NY gay marraige vote

[Commander ASOP]

Ok I understand that we have had the gay marriage conversation many times and while the NY decsion to recognize gay marraige is not a first I do belive it is signifigant.

First NY is the first large state to pass tihis type of legislation. In this case size does matter, with its large geographic area and diverse population from rual to urban I feel that this is the first piece of legislation that truely represents a population base that can be applied across the nation. In some ways a consensus has been reached. While the vote was by nomeans a landslide perhaps america as a whole is ready to turn a corner.

Second this was a republican controled legislature that passed this bill. Typically in America this is the party that has most opposed allowing gay marraige. I think the refocusing of many conservitives from social issues to matters of economy and forigen policy has given republical politicians a bit of wiggle room on social issues.

Timeing is also important here we are about 16 months out from our next presidential and major elections. If the backlash against politicians who voted for this bill is minor or nonexistant then the door will be open for other politicans in the future to do the same. I also believe that many other state legislatures will wait and see the fall out from the new york vote before tackling the issue themselves.

While I belive this issue requires some federal involvement it will require a majority of states to pass similar legislation before that happens. Perhaps NY will be the first of many to do so. I think we will have an answer in early 2013 when new state legislatures occur.

[Troubleshooter]

NY is notoriously liberal in its politics. I'm not surprised that this would pass there, I'm actually surprised that it hasn't passed in California for much the same reason. I doubt this will "catch fire" with more conservative corners of America. So far there seems to be broad consensus in creating civil unions that are marriage in all but name, and if there were going to be some national paradigm shift, I'd bet on it moved on that issue rather than same sex marriage.

The idea that NY republicans are representative of national republicans is kinda funny... or at the least, wishful thinking.

[roflmao]

Trend of supporters of gay marriage has been going steadily upward:

2009: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Ma...-Marriage.aspx
2010: http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/Am...-Slightly.aspx
2011: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/Fi...-Marriage.aspx

[Nanaki]

This is mainly because the older generations very steadfastily oppose, while the younger generations support. Due to these demographic differences, gay marriage is basically a matter of 'when' not 'if'... Republicans lately have been seeing the writing on the wall, which is leading them to be more lukewarm in their opposition to gay marriage. In the NY case, Republicans were actually pretty savvy: They managed to negotiate a provision that shields churches that refuse to host gay marriage ceremonies from liability.

[Moe]

Second this was a republican controled legislature that passed this bill. Typically in America this is the party that has most opposed allowing gay marraige. I think the refocusing of many conservitives from social issues to matters of economy and forigen policy has given republical politicians a bit of wiggle room on social issues.

Not the first time this has happened either. Iowa passed a gay marriage bill quite some time ago, and they're a pretty conservative state. It makes sense when you look at it from a small government point of view, a philosophy that Republicans at the very least pretend to support, at least when it comes to tax and healthcare debates. In this case, they correctly recognized that telling people who they can or cannot marry falls under their platform of "getting the government off our backs", and voted accordingly.

They managed to negotiate a provision that shields churches that refuse to host gay marriage ceremonies from liability.

This should be common sense though. A church is a private organization, they can marry whomever they want to and refuse whomever they want to. This is about the legal definition of the word marriage, not one of the many religious definitions.

Trend of supporters of gay marriage has been going steadily upward:

Give it 50 years or so and those opposing gay marriage will be in the same position that those who opposed interracial marriage are in now. "Grandpa is a good guy, he just grew up in different times. Really, he is normally not one to discriminate. It was just that back then it seemed so far out..."

[Starblade]

Give it 50 years or so and those opposing gay marriage will be in the same position that those who opposed interracial marriage are in now.

It's disgusting we have to wait that long to treat others as equals. At least this is a start.

[Busby]

One day, there will only be one legal and social definition of the inhabitants of the planet Earth. Human.

...

Well, I can dream, right?

[Rincewind]

Busby, I prefer "sentient" to include all the AI constructs.

On topic: Yeah what Moe & Starblade said. Waiting for the old people to die off is really annoying, especially now that for some reason we keep them alive longer.

[JAL-18]

And you guys wonder why discrimination like this happens in the first place. In the same breath you say "everyone should be equal" you express regret that the people who disagree with you aren't dead. Instead of clamoring for equality be honest with yourself and say that you want the people who agree with you to be in power/alive/etc.

[Paladin]

There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.

[JAL-18]

Intolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Once it becomes acceptable to demonize the opposing side you set the stage for massive injustices. You can still do wrong things for the right reasons!

[Paladin]

I disagree. Intolerance is not in the eye of the beholder. It's quite objective. You're either tolerant or you aren't. The only acceptable intolerance is intolerance of intolerance. There should be no tolerance of intolerance, because it's simply always bad.

[Gorb]

Who defines who is being intolerant though, Paladin?

For example tolerance to a particular set of beliefs may be higher in one community than another. It's not as simple as being tolerant of something or not being tolerant of something.

You're summing up "Definitely, Yes, Maybe, Perhaps, Doubtful, Unlikely and No" into "Yes and No". It just doesn't work like that.

[Rincewind]

Jal, I didn't mean I wish anyone dead, I meant that no true big change in the way we live our everyday lives can ever be accepted by a significant enough percentage of any generation for us to say "that generation changed its mind". Therefore true change regarding a widely accepted idea only happens by the opponents dying off until they are in the utter minority, like what was said about de-segregating marriage.

[Commander ASOP]

I wish it was so simple to define intolerance. It seems to change for the better over time but sometimes it goes backward.

While the ideals set forth in the US constitution did not apply to all people when it was written they are a good starting point.

all people are created equal - in the eyes of the law all are treated equally regardless of race gender or sexual oriantation.

persuit of happiness - no one should be denied liberties or oppertunities due to race, gender or sexual orieantation.

freedom of religion - the right to worshipp or not worship as you please as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

There is alot wrong with america (as with any country) but we still hold onto some basic ideals that in my mind make the effort worthwhile. I get the fact that the word marraige has alot of religous meaning for some. But to deny others the pursuit of happiness to protect your religous belifs is intolerance. You do not have to like it but you better learn to live with it.

This means alot to me as my male dog and male cat seem to have an intense trans species gay love thing going on and I support them 100%

[JAL-18]

Tolerance is subjective, our disagreement is case in point. I think Rincewind and you are being intolerant of people opposed to anti-gay marriage, you guys obviously do not. Furthermore, you say intolerance is always bad except when it's against intolerance itself. That is not objective: you are conditionally intolerant, because tolerance is a construct, you can't measure it and say you have 5.0 tolerances and I have 4.5.

My overall point is that the pro-gay movement shouldn't just be the other side of the coin of the anti-gay movement. The principle of the pro-gay movement, and why gay marriage should be legalized, is that people are entitled to do whatever they wish in their private lives as long as it doesn't disrupt others. The current bans or omissions of gay marriage are contrary to this because it legalizes the disruption of gay couples by straight couples for no reason other than personal belief. Saying it's okay to let old people die because they don't support gay marriage is equally a disruption based on belief. They have equal right to believe what they want that you do, and you are equally wrong to punish them for that belief as they are.

[Black]

I'd like to point out that democracy doesn't work unless you can tolerate your neighbors' stupid opinions in a civil manner.

[Paladin]

Tolerance is not subjective in the slightest. Either you treat everyone equally or you don't.

[TDATL]

There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.

It is the most hypocritical thing you can do (unless you condemn yourself as well.) There is no such thing as "being intolerant of intolerance" it is being intolerant of people you disagree with and it is as old as time.

You believe you have the "correct" method of behavior figured out and feel that anyone who doesn't follow that is "bad." While this is not "wrong" in and of itself it is when you label your behavior "tolerance."

Your point as written can be summed as "everyone is free to believe and act how they want except when I disagree with it." What I'm sure you really mean is "people should be held to the standards of society and punished when they deviate." Such a stance is fine and logical but it is not "tolerance." A "tolerant" stance of that would be "people should try and meet the standards of society and if they can't/don't then they should be treated the same as if they did."

Tolerance is a self sacrificial stance. To hold to it you have to give up your "right" to judge others. Like pacifism it leaves you at the mercy's of those that you believe are acting wrongly because you have given up the "right" to fight them.

Tolerance, like pacifism, is part of an ideal on how all people should behave. It is not rooted in reality and not only has no recourse for deviations but forbids such a recourse.

[JAL-18]

I am getting tired of arguing with people who are right.

[TDATL]

Tolerance is not subjective in the slightest. Either you treat everyone equally or you don't.

You are correct to a point. Tolerance is not subjective. It is also not objective. Tolerance is an idea like "good" or "kindness." Tolerance isn't "treat everyone equally." That is equality. Tolerance is "accepting things you don't like." That doesn't mean "accept and then punish the things" it means "accept and move on."

[Paladin]

Fine. Let me put it this way: No one should ever tolerate prejudice and bigotry of any sort whatsoever. Being tolerant of that is not a good thing and does not make you a better person. It makes you an enabler of evil.

[roflmao]

I don't think "equality" is some sort of ultimate goal to obtain. Equality is sacrificed in the name of fairness all the time. That's why we have a progressive tax system and why subsidies are given to certain individuals. Heck, to obtain equality in its purest form you'd have to reject a whole number of progressive ideologies.

I believe the term "gay marriage" is misleading. When we think of marriage we think of couples that fall in love spending the rest of their life together. Yet the fight over gay marriage is not about allowing or preventing gays from living together the rest of their lives (this is legal in every state of the US), but it is instead related to the state-level benefits married couples enjoy. I personally think a lot of the benefits heterosexual marriages enjoy should be extended to homosexuals (such as hospital visitation rights), but have some moderate objections to the tax deductions married couples enjoy.

Heck, if I had my will, tax deductions wouldn't exist and instead we'd have a fair tax. That'd really be equal, far more than extending tax deductions to homosexuals. Why? Because ultimately you're still "discriminating" against singles by giving certain advantages to married couples.


My last quibble with the debate over gay marriage is precisely that it is all talk about human rights and treating people "equally" (what does it even mean to treat them equally? isn't it technically 'unfair' that some people enjoy higher paying jobs than others?) and little to no time is actually spent discussing the objective advantages and benefits that come with state recognized marriage.

Both conservatives and liberals blow the issue up to epic proportions.
To the conservatives: No, legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean that traditional families are going to be destroyed and that the world will end. Gay marriage hardly affects you at all.

To the liberals: Exactly what "essential human rights" are being violated? Sure, I believe gays should have hospital visitation right but it seems like a bit of an exaggeration to equate these to essential rights such as the right to life and ownership of your own life (slavery).

[Gorb]

@ Paladin: I'm pretty sure that's just your subjective opinion on the subject. Doesn't make it right or wrong.

[Tiresias]

@Roflmao

Treating humans with dignity and respect is always important. It's about going to a registry office not feeling a second class person. Your points about equality of pedantic quibbles the definition of the word equality compared to a debate about should everyone in a society be treated without prejudice.

[Maktaka]

Exactly what "essential human rights" are being violated?

The right to marry. It was defined as a basic human right in the Supreme Court decision which struck down interracial marriage laws, and that same precedent is applied today to ensure those same rights are available to gay people.

[Vaarok]

The reason the NY vote passed was upstate NY is largely leave-us-alone Republican, and downstate is predominantly leftist, politically, with the Republican-affiliated politicians there being essentially Republican In Name Only.

So it's hardly surprising. Public opinion never seemed violently opposed, anything with the leave-us-alone message is popular upstate, and downstate so heavily skews voting that it's not like it mattered what upstate thought anyway.

Still, gotta love this money quote:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/republ...t-for-gay-marr

[TDATL]

It is also important to understand that depending on the surrounding laws and the wording of the "gay marriage" laws this can have fallout that is not tied to "prejudice and bigotry."

The most compelling point I have heard is churches being forced to marry gay couples or suffer various fines and such. While I don't think people should be able to impose on gay couples that they can't be "married" I also don't feel it is right to impose on churches that they recognize and support that from a religious standpoint. That is blatantly crossing the separation of church and state.

The real bottom line on this is that the government has already crossed the separation of church and state by making laws based on people being married in the first place. The government should have no say so in what churches choose accept or denounce. The simplest solution would be to make all "married" couples have a separate "government" issued marriage from ones that churches "issue."

A church should no more have to accept to wed a gay couple than it should have to accept holding satanic/other opposing religion rituals within it. It should be free to accept or reject such a thing. It is not like there is only one "church" people are forced to go to. People are free to go to one that suits their views or form their own if one doesn't exist. People have been doing that since the dawn of time as well.

In all honesty nothing has stopped "gays" from marrying from a religious standpoint. A marriage is between the couple and God. Nobody else gets any say so in the matter. If they truly believe in their marriage then they have no need of an Earthly church or government to actively reinforce that. What has been "stopped" is the financial benefits and state issued certificate that have been historically tied to marriages. Such a thing being based on a religious concept breaches the separation of church and state.

My standpoint is basically "civil unions" for everyone as far as the government tax/laws are concerned. The terminology doesn't really matter so long as it is clear that it is issued and recognized by the state and separate from anything similarly issued by churches.

[Paladin]

EVERY time this issue is brought up, the "Churches will be forced to marry gay people!" argument is trotted out, and it's an outright lie, and the people who spread it know that it's a lie. I can't believe how many people still fall for it, after it's been discredited time and again.

Churches in the US cannot be forced to marry anyone. They can't even be forced to allow people into their churches, let alone be forced to perform ceremonies. They are explicitly allowed to discriminate, where businesses are not. They can refuse to allow black people, white people, refuse to allow women or men, etc. There is NO way that any church could be forced to marry a gay couple and this is well known by anyone who knows ANYTHING about US law. It's not even a grey legal area. At all.

[JAL-18]

TDATL in the US at least (and I'm pretty sure in most countries) there is already a distinction between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

[Paladin]

Indeed. In the US your church cannot simply marry you and have you be legally married. You must obtain a marriage license from the local government first.

[TDATL]

@Paladin: Do you know that for a fact as far as every states legal code is concerned? I only mentioned that I had heard that it was possible. While it may not be true it is not outside the realm of possibility that certain benefits could be removed or fines levied if the church doesn't meet what the state or national government considers "proper church behavior."

I know I haven't sifted through the mountains of legal code nor profess to know the various interpretations of that code. I certainly don't "know that it's a lie." I mentioned a point I had heard and gave my opinion on it's effects assuming it was a valid point. If such an eventuality is not an issue then my comments on it are irreverent and don't hurt anything. The rest of the post stands well enough without it.

edit: I was refering to post #29. I write too slow for this fast moving thread.

I knew about the marriage license part but peripherally. I haven't gone through the process myself nor do I claim to be a lawyer.

If the marriage is already so separated as far as church and state then I don't see why this is such a big issue. I was assuming there was some legal fine print that was tying them together and creating the conflict.

[Paladin]

It's not a state matter. It's federal law and cannot be superceded by state law. As long as a church is registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit religious organization, they can pretty much do whatever they want. There are no standards of "proper church behavior", and churches do not receive any benefits from the government. They are exempted from federal taxes (But only if they're not-for-profit, which is perfectly fair, as otherwise you're not a church, you're a business), but that's all.

I edited my post before you replied, because I re-read it and noted that it could look like I was trying to say you knew it was a lie. I was trying to say that the people who keep disseminating this, the people originating the argument, are doing it deliberately, knowing it to be untrue. It provides a plausible rationale for people who are looking for arguments to back up their pre-existing inclinations, but it's a spurious argument that has no real validity.

[Tiresias]

Even were it true I question who would want to get married by a priest who was only doing it at proverbial gunpoint and hated your guts.

Suppose it could be pretty funny actually

[Paladin]

They're afraid people would do it as a form of activism, which would be a valid concern if there were the slightest chance of it ever happening. Which there is not.

[Troubleshooter]

So, I'm curious... I know its not directly related, but at this time when someone comes to America from another country where a form of marriage is legal and acceptable (polygamy, bigamy, forced, not yet of the age of consent...) what happens to those marriages when they get off the boat?

[Maktaka]

If you end up in state which doesn't recognize it, then you're not technically married, although if the state hasn't explicitly stated as such you may still get some benefits. The state can't annul your existing marriage, but it won't be legally recognized until/if it becomes valid in the state in question. Some states have been a bit more explicit about this rejection (Texas, Ohio, and a number of others back in 2004) in which case you get nothing.

[Mr Carrot]

roflmao equality is an ultimate goal of certain poltical ideolgies, famously Leninist Marxism but it rears its head in the more... extreme forms of Western Egalitarianism. In practice when working with capitalistic liberal democratic systems true equality's logical and obvious issues are secondary to the principles of movement towards a socialistic end game for some people.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

So, I'm curious... I know its not directly related, but at this time when someone comes to America from another country where a form of marriage is legal and acceptable (polygamy, bigamy, forced, not yet of the age of consent...) what happens to those marriages when they get off the boat?

I don't know about the US specifically, but in Australia polygamous marriages that are legal in the country you get married in are recognised should you move here (which is fair enough since, you know, they don't actually inherently harm anyone and prohibitions on them are exactly as stupid as those on gay marriage). I don't know about the others.

[yetanotherplayer]

Some states have been a bit more explicit about this rejection (Texas, Ohio, and a number of others back in 2004) in which case you get nothing.

Only until someone takes it to the Supreme Court. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me that this violates the Full Faith and Credit clause.

[Paladin]

Full faith and credit was unfortunately redefined with regard to marriage by federal law passed in 1996. At the time Hawaii, Vermont, an Massachusetts were all making noise about legalizing gay marriage, so congress passed a law that made sure that no other state would have to recognize those marriages.

[Tiresias]

Actually Leninist Marxism is slightly less concerned with egalitarianism than pure marxism, at least in Marx's earlier writing, as Lenin introduced the concept of a vanguard party that would basically be more important and educate the masses. Hardly egalitarian, and in fact a terrible idea or just an excuse for dictatorship as it turned out.

(however this is entirely irrelevant just not sure why leninism got singled out)

[Langy]

Full faith and credit was unfortunately redefined with regard to marriage by federal law passed in 1996. At the time Hawaii, Vermont, an Massachusetts were all making noise about legalizing gay marriage, so congress passed a law that made sure that no other state would have to recognize those marriages.

It's pretty likely that'll be determined to be unconstitutional eventually - several courts (such as the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California) already have.

I don't know about the US specifically, but in Australia polygamous marriages that are legal in the country you get married in are recognised should you move here (which is fair enough since, you know, they don't actually inherently harm anyone and prohibitions on them are exactly as stupid as those on gay marriage). I don't know about the others.

Actually, there are specific pragmatic reasons to allow same-sex (or any other two-person marriage, really) but not polygamous marriages, primarily to do with a whole bunch of legal issues such as inheritance. You need to craft specific laws to deal with polygamous marriages; with same-sex marriages, you can usually just say 'treat same-sex couples exactly like opposite-sex couples'.

[Rincewind]

It is important to have some kind of legistlation for polygamous marriages, at least for immigrants, because if a big muslim family from wherever coming to country X and then suddenly Abdul-Rachid's 4 wives are no longer legally his wives then the wives might be, well, fucked. This is totally disregarding the fact that polygamous marriage should be allowed under the "people should be allowed to do anything they fucking want that does not infringe on the rights of someone else" -clause of the Rincewind Legal Code.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Actually, there are specific pragmatic reasons to allow same-sex (or any other two-person marriage, really) but not polygamous marriages, primarily to do with a whole bunch of legal issues such as inheritance. You need to craft specific laws to deal with polygamous marriages; with same-sex marriages, you can usually just say 'treat same-sex couples exactly like opposite-sex couples'.

So craft those specific laws. Laziness isn't a particularly good excuse. The fact that it's perfectly legal for someone to sleep around behind their partners back but illegal to marry someone else with the consent of their partner is ludicrous.

That and I assume most of those provisions already exist in the law, since they would be needed to deal with a recognised polygamous marriage entered into in another country.

[Open Blue]

I find marriage to be an archaic and out-of-place institution in today's modern society and I question it's relevance in an age where the lasting platonic, monogamous relationship is becoming a rarity to behold.
I'm ok with it as a tax dodge, though.

[Commander ASOP]

I suppose the door to polygomist marraige would have to be opened sometime. Personnaly I am against it in that I feel that in most groups that condone this practice the woman is seen as subserveant to the man were raised in isolation and had little choice in the marraige. From a legal stand point as long as all particapating in the marraige entered as consenting adults I can see little legal justification to ban it.

So I guess I am in support of people over 18 choosing their partners of their own free will and marrying as many as they choose. IF it is a 16 year old being married to a older man through an arranged marriage I oppose it.

Now I wonder if two people are married and one decides to marry a third is this grounds for divorce? Also must all exsisting members of the marriage sign the marraige certificate (consent) to make it legal? Divorce would be interesting as the one person leaving the marraige would have some legal claim to all the members of the marraige.

Can you imagine your spouses third mate decides to divorce and they have a right to 25% (?) of your assets. We would have to look closely at communal property laws.

[Langy]

So craft those specific laws. Laziness isn't a particularly good excuse. The fact that it's perfectly legal for someone to sleep around behind their partners back but illegal to marry someone else with the consent of their partner is ludicrous.

That and I assume most of those provisions already exist in the law, since they would be needed to deal with a recognised polygamous marriage entered into in another country.

It's not just laziness. You'd also have to decide what types of things a polygamous marriage would be entitled to, who would get precedence, what the benefits would actually be, etc. How should they be dealt with in the tax code, for example? Anyways, there's lots of questions, and the current government-sanctioned marriage is entirely structured as a way to combine two people into one in the eyes of the law (in some specific circumstances). It's not at all clear that a four-person marriage should get two or three times the tax benefits as a two-person marriage, for example, or whether they should still get the same exact benefit as a two-person marriage, or how all of the other legal issues should play out. The easiest (and possibly most fair) way would be to only recognize the earliest marriage and completely ignore all the other ones.

In any case, polygamy is illegal in the US. It's not just that polygamous marriages aren't recognized - in some places you can actually go to jail for being in one. Thus, you'd probably need to be an illegal immigrant in order to immigrate into the US with one still active - either that, or only the earliest marriage would be recognized. Not entirely positive on that, though, but it makes sense to me and solves the 'recognizing polygamous marriages entered in other countries' issue.

[Troubleshooter]

I'm glad that my post spawned some discussion on the issue... but now that we have legalized same sex marriages in several states, there's a new dimension to the issue that have traditionally been brought up as reason to prevent polygamy, namely the questions about equality of the wives in relation to the husband. Never mind the fact that there are cultures (rare and tiny, but there nonetheless) where women are allowed multiple husbands.

Anyway, the question becomes one where it is entirely possible to have polygamy among exclusively female partners, to address the equality principal, or exclusively male partners with the same results. In this case, there would be no principal partner, simply a communal marriage of individuals.

While the issue presently orbits Mormons and Muslims along more traditional polygamy, there does come into play the idea that polygamy could be morphed into a situation where the wives are likewise married to one another, and where selective divorce would preserve the other marriages (you could kick out an abusive husband for example without dissolving the marriage of the wives, preventing economic hardship for the wives in the case of a sole provider situation.)

Regardless, it seems that there will be American polygamy in the foreseeable future. It's already part of the fabric of our society so it's simply a matter of recognizing it and formalizing the structures that need to be in place to make it work within out legal framework.

The real "show stopper" IMO is going to be how we deal with arranged marriages between minors, or between minors and adults... especially when polygamy is the overarching framework that it occurs under. I honestly don't know what the authorities think about this in places like NY, but I know for a fact that if you have an underage bride, you can't have sex with her unless you are willing to risk serious prison time and sex-offender status for the rest of your life.

[Commander ASOP]

While I am not sure how this would play out leagally; is that being gay is not a choice. I natually am attracted to members of the other sex. Gay people are natually attracted to members of the same sex. (I know there are more shades in the rainbow but lets keep it simple)

No one is natually poligomist. It is a learned cultural or religous behavior. While I do think there is time when this issue should be debated I am not sure the issue has as much civil liberity weight as the gay marraige issue.