New York's same-sex marriage

Historically it has been a form of almost-slavery that featured mistreatment of the women involved, but I'm not convinced those problems are inherent in that type of arrangement. My concern is simply that the law be the same for everybody.

I hear some people want to do away with government-sanctioned marriage altogether, rather than let gays partake of it. I guess that meets my standard for "fairness" in that it treats everyone the same; but it seems to me like stomping on a nice cake, rather than offer a slice to someone you don't like.

So OK, fairness restored, no cake for anybody. But was that the best way to handle the problem? Originally Posted by HlavinKitheri

Just talking. Not arguing.

1. Historically gays couldn't marry so the history of the issue doesn't carry much weight with me.

2. It's funny how in most areas people are ready to say there should be a separation of church and state. Yet when it's marriage, the state is smack dab in the middle of it. My position is to separate them. Marriage goes to the church, civil contracts go to the state.

This is a 'cake for everyone' position in my mind. You let the church handle what they are good at and you limit the government to what it should do.

My only problem with it is, How many goddamn weddings do I have to go to on August 24? Don't everybody do it on the same day!

August 24th doesn't bother me. It's the college football Saturdays that are the insane stabs at bad timing.

Just talking. Not arguing.

1. Historically gays couldn't marry so the history of the issue doesn't carry much weight with me.

2. It's funny how in most areas people are ready to say there should be a separation of church and state. Yet when it's marriage, the state is smack dab in the middle of it. My position is to separate them. Marriage goes to the church, civil contracts go to the state.

This is a 'cake for everyone' position in my mind. You let the church handle what they are good at and you limit the government to what it should do. Originally Posted by NormalBob

I love me some respectful disagreement, Bob, so I'll try to live up to your example. If the state's role in marriage were removed, what entity would handle divorce, alimony, child support, division of assets, disputes over custody?

If people (atheists, let's say) are getting married in courthouses without visiting any church, don't we already have a form of "civil union" that guarantees all the rights and privileges of marriage? Seems to me like we do, and it's called "marriage." Isn't your partner in a civil union called your "spouse?" Can't one list them as such on tax forms, insurance applications, etc.?

At that point doesn't it become merely a fine point of semantics? I mean, what difference does it make what it is called?

The only problem I have with gay marriage is if my gay girl buddy starts to marry them. It will take longer for her to share her stash, for me to pay cash. Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

OSD, you are such a renaissance man!

Hmmm, football vs your gay friends' wedding? Might just have to tell them you have got "another thing." :-)

I've been to 1 lesbian wedding, was a lot of fun! I suppose it didn't hurt that one was a stripper and all her friends came, errr cum, well you get my drift.....

I love me some respectful disagreement, Bob, so I'll try to live up to your example. If the state's role in marriage were removed, Originally Posted by HlavinKitheri

I'm already into the semantics. "Marriage" should be a religious act and celebrated in accordance with religious tenets. "Civil Unions" is a government act that carries with it contract law. I would want to explicitly separate the two.

what entity would handle divorce, alimony, child support, division of assets, disputes over custody?

The divorce topics that are religious would be handled IAW the church tenets or the individual(s) could leave the church.

Contract dissolution, alimony, child support, division of assets, and disputes over custody would only be handled by the government laws and courts if one or more of the parties did not agree to the religious accords covering those issues.

If people (atheists, let's say) are getting married in courthouses without visiting any church, don't we already have a form of "civil union" that guarantees all the rights and privileges of marriage?

Words matter to me. Anyone contractually obligating themselves to one another in a state sanctioned manner is obtaining a civil union. They would not be 'married' unless they were looking for a religious sanction.

Seems to me like we do, and it's called "marriage." Isn't your partner in a civil union called your "spouse?" Can't one list them as such on tax forms, insurance applications, etc.? At that point doesn't it become merely a fine point of semantics?

I won't quibble over your use of the term "fine point" even though I think semantics matters significantly. In a marriage, your partner is your 'wife' or 'husband'. The government uses the term 'spouse'. When you pay taxes, you are pursuing a governmental end, not a religious end. Insurance applications, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc are all contract law driven and are properly the province of government.

I mean, what difference does it make what it is called?

In my view, it would have made a lot of difference and would make a difference in the future as well. The resistance to gay marriage has been predominantly from churches and the black community. To the extent the Hispanic community has resisted, I'm guessing that's more of a Catholic church influence.

Once 'marriage' is protected as a church sanctioned issue that the government doesn't interfere with, a lot of the religious resistance would decline and civil unions would be legalized more quickly IMO.

It would also help polygamists get the recognition they want to have so that they can pursue life, liberty and happiness as equal members of civil society.

Hmmm, football vs your gay friends' wedding? Might just have to tell them you have got "another thing." :-) Originally Posted by HlavinKitheri

If she married, I would not miss it for the world.

But I may have to take a small portable TV or Radio for a football or hockey game.

Room full of gay & bi girls with a straight one or two to boot. I just have to remember not to call the butch cute. One she knows could knock me out cold

OSD, you are such a renaissance man! Originally Posted by roscoe14850

yup

I nearly got into a fight with someone at my job recently over this issue.

Personally I'm all for it. I was actually at Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's home once (long story).

And just why, exactly, should we leave something like this (in the case of gay marriage) up to people like you and GP, who claim outright that you really don't give a crap one way or the other? Originally Posted by Doove

WTF is that supposed to mean? When in the hell did I ever say I should be the one making decisions? Dude, you need to take a pill or something. WTF "people like me"! You have officially returned to being an ass.

WTF is that supposed to mean? When in the hell did I ever say I should be the one making decisions? Dude, you need to take a pill or something. WTF Originally Posted by GP

You need to relax. When in the hell did i ever say that you ever said that you should be the one making decisions? I was responding to JB and simply using you (as a general reference to people like you) as an example of someone who would, if JB had his way, be making decisions on issues that you admit you don't care about one way or the other. Particularly if the issue were put to a ballot during a general election.

Oh boo hoo. Jonballs doesn't like the American system of government. Boo hoo hoo.

So you're saying we should all vote on every law that gets proposed? Good luck. Originally Posted by Doove

you are correct sir!! on all counts....it was intresting that Obama did not fully endorse same sex marriage today...hmm, possibly a personal ideological tug of war going on somewhere in his head??this all will be fascinating..And why such hostility DOOVE?? isnt this what you wanted, relax and bask....

2. It's funny how in most areas people are ready to say there should be a separation of church and state. Yet when it's marriage, the state is smack dab in the middle of it. My position is to separate them. . Originally Posted by NormalBob

its all about the MONEY...follow the MONEY..... has to be worth millions to nys coffers ..well, that and a few votes here and there..just take Alesi for example..

One more: In the event government "marriage" were abolished (in order to save it from the gays), but polygamy remained illegal (people still do associate it with exploitation and forbidden-topic endangerment, whether this view is enlightened or unenlightened), what entity would publish and maintain the database that currently resides in county and state records, saying who is already married and who is not?

The reason I ask is that sometimes a closet bigamist will lead a double life, maintaining two households and sometimes two identities. It would be a minor burden for such a person simply to be married in, say, a Catholic Church AND in a Synagogue. If the two don't share records, neither church would be the wiser. This is part of the government's role in licensing and registering marriages.

Yet another: What provision would be made for atheists who wish to marry? Currently all they have to do is take their license to a JP, ship's captain, or any number of other duly-appointed representatives of authority, and make their vows. I take it, under this proposal, that atheists would no longer be able to call themselves "married," but would have to call it something else.