Equal marriage rights passed in NY

[silvanricky]

It would be totally worth it to have a bunch of wealthy corporate homosexuals (preferably from Wal-Mart) fund creationist museums around the country just to watch Player's head explode. Does that woman ever talk in anything other than cliches?

I see much hasn't changed

laterz

[PLAYER57832]

BBS is spot on. State rights should NEVER interfere with fundamental rights of citizens. I'm not commenting on whether marriage is such a right, just saying that it would be ludicrous now to say that states should be allowed to individually choose to ban inter-racial marriages, say. Unless you think they should be able to, Phatscotty?

no. IDK about all that. the race issue on a state law level is in our countries past and even back then was only practiced by a handful of states, and never practiced by a majority of states.

"All men are created equal" was an idea who's time had come.

There is a lot more to equality than being able to marry someone from another race.

The idea and practice that people can make their own laws (locally and state level, city and county)and live under them, and that there is a process such as referendums and amendments. That works good in the freedom and liberty area.

As long as you are in the majority, it does.

See, the funny part is the state that has just such a reforendum policy is the one you so often revile.. CA.

[Phatscotty]

BBS is spot on. State rights should NEVER interfere with fundamental rights of citizens. I'm not commenting on whether marriage is such a right, just saying that it would be ludicrous now to say that states should be allowed to individually choose to ban inter-racial marriages, say. Unless you think they should be able to, Phatscotty?

no. IDK about all that. the race issue on a state law level is in our countries past and even back then was only practiced by a handful of states, and never practiced by a majority of states.

"All men are created equal" was an idea who's time had come.

There is a lot more to equality than being able to marry someone from another race.

The idea and practice that people can make their own laws (locally and state level, city and county)and live under them, and that there is a process such as referendums and amendments. That works good in the freedom and liberty area.

As long as you are in the majority, it does.

See, the funny part is the state that has just such a reforendum policy is the one you so often revile.. CA.

race and sex are completely incomparable.

There are no differences between a black man and a white man. there are enormous differences between a man and a woman.

[Metsfanmax]

The idea and practice that people can make their own laws (locally and state level, city and county)and live under them, and that there is a process such as referendums and amendments. That works good in the freedom and liberty area.

What do you think?

I believe that the founders did have good cause for apportioning certain rights to the states only. However, I don't believe they intended to allow states to become small authoritarian governments where fundamental rights could be stripped by the will of the people. That is, states' rights ought not to extend to the domain of the fundamental rights that are granted to every citizen of the nation. If we accept marriage to a person of either sex as a fundamental right for every citizen, states should not be able to take that right away from their own constituents, just as we do not accept the idea that states could arbitrarily decide one day to remove your right to speak freely.

[Phatscotty]

The idea and practice that people can make their own laws (locally and state level, city and county)and live under them, and that there is a process such as referendums and amendments. That works good in the freedom and liberty area.

What do you think?

I believe that the founders did have good cause for apportioning certain rights to the states only. However, I don't believe they intended to allow states to become small authoritarian governments where fundamental rights could be stripped by the will of the people. That is, states' rights ought not to extend to the domain of the fundamental rights that are granted to every citizen of the nation. If we accept marriage to a person of either sex as a fundamental right for every citizen, states should not be able to take that right away from their own constituents, just as we do not accept the idea that states could arbitrarily decide one day to remove your right to speak freely.

of course not. Nobody ever said that and that is not the case at hand. Why are you so hung up on all that.

No system is perfect, some can correct themselves or their problems or see their errors and make laws that don't work out so well. That much should be understood as "given".

The constitution prevents, through the supreme court, states stripping fundamental rights. That is not the case at hand either. Honestly, I can barely even understand where you are coming from with your response. Why so extreme?

The question I asked you, which was a response to your question, does people getting to make their own laws maximize freedom or liberty, or does it minimize. (modern times please/the country we live in right now, under the umbrella of the subject title as it happens now)

[Metsfanmax]

of course not. Nobody ever said that and that is not the case at hand. Why are you so hung up on all that.

No system is perfect, some can correct themselves or their problems or see their errors and make laws that don't work out so well. That much should be understood as "given".

The constitution prevents, through the supreme court, states stripping fundamental rights. That is not the case at hand either. Honestly, I can barely even understand where you are coming from with your response. Why so extreme?

Does it seem extreme? I am not gay and don't even support the institution of marriage, but the overwhelming feeling from the gay community is that they feel they are being treated like second-class citizens, being stripped of rights that are fundamental to everyone else but denied to them. The right to marry may not have as many life and liberty endangering strings attached as does slavery, say, but I would expect you of all people to recognize the importance of those rights as a symbolic and political matter at the very least.

The question I asked you, which was a response to your question, does people getting to make their own laws maximize freedom or liberty, or does it minimize. (modern times please/the country we live in right now, under the umbrella of the subject title as it happens now)

My response is basically a way of saying that it's not an either/or scenario. In general, the ability to make one's own laws does increase liberty. However, when those laws are used to strip fundamental rights from citizens, they become counterintuitive. I believe in a compromise system where people can maximize their liberty but only if that does not endanger the fundamental liberties of their fellow citizens.

[Phatscotty]

you are really something else

how about freedom. Does a person who can have a say in creating their own laws experience perhaps an ounce of freedom? Feel free to answer no because of an extreme case from 200 years ago by a couple of states, which America actually ended. Still...no credit though right?

States being able to make their own laws, under the frame work of the constitution, and not ruled by a centric power on the east coast, is a good thing for freedom and liberty.

[Metsfanmax]

you are really something else

how about freedom. Does a person who can have a say in creating their own laws experience perhaps an ounce of freedom? Feel free to answer no because of an extreme case from 200 years ago by a couple of states, which America actually ended. Still...no credit though right?

States being able to make their own laws, under the frame work of the constitution, and not ruled by a centric power on the east coast, is a good thing for freedom and liberty.

The Tenth Amendment gives states the right to make their own laws. Whether I think states making their own laws are a good or a bad thing, I have to accept that. However, we have to place reasonable limits on that responsibility. We cannot allow states to make a law that disenfranchises its citizens of a right widely recognized to be a right accorded to all citizens of the US, regardless of wherever they may have the (mis)fortune to live. We would not accept a state now disenfranchising its black citizens of the right to vote; we believe the right to vote is universal in its applicability to the nation's citizens. We would not accept a state now disenfranchising its black citizens of the right to marry white citizens. Similarly, we ought not to accept a state now disenfranchising its citizens of the right to marry anyone they choose.

[Phatscotty]

you are really something else

how about freedom. Does a person who can have a say in creating their own laws experience perhaps an ounce of freedom? Feel free to answer no because of an extreme case from 200 years ago by a couple of states, which America actually ended. Still...no credit though right?

States being able to make their own laws, under the frame work of the constitution, and not ruled by a centric power on the east coast, is a good thing for freedom and liberty.

The Tenth Amendment gives states the right to make their own laws. Whether I think states making their own laws are a good or a bad thing, I have to accept that.

Beat around the bush much? The question was never if states rights are good or bad. It's about it's effect on freedom. Let's flip it around maybe it will make more sense since you seem only wanting to deal with negatives.

Does having to live under someone elses rules and you dont have a say restrict your freedom?

[Metsfanmax]

Beat around the bush much? The question was never if states rights are good or bad. It's about it's effect on freedom. Let's flip it around maybe it will make more sense since you seem only wanting to deal with negatives.

Does having to live under someone elses rules and you dont have a say restrict your freedom?

I don't see why you are asking this question. Everyone does have a say on the laws of their own state, because they elect representatives in their state government. Obviously that's a good thing. But we have recognized the fundamental truth in America that even if everyone has a say, freedom and liberty are not always maximized. White people are part of the dominant race in America; they could fairly easily strip away all the non-voting rights of black people (freedom of speech, freedom of religion) using a pure majority vote if this practice were not explicitly banned by the Constitution. That is not to say we would actually choose to disenfranchise black people if we had the opportunity, but the mere possibility of it would be a blight on American society -- it would be the admission that by a simple majority vote, a state could take away all the liberties a particular class of its citizens had previously enjoyed. This is not acceptable.

[PLAYER57832]

BBS is spot on. State rights should NEVER interfere with fundamental rights of citizens. I'm not commenting on whether marriage is such a right, just saying that it would be ludicrous now to say that states should be allowed to individually choose to ban inter-racial marriages, say. Unless you think they should be able to, Phatscotty?

no. IDK about all that. the race issue on a state law level is in our countries past and even back then was only practiced by a handful of states, and never practiced by a majority of states.

"All men are created equal" was an idea who's time had come.

There is a lot more to equality than being able to marry someone from another race.

The idea and practice that people can make their own laws (locally and state level, city and county)and live under them, and that there is a process such as referendums and amendments. That works good in the freedom and liberty area.

As long as you are in the majority, it does.

See, the funny part is the state that has just such a reforendum policy is the one you so often revile.. CA.

race and sex are completely incomparable.

There are no differences between a black man and a white man. there are enormous differences between a man and a woman.

Perhaps you are under the assumption I claimed they were the same?
I did not.

[Metsfanmax]

There are no differences between a black man and a white man.

This is an astounding statement. I have no other way to describe it.

[Phatscotty]

There are no differences between a black man and a white man.

This is an astounding statement. I have no other way to describe it.

Details....please. All men are created equal, regardless of race. A man is a man, regardless of race.

or you going to go on about how one might weigh 140 pounds and one might weight 156 pounds?

[Woodruff]

I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

We're doing no such thing. What we are doing is showing you your own hypocricy, which you are avoiding looking at as if it were the Medusa. Keep dodging though, keep dodging! It's all you've got left.

You aren't thinking straight. We are nowhere near on the same page, and since it my response and you are replying to it, I will just have to leave it at MISS

Dance away, Dodge King.

[Phatscotty]

I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

We're doing no such thing. What we are doing is showing you your own hypocricy, which you are avoiding looking at as if it were the Medusa. Keep dodging though, keep dodging! It's all you've got left.

You aren't thinking straight. We are nowhere near on the same page, and since it my response and you are replying to it, I will just have to leave it at MISS

Dance away, Dodge King.

We aren't on the same page. You missed the point. Get a clue or drop it.

I'm okay with it either way. The conclusions you are jumping to are not normal.

[Woodruff]

I have said TWO TIMES, it is one specific example of one of many benefits.

Are you guys completely unable to talk about this?

You guys are just cramming words in my mouth with fervor.

We're doing no such thing. What we are doing is showing you your own hypocricy, which you are avoiding looking at as if it were the Medusa. Keep dodging though, keep dodging! It's all you've got left.

You aren't thinking straight. We are nowhere near on the same page, and since it my response and you are replying to it, I will just have to leave it at MISS

Dance away, Dodge King.

We aren't on the same page. You missed the point. Get a clue or drop it.
I'm okay with it.

Of course you're ok with dropping it...because that's your only way out.

[Phatscotty]

There is nothing for me to drop as it was my statement and not yours.

Is everything okay Woody? You seem distracted.

[PLAYER57832]

To get back to the real issue, you have no where come close to showing why marriage between homosexuals will harm anyone but them.

[thegreekdog]

The government shouldn't have passed this bill.

Instead, they should have completely eliminated the legal implications of marriage.

+100 to AoG!!!

I'm going to try this again, although I've been unsuccessful in the past. On a theoretical basis:

(1) I don't think there should be any benefits to being married that are guaranteed by the government (i.e. tax breaks, visitation rights).
(1)(b) I don't think there should be any governmental requirements vis-a-vis marriage (i.e. marriage licenses, estate laws)
(2) I think marriage should be something defined by two people (or more since I'm an erstwhile supporter of someone's right to engage in polygamy) and their society.
(3) I do not think the "recognition of marriage by the government" is a right. I do think the government does not have the right to violate a person's privacy by telling them who, what, where, and when with respect to marriage (or sex or whatever).

None of these things will happen. I have yet to hear a gay rights activist call for the elimination of marriage licenses or the elimination of tax breaks for those that are married. The only people that talk about these things are Libertarians and now "fraudulent" conservatives. Most fraudulent conservatives talk about this because they are vehemently against gay marriage. Most Libertarians talk about this because they are vehemently against government intervention in marriage at all. In any event, getting the government out of marriage is a pipe dream. As with everything else, once the government has control they do not give it up.

On a practical basis, good for New York.

[AndyDufresne]

There is the old idea that the government (of most any nation) has always been in the business of guiding the majority of a population to marriage (and thus procreation usually) to ensure its numbers. In this specific case, procreation is most likely out, but the general studies that married life leads to longer and more stable lives probably leads to ensuring numbers.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

The government shouldn't have passed this bill.

Instead, they should have completely eliminated the legal implications of marriage.

+100 to AoG!!!

I'm going to try this again, although I've been unsuccessful in the past. On a theoretical basis:

(1) I don't think there should be any benefits to being married that are guaranteed by the government (i.e. tax breaks, visitation rights).
(1)(b) I don't think there should be any governmental requirements vis-a-vis marriage (i.e. marriage licenses, estate laws)
(2) I think marriage should be something defined by two people (or more since I'm an erstwhile supporter of someone's right to engage in polygamy) and their society.
(3) I do not think the "recognition of marriage by the government" is a right. I do think the government does not have the right to violate a person's privacy by telling them who, what, where, and when with respect to marriage (or sex or whatever).

I agree with eliminating tax breaks, etc.

However, a lot of this is expediency. If marriage doesn't automatically give status in medical situations, inheritance, etc, then it means people will have to hire attorneys to ensure that the person they want... their loved one, not their closest relative, will get those things. This is already the case for people without marriage licenses, but the license offers and expedient and efficient way of ensuring this is done.

Also, marriage ensures better rules regarding custody of children. Just talk to any single parent where the other parent is still around to some extent or another (not dead or completely absent) and you find they are, again, going into court over and over.

Although our society no longer has "bastardy" laws.. that is, children born "out of wedlock" still do have rights, none-the-less, within marriage these rights are much more readily established. Also, the truth is that children raised in a two parent home tend to do better than those in single parent homes. That is, sure, single parents can raise their kids well and married couples can be idiots. However, there is a definite advantage to children in having more than one parent in the home.

None of these things will happen. I have yet to hear a gay rights activist call for the elimination of marriage licenses or the elimination of tax breaks for those that are married. The only people that talk about these things are Libertarians and now "fraudulent" conservatives. Most fraudulent conservatives talk about this because they are vehemently against gay marriage. Most Libertarians talk about this because they are vehemently against government intervention in marriage at all. In any event, getting the government out of marriage is a pipe dream. As with everything else, once the government has control they do not give it up.

This is one of the reasons I am interested in, but will never be a party to Liberaterianism. The truth is some of these designations are really expedient for all of us, truly beneficial. Just because it is done through the government doesn't mean its automatically a bad thing.
And, as I have noted before, there is no such thing as "our government" operating independently. There are bunches of individuals who like or dislike certain outcomes. In this case, having an establishment called "marraige" benefits society as a whole. However, allowing only some people to define it they way they wish.. does not.

On a practical basis, good for New York.

Agreed, and .. though I know you are aware of this, for any who are not, I am not "in favor" of homosexuality per se. That is, I am not going to say it is a lifetstyle I want for my children, etc. However, I also don't want them to be atheists.. that doesn't mean I want laws prohibiting its practice.

[thegreekdog]

@Player:

Expediency - I would agree that it is expedient to have marriage licenses EXCEPT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW GAY PEOPLE CAN'T GET FREAKING MARRIED!!! THE EXPEDIENCY HAS LED TO AN ENTIRE DESIGNATION OF PEOPLE NOT RECEIVING BENEFITS THAT OTHERS RECEIVE!!! So, it's not so expedient for everyone. Additionally, there is a financial cost associated with government regulation of marriage. Further, creating a will is not something a lawyer needs to help anyone with, and attorneys are nearly always involved with divorce and death regardless of government regulation of marriage as it relates to divorce and death.

As per usual, government intervention in marriage has not helped, it has hurt, and it needs to end.

[PLAYER57832]

@Player:

Expediency - I would agree that it is expedient to have marriage licenses EXCEPT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW GAY PEOPLE CAN'T GET FREAKING MARRIED!!! THE EXPEDIENCY HAS LED TO AN ENTIRE DESIGNATION OF PEOPLE NOT RECEIVING BENEFITS THAT OTHERS RECEIVE!!! So, it's not so expedient for everyone.

This is why I favor legalizing same-sex marriages. However, your point was that you don't want ANY marriages recognized by the state, so I was pointing out why I disagree with your view... though I believe we both agree on this particular ruling.

Additionally, there is a financial cost associated with government regulation of marriage. Further, creating a will is not something a lawyer needs to help anyone with, and attorneys are nearly always involved with divorce and death regardless of government regulation of marriage as it relates to divorce and death.

As per usual, government intervention in marriage has not helped, it has hurt, and it needs to end.

Well, I disagree, sort of.

I believe the costs outweigh the benefits for society (both direct financial costs and other "costs") now. However, what is happening is that the role of marriage in society, its purpose and benefits (both governmental and other) are eroding.. and for reasons that have nothing at all to do with homosexuals and everything to do with people who have kids with multiple partners without real societal sanction [clarify.. not passing judgement, talking about societal change]. As a result, a lot of things that used to be "fixed" more or less automatically by marriage are no longer so.

Therefore, while I believe recognizing marriage is currently expedient, beneficial, I can see a time when so few people marry or remain married that official recognition will no longer be cost-effective.

When you think about the fact that we have gone from a time when women were essentially "property", nevermind children to a time when women are fully functioning members of society and kids are routinely put in the care of "experts" (we hope ) instead of "just mom"... its no wonder that we will have to reevaluate the role of marriage.

Whether that is a good thing or not is an entirely different issue. My point is just that, for now, some marriage benefits make sense -- to a point. (I would do away with tax benefits; I would do away with spousal social security support as a spouse and replace it with a required payment when one partner is not working; some other things, but no need to get into that here).

[Metsfanmax]

Details....please. All men are created equal, regardless of race. A man is a man, regardless of race.

or you going to go on about how one might weigh 140 pounds and one might weight 156 pounds?

No, I'm referring to the fact that they are quite obviously different in a variety of inherent ways. For starters, white skin color arises from a genetic mutation compared to brown skin color; white and black people have different DNA. Generally speaking, though not always, their ancestors hail from entirely different parts of the world and have very different customs, traditions and languages. There is even evidence of a disparity in IQ scores on average between the two groups, and the consensus seems to be that genetic differences probably play some role in that. And of course people of African descent are simply biologically more prepared to be faster runners, for example. So no, there is in general a difference between a black man and a white man. We may hold that all men should be treated equally under the law (and I agree with this), but this does not mean we should attempt to whitewash the differences between races and cultures; instead, we should celebrate them as they allow us access to ways of thinking and perspectives that we perhaps do not always access.

[Woodruff]

I'm going to try this again, although I've been unsuccessful in the past. On a theoretical basis:
(1) I don't think there should be any benefits to being married that are guaranteed by the government (i.e. tax breaks, visitation rights).
(1)(b) I don't think there should be any governmental requirements vis-a-vis marriage (i.e. marriage licenses, estate laws)
(2) I think marriage should be something defined by two people (or more since I'm an erstwhile supporter of someone's right to engage in polygamy) and their society.
(3) I do not think the "recognition of marriage by the government" is a right. I do think the government does not have the right to violate a person's privacy by telling them who, what, where, and when with respect to marriage (or sex or whatever).

I agree with what you say with one exception...I do believe an age of consent is still necessary even without any other governmental role in the process of marriage. What that age of consent should be is a different matter, of course.