
![]() |

Celestial Healer wrote:Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.I may be opening a can of worms here, but I'm really curious -- What "rights" (especially at a State level) are same-sex couples missing out on that getting a piece of paper saying they are "married" would get them? It is an injustice -- I'm just not sure what that injustice includes.
Ah, that is the rub. The answer is that it varies from state to state. In California for example, Heterosexual and homosexual couples have all the same rights as domestic partners by law, homosexual couples just don't get a paper that says Marriage Liscence. It may be different in other states though.

Kirth Gersen |

Not at all, only speaking for myself of course.
At the risk of sounding too nice and maybe ruining my sinister reputation, that's because you're generally a reasonable guy, David. Even when I don't agree with you, I like our discussions because you're generally not spewing any sort of hypocracy.

![]() |

Start here
Very first line -- Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights...
Passing something in New York doesn't change this. So then is the point basically "it has to start somewhere"?

![]() |

Moff Rimmer wrote:Ah, that is the rub. The answer is that it varies from state to state. In California for example, Heterosexual and homosexual couples have all the same rights as domestic partners by law, homosexual couples just don't get a paper that says Marriage Liscence. It may be different in other states though.Celestial Healer wrote:Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.I may be opening a can of worms here, but I'm really curious -- What "rights" (especially at a State level) are same-sex couples missing out on that getting a piece of paper saying they are "married" would get them? It is an injustice -- I'm just not sure what that injustice includes.
That's incorrect. Most of the benefits of marriage are federal, and are the same everywhere.
The ability to collect survivor Social Security benefits.
The ability of an individual in a same sex relationship to apply for citizenship to this country based on that relationship.
The ability to file taxes jointly.
The ability to pay for a partner's medical insurance and benefits on a pretax basis.
The ability to inherit a partner's assets upon death without having to declare it as income.
That's a small handful of the more well-known ones.

seekerofshadowlight |

I hate to agree with David, but he does have a point here. Why should it be any different if me and my girlfriend want to get married or if you and your wife want to add a third member to your marriage. Or if Christina and I found someone that we wanted to add as a spouse? How do we actually decide who is entitled to the "rights" of marriage and who isn't.
The different right now is Marriage is two consenting adults.Now it's one thing to say nope, just two people..but we" Your government" get to pick what kind of two people. We get to choose if them two people there have the "right" why them two over there do not have this right.
Both couples are the same age, same income, same religion, in fact on paper they look the same, except one is a male/female and one is two males. There is no difference other then someones prejudice feelings
Saying marriage should be two consenting adults of male/female pairing only only is the same as saying marriage is two consenting adults of the same race only
What right does a government that says it grants equal rights to all have to tell a couple, of legal age that want to share each others lives, No based solely on what sex they are. You would be denying folks like that something that is a given right for other folks based purely on hate and prejudice

Ambrosia Slaad |

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:I consider marriage (by the state, I don't care what a person's religious ideal of marriage is) is a consensual contract between two adults. Polygamy is between multiple people, and to me, different enough to be a separate argument/debate.But the question then is why is it different, so long as it is consenual. Is it the number of people involved? Explain why you see it as different if the issue is really the right to marry the person you love.
I'm not opposed to it; it's just a different legal contract.
If it was some form of group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry), and all members in the contract had the same rights... sure, I've got no problem with it. If it only legalized polygyny (or only polyandry), then no because it isn't equal for all parties involved.

![]() |

I don't think I follow. The question at hand is whether any two adults should be able to enter into a legal union. Any cohabitating couple would then have the opportunity to do so.Although if you prefer to change the question, and allow any two cohabitating adults to be able to register in some way for all of the legal benefits of marriage, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I guess what I am looking at is that most people that I have met or talked to say that the issue at the heart of the gay marriage debate is the fact tht married couples get perks from the government that others do not. The argument thereby follows that we must change the law to afford those perks to homosexual couples or else it is discriminatory. All I am saying is that aren't we still discriminationg against people by only holding those perks for married people, we are just expanding the pool of people who get prefered treatment?

![]() |

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:Start hereVery first line -- Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights...
Passing something in New York doesn't change this. So then is the point basically "it has to start somewhere"?
Basically. Fundamentally, though, marriage equality is two-pronged. First, the state in question needs to allow the marriages to take place, since states determine who can get married. Second, the federal government would need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act; that is the law that states that no federal benefits would be granted to same sex couples, regardless of their marital status in the state in which they live.
Incidentally, the constitutionality of the DOMA is in question, and is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court by the state of Massachusetts. The legal argument in question revolves around established precedent that the states determine marital law, and the DOMA prevents states from exercising that right.

Gruumash |

Gruumash wrote:pres man wrote:Equal protections under the law. I believe those rights are "unalienable" as far as the laws are for marriages. One may have a fair argument that the benefits one has to be married are unfair. But since that pandora's box has been opened already. I don't think it fair that one group have a certain set of laws and others don't have access to those laws, protections and considerations.CourtFool wrote:Democracy rocks on toast, in my opinion. I am not aware of a better system, yet, it is flawed. The minority still needs protection from the majority. You know…for certain unalienable rights.But are the "rights", some are saying they should have, "unalienable"?This.
The "unalienable" right at stake is the right to operate under the same laws as everyone else.
Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.
exactly my point. thank you

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:Ambrosia Slaad wrote:I consider marriage (by the state, I don't care what a person's religious ideal of marriage is) is a consensual contract between two adults. Polygamy is between multiple people, and to me, different enough to be a separate argument/debate.But the question then is why is it different, so long as it is consenual. Is it the number of people involved? Explain why you see it as different if the issue is really the right to marry the person you love.I'm not opposed to it, it's just a different legal contract.
If it was some form of group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry), and all members in the contract had the same rights... sure, I've got no problem with it. If it only legalized polygyny (or only polyandry), then no because it isn't equal for all parties involved.
Okay, when I use the term polygamy I am refering to polygyny and polyandry. It's just simpler to refer to them by the phrase polygamy, particularly when discussing with a group in which not everyone is familiar with the terms.

![]() |

Celestial Healer wrote:I guess what I am looking at is that most people that I have met or talked to say that the issue at the heart of the gay marriage debate is the fact tht married couples get perks from the government that others do not. The argument thereby follows that we must change the law to afford those perks to homosexual couples or else it is discriminatory. All I am saying is that aren't we still discriminationg against people by only holding those perks for married people, we are just expanding the pool of people who get prefered treatment?
I don't think I follow. The question at hand is whether any two adults should be able to enter into a legal union. Any cohabitating couple would then have the opportunity to do so.Although if you prefer to change the question, and allow any two cohabitating adults to be able to register in some way for all of the legal benefits of marriage, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
That's an interesting argument. The solution is to separate the legal benefits from the institution of marriage, which I doubt married people are going to be too happy about, even if they get those privileges grandfathered to them.
That said, I personally find it an acceptable solution. It's the "civil unions for the legal benefits, leave marriage for the churches" idea.

Ambrosia Slaad |

All I am saying is that aren't we still discriminationg against people by only holding those perks for married people, we are just expanding the pool of people who get prefered treatment?
So you are for stripping those "perks" and "preferential treatment" from all currently married couples?
Edit: Are you saying that married couples (gay or straight) unfairly receive "perks" and "preferential treatment" over unmarried people?

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:Moff Rimmer wrote:Ah, that is the rub. The answer is that it varies from state to state. In California for example, Heterosexual and homosexual couples have all the same rights as domestic partners by law, homosexual couples just don't get a paper that says Marriage Liscence. It may be different in other states though.Celestial Healer wrote:Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.I may be opening a can of worms here, but I'm really curious -- What "rights" (especially at a State level) are same-sex couples missing out on that getting a piece of paper saying they are "married" would get them? It is an injustice -- I'm just not sure what that injustice includes.That's incorrect. Most of the benefits of marriage are federal, and are the same everywhere.
True, but as Moff Rimmer pointed out, passing a state law doesn't effect anything at the Federal level. Therefore we can only discuss the rights that a couple would get at the state level because that is all a state law would effect.

![]() |

Celestial Healer wrote:True, but as Moff Rimmer pointed out, passing a state law doesn't effect anything at the Federal level. Therefore we can only discuss the rights that a couple would get at the state level because that is all a state law would effect.David Fryer wrote:Moff Rimmer wrote:Ah, that is the rub. The answer is that it varies from state to state. In California for example, Heterosexual and homosexual couples have all the same rights as domestic partners by law, homosexual couples just don't get a paper that says Marriage Liscence. It may be different in other states though.Celestial Healer wrote:Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.I may be opening a can of worms here, but I'm really curious -- What "rights" (especially at a State level) are same-sex couples missing out on that getting a piece of paper saying they are "married" would get them? It is an injustice -- I'm just not sure what that injustice includes.That's incorrect. Most of the benefits of marriage are federal, and are the same everywhere.
I shall discuss whatever I please ;)
Seriously, though, I posted upthread about the constitutionality of the DOMA, and depending on the review of that law, state laws regarding marriage become very, very relevant.

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:All I am saying is that aren't we still discriminationg against people by only holding those perks for married people, we are just expanding the pool of people who get prefered treatment?So you are for stripping those "perks" and "preferential treatment" from all currently married couples?
I am actually for removing government from the marriage game all together. Let churches handle religion and let government jhandle the rest. I am for granting the perks to anyone who enters a domestic partnership, civil union, or what ever you want to call it. That way people who are in long tern commited relationships, but don't choose to get married for what ever reason, can have the same perks and privaleges as "married" couples.

Orthos |

David Fryer wrote:All I am saying is that aren't we still discriminationg against people by only holding those perks for married people, we are just expanding the pool of people who get prefered treatment?So you are for stripping those "perks" and "preferential treatment" from all currently married couples?
Yes.

![]() |

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:I am actually for removing government from the marriage game all together. Let churches handle religion and let government jhandle the rest. I am for granting the perks to anyone who enters a domestic partnership, civil union, or what ever you want to call it. That way people who are in long tern commited relationships, but don't choose to get married for what ever reason, can have the same perks and privaleges as "married" couples.David Fryer wrote:All I am saying is that aren't we still discriminationg against people by only holding those perks for married people, we are just expanding the pool of people who get prefered treatment?So you are for stripping those "perks" and "preferential treatment" from all currently married couples?
+1
I can say, though, that I would get married anyway, since I belong to a church that supports same-sex marriage.

Ambrosia Slaad |

True, but as Moff Rimmer pointed out, passing a state law doesn't effect anything at the Federal level. Therefore we can only discuss the rights that a couple would get at the state level because that is all a state law would effect.
It's a foot in the door, a step closer rather than doing nothing. It's a chance to force the issue to be weighed before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Edit: See also the Equal Protection Clause.

![]() |

Edit: Are you saying that married couples (gay or straight) unfairly receive "perks" and "preferential treatment" over unmarried people?
Yep. In fact you were the one who posted the link to a bunch of them. I'll give you an example of what I am talking about. One of my best friends has a brother who has been living with the same woman for 15 years. They have children and even refer to each other as husband and wife, simpley because it is easier then explaining to people how their relationship works. However, they have never gotten married because in his family marriages always end in messy divorces. There for he is afraid that it the get married that somehow their relationship will collapse. Because they don't live in a state where they have ommon law marriage, they do not recieve any tax breaks, he was not allowed to visit her in the hospital when she had her appendix out, and are denied lots of other things that married people take for granted.

jreyst |

May as well allow this for all couples, regardless of the gender of each, that meet the set requirements. Then if you want to be recognized as "married," just find yourself someone that can conduct the ceremony.
Couldn't agree more.
1) Take the word "marriage" out of the equation.
2) Create a legal status recognizing two parties as being in a civil union, entitling each of them to the standard benefits from marriage.
3) Let any two adults enter into this legal agreement/status.
4) Let "churches" discriminate all they want against whomever they want. If the religious folks don't want to recognize marriage between two people of the same gender, more power to them, they don't have to. At the same time they can't tell two people who love each other that they can not have the same benefits they are enjoying.
This gets the state out of playing the part of moral police and lets religious sorts maintain their exclusive clubs.
Seems like everyone would be happy, except not so much, because if this were to happen then those religious sorts would all of a sudden not be able to deny others the same benefits they enjoy, and no one likes to lose power over others.

![]() |

Oddly enough, back to the OP...
I just found myself thinking whether the New York outcome would be different if Elliot Spitzer hadn't had such a taste for hookers. Legalizing same-sex marriage was a prominent part of his platform, and he might have had the political clout to lean on the legislature. David Paterson is also all in favor, but my toenail clippings have more political clout than he does.

![]() |

The privileges we take as "basic rights" in America change over time. Fifty years ago, people had a right to smoke cigarettes just about anywhere, and inter-racial couples were fighting to establish a "right" to marry in the face of miscegenation laws.
Right now, interracial marriage is virtually a non-issue (yahoo justices of the peace excepted) but group marriage, incestual marriage, and underage marriage remain verboten.
People who argue in favor of same-sex marriage liken it to inter-racial marriage. People who are opposed to same-sex marriage liken it to group marriage and other practices we have no inention of condoning. I think both groups are right. We're discussing which relationships we as a culture support, and that changes over time. Sometimes, our favor warms towards a practice. In other instances, our opposition hardens against it.
--Chris, who lives in Iowa, where same-sex marriage hasn't presaged the apocalypse.

Ambrosia Slaad |

I am actually for removing government from the marriage game all together. Let churches handle religion and let government jhandle the rest. I am for granting the perks to anyone who enters a domestic partnership, civil union, or what ever you want to call it. That way people who are in long tern commited relationships, but don't choose to get married for what ever reason, can have the same perks and privaleges as "married" couples.
OK.
What about taking the same track with same-sex couples currently denied the ability to adopt? See Utah and Florida.
"Utah prohibits adoption by 'a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage,' making it legal for single people to adopt, regardless of sexual orientation, so long as they are not co-habitating in non-marital relationships."

![]() |

Oddly enough, back to the OP...
I just found myself thinking whether the New York outcome would be different if Elliot Spitzer hadn't had such a taste for hookers. Legalizing same-sex marriage was a prominent part of his platform, and he might have had the political clout to lean on the legislature. David Paterson is also all in favor, but my toenail clippings have more political clout than he does.
Well it didn't help that the head of his party, in this case President Obama, publically stated that he should drop out of the race. You don't have much political capital left to spend when the president tells the country that you suck.

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:I am actually for removing government from the marriage game all together. Let churches handle religion and let government jhandle the rest. I am for granting the perks to anyone who enters a domestic partnership, civil union, or what ever you want to call it. That way people who are in long tern commited relationships, but don't choose to get married for what ever reason, can have the same perks and privaleges as "married" couples.OK.
What about taking the same track with same-sex couples currently denied the ability to adopt? See Utah and Florida.
"Utah prohibits adoption by 'a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage,' making it legal for single people to adopt, regardless of sexual orientation, so long as they are not co-habitating in non-marital relationships."
It would fall under tha catagory as well. I have long argued that Utah's law is idiotic, particualarly based on the number of foster kids we currently have in the system here. I can't do much about Florida's "Rosie O'Donell law"

![]() |

jreyst wrote:3) Let any two adults enter into this legal agreement/status.Funny, that seems a bit like religious intolerance right there. Why limit it to only two people. There is at least a long historical evidence of multi-spousal marriages in various cultures.
Statistically speaking 86% of the world's population lives in a culture that accepts polygamy in some form.

Kirth Gersen |

Take it a step further: an atheist man can now get married to an atheist woman by a justice of the peace, and they both get full benefits. Yet the same people who view homosexuality as being morally wrong also typically view atheism as being morally wrong. So I kind of feel like, if gays can be denied civil union rights as well as marriage (a la Texas), and that withstands Constitutional scrutiny, then it's only a matter of time before a bill gets passed that says only Christian men and women can get married.
When I married my wife, no gay people told me I was morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get married. I figure if they're willing to respect my rights, I ought to return the favor.

Ambrosia Slaad |

The privileges we take as "basic rights" in America change over time. Fifty years ago, people had a right to smoke cigarettes just about anywhere, and inter-racial couples were fighting to establish a "right" to marry in the face of miscegenation laws.
(Congrats on your marriage BTW)
I've never seen a reputable study that indicates same-sex marriage (or being around same-sex marriage) will give the couple or their kids cancer. Or a reputable study that indicates heterosexual couples are somehow better parents than same-sex couples.

pres man |

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:Yep. In fact you were the one who posted the link to a bunch of them. I'll give you an example of what I am talking about. One of my best friends has a brother who has been living with the same woman for 15 years. They have children and even refer to each other as husband and wife, simpley because it is easier then explaining to people how their relationship works. However, they have never gotten married because in his family marriages always end in messy divorces. There for he is afraid that it the get married that somehow their relationship will collapse. Because they don't live in a state where they have ommon law marriage, they do not recieve any tax breaks, he was not allowed to visit her in the hospital when she had her appendix out, and are denied lots of other things that married people take for granted.
Edit: Are you saying that married couples (gay or straight) unfairly receive "perks" and "preferential treatment" over unmarried people?
Yeah, but in order to get any of those rights you are either going to be forced into a common law marriage/civil union (Oh, no we are married now, bad stuff will happen) or you'll have to sign up for that (oh, no now we are attached legally, bad stuff will happen). There is no way to give this buddy's brother the benefits of a married couple without setting off his "marriage is bad"-o-meter, because with benefits come responsibilities and it is those legal ties that are probably what he's worried about.

![]() |

Celestial Healer wrote:Well it didn't help that the head of his party, in this case President Obama, publically stated that he should drop out of the race. You don't have much political capital left to spend when the president tells the country that you suck.Oddly enough, back to the OP...
I just found myself thinking whether the New York outcome would be different if Elliot Spitzer hadn't had such a taste for hookers. Legalizing same-sex marriage was a prominent part of his platform, and he might have had the political clout to lean on the legislature. David Paterson is also all in favor, but my toenail clippings have more political clout than he does.
No, people already knew that he sucked. Obama didn't tell him that until his popularity ratings had already dropped to 7%.
Not 37, not 27... 7%.

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:Celestial Healer wrote:Well it didn't help that the head of his party, in this case President Obama, publically stated that he should drop out of the race. You don't have much political capital left to spend when the president tells the country that you suck.Oddly enough, back to the OP...
I just found myself thinking whether the New York outcome would be different if Elliot Spitzer hadn't had such a taste for hookers. Legalizing same-sex marriage was a prominent part of his platform, and he might have had the political clout to lean on the legislature. David Paterson is also all in favor, but my toenail clippings have more political clout than he does.
No, people already knew that he sucked. Obama didn't tell him that until his popularity ratings had already dropped to 7%.
Not 37, not 27... 7%.
Not following New York politics much, I was not aware of this. I only followed the District 23 race because of the implications for the third party movement.

Ambrosia Slaad |

jreyst wrote:3) Let any two adults enter into this legal agreement/status.Funny, that seems a bit like religious intolerance right there. Why limit it to only two people. There is at least a long historical evidence of multi-spousal marriages in various cultures.
Again, I think this is a contract issue. While business partnerships and corporations have many similarities, there are significant legal differences and ramifications.

jreyst |

pres man wrote:Statistically speaking 86% of the world's population lives in a culture that accepts polygamy in some form.jreyst wrote:3) Let any two adults enter into this legal agreement/status.Funny, that seems a bit like religious intolerance right there. Why limit it to only two people. There is at least a long historical evidence of multi-spousal marriages in various cultures.
I've had this internal debate myself. I personally have no issue with polygamy and figure if that's your thing and you can find others who are willing, go to town. However, the reason I tell myself that it should just be two parties is so that legal arrangements don't get out of hand. I'm thinking like a hospital doesn't want all 13 of a guys wives sitting in the room with him, its unreasonable. Same with other sorts of legal agreements. Its reasonable and easy to work out the details when its a two-party relationship but gets exceedingly complicated with each additional party. I guess though if business law allows for equal partnerships with as many partners as you like then this should be no different.
So, in closing, I couldn't care less if its 2 people or 200 people. I just said 2 because it seems like more than 2 would be a more difficult matter to work out legally etc.

Monkster RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |

I, too, am in favor of removing government from the institution of marriage. After all, you don't hear a lot of arguments pro/con legalizing gay baptism, or same-sex communion...
All this controversy seems founded in the clearly unworkable marriage (pardon the pun) of a sacred institution, and a set of civil/legally granted rights and privileges – particularly in a polytheistic society that supposedly advocates for the freedom of, and from, religion. If marriage is truly a sacred institution, or sacrament that needs to be protected on theological grounds (as seems to be the big argument from those opposed to legalizing same-sex unions), then leave it in the hands of the church(es), so folks can truly be free to honor, or disavow same sex marriage as they see fit, simply by joining a congregation that matches their sensibilities.
I get the idea that the government wanted to provide “percs” for folks wishing to get married, to encourage them to enter into a more societally stabilizing relationship (for child raising, etc) – but that argument seems pretty weak in the face of the rather blatant discrimination that creating a select class of people to give that privilege to has produced.
“Sure, marriage is a wonderful institution – but who wants to live in an institution?” – Groucho Marx

![]() |

Yeah, but in order to get any of those rights you are either going to be forced into a common law marriage/civil union (Oh, no we are married now, bad stuff will happen) or you'll have to sign up for that (oh, no now we are attached legally, bad stuff will happen). There is no way to give this buddy's brother the benefits of a married couple without setting off his "marriage is bad"-o-meter, because with benefits come responsibilities and it is those legal ties that are probably what he's worried about.
This is a little different that the opening post, but I agree with this. Getting all the benefits without the consequences isn't fair the other way. Has nothing to do with the homosexual issue though.

![]() |

David Fryer wrote:You just made it a lot more difficult, you know.Celestial Healer wrote:No, and neither dos the choir director.CourtFool wrote:I say we institute a gay quota. Every church shall have at least two gay members.Does the organist count?
*ducks down quickly*
And pain has done wierd things to my spelling too.