New York's same-sex marriage

Still, just sharing my POV. Not arguing. If at any point you wish to make this an argument, you automatically win. (-:

One more: In the event government "marriage" were abolished.., but polygamy remained illegal... 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?

I'm talking about separation, not abolition. Government would do the contractual aspects of bonding. Churches would do the religious aspects of the bonding. Both are optional. There would not be a central religious database leaving in place the advantages and disadvantages of not having a central database of religious activity in America. The government can choose to maintain a central database of civil unions if they could get their act together across state lines, etc.

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.

I accept that a bigamist that has two marriages in different churches may well get away with it. It's none of my business though. It's none of the government's business either if it is a religious and not contractual bonding. There's a lot of stuff that goes on in marriages that is nobody's business other than the people involved. Some of it distasteful stuff. When it comes to joint property ownership through civil contract then I can see that good record keeping would be of commercial and civil value and that the government may want to maintain a central database of civil unions.

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.

Why would an atheist want to get married in a church? They can opt to go get a civil union bonding them contractually with another. They shouldn't use the term 'married' but we shouldn't use the term 'Xerox' either when we talk about multi-vendor photocopying. There's not a language police and I wouldn't start one. There seems to be developing terms to cover a civil union such as "life partnership" or "committed relationship". The English language is a beautiful thing in that it is infinitely flexible. If the separation of church and state principle were applied to marriage and civil unions consistently, I'm confident that the right term for a civil union-only bond would emerge and gain social acceptance.

Thanks NB for all your kind attention to my arguments. The very last piece for me is something probably not subject to argument, it being a belief. It's my belief that marriage is one of our civic institutions, whether sanctified in any house of worship or not.

Certain religions may "define" marriage as a religious or sacramental rite, but their saying so does not obtain for them sole claim on the term, or its definitions. Atheists have been getting married in the United States since its founding as a secular democracy. The way it works, people marry and divorce under a license from their county government: the trip to the church is optional, but the license is not.

All that would be needed for gays to marry under your proposed regime would be that they form a church. (Even people who do not believe in any gods can form a church: look at Buddhism and Confucianism.) A gay couple married in the "Congregation of Loving Commitment" (CLC) would therefore be able to assert even under oath that they are a married couple, spouses, husbands, wives, as they so choose, and the state would have no standing to interfere in any way.

If ANY US tradition allowed people to get married in a church without benefit of a government license, some smart homosexuals would have thought of it by now. We would never have had any of this discussion! As it stands, I'm glad the NY legislature didn't "kick the can down the road" even further by proposing the creation of some new civic institution that would supposedly guarantee all the rights and privileges of marriage all while being called something else.

That's a long trip around the barn, and would smell like another delaying tactic. New York's gays have waited long enough. It's far simpler, and changes fewer things for fewer people, simply to extend our existing institution to all New York residents.

Because, let's face it. Whether any two other people (not ourselves) get married or not cannot affect us in any way. The only people affected are those who have been prohibited - by the government, not by a church - from marrying anyone at all.

Some have said gays have the same right as everyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex, but this argument is so flimsy one can't give it a stern look without it falling apart. Simply, the law does not recognize the validity of any "sham" marriage, as upheld in countless suits and prosecutions over custody, insurance fraud, and immigration violations. For a homosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex would clearly be a "sham," and if their orientation could be proven by discovery of past statements, writings, or conduct, it would nullify their heterosexual "marriage."

Therefore it is true that the law until August 24 2011 is that gays can not get married at all, to anyone, in blatant disregard of equal protection. No wonder so many judges have ruled such laws unconstitutional on their face; but it is better to make laws the way we just did, with legislators voting and a governor signing the bill they passed.

What's great about this conversation is that we got to a point where we understand why we disagree and it's not been disagreeable.

I should have added immediately that my approach is 100% theoretical and the US history of government intervention into marriage has gone so deep it would take many decades to separate them. It ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

The problem with our current trajectory is that it won't be long before some militant gay couple will sue a church who refuses to grant them a religious wedding service. This will motivate IMO a fresh run at removing the tax exempt status of any church that refuses on religious grounds to marry homosexuals.

The pendulum is likely to swing and we'll see a new form of intolerance.

This sort of thing is already happening in Europe and Canada where it is becoming 'hate speech' to say gays should not marry even when the position is informed by the individual's interpretation of his or her religion.

Meanwhile bisexuals who love both a man and a woman are not allowed to have their 3-way recognized by contract law in the form of a civil union.

A rose by any other name....

You say tomato, i say tomahto...

Why would an atheist want to get married in a church? They can opt to go get a civil union bonding them contractually with another. They shouldn't use the term 'married' but we shouldn't use the term 'Xerox' either when we talk about multi-vendor photocopying. Originally Posted by NormalBob

What would we call it if a Catholic wants to marry an atheist?

A rose by any other name....

You say tomato, i say tomahto...



What would we call it if a Catholic wants to marry an atheist? Originally Posted by Doove

There problem.

And not so long ago they could not get married in a Catholic church. But now strapped for members and cash. Most Catholic churches will.

There problem.

And not so long ago they could not get married in a Catholic church. But now strapped for members and cash. Most Catholic churches will. Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

I'll assume this to be true since, basically, i've not heard this before. Does this not reek of hypocrisy? The church changing their requirements for "marriage" to suit their financial interests, while making an issue of the government doing the same thing in the interests of civil rights?

Fred and Larry got married in California (where else).

They couldn't afford a honeymoon so, they go back to Fred's Mum and Dad's house for their first married night together.


In the morning, Johnny, Fred's little brother, gets up and has his breakfast.

As he is going out of the door to go to school, he asks his mum if Fred and Larry are up yet.
She replies, 'No'.
Johnny asks, 'Do you know what I think?'
His mum replies, 'I don't want to hear what you think! Just go to school.'
Johnny comes home for lunch and asks his mum, 'Are Fred and Larry up yet?'
She replies, 'No.'
Johnny says, 'Do you know what I think?'
His mum replies, 'Never mind what you think! Eat your lunch and go back to school '
After school, Johnny comes home and asks again,
'Are Fred and Larry up yet?'
His mum says, 'No.'
He asks, 'Do you know what I think?' . . . .

His mum replies, 'OK, now tell me what you think.'

Johnny says: 'Last night Fred came to my room for the Vaseline . . . . . .
and I think . . . . . . I gave him my airplane glue.' Originally Posted by Hugbuddy

ae

Yes I have been MIA for a minute . . .the real reason? Kinda sick of the dead end topics and petty drama . . . I now have decided just randomly come on here to flash all of you with my boobies! hehe I am on a few other private boards that keep me fairly entertained and busy . . .

Well I for one am excited about the business prospective for myself in this Not only do I do the bachelor party, the last bang and the role of legalizing the marriage as their reverend for strait people now I have uped it to the lesbian community as well!!!

Time to bulk up on my strap on collection . . . it's wedding season!!!

Yes I have been MIA for a minute . . .the real reason? Kinda sick of the dead end topics and petty drama . . Originally Posted by Chloe

well, maybe they could put a "diamonds and tuxedos" section in upstate for all the "tolerant" and sophisticated folks. I too have noticed,Things do get "CRASS and RACY" around here at times..guess it depends on a persons pov just when "CRASS and RACY" is OK and tolerable?

Yes I have been MIA for a minute . . .the real reason? Kinda sick of the dead end topics and petty drama . . Originally Posted by Chloe

So if a group of people get together to espouse their views it can be annoying?? well, just be glad those annoying posters dont have a lobby with the politicians!!LOL!! Boy.. I hear ya...LOL..

You're right it's all about the POV My POV on crass . . .maybe not tolerated by most but Racy? This is a hooker and John board for goodness sake lighten up and get racy! LOL

I do like 3rd grade humor about BOOBS!! that thread got locked though, been treading lightly....

Time to bulk up on my strap on collection . . . it's wedding season!!! Originally Posted by Chloe

Wow, man.... That's crazy.

Wow, man.... That's crazy. Originally Posted by SweetElizabeth

mmmm crazy smart cash in her hand. Please let be the bouncer for the female stag's

In my experience as a dancer, people hiring for parties just want strippers. Nude at times, but nothing beyond that.

People actually look forward to marriage when they are engaged and typically do not want a last "bang" with someone else.

Cash for dancing, sure!
Cash for using a strap on at a pre-wedding gig? Highly doubtful.

Let's give some respect to the strippers out there busting ass for a living....

http://www.stripperweb.com/

Have fun bouncing!