Perhaps it's just having the right to make the same choices as everyone else, good or bad.

[Oleg Bach]

Perhaps it's just having the right to make the same choices as everyone else, good or bad.

For fifty thousand years there was a basic rule. That having sex was marriage. YOu must have a penis and vagina to have a marriage,,,,,,,,,,,SUDDENLY OUT OF THE BLUE...SOMEone comes along and tells you that your penis is not relevant...that your vagina and womb..really do not exist - that those that are not men and woman in a propagational union....are just the same as you and I - that a woman can MIMIC being a man and it is relative - that a man can MIMIC a woman and it is real....sorry - I like my woman with out that enlarged and protuding clitorus.

[Oleg Bach]

For fifty thousand years there was a basic rule. That having sex was marriage. YOu must have a penis and vagina to have a marriage,,,,,,,,,,,SUDDENLY OUT OF THE BLUE...SOMEone comes along and tells you that your penis is not relevant...that your vagina and womb..really do not exist - that those that are not men and woman in a propagational union....are just the same as you and I - that a woman can MIMIC being a man and it is relative - that a man can MIMIC a woman and it is real....sorry - I like my woman with out that enlarged and protuding clitorus.

That's on the boarder of getting a 30 day ban.

[Wilber]

For fifty thousand years there was a basic rule. That having sex was marriage. YOu must have a penis and vagina to have a marriage,,,,,,,,,,,SUDDENLY OUT OF THE BLUE...SOMEone comes along and tells you that your penis is not relevant...that your vagina and womb..really do not exist - that those that are not men and woman in a propagational union....are just the same as you and I - that a woman can MIMIC being a man and it is relative - that a man can MIMIC a woman and it is real....sorry - I like my woman with out that enlarged and protuding clitorus.

Good for you but why should anyone else care what you like personally as long as it doesn't impact them.

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps it's just having the right to make the same choices as everyone else, good or bad.

I agree. Along with having the same legal rights - rights covered by the law should their marriage break up when both have contributed to their home, savings, life; the same rights to health coverage as with a heterosexual couple; the same rights to social security benefits; and the same right to visit their spouse in the hospital should they end up in intensive care.