New York to recognize gay marriages

[Empty Hands]

Should not be. Thats a problem with the hospitals though, not with the government sanctioning of marriages.

No, it is entirely a legal problem since the lack of legal status is what allows the families to exclude the partners. The partners have no status at all, for decision making, inheritance, or anything else. In the eyes of the law, the family is the one who gets all these rights and privileges, since the person in question is legally "single."

Even legal contracts drawn up by gay partners to give each other these rights and privileges have been successfully legally invalidated by vengeful families.

on another thread, marriage will in no way stop families from loathing the partner. Same way it won't stop families from loathing a hetero partner that they don't approve of.

No, it won't stop the loathing, but it will stop the families from cutting the partners out of what they should be included in. Medical decisions. Inheritance. Children. The list goes on and on.

 

[MA-Caver]

I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand what has been explained to you, but they are vastly different. Gay unions involve two consenting adults. Minor unions involve one consenting adult and one non-consenting minor. By legal definition, it is rape. Thus, legalizing minor marriage is legalizing rape, except in the states which have exempted marriage (but not unmarried sex) from that definition.

Similarly, polygamy is a different class since more than two consenting adults are involved, although it is not as much a concern as minor marriages. I think you will find though that this isn't the asskicker of a point you think it is, since many or even most gay marriage advocates would have no particular problem with three or four consenting adults gaining legal status for their relationship. What holds most people back is the actual state as is of polygamy in this country, which is mostly the province of backwards fundamentalist religious cults with creepy old dudes keeping all the twelve year old girls for themselves and exiling the boys to live or die on their own.

And there-in lies the problem with it (and needs to be a separate thread btw). That these young boys are indeed exiled by the polygamist groups and left to fend for themselves and many become victims of sexual predators.
They're exiled much in the same way and reasons that pride animals, like the African lions, exile the young males from their social groups when they reach breeding age, they are driven away or killed. A pride may consist of many lions but usually only one dominate male among many females. However the male is charged with protecting the safety of the pride and their territory.
The human equivalent is more base and self serving. Poligamy wives are usually sent out to find work and a large percentage of their income goes to the husband. Their daughters are used for his own base pleasures and are chosen more often for them than the adult wives.
It is wrong and sick by our society's standards and we must either uphold those standards or change the laws which dictate them.

 

[Gordon Nore]

And man survived without heterosexual marriage before that. But why now? Well, what depends on marital status:

*Health insurance
*Income tax treatment
*Inheritance rights and taxes
*Adoption rights
*Hospital and other visitation rights

etc. When you disentangle all of that stuff from marriage, get back to me.

Your comparison of gay marriage to pedophilia doesn't merit a response.

arnisador,
I thank you for this post because I think you strike at the heart of the matter. Marriage or civil union or whatever for gays equates to having the same rights that heterosexual couples have. Before same-sex marriages were fully embraced in Canada, a couple I knew -- both women -- were part of a class action suit for recognition of their status as parents. Under prevailing laws at the time, only the biological parent had the right to register their child for school and make other critical decisions about that child's welfare. If they had been a heterosexual couple, the non-bio parent would have had the right to adopt the child in order to have all the privileges and responsibilities of parenthood. Legal validation of same-sex unions simply puts gays and straights on a level legal playing field.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Canada did it! yay! Lets follow suite! There is slavery in parts of Africa! Yay! Lets follow suite! Bhurkas for every woman! Polygamy! Legalized drugs! Some country has those things legal, so we should follow example, right?

Lets decide to be our own nation with our own laws please.

Considering that we Americans pride ourselves on such concepts as Equality, perhaps we need to look at those laws and reconsider if they are really equal. Canada, and other nations have begun recognizing same-sex marriages as valid because they see it right to give committed partners the same rights AND responsibilities AND liabilities as opposite gender couples.
Slavery is not built on equality, nor are Bhurka laws, etc.
Read up sometime on the real reasons why some drugs are illegal and you'll see it's less 'health' and more '$$$' for someone else.
You mentioned polygamy. I replied. We disagree.

Certain things are illegal in this country, because of some moral codes and cultural standings. If the majority of people want gay marriage, then we are going to probably get it. Would you think the same about other "deviant" behaviors? What if the majority of people start finding polygamy or pedophilia more appealing? Should we start endorsing that as well? I think its quite a relevant point. I'm not comparing the three, just stating that they are both dealing with the issue of marriage and are questions that need to be asked.

The Moral Code of the US varies and is often based on an outdated conservative interpretation of Christianity. Your continued lumping of gay marriage, polygamy and pedophilia is a clear indication that you do consider all three to be comparable. They are not. Gay!= Polygamous != pedophile.
Pedophilia has NOTHING to do with marriage, gay or straight.

For the record, I know at least 1 polygamous trio, 1 male 2 female. The 2 ladies are not gay and are not bi. (I asked, bluntly once). None of them diddle little kids either, btw.

that is why I bring it up. Many people find it acceptable, but its not legal to get married so many times. However, those couples won't get the same benefits as married couples do. I don't hear of them suffering horribly and crying for health benefits or hospital visits.

Open your ears then man. The rights argument concerning children and partners is just as big there.

Media paints the polygamous family as the big cult sect like the Branch Davidians or the FTL or whoever that's in the news now. The great majority are 3-5 adults with some kids, and are usually more concerned with family well being and such.

I don't equate polygamy with pedophilia. Might be some people that practice both, but thats not my point here.

Your continued lumping together is an equation of such.

took out all sentences except for the blaring contradiction. Who exactly got that 14/12 year old pregnant? It's not always another 14 year old. Go over to some military bases. Surprisingly you will find higher rates of pregnancy among minors. Fort Bragg, close to me, has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation...

Then that's an Army problem. Shouldn't they be enforcing the regs against such things? What other factors might there be at play there? Poverty, broken homes, poor education, bad neighborhoods, etc.

Teen pregnancy is an important issue, however it's not a human rights one, and really has nothing to do with same-sex rights.

and I know plenty of straight couples together 10+ years too. Sort of irrelevant. I'm sure gay couples break up as well, just don't show up on divorce records for the same reason that the last time you broke up with your girlfriend didn't show up.

Of course they do. They just have less rights than married couples do. Common-Law marriages aren't looked at equally in the eyes of the law with registered civil marriages. It's a question of legally guaranteed and enforced rights and responsibilities.

at least you are honest about it

Always. I got the lumps to show for it too, LOL!

if people want to be together, that is their choice. They are adults, and can do what they want. I just don't want the government endorsing what they are doing, which is what sanctioning marriage is. Marriage has been an established tradition for thousands of years... I don't think its something you toy with because of "health insurance" or something like that. If you do that, you need to revisit other modifications of marriage, such as I mentioned in my previous response to Arnisador. Unmarried couples have the same issues and don't immediately rush out to get married all the time.

Unmarried opposite gender couple made the choice not to marry.
Same genders do not have that choice, but should.
It's not about "now I can has insurance". It's about the commitment, the love, the relationship, the "til death do us part" etc. You know, all that stuff that the "tradition of marriage" is supposed to be about.

Government is about ensuring our rights.
As to where to wed, let the chapels and such sort that out themselves.

 

[elder999]

arnisador,
I thank you for this post because I think you strike at the heart of the matter. Marriage or civil union or whatever for gays equates to having the same rights that heterosexual couples have. Before same-sex marriages were fully embraced in Canada, a couple I knew -- both women -- were part of a class action suit for recognition of their status as parents. Under prevailing laws at the time, only the biological parent had the right to register their child for school and make other critical decisions about that child's welfare. If they had been a heterosexual couple, the non-bio parent would have had the right to adopt the child in order to have all the privileges and responsibilities of parenthood. Legal validation of same-sex unions simply puts gays and straights on a level legal playing field.

Back in the 1990’s, President Clinton signed the “Defense of Marriage Act,” defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Now, in the first place, Bill Clinton defending marriage is a little like Sen. Ted Kennedy teaching water rescue and CPR. :lol: In the second place, the president, congress and the courts can define legal civil unions, however, they have no authority to define the sanctity of marriage.

“Civil union" is a contract having to do with legal rights and obligations. The government has every right to legislate with regard to these unions. At the same time, in order to serve justice, truth, and freedom, government has a duty to extend the benefits of civil unions to all competent adults. The individual religious, spiritual or political beliefs of any segment of society must never be used as an excuse to deny equal opportunity, or equal civil rights to any competent adult, or classes of competent adults. This seems so obvious to me, that I feel a bit foolish even stating it here. The most important benefit of civil union is that of ownership and transfer of property. Civil union defines a family unit, for purposes of civil law. When we speak of civil marriage or civil union, we’re speaking only of a legal relationship, not a spiritual or religious one. It is wise to take religious principles and opinions into account when contemplating civil law, but it is reckless, unjust and unconstitutional to base civil law and the relationships of competent adults on religion.

Pope John Paul II once released a message to the civil leaders of the world, urging them not to extend legal recognition to same gender relationships. The Catholic Church teaches that such relationships are seriously disordered against natural law. This means that same gender relationships are, in and of themselves, evil. As it happens, I disagree with that teaching, though I have a great deal of love and respect for the Holy Father; he is the leader of an ancient religious tradition. However, I think he-and our president-need to be reminded of something Jesus once said. Jesus told a group o f religious leaders, who laid heavy, unjust burdens on their followers that if they misled the innocent, it would be better for them if heavy stones were tied around their necks, and they were sunk to the bottom of the sea. The Pope has every right, even obligation, to spread the teachings of the Church, using his spiritual authority, but he crosses a dangerous line when he attempts to have the teachings of his church encoded into civil law. This mentality has been a curse upon the Church almost since its inception. From what I’ve seen of the words of Jesus, I doubt he would approve of the merging of civil and ecclesiastical power. When a Pope urges civil authorities to deny equal rights to competent adults, based upon the teachings of his church, he leaves the realm of spirituality and casts himself as a power in the manner of this material world. He departs from the teachings of Jesus, who urged us to walk through this world, but not be of this world, who urged us to accumulate spiritual treasures, rather than corruptible material possessions, who urged us to extend mercy, not judgment. It is the Pope’s right to define marriage for the faithful of his church as the indissoluble union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. I do not agree with that position-what I tell people when I’ve perform marriages for them is that neither I, nor the state, a priest or God marry you: you marry each other: marriage is a covenant.

In most western countries, there are two marriage ceremonies. A couple go before a civil magistrate, who is empowered by the state to confirm their civil, legal relationship. Next, the couple may go to a church, and repeat their vows in front of friends, family and a minister. The minister-of any sort-is empowered by the church to witness the religious marriage, and, in some instances, by the state to administer and witness the civil one, but the reality is that they are separate ceremonies. One of the results of the Enlightenment was the separation of civil and religious authority. Before 1700, there was no civil union; only the religious ceremony, and it had the force of law. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce, yet civil law has accommodated the reality of changing social values, through allowing divorce. Divorce is a civil law concept, having to do with ownership and transfer of property, as well as other legal obligations and rights. The Supreme Court's "separate IS NOT equal" ruling in civil rights case, (Brown v Board of Education) has been the standard of the land for a long time, and it applies-I believe-to gay marriage......maybe polygamy, who can say?

 

[arnisador]

I also find it disturbing that people can not find a meaningful analogy between pedophilia/minor marriage and gay marriage.

Well, I certainly can't. Kaith lays out the biggest flaw: The "set of all things that some people find displeasing" isn't a very coherent set. You could just as easily pull genocide out of that set and compare it to gay marriage. If the set is "things that can't currently marry" then again it seems to me that since currently only a single adult (or with parental permission) male can marry a single adult (or with parental permission) female, then again the complement of that set is broad and not coherent. A dog can't marry a cat--should I care? Is that an argument against gay marriage?

Two adults choosing to marry is very different from what's being alleged in Texas. In any event, any change to that would be a whole separate law that one could campaign against. This is the NRA's logic--we oppose even changes we support, so that no one will think it's easy to get changes to these rights through.

I also find it equally disturbing that no one will even respond to the concept of polygamy. I also find it disturbing that we are discussing gay marriage, but I suppose thats OK. 20 years ago the concept was not even discussed, at least that I am aware of. But I guess we are so much smarter now, and have all the clever ideas!

They're the same ideas held by some of the Greeks several millenia ago, where romantic love was often conceived of as between men while women were for procreation.

Polygamy isn't currently at issue. If your argument is "This is a bad law because if it's passed then other bad laws on related matters may also be passed" then that's true of most legislation. You're arguing about laws that aren't even being proposed in any legislature.

What's the difference between your argument and me arguing that a law to give life sentences to those who murder people with handguns could lead to a law to give life sentences to those who shoot at shooting targets with handguns?

 

[arnisador]

Lets decide to be our own nation with our own laws please.

But...isn't that what you're arguing against? New York took such a step, following the lead of other states, and you're protesting it?

if people want to be together, that is their choice. They are adults, and can do what they want. I just don't want the government endorsing what they are doing, which is what sanctioning marriage is. Marriage has been an established tradition for thousands of years... I don't think its something you toy with because of "health insurance" or something like that. If you do that, you need to revisit other modifications of marriage, such as I mentioned in my previous response to Arnisador. Unmarried couples have the same issues and don't immediately rush out to get married all the time.

But they could. The govt. has associated a great many things--formally--with marriage. Until the govt. unravels that, it can hardly deny those benefits to people based on sexual orientation and claim there's equal protection under the laws. A spouse can't be compelled to testify in a criminal matter...the list goes on and on. It's frankly easier to allow gay marriage than to re-write all those laws to ignore marital status.

To my mind, health insurance is a big one, too.

 

[Twin Fist]

I say go ahead

as soon as StePhan and Edwardo have to start paying alimony, they will slap themselves and wonder why they didnt just leave well enough alone.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

There are only two way to really look at this issue: legal and moral. One can also choose to filter those perspective through the lens of historical precedent.

Legally, even in societies that allowed same-sex marriage, they were always thought to be of a different sort then heterosexual marriages. Often, they were considered short-term contracts (for lack of a better term).

Now, from a personal legal perspective, I think that government should stay out of any involvement in the institution of marriage. Let it be a private issue, with no commesurate governmental considerations (taxes, inheritance, etc.) That way, it really does become an issue of two individuals caring for one another. And, if a church chooses or does not choose to perform the ceremony, it is up to their discretion.

Morally. Well, that question is up for each of us as individuals to decide, now isnt it.

But, I do have to say, that it is not a stretch to include polygamy and child-marriage into this debate. Of course, it depends on how you structure your argument:

1. If you believe that two people should be able to marry if they love each other, are you not showing your bias against those that may love multiple people, and see no problem with marrying. For those of you who do not believe that polygamy should be legal, but same-sex marriage being legally sanctioned, I would ask you what your argument against polygamy would be.

2. Historically, what we now consider children (say, 12-18 for instance), married quite regularly. If a female (as they were usually the ones getting married at such a young age) was menstrating, she was eligible for marriage. What is the argument against that?

The first that most would point out would be the difference in maturity levels. However, I have met some very mature 12 year olds, and some very immature 30 year olds. How do you establish this criterea. And if it is based on maturity, then should there be a test to establish this before what is allowed to marry. What would the standards be.

Quite frankly, the whole debate is structured around a cultural ethic. The question is, what are the costs and benefits to making such a profound change as same-sex marriage. (I am ignoring the religious issues intentionally.)


By the way, alot of the legal issues regarding decision making can be done with a Power of Attorney contract. Inheritance, the will.

 

[Mr G]

Happens all the time, actually. Since gay partners have no legal status, many partners loathed by the sick person's family have even been denied visiting privileges. Just one of the reasons that gay folks want recognition for their unions.

It absolutely happens. The Hierarchy goes self, spouse, adult children, parents, adult siblings,THEN Friends and 'significant others'.

This stuff matters to a lot of decent people.

 

[mrhnau]

Couple of general responses, since I don't have time to answer individually the host of responses.

Let me say this clearly for those that did not seem to understand: In no way am I equating gays with polygamy or pedophilia/minor marriage. What I am claiming is that they all have a relationship with the institution of marriage.

now, some specifics.

XS, if you are reading this, you need to chill out some dude. I am in no way talking about child molestation here. Minors can enter into marriage these days w/ parental permission, and this has been going on for quite a while. I tend to call minor marriage pedophilia, though I do suppose two minors could enter a marriage, and technically that would not be pedophilia... I've not researched the term that much, am I mistaken?

Well, I certainly can't. Kaith lays out the biggest flaw: The "set of all things that some people find displeasing" isn't a very coherent set. You could just as easily pull genocide out of that set and compare it to gay marriage. If the set is "things that can't currently marry" then again it seems to me that since currently only a single adult (or with parental permission) male can marry a single adult (or with parental permission) female, then again the complement of that set is broad and not coherent. A dog can't marry a cat--should I care? Is that an argument against gay marriage?

Genocide? come on now... We are also dealing with a fairly small set here, specifically marriage. Cat and dog? LOL

OK, I discussed this before I do believe. What is our threshold? What percentage of people need to find something acceptable and make it into law? Does 30% acceptable cut it? 50%? More? Less? How about 1%? Suppose there is some turn of events for some reason and gay unions fall out of popular favor. Will we remove that union? Should we modify the institution of marriage whenever we feel like it? What are the limits? What other institutions should we start opening up? Should we reconsider a state religion? Maybe we can get 50%+ to vote for that.

The point is, I don't think we need to be legislating marriage. It exists in its current form of man + woman. Let it be.

Polygamy isn't currently at issue. If your argument is "This is a bad law because if it's passed then other bad laws on related matters may also be passed" then that's true of most legislation. You're arguing about laws that aren't even being proposed in any legislature.

What's the difference between your argument and me arguing that a law to give life sentences to those who murder people with handguns could lead to a law to give life sentences to those who shoot at shooting targets with handguns?

What I am arguing is that the state is trying to modify a fairly fundamental social and religious institution. For the life time of our country marriage has been between a man and a woman. I discussed some of the issues you pointed out. Very few need to be dealt with from the government standpoint and don't require "marriage", at least IMHO.

Shooting targets and shooting people? how about another analogy. A state that has no gambling at all starts permitting slot machines. Someone may argue that allowing slot machines may open the door for one day allowing a lottery. Is this a meaningful train of thought? By allowing the initial modification of gambling laws, wouldn't it be more likely that those laws might be modified again in the future? It is by no means assured, but I'd argue that its more likely.

Does endorsing gay marriage mean minor marriage will increase or polygamy increase? No, and I've not argued that. To me though, it does imply that these legislatures are now open to modifying the meaning of marriage.

But...isn't that what you're arguing against? New York took such a step, following the lead of other states, and you're protesting it?

No, I'm arguing against what Kaith originally said, kind of the "Canada is doing it, and its not burning down yet". I dislike the notion that we need to follow the rest of the world. If we chose to modify marriage laws, let it be our own doing, and not because any other nation is doing so. I'd think its the wrong move, but thats my own view. Nor should one state modify its own laws simply because another state did so.

But they could. The govt. has associated a great many things--formally--with marriage. Until the govt. unravels that, it can hardly deny those benefits to people based on sexual orientation and claim there's equal protection under the laws. A spouse can't be compelled to testify in a criminal matter...the list goes on and on. It's frankly easier to allow gay marriage than to re-write all those laws to ignore marital status.

To my mind, health insurance is a big one, too.

Is the easiest way out the best? Once you get laws like this on the books, they won't easily come off. I already said these things can likely be dealt with in better ways. Would it be easy? Probably not.

The Moral Code of the US varies and is often based on an outdated conservative interpretation of Christianity. Your continued lumping of gay marriage, polygamy and pedophilia is a clear indication that you do consider all three to be comparable. They are not. Gay!= Polygamous != pedophile.
Pedophilia has NOTHING to do with marriage, gay or straight.

Your continued lumping together is an equation of such.

This was clarified up above. I'm growing tired of this being a theme here. Please show me where I equated these three. I did state, several times by now, that they are all associated through the institution of marriage. I do not and have not equated them to each other.



Eldar, thanks for the great post. Very clear and well thought out.

Just one or two things. Regarding the separation of civil vs spiritual, in practice there is no difference between the two. A marriage at the JoP will be acknowledged at any church. I don't think that will be the same with many churches and gay marriages. I also think, as stated earlier, that states are not obliged to acknowledge unions performed in other states. My understanding was that it was kind of understood. I think thats going to be a problem in time. You will have the same problems with hospitals, wills, etc if a couple relocates to a state not sanctioning gay unions.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This was clarified up above. I'm growing tired of this being a theme here. Please show me where I equated these three. I did state, several times by now, that they are all associated through the institution of marriage. I do not and have not equated them to each other.

You contradict yourself here. Are they or aren't they related? You say they are associated through marriage. Ok...so is incest, spouse abuse, divorce, infidelity and more.

One can be gay, but not married.
One can be in a multi-partner relationship, but not married.
One can be a pedophile, but not be married.

They aren't related or associated, other than very very marginally. Saying that gay marriage and poligamy or pedophilia are associated through marriage is as valid as saying they are they are associated through MartialTalk. (Since we've got a few gay couples on here, at least 2 poly relationship involved individuals, and did ban someone once for pedophilic tendencies)

Pedophilia - From its Greek roots, pedophilia implies love of a child ("paidos" + "philia"). In practice, pedophiles are typically adult males with exclusive sexual preferences for prepubescent boys and/or girls. Adult women can be diagnosed as pedophiles as well as some postpubertal adolescents. http://www.forensicexaminers.com/terminology.html

 

[Bob Hubbard]

NY is recognizing the civil part as to not do so violates the state equality laws, laws that have long been on the books. I don't believe it says anything about the religious ceremonies.

Simply put, in the US, to my knowledge, while you can get married in a civil manner and NOT in a religious manner and have it recognized and legally protected, you cannot get married in a religious ceremony and NOT have the civil portion done and have those same protections.

Not every member of the clergy can perform a valid wedding.
They need to be authorized by the proper human governmental authorities.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bottom line is, you have the right to disagree with the decision. I'm sure alot of people will. I'm not arguing your right to disagree. What I'm arguing with is your logic and compassions with unrelated issues as validation for that disagreement.

"I don't agree with homosexuality and therefore do not agree with same-sex marriage" is a good enough reason, honestly.
"...because my God said they are bad." is also a valid reason.
"...because they do evil things, molest children and have wild orgies." however isn't valid as it's well, false, bull, and whatnot. (the child molestation charge and immorality bit were from another debate...but then again hetro-marriage is far from guilt free, as is the clergy when it comes to those charges.)

 

[elder999]

Eldar, thanks for the great post. Very clear and well thought out.

Just one or two things. Regarding the separation of civil vs spiritual, in practice there is no difference between the two. A marriage at the JoP will be acknowledged at any church. I don't think that will be the same with many churches and gay marriages. I also think, as stated earlier, that states are not obliged to acknowledge unions performed in other states. My understanding was that it was kind of understood. I think thats going to be a problem in time. You will have the same problems with hospitals, wills, etc if a couple relocates to a state not sanctioning gay unions.

Your welcome, but no, and no, and no, and no.

A marriage at the JoP will not necessarily be recognized or consecrated by, say, the Catholic church, if it's your second time around.

In point of fact, your (insert religious authority here) is not obligated to marry anyone-he has the right to test, to make conditions, and to refuse. In point of fact, my father declined to marry several couples over the course of his career. I haven't been asked to marry that many people, but I've declined to marry three couples-or, rather, politely and modestly recommended that they ask someone else that I named.

In another point of fact, it's not a courtesy that states recognize marriages that take place in other states, it's a matter of federal law-in fact, it's covered by the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution:Article IV, sect. 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such
Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof.
U.S. Const., Art. IV. ' 1

If I were to marry (this is hypothetical, I'm already married, but bear with me) say, a 13 year old girl in New Hampshire (completely legal with her parents' permission) and move to New York, well, we're still married, and I can't be arrested or jailed for having sex with a minor. She's recognized as my spouse, and, while the neighbors, cops, churches, school authorities and everyone else would damn me for the sick puppy I'd have to be, it'd still be legal.].....in theory, anyway.

 

[Twin Fist]

you know, 300 bucks and a lawyer gets you a will, a power of atty, medical directives, those 3 documents solve most of the problems.

I say get the government to issue "domestic contracts" instead of marraige licenses.

if an insurance company wont give benefits to a domestic partner, then get a new insurance company. The competition for clients will work that end out.


it is really simple.....

 

[mrhnau]

You contradict yourself here. Are they or aren't they related? You say they are associated through marriage. Ok...so is incest, spouse abuse, divorce, infidelity and more.

*sigh* They are FORMS of marriage. I'm not saying being gay is related to polygamy.

ok, this is the last time I'm going to respond to this specific topic. Perhaps an analogy will help it sink in. I quote myself

Shooting targets and shooting people? how about another analogy. A state that has no gambling at all starts permitting slot machines. Someone may argue that allowing slot machines may open the door for one day allowing a lottery. Is this a meaningful train of thought? By allowing the initial modification of gambling laws, wouldn't it be more likely that those laws might be modified again in the future? It is by no means assured, but I'd argue that its more likely.

Does endorsing gay marriage mean minor marriage will increase or polygamy increase? No, and I've not argued that. To me though, it does imply that these legislatures are now open to modifying the meaning of marriage.

Am I arguing that slot machines are the same thing as a lottery? No, I am not. They are, however, both forms of gambling. One person may chose to not gamble, another may play the slots, another the lottery, or someone could play both he slots and the lottery. You can clearly legalize one and not the other. You can also ban all forms of gambling. I'm not arguing the morality or virtue of one or the other, if you have noticed.

Now, you mentioned a few specific examples. Incest is a valid one for this argument, because we have laws against marrying your sibling/cousin.

I'm bringing these topics up because the same arguments that are made for gay marriage can be made for other forms of marriage, such a minor marriage, polygamy, and since you mentioned it, incestuous marriages.

"I love them, I should be able to express that, I need health insurance, hospital visitations rights, inheritance..."

This can be applied to all forms of marriage, but I don't see crowds demanding polygamy to be legalized, or for incestuous marriages to be legalized. Maybe one day, if enough people start liking the prospect of polygamy or incestuous marriage, they will try to change the definition again. Please note the "maybe".

One can be gay, but not married.
One can be in a multi-partner relationship, but not married.
One can be a pedophile, but not be married.

They aren't related or associated, other than very very marginally. Saying that gay marriage and poligamy or pedophilia are associated through marriage is as valid as saying they are they are associated through MartialTalk. (Since we've got a few gay couples on here, at least 2 poly relationship involved individuals, and did ban someone once for pedophilic tendencies)

The common glue, the association here, is marriage.

You can have a gay marriage, you can have a polygamous marriage. You can have a normal, straight marriage. That is their association. You can't have a MartialTalk marriage (well, I guess two people could get married off of here hehe). These sexual behaviors can potentially be sanctioned in a marriage. By attempting to modify the definition of marriage, you open up the potential for modifying the definition of marriage to other forms of marriage. Does it mandate that it will ever happen? Clearly not, but the potential does exist, much as I argued with the gambling example. The arguments that are being made in favor of gay marriage are exactly the arguments that can be made in favor of other forms of marriage.


Eldar,
Thanks again for a nice, clear post. I had forgotten about the Catholic church not acknowledging second marriages. Thats not in all churches. Thanks for the clarification. I've also known pastors/rabbis to refuse to marry some couples. I should not have forgotten that, since one of my Jewish friends had a hard time finding someone to marry him to a Methodist.

Regarding the states acknowledgment of marriages, I appreciate the insight. I was informed in the past that technically they did not have to be acknowledged. Happy to admit when I'm wrong (unlike some people). If I recall correctly Utah at some point did sanction polygamous marriages. How did that work out with other states? If I remember incorrectly, please forgive. History a bit rusty.

Irregardless, some foreign countries still allow polygamy. Legally how does that work here? Do you pick the first wife? Say that Joe is married to Sue and Betty in Nigeria or some place that allows polygamy. They move here and he wants both on his insurance policy. How would that work?

 

[shesulsa]

you know, 300 bucks and a lawyer gets you a will, a power of atty, medical directives, those 3 documents solve most of the problems.

I say get the government to issue "domestic contracts" instead of marraige licenses.

if an insurance company wont give benefits to a domestic partner, then get a new insurance company. The competition for clients will work that end out.


it is really simple.....

I've known couples with all the paperwork necessary to be restricted from information about their partners in life-threatening situations because they weren't married nor related.

 

[mrhnau]

If I recall correctly Utah at some point did sanction polygamous marriages. How did that work out with other states? If I remember incorrectly, please forgive. History a bit rusty.

Just looked it up. Apparently the problems with polygamy were resolved before Utah was granted statehood in the late 1800's.

 

[jim777]

Marriage is a religious thing really, so if you want to be married in a church the church obviously gets that say. I'm totally fine with that. If a church doesn't want to allow same sex marriages, I have no problems there at all.
When my lovely bride and I got married, Monsignor Considine pulled us aside at the end of the mass and made us sign some papers for the City of New York, and said something like, "Now that God knows you're married we have to make it official with the state". He said it with a smile, but the State is the State and they keep the records and such.

Anyway, my point is the State is what matters here really, for your day in and day out life. They are the ones making the official decisions on custody, taxes, etc. They should NOT decide that some rights are open and available to some and closed to others based solely on who they were on the day they were born, and no church or religious (or other) group should have any say about it. The state should be far removed from that. We should all be a bit beyond that (in my opinion) by now. Every couple that wants that state blessing on their union should be able to get it, and whatever rights and hindrances and other crap (both good and bad) that come from it. I really can't see how anyone could be against that at this point, it just seems extemely mean and hateful to me.
And I'm personally sick to death of hearing about "the institution of marriage" as if something with a better than 50% failure rate is now somehow endangered. A few more Sigfried and Roy couples (46 years together) might help those stats anyway.

It means enough to me that I honestly wouldn't vote for someone who said they would come out against same sex marriages. Good for New York