Gay Marriage Bill Passed in New York's State Government.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Rhyfelwyr: no that is not a better question. In fact, your question is useless. Here is why:

Lemur's question as beside the point of gay marriage as it is, simply asks society to apply the same standards to “the gays” as to those who are not. For an analogy substitute “marry” and “marriage” with “eating fried chicken”. There is no particular law or grant of rights which specifically allows gays to eat fried chicken either.

The real question stems from the natural process Philip mentions. That is: given the fact there is a clear demand from the gay community to enable them to get married, should we as a society let them based on our current guiding legal principles? Based on the secular humanism which we currently subscribe to for our legal frameworks, it follows that if our current guiding legal principles hold that marriage is little more than a personal expression on top of a legal framework called civil union, and that we hold with freedom of expression and equality then:
(a) There is no reason to deny marriage to the gays
(b) Moreover given what marriage currently amounts to, gays should have access to it by right of equality under the law

Alternatively:
(c) Marriage should be scrapped entirely from the legal framework, with only civil unions to remain.

But given that people still actively want to get married (c) is the inferior option.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't see how state marriage comes under freedom of expression or equality.

Heterosexual-only marriage laws do not discriminate against gays any more than they discriminate against asexuals or people who don't want to be in a relationship.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't see how state marriage comes under freedom of expression or equality.

Again you are looking at it the wrong way. This marriage issue is not about how it should always have been (freedom of expression/equality) per se, rather it is about a new compromise in the needs and wants of the peoples of these states. Which is on the one hand that marriage be the equivalent of civil union with cherry on top, and on the other hand that in principle everyone be equal under the sun. Then it follows that if gays do want to get married there is no reason to deny them.

So the compromise is to allow them, rather than to scrap marriage.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There is no particular law or grant of rights which specifically allows gays to eat fried chicken

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Again you are looking at it the wrong way. This marriage issue is not about how it should always have been (freedom of expression/equality) per se, rather it is about a new compromise in the needs and wants of the peoples of these states. Which is on the one hand that marriage be the equivalent of civil union with cherry on top, and on the other hand that in principle everyone be equal under the sun. Then it follows that if gays do want to get married there is no reason to deny them.

So the compromise is to allow them, rather than to scrap marriage.

I think what Rhy is saying is that, from his perspective, the law does not discriminate, Gay people can get married, and do. So it's still all about your definition of marriage.

Why can't two strait men marry, for example?

[Strike For The South]

I think what Rhy is saying is that, from his perspective, the law does not discriminate, Gay people can get married, and do. So it's still all about your definition of marriage.

Why can't two strait men marry, for example?

Meh loveless marrige has been around as long as the institution itself

Your idea was the inspiration for a B-grade comedy movie cirica 2007

[Fragony]

My guess is that Fragony is thinking about Dutch conservatives and is conflating them with conservatives in general (correct me if I'm wrong)

As far as the conservatives, or opponents of gay rights in the Neth's go (the parties SGP and Christenunie mostly), he's somewhat right. They're generally civil and eloquent when defending their viewpoints. But that's mostly because they're a tiny minority here, and invoking fire & brimstone all the time would turn public opinion against them even more.

People who are against it here are also calm and eloquent. I'm not against it, but why want to have it in the first place. It's demanding recognition for a farce imho, It also sits rather uncomfortably with the existance of such a thing as the gay-olympics or gay-whatever.

I want it all and I want it now

@Lemur, once you shared a bed with a gay marrocan convict on leave then we talk

[Lemur]

They just can't see they are gutmensch because to them everything is relative to where they are. You say you can't have a dialogue so maybe what you need first is some self-reflection.

Friend, you are missing the point I have patiently and clearly been making for three or four posts in a row. I am beginning to think you are being deliberately silly.

A better question would be why should they get married.

I'd be happy to answer this question if you would do the courtesy of answering mine first. What tangible harm has been done by gay marriage? Please be specific.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think what Rhy is saying is that, from his perspective, the law does not discriminate, Gay people can get married, and do. So it's still all about your definition of marriage.

Eh? Marrying in some other place which explicitly does allow such marriages doesn't count: if you are in the Atacama and need a drink the fact that there really is a lot of water elsewhere on the planet doesn't do any good.

Why can't two strait men marry, for example?

But straight men or women can do precisely that with the update to the law. That's why it's called same-sex marriage.

[PanzerJaeger]

The British education system. I was taught it was OK to be gay in health ed classes, so from around age 11+.

If I'm an employer I have to hire them.

If I'm B&B owner I have to let them stay in my house.

You can't escape, the leftist utopia has is all encompassing.

You say you are not one of the gutmensch... so surely you will not defend this?

The horror! That's your leftist utopia? We're not talking about extra points on college admissions and job interviews, quotas, busing, or affirmative action laws, but basic workplace nondiscrimination laws? Really? Let's have a discussion about racial policies in America and I'll show you some truly destructive leftist fiats.

Seriously though, as hilariously infinitesimal as those examples are, they reveal a far uglier, definitely un-funny truth residing just below the surface. Your problem is not that gay people are actually doing anything to you, it's that they exist. You don't even want to have to afford to them the basic modicum of respect that every citizen in a free society is entitled to. You want to be able to actively discriminate against them in the public square and any law that says you can't represents an inescapable leftist utopia. There's no greater religious principle underlying that, just reactionary bigotry.

I should be able to have my own little world with my own values. Other people can do their thing but don't tell me I have to be a part of it.

That's fine. Home school your children and subsistence farm. However, if you're going to make use of public schools or operate a business that benefits from public infrastructure, you're going to have conduct yourself in a manner that respects the public at large, including gays. They are stakeholders (taxpayers) in society just as much as you are.

A better question would be why should they get married.

Because they constitute an identifiable subset of stakeholders in society, because they are organized, and because they want it. That's all that is required to effect change in a liberal democracy. Broader society then evaluates the associated costs of the change and decides whether it is worthwhile.

Considering the fact that no one seems to have come up with any legitimate social costs of allowing gay marriage, there do not seem to be any legitimate arguments against it - at least from a public policy perspective.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rightly or wrongly what has actually happened is that the mainstream conception of "marriage" an an institution and it's purpose has changed.

The "traditional" concept of marriage as the means by which the sexually reproducutive relationship is legitimised and regulated has essentially ceased to exist, but no one wants to talk about it - everyone would rather just shouth about Gay Rights or Gay Evils, depending on your preference.

What is there to talk about? We are not draconian anymore. Marriage has been less about wealth, status and bearing children and more about love and joining two people together as a single entity under the tax code since the late 1800s.

Remember, when we talk about American conservatives, we are being very vague. The small-government type folks have fairly mainstream, if not liberal social values - they are one type.

Those are the libertarians, not conservatives. Both vote for Republicans, but they are very different. Just as Ron Paul was almost nothing like any of the other candidates in the recent Republican debate.

But then you also have the religious, usually Evanglical hardliners. There's not really anything 'conservative' about them. I think in a lot of ways the Evangelical movement captures the spirit of the radical Protestants that played such a big role in shaping the American identity. They are not really conservative in the sense they are trying to preserve the status-quo (or any recently lost status-quo). Maybe they are reactionary in that they have some sense of returning to a prior golden age. But then you wouldn't call an Islamist 'conservative' because they want to return to the days of the Caliphate.

These people are actually the mainstream conservative and is the biggest group of the Republican base. And they actually are preserving the status quo, here's why.

The current wave of religiousness in American politics sprouted in the late 1970s and manifested itself as a powerhouse in the political system with the birth of the Reagan conservative revolution that took control of office in 1980. They are a bit reactionary in the sense that it was the social revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s that spurred this new wave of religious conservatism, but the liberal social revolutions were not done deals by any sort of measure. Blacks were not suddenly completely equal, nor gays, nor women, nor transexuals, etc... in fact all the social revolutions did was simply to end the legalized active persecution against those groups not the legalized passive persecution. So the status quo was shaken but not dismantled. The passive laws that held down minority groups are ultimately religious in nature, stemming from the 1950s McCarthy days, where being religious was one of the few "sure" tests to make sure that you were not some Godless, Marxist, Communist traitor. Women had their place, blacks had their place, gays were not to let themselves to be known, and trying to shake things up against these traditional (religious) roles was analogous to being a socialistic revolutionary, trying to subvert America. God was injected everywhere during these days as a cleanser against any sort of leftist taint, shoving it onto all money and coinage, our pledge of allegiance etc... You probably get my point by now.

So what this new wave of religious conservatives are doing and have done since the late 1970s, has been to continue to hold onto those policies of the 1950s, of forced social structure, which any American who lived through that time period can tell you was completely hollow and fake. But it was dependent on religion, and the religious want that to continue. Thus they are fighting for it, the status quo.

No, I think that we should stop conflating the two types of groups people usually lump together as American conservatives, and recognise that the more religious elements are actually pretty radical.

Yes, we should stop conflating the two, and yes the more religious elements are radical, but the religious are the conservatives, the small government, socially liberal completely fall into the libertarian camp, many of which share Ayn Rand's atheism.

[Tellos Athenaios]

but why want to have it in the first place. It's demanding recognition for a farce imho, It also sits rather uncomfortably with the existance of such a thing as the gay-olympics or gay-whatever.

I imagine for the same reasons all those other couples get married.

[Fragony]

I imagine for the same reasons all those other couples get married.

Do they really, not so sure. Marriage goes beyond equality in law because it's a tradition, and I understand why people feel gay marriage is claiming too much. I see it as an act of aggression towards these people

[Ironside]

We get them even where the "law" is enforced.

Any idiot can see a blood feud is a waste of time, so your best bet is to reach a compromise that everybody (except maybe ther murderer) deems appropriate. If you use the same compromise often enough is turns into something called "law", it is an entirely natural process.

The increasing individualim at the cost of the extended family has removed marriage as a simple bloodline bond, while the increased equality for women has made divorse easier and given that living as a single is an acceptable option (for both genders), making marriage not needed to be the fundamental unit. The increased state involvement (that marriage gives previlegies), aethism and secularisation has also made marriage into something else than a bond shown to God.

This has in turn been reduced marriage to a symbol of love and a tradition. Since gays can feel love and are a part of the same culture (thus having the same traditions), it's only natural for gay to want to marry. And with the old obstacles removed, there's no reason not to allow it, in the eyes of the state.

Calling predictable social developments natural has interesting side effects.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Friend, you are missing the point I have patiently and clearly been making for three or four posts in a row. I am beginning to think you are being deliberately silly.

Well how is it an imagined foe if you fit the bill.

But yeah OK, I will admit that my gutmensch point doesn't really have much to do with this thread and gay marriage. I'm sorry sometimes I just can't be bothered keeping things intelligent and I like to rant.

I'd be happy to answer this question if you would do the courtesy of answering mine first. What tangible harm has been done by gay marriage? Please be specific.

Well no harm at all really. No more harm that if you were to allow people to marry their sisters or their pets.

Having the state put a rubber stamp or your relationship is not a right, it is a privilege. And there have got to be good reasons for that privilege with all its associated benefits eg tax cuts. What benefits does society get from gay marriage?

You don't even want to have to afford to them the basic modicum of respect that every citizen in a free society is entitled to.

"They can have their world and I can have mine". How much more respect could they ask for?

That's fine. Home school your children and subsistence farm. However, if you're going to make use of public schools or operate a business that benefits from public infrastructure, you're going to have conduct yourself in a manner that respects the public at large, including gays. They are stakeholders (taxpayers) in society just as much as you are.

That's the problem you take any sort of involvement in the public sphere and use it as an excuse to take away all their rights. That's why nobody can ever really escape.

[Lemur]

Well no harm at all really. No more harm that if you were to allow people to marry their sisters or their pets.

Illogical comparison. Incest weakens the gene pool and gives rise to all sorts of recessive weirdness, which is why most every society frowns on it. Animals cannot give consent, so all human-animal sex is rape, as well as icky. Thank you for pulling a bit of a Santorum there, but you score no points.

If the correct answer is "no harm at all," I don't understand the objections.

And there have got to be good reasons for that privilege with all its associated benefits eg tax cuts. What benefits does society get from gay marriage?

Point one: Married couples usually pay more taxes, all things being equal. It's called the marriage penalty for a reason.

Point two: Society has an interest in stable family units that are capable of rearing children.

[Xiahou]

(a) There is no reason to deny marriage to the gays

This is another red herring in the gay marriage debate. (The first being civil marriage = love, see prior post) No one is denying marriage to homosexuals. The exact same requirements apply to them that do to me.

Marriage has been less about wealth, status and bearing children and more about love and joining two people together as a single entity under the tax code since the late 1800s.

What states have "love" as a legal prerequisite for marriage? It's been about wealth, inheritance and child bearing for a long, long time. The tax code changes that come with it fall under the same principles.

Because they constitute an identifiable subset of stakeholders in society, because they are organized, and because they want it. That's all that is required to effect change in a liberal democracy. Broader society then evaluates the associated costs of the change and decides whether it is worthwhile.

Considering the fact that no one seems to have come up with any legitimate social costs of allowing gay marriage, there do not seem to be any legitimate arguments against it - at least from a public policy perspective.

I can agree with the first, but not so much the second. I don't subscribe to the "why not?" theory of legislation, but the "why?". I can understand why homosexuals want civil marriage between members of the same sex, but I don't see why I should support it nor do I see an overall benefit to society at large.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Illogical comparison. Incest weakens the gene pool and gives rise to all sorts of recessive weirdness, which is why most every society frowns on it. Animals cannot give consent, so all human-animal sex is rape, as well as icky. Thank you for pulling a bit of a Santorum there, but you score no points.

Disgusting display of intolerance on your part there. Whos said they wanted to have biological children? It's not like all non-incestuous couples have children but they can get married. If they love each other why can't they get married? And with animals, who said anything about sex. Animals don't consent to becoming your pets so why is going through a marriage ceremony any different?

Now you will say I am being silly but to me this is just how silly gay 'marriage' is.

If the correct answer is "no harm at all," I don't understand the objections.

To quote Xiahou - "I don't subscribe to the "why not?" theory of legislation, but the "why?". I can understand why homosexuals want civil marriage between members of the same sex, but I don't see why I should support it nor do I see an overall benefit to society at large."

Point one: Married couples usually pay more taxes, all things being equal. It's called the marriage penalty for a reason.

Point two: Society has an interest in stable family units that are capable of rearing children.

Well google-fu suggests its a mixed bag for point 1, usually it is more accidental factors that lead to married couples paying more eg the fact they have a combined wage puts them in a higher tax bracket.

As for point 2, I don't buy it, but that's a whole other debate.

[Lemur]

Now you will say I am being silly

And I have no problem with silly; some of my best friends are of the silly persuasion. However, by equating incest and bestiality (both illegal behaviors with serious downsides) with homosexuality, you're being a bit of a jerk.

I don't see why I should support [gay marriage] nor do I see an overall benefit to society at large.

What benefit might there be in allowing a small but affluent sub-set of the population to form long-lasting, legal relationships? If there is no benefit for homosexuals, surely there is little to none for straights?

Strange how those who most readily preach family values now see no value in families. Selective, even.

[Ironside]

"They can have their world and I can have mine". How much more respect could they ask for?

See by some bizarre reason, your world's are interconnected. So for them to have no contact with your world, they can't exist.

This is another red herring in the gay marriage debate. (The first being civil marriage = love, see prior post) No one is denying marriage to homosexuals. The exact same requirements apply to them that do to me.

It is a bit odd that rules about wealth, inheritence and rights towards the person you live with can only be applied to the other sex. But a certain alw change would extend your rights as well. So they don't get any special previleges either with any law change. Rather, they'll get more equal rights in general terms instead of specifics.

What states have "love" as a legal prerequisite for marriage? It's been about wealth, inheritance and child bearing for a long, long time. The tax code changes that come with it fall under the same principles.

And the meaning of marriage has changed the last decades (the minor but fundamental shift about living single is quite a bit longer though). I assume you want to have a return of bastards and arranged child marriages, since it has also been along for a long time and has been closely connected to marriage?

Disgusting display of intolerance on your part there. Whos said they wanted to have biological children? It's not like all non-incestuous couples have children but they can get married. If they love each other why can't they get married? And with animals, who said anything about sex. Animals don't consent to becoming your pets so why is going through a marriage ceremony any different?

Now, I would accept sister/brother marriage on case to case basis, but that quite a complicated matter.

Kids can't legally consent for you to babysit them. Using your logic, that's equal to child marriage. Personally, I would say that it's a slight difference, but that probably just me.

I don't subscribe to the "why not?" theory of legislation, but the "why?". I can understand why homosexuals want civil marriage between members of the same sex, but I don't see why I should support it nor do I see an overall benefit to society at large.

The more accepting system that we use is normally that anything not bad is allowed.

But socially, that would mean a higher acceptance of homosexuals, wich in turn means a higher well being for society, reducing the related costs. homosexuals would feel better obviously and it would be less relations where one is predending to be hetro, to simply fit in. Such relations are often dissatisfactionate for both involved, so having less of these are an improvement for society.

Hate crimes would be reduced long term, another costful factor for society.

[Strike For The South]

You guys are right, these gay kids are killing themselves off b/c the deals at Macys aren't quite fabulous enough.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am a Catholic and a traditionalist. The concept of same-sex marriage makes no sense to me and is considered inappropriate by the dictates of my faith.

That said, I suspect that New York's decision will stand the test of time and that same-sex unions will be accorded the same treatment as traditional marriages (and likely result in the same rate of divorce, adultery etc. as for traditional marriages in that same society).

Regrettably, we have government inextricably entwined with marriage as the natural progression of the property status of marriage in Western culture for millenia. The government has, at least implicitly, always played a role as the ultimate "arbiter" regarding breach of contract. Traditional marriage, with its clear connotations of the transfer of valuable property (wife) from her family to that of her husband, has long been one of the most regulated areas of contract law overseen by the government.

Latterly, with our slow drift away from a "property" definition of marriage to a "relationship" definition, many of the restrictions on marriage -- miscagenation laws and the like -- have been struck down as unconstitutional whenever they have appeared to deny the rights of some minority. For example, persons of color in Virginia are no longer restricted to marrying other persons of color so that caucasoids would remain "pure." It is hard NOT to see a parallel here with same sex marriage. Whether viewed as an abomination, as natural, or as abnormal (in mathematical terms), those with a primarily same-sex orientation to their sexuality are very clearly a minority and have been, in times past, a minority that has been the subject of discrimination and/or abuse. Efforts to protect the "equal rights" of members of that minority are clearly in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

In short, the problem is that government is involved in marriage at all. If marriage were strictly a religious issue and interpersonal unions were the only government concern, then such unions could be regulated according to the enshrined mores of the Constitution while leaving religious authorities to determine whatever was appropriate for marriage.

Sadly, history makes that impossible. Marriage and the rights thereunto appertaining are very much an issue of government, and the very term marriage is now part of the debate. Same-sex individuals not only want the rights of a government-sanctioned couple (for which civil unions would suffice were the government removed from the marriage process), but they want those rights to have the equal status and social acceptability connoted by the term "marriage."
The latter goal is somewhat quixotic and not subject to legislation/adjudication, but same-sex marriage is here to stay.

Constitutionally, there really is little alternative but to sanction it.

I myself would love to get government completely separated from the sacrament of matrimony....but that is water under the bridge now.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm an atheist.

When I fall in love and marry someone, is my marriage meaningless and empty, because I'm not religious?

Marriage and religion are paired together as if organized religion holds the monopoly on marriage. I'm afraid it does not, Seamus.

[Xiahou]

Sounds like you'd enjoy this article, Seamus.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I love freedom. I'll marry whomever I want, and all that the state should concern itself with is that this marriage is with another consenting adult. Other than that, I do not see why other people should subject my bride to a pencil-in-the-hair racial test, or feeling up the shirt of an adult to establish whether it is a man or a woman, or a council of bearded old men looking under her skirt for a virginity test.

None of anybody's business what two consenting adults do.

I myself would love to get government completely separated from the sacrament of matrimony...

Failing that, one could consider separating the sacrament of matrimony from government.

Marriage is far older than the Catholic church, and we will still have governments and marriages long after all the gods of Rome have been dead and forgotten.

[Lemur]

Sounds like you'd enjoy this article, Seamus.

I've seen broad agreement with this essay's prescription for years in these fora. Much too sensible to be enacted, most likely.

Interesting side-note: Medieval church used to grant two men embrotherments so they could, um, live a fulfilling life together. Same as it ever was ...

[ajaxfetish]

In short, the problem is that government is involved in marriage at all. If marriage were strictly a religious issue and interpersonal unions were the only government concern, then such unions could be regulated according to the enshrined mores of the Constitution while leaving religious authorities to determine whatever was appropriate for marriage.

The odd thing to me is, within my church (Mormon), we have a doctrine of eternal marriage (aka 'sealing'), which we clearly distinguish from earthly marriage. The sealing ceremony counts as a marriage ceremony legally, but it's of course possible to be married without being sealed, and many members get married and then are sealed only at a later point. Access to sealing is entirely regulated by the church, with no interference from the government, and no sense that there is a right to be sealed to one's spouse. We already have a marriage that is strictly a religious issue, and it's the type of marriage we really care about. And yet we're still in the forefront of activism against same-sex marriage. If anyone's heterosexual marriages would not be affected or somehow cheapened by gay marriage, it's ours. I don't get it.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh? Marrying in some other place which explicitly does allow such marriages doesn't count: if you are in the Atacama and need a drink the fact that there really is a lot of water elsewhere on the planet doesn't do any good.

I meant "marry" in the way Sapho of Lesbos got married, or Alexander, or Xenophon, Philip of Macedon (he was bi though).

But straight men or women can do precisely that with the update to the law. That's why it's called same-sex marriage.

So is this not a "Gay rights" issue then?

Why do we even have the "Gay concept", why is anyone defined by their sexual preference? Who cares unless you want to have sex with them?

[Beskar]

Why do we even have the "Gay concept", why is anyone defined by their sexual preference? Who cares unless you want to have sex with them?

I agree, same with many others like "black/white", why can't people be more colourblind or sexblind.

While homosexuality and heterosexuality is discussed a lot, what about things like asexuality and why do we need to place so much emphasis on sex at all?

[Noncommunist]

And I have no problem with silly; some of my best friends are of the silly persuasion. However, by equating incest and bestiality (both illegal behaviors with serious downsides) with homosexuality, you're being a bit of a jerk.

And at one point, sodomy was illegal as well and I'd imagine that back in when interracial marriage was being discussed, proponents of interracial marriage would have disliked it being compared to homosexual marriage.