Gay Marriage May Be Coming to NY

Interesting thing won't be what Bloomberg does, he's already broken with the White House on this and a number of other issues. He'll let it ride.

Interesting thing is what Pataki does. He's the one who's joined at the gonads with the Bushies.

wait. I can still marry a chick, right?

//Dumb question
///and I'm not marrying anyone if I'm calling them a "chick", I suppose

As a gay with a long-term live-in boyfriend whom I intend to marry one day, can I please voice the opinion that cases like this are BAD BAD BAD for the cause. The advancement of marriage equality MUST take place through a legislative process in which people feel included. Although I absolutely believe that the courts must protect minority rights, if we in fact aim to create permanent change, we must use the power of a gradual but massive cultural shift. Most people are on the fence about marriage equality (hence the greater palatability of alternatives like DPs or CUs) and in a matter of just a few years will be comfortable amending their state constitutions to include all citizens in this fundamental social institution. Meanwhile, proceeding through the courts only leaves people feeling passed-over, trampled-upon, and hostile to the radical appearance of this change. Inclusion is a participatory process!

Goodness Jen, that was FAST! You totally beat the NYT. Well done.

Oh yeah, let's definitely leave this up to state senators and voters. If the Supreme Court hadn't heard cases like Brown v. Board of Ed., it might still be legal to have separate drinking fountains in some parts of the south.

Sometimes the courts have to step in. I think it has to do with something called the "tyranny of the majority."

...
...
So when I got married Last Monday, I could have been the Bride and My Wife the Groom? Amusingly enough, the Computer has the Gender as a selectable data field for the "Groom" and the "Bride"...

"all personal pronouns ... shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women."
Huh. So, if I read that right Gender Pronouns are not Politcally/Legally correct?

Note: Let me say in advance, I'm **NOT** Homophobic, don't deny that Love and Permanent relationships exist between people of the same gender and am most certainly NOT a Republican/"Neo-con"/"Marriage" ammendment supporter.

Look, While I don't think "Gay Marriage" rises to the level of passing a Law: Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. Larry, in all due respect, I'm for the right of an individual to choose whom shall recieve their benefits, but not for people of the same gender getting "maried". If people want the same legal extensions and rights that Marriage confer, they need to get laws passed.

People or in this case a judge, Re-defining the word "Marriage" to "fit" the conceptions of a few, doesn't make it right.
Calling a car a Bycycle doesn't make it one. Two people of the same gender going thru a "Marriage" Ceromony does not a Marriage make.

What amuses me is: Doris Ling-Cohan was elected to the Supreme Court of the State of New York on November 2002.
Is she trying for a higher office? Or does she want to ensure that Pataki has Yet Another Non Issue to Wave the flag at?

"tyranny of the majority."?
Wow. I had no idea that I was being a tyrant...
Bad Me. I guess between me and my brother: I *Am* the Evil twin!

Are there any other "Rights" being violated by Society?
Let's get creative... I Know, Driving Licences! They discrimate against Blind people!
Can't violate their "rights" can we??

Let's see: Taxation! Can't have Taxation without representation. Therefore, we can't Tax minors that work at, say, a fast food place. After all, they can't vote till they reach their Majority...

Must think up some more...

Yes, S.D.

Gay people getting married = blind people driving. An excellent analogy. And certainly one that backs up your claim of being a non-homophobe.

It still amazes me how anyone can feel threatened by the idea of two people in a committed relationship being able to marry one another.

FYI, the General Accounting Office has a list of 1,049 rights and benefits that come with marriage. Not religious marriage, which churches and temples would still be able to define as they see fit, but legal marriage.

http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=1049_federal (directs you to a PDF file)

(sigh)

Gay people getting married = blind people driving. An excellent analogy. And certainly one that backs up your claim of being a non-homophobe.

It still amazes me how anyone can feel threatened by the idea of two people in a committed relationship being able to marry one another.

Then you'll love my Jag = Chevy analogy...

(Begin Sarcasm)
Yes, thirdparty, You,ve hit the Nail on the Head! I think Calling A Carnation, a pretty flower to be sure, a Rose is a mistake so therefore, I **MUST** be Homophobic!

Bravo! My Hat's Off to you! You, sir/madam (Use the Noun of your choice), have successfully outed me! Let the Name calling begin!
As if.
(End Sarcasm)

I Can't speak for anyone else but I'm not threatened by "Gay Marriage". IMO, It's not marriage.

Jim, when I said:

(snip) I'm for the right of an individual to choose whom shall recieve their benefits, (snip)

What do you suppose I meant by that? Could it be, I meant that the legal benefits appled by the state to "Married" couples should (gasp) apply to any couple? In all honesty, Maybe It's me. Mayhap I didn't spell it out clearly enough.

Signed,
S.D., The Tyrant!

Wow! I like That...

what exactly are you arguing against here, s.d.? is it really just the semantics? is it your religion? how will you ever be personally effected by this in any way? maybe you have a point... i just haven't heard it through all the bad analogies.

Here's the thing that always amazes me about this topic: WHO CARES???!!! I have friends who are gay and were married by a minister and have called themselves married for the last twenty years. OK, as a straight married man, is this screwing with my marriage? Is my straight marriage diminished in any way? Is it less of a marriage because these people are our friends? Because they were allowed to marry?

Their marriage impacts on my life not one damn bit, except they are about to adopt a child and we couldn't be happier for them.

Honestly, we think of more things to get upset about. Would this even be an issue if people didn't hate gays so much (not you SD, lift your hands and move away from the keyboard!:>) )? So much of this argument seems to stem from some people wanting a PC (or RC, religiously correct) manner to express their bigotry.

Wow! I must cut back on the Coffee... (Note, yet again, that's a Joke! I'm quite responsible for what I type.)

One reason you can't avoid appearing homophobic, S.D., is that you (rather flippantly; you don't seem to realize how insulting that is) say that marriage will never include us, yet you don't lay out serious alternatives.

Well, Mike, I think the alternative is to get the state to recognize that people should be allowed to designate anyone else as there recipient of their benefits and as their legal heir. I'm sorry if my sarcasm has insulted, your right in that I did not consider how insulting the delivery was.

I once proposed that gay couples might want to create parallel institutions with their own terminology that recognize the differences between men and women -- it wouldn't be marriage, but neither would it be something less than marriage, like civil union. But your response is the belittling "Don't be ridiculous; whatever the courts say, you'll never really have marriage."

My sincere apologies if my rant caused anyone to be belittled or insulted. My belief that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman is exactly that, my belief. That's why I put that "Note". When I said I don't deny that Love and Permanent relationships exist between people of the same gender, I meant it.

Opponents of gay marriage often act like they invented the thing. Marriage is an institution we all inherited, but some of us are not being allowed to use it. The fact that you are allowed to use it doesn't mean it's yours to decide what to do with. I say it's the permanent union of two people who love each other, and the community I live in agrees.

Mike, I don't think anyone invented it as much as it has Evolved. That's your belief, I respect it and you, but I disagree with it. Also, IMO, I think that Judge Ling-Cohan went about this in the wrong way.

hijiki, I'm just not going to get into it with you about religion but I guarantee in I'll provide more analogies, bad or otherwise. I just can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, at myself, that you in particular think I make Bad analogies...

MT, You said "Just get on with your own lives people and worry about you for a change.";
Do you suppose that some people see this ruling (Right or Wrong) as a change that does affect them? As I've stated, I **DON"T** think "Marriage" needs to have a law or an Constitutional Amendment to "protect" it and am certainly Not threatened by this (Hell, with my sense of Humor, I might have put MY name as the Bride last week...).
I just don't think this is what Marriage is.

Hey! Did you refer to me as trailer Trash? If So, I prefer Tyrant or The Evil Twin...

On a more serious Note, I post my email address so that people CAN interact with me, be it here or via Email.
Feel free to contact me via these channels.

Ugh, this kind of annoys me, not because there is disagreement--I enjoy the disagreement--but because the arguments and the responses and the counter-responses are so predictable, and so completely missing the point.

"What," you may ask, "is the point, then, smartass?"

There are, in my opinion, three important, overlooked points:

1. The role of anxiety in this and other policy debates. "Marriage equality" encompasses a range of issues that touch on some of the most frightening experiences of our selves and our world. For example, "Am I too different to be accepted?" "Do my choices reflect the love I feel for my parents and others?" "If my child or sister or spouse were too different, how would that change my ability to love and accept him or her?" "How well do I understand and accept myself?" Though these sound insubstantial next to the very materially significant consequences of expanding or limiting participation in marriage, they are without a doubt the frameworks through which all the facts, logic, and opinions are seen.

2. Demos vs. Poloi. There is a dynamic tension built into the primary task of the democratic state: to institutionalize (in law) the will of the majority while protecting the inalienable rights of the minority. Representative democracy creates a layer of intermediation which moderates the expression of popular will. (When) Do our representatives in government--including judges--have a superior claim on interpreting the will of the people over time (i.e., against the "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule")? How can we assess in a regular, permanent, objective way when to trust these representatives with unpopular decisions? When is the expense to individuals of undertaking a slower and more participatory legislative process justified? How do we assess what historical precedents are merely artifacts, and which prove by their endurance to be real institutionalizations of the will of the people over time?

3. The instrumentalization of God. The rise of religious fundamentalism represents one of the greatest threats to human thriving in all of history. Modernity has led us to confront a world in which superstitious explanations are useless, yet we are continually faced with almost whimsical experiences of evil. Because it is clear that God is not doing the job that we've traditionally assigned God (protecting the faithful, punishing the wicked), it's an almost irresistable urge to try to keep God busy. If God has a job, what is it? Does it involve demonstrations of love toward humankind? Does it involve tests of faith and discipline? Does it involve judgment and the meting out of punishment? If God doesn't have a job, how can we be certain God exists? As God goes on disappointing our expectations (even as they evolve), is it because we haven't yet identified God's real task, or is it because we go on mobilizing God to undertake ever more specialized work? Is it possible that God's job is just to be God, and we don't really need help originating species, forming human bonds, creating new life, and demonstrating our innate compassion toward one another? Would that be a gain, or a loss? How do we act socially and politically to hold on to an idea of God that seems to be slipping away?

Correction:

IMO, the Legal definition of marriage is Not hurting people, but rather denying legal status to people and allowing people to decide their beneficiary and heir (Short of making a Will that is).

Should be:

IMO, the Legal definition of marriage is Not hurting people, but rather denying legal status to people and NOT allowing people to decide their beneficiary and heir (Short of making a Will that is).

That Is, Dennying people the choice of whom their beneficiary and heir is what is hurting people.

Larry, some comments regarding your very interesting points:
For # 1: Hmmm, this one is a hard one for me to currently fully appreciate. As I've think I've painfully shown (unfortunately, to others) It's been a long time since I've worried what strangers think. Even among friends and Family, If I've come to a conclusion that I've worked out to myself I'll listen to others but likely will not be convinced.
That is to say, about an opinion as opposed to a fact, especially if that opinion doesn't hurt anyone. Opinions are often like favorite colors. Today, mine is blue. Can that be wrong?

Regarding # 2, this is a balance that Society has to deal with constantly. Me, while I recognize that Majority Rule is possibly the best compromise, I have a conceptual problem with it: A majority is often the Side with all the Fools on it. Believe me, I'm not thrilled at being lumped with the "Religious" Right on any Issue, even peripherally regarding the definition of marriage...

Which bring us to # 3... This is a tricky one to comment on. One Man's Religion is another Man's Superstitious myth.
Hmmm, IMO it's possible to be religious and Modern. Without getting deeply into it: Myself, I have no expectation from God. I don't expect God to Punish the Guilty or protect the innocent in this world. As far as I'm concerned, God gave us a Marvelous playground and listens to us when we want to talk. It's up to us to take responsibility for the world we live in.

I think this summed it up best: "Calvin, do you believe in God?" Calvin's reply is: "Well, someone is out to get me."

hijiki & others; I sorry if this offends anyone: I just don't see it as an rights issue or keeping people out of the "marriage world" (An interesting way of putting it). Maybe I'll be considered narrow minded, but to me, Marriage is between two people of different Gender. To Me this isn't comparable to Denying a man and a woman of different "Races", legal Marriage. To me, it really is labeling a Carnation, a beautiful flower, A Rose.

I'm not against anyone having a different Interpretation of anything, This is My interpretation and my belief.

And as for my sarcasm to you, It wasn't being personal, to me, but IMHO, You so walked into it...
;)

But,"constitution's ghost", Your basing this on a couple of very Big Assumption: Marriage is defined as you like it, despite legal and societal precedent, and that it is a right.
As a very extreme example: Is it Sexual based discrimination when a Womans bathroom does NOT have any Urinals in a Woman's Bathroom?
(BTW: I am NOT comparing this issue to a Bathroom, just making an example of an discrimination as you've defined.)

"This means that the laws change based on gender, which violates equal protection."
But that's just it, the Law hasn't changed for as long as there has been marriage license's it was assumed that the Bride was a woman and the Groom a man. The basis of Common Law (which is what the judge has used) is precedent. As many examples as she's given in the Legal judgement, other lawyers will show that this is a re-definition of an existing Legal precedent, to wit: a Groom is a Man , a bride is a woman.

Is it discrimination to use legal accepted terms based on decades if not centuries of legal precedent? In the past 200 years, When a Wife applies for Palimony, it was legally assumed that a Wife is a woman. Is calling a Married Woman the Bride discriminating against her?

Think about it.

I guess hermaphrodites could only use the UNISEX room, right?

The restroom analogy isn't valid. Men and Women signs on restrooms are simply polite guidelines as to which has the urinals, not a legal mandate. A woman can legally use the men's room, and a man can legally use the women's room. I personally have crossed the gender chasm when confronted with a long line at a crowded bar. Thank god it's not against the law.

The "legal precedent" you mentioned attaches unique rights and definitions to a particular gender, which is not equal protection, no matter which way you hold it up to the light. The legal precedent was wrong, because assigning particular gender roles in a law isn't equal protection.

The precedent of "bride" meaning a woman means that the word may as well BE "woman," which means that the law applies to only a particular gender configuration. The law is nullified if the gender configuration is changed, which is not equal protection. Laws written for a particular gender is not equal protection! Why are you trying to deny that?

This is because the only difference between the two cases is one person's gender, and the law has no business determining what is right or wrong for a particular gender.

This is not particularly a marriage issue, this is an equal protection issue.

Also, there have been many occasions where long-lived precendents have been later determined to violate people's rights, and were corrected. Interracial marriage bans, segregation, women's denial of the right to vote, slavery, etc.

S.D., you asked,

where in the US Federal Constitution does it say gov't can't Discriminate by Gender? Which Amendment? For that matter where in the NYS Constitution?"

Well since when is it okay to discriminate? It's not right to discriminate by gender, just like it's not right to discriminate by skin color.




While I agree that judges probably shouldn't be trying to hand down decisions that go against widely established precedents, I can at least recognize that things have to change.




By the way, the Federal government does a lot of things that aren't quite kosher with the Constitution. Look at federal funding of public schools. I'm not saying let's burn the Constitution because the Constitution certainly is an important part of American government, but I am saying that just pointing to the Constitution doesn't wholly justify your argument.

Well since when is it okay to discriminate? It's not right to discriminate by gender, just like it's not right to discriminate by skin color.

(snip) I am saying that just pointing to the Constitution doesn't wholly justify your argument.

A law, any law, that is distinctly written for one particular gender is not equal protection, whether it's for good (battered wife laws) or bad (banning of same-sex marriage). A gay marriage ban is state-sanctioned unequal protection, no matter how much sugar you pour on it.

Why can't you just admit it? Repeat after me: "I support unequal protection."

I'm speaking from discussion with personal friends. And No, they are NOT "hiding in the closet" and they do NOT hate themselves.

In any case, I think I've said my point enough times. Unless something news comes up, I'm done on this topic. Feel free to bait me with "Why can't you just admit it?" to your hearts content.

The thing about marriage is that it grants couples a LOT of legal benefits -- about 1,400 state and federal legal benefits, according to a 1996 Congressional report. Same-sex couples are routinely hurt by not having access to those benefits. A straight couple who just met, got drunk, and got married in Vegas automatically has those rights, while a same-sex couple that has been together for 40 years doesn't. You can paper your way around some things by doing wills, powers of attorney, health care proxies, etc., but not all of them. And you can only do those legal documents if you can spare several thousand dollars for an attorney, so same-sex couples who are economically advantaged are out in the cold. Treating committed couples as legal strangers simply isn't fair.

having opposing opinions is great and i'd be the first to accept any reasoning that gay marriage would adversely effect others but i simply haven't heard it. i've heard plenty of evidence that gays are negatively effected by this issue, but not vice versa. frankly, you haven't explained your logic and i'm still hoping to hear it. i have a very open mind on this issue.

if we must sidetrack the conversation into the realm of abstraction... if my favorite color were blue, then i would enjoy my blueness whenever possible, but i wouldn't demand others to accept my shade of blue as the national favorite color. laws aren't based on opinion but universal morality, fairness and equality. is it accurate to say that your objection lies in the definition of the term "marriage"? if so, do you acknowledge that definitions of words constantly change and evolve over time? often becoming their antonym over just a couple centuries. like the definition of the phrase 'all men are created equal' has evolved over time. courts exist to provide these modern interpretations of the law and that's precisely what the judge did. if you don't like gay marriage, then it's fine that you don't marry a gay person, but why deny them the same opportunity to make that decision? the difference, s.d., is that i am not imposing my opinion on others... if you think this is untrue, then please explain who i am imposing on and what that imposition is? does allowing gay marriage effect straight marriage? is there a negative impact on society? again, if there's a reason, then i'm totally ready to hear it.

Hijiki, just so there is no misunderstanding, I like discussing opposing viewpoints with you or anyone else.

The thing about this topic is: I think it ultimatly comes down to Opinion/personal belief and I think I've clearly stated mine. Since you are bring up new points, I'll comment on them.

if we must sidetrack the conversation into the realm of abstraction... if my favorite color were blue, then i would enjoy my blueness whenever possible, but i wouldn't demand others to accept my shade of blue as the national favorite color.

laws aren't based on opinion but universal morality, fairness and equality.

is it accurate to say that your objection lies in the definition of the term "marriage"? if so, do you acknowledge that definitions of words constantly change and evolve over time? often becoming their antonym over just a couple centuries. like the definition of the phrase 'all men are created equal' has evolved over time. courts exist to provide these modern interpretations of the law and that's precisely what the judge did.

By changing the law with this court decision, As I've stated, Hon. Doris Ling-Cohan has imposed her view on the entire state regardless of her examples in the 62 page decision. I'm sure that there are other precedents that she ignored when she made this decision and I'm certian legal experts will dig them up.

If people want change, this is not the best way to do it. Other than helping to get Pataki re-elected possibky having the Appelate decision overturn her decision, I fear that this will create much more problems then solve. Note: If people have a problem with Marraige or anything else, they should speak up.

Negative Impact or Not, People are now forced to legaly accept things that they may not beleive in.

"the bizarre rant of misguided comparisons we've all spent too much time reading."?
Niiiiiice.
I ultimately and calmly express my reasoning (as far as I care to publicaly...) so I'm on a Rant. Great way to win friends and influence people.

"I believe marriage is(should) only be between a man and a woman, therefore the government should ignore our laws and constitution and discriminate against gay couples because homo sex makes me uncomfortable."?
...then S.D. is left with "I am uncomfortable with homo sex" and would have to own up to being a bigot.?

In all due respect, Ryan, Your the one acting like a Bigot.

I explain what I believe in and you simply dismiss it out of hand since I **must** be uncomfortable with "homo sex".
Bottom line, You don't like what I believe in, so you pigeon hole me to fit your preconceptions. Despite the fact that I have absolutely no problem with anyone's sexuality/lifestyle, since I don't agree with your definition, I must be a "bigot".

I'm sure it's a strain, but you might want to think about it since you label me in so cavalier a manner.

Hijiki, if you'd like to continue this discussion, email me. I'm sure people like Ryan here will call that a Bigoted Cop-out, but frankly, I've explained my position as mnuch as I care to in to public.

If people like Ryan want to insult me just because I don't agree with them, I'm pretty much done on this topic. If you have any new points that you'd like to discuss, I prefer that you email me as I don't feel like carrying on and responding to Insults from others. If you must post here, that's cool, I'm just going to ignore posts from others that ignorantly label and insult me.

How about this..let's keep it simple:

Marriage should be based on two things: "Love and Compassion" not "Male and Female".

Welcome to the 21st Century, people.

Do the pro-gay marriage people here believe polygamy should be against the law? It seems that every argument being used to redefine marriage (against the will of the American people) could be used to justify polygamy. If anyone has an argument against legal polygamy I'd love to hear it.

Nola:
Polygamy means marriage to multiple people.

Nobody can legally marry multiple partners. Polygamy is not legally binding for anyone, gay or straight. With polygamy, equal protection is not an issue. Straight folks can't do it either.

Same-sex marriage is marriage to one person.

Polygamy is not related. It is not even in the same ballpark, and is a weak argument to scare people from accepting that current marriage laws are flat-out gender-discriminatory.

The issue here is EQUAL PROTECTION, which happens to include same-sex marriage. Straight people can marry, gay people can't. This is called DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER.

The reason why same-sex marriage should be legalized is because of the issue of equal protection; ie., laws should not be tailored to grant more rights to one particular gender (so anyone can marry a woman, and anyone can marry a man). This has nothing to do with whether the same sex "should" be together, as it is none of the government's business.

And as far as redifining marriage, it's not. Straight people can get married just the same as they always could. Gay people are still getting married in non-binding ceremonies even today. This is simply about the legal rights of a couple. A gay person's partner is in a car crash--the partner should have the right to visit their partner in the hospital!

Marriage consists of two types of unions: spiritual and legal. The law only deals with the latter. Christianity and other religions are against same-sex marriage. That's legal, and Christians have the right to ban same sex marriage in their church.

But this country was founded on the separation of church and state, so the county courthouse does not have that same rights as a church to deny marriage to a person based on another's gender.

Religious law and state law are separate in many other ways; consider sex before marriage, cheating, and divorce. All three are usually banned by many religions. Socially, they're usually frowned upon. But all are perfectly legal as apple pie. Because it's not the job of the government to make arbitrary moral judgments for us that don't infringe on other's rights; we have to do it for ourselves. And THAT is the foundation of this country. Don't worry, your marriage will always be safe.

Does this make sense, Nola?

subordination of women has existed in "just about every society in history" too. we evolve.

tell me nola, if the (perceived) limitations are not arbitratrily created, then what is the REASON for them? it's been asked many times, yet unanswered... what would be the negative effect on any individual, couple, or society as a whole if gay marriage were legal? is it nothing more than the majority trying to impose it's moral superiority over a minority? why are you against it?

Hijiki, (Dam, I wish I had your Email! I'm tired of being public punching bag...), Not going into the why's and wherefores, The question of where to end the definition of marriage is a valid one. (As I think you may be aware, I'm not at all thrilled at being lumped together with Nola on **ANY** issue...)

Many of the arguments re: Marriage discrimination can be applied (right or wrong) to Polygamy:

• Who's to say that Love is limited only to Pairs?
• Who's to say that marriage benefits should not apply to Multiple couples?
• Why shouldn't people in relationships with Multiple partners be denied the "right" to marry?
• Why should the children of such Unions be denied benefits?
• There is historical, religious and cultural precedent for polygamy, Why deny it?

I am NOT making light of this. My point here is: The issue of the definition of what Makes a Marriage is NOT a simple right or wrong one. If the definition is re-drawn, where does it stop?

When this does get legalized, right or wrong, the implications will be bigger than most people expect.
i.e. If a priest/minister/Rabbi refuse to officiate at such a Union, can the couple sue for Discrimination?

Think it won't happen? It already has. Look at the Boy Scouts denied funding for their stance on Homosexuality. Right or wrong, some state Gov't were forced to pull funding from the Boy Scouts on the basis that it is a "discriminatory" organization. Will Gov't funding of Church homeless shelters or AIDS hostel's be pulled?

Right! The Boy Scouts never received money from the govt. They only were allowed to use rooms at public schools and their policy violated anti-discrimination laws. As long as a group uses govt.-owned facilities it typically has to follow the laws and rules of the govt.

S.D. doesn't really think through his analogies...just likes to provoke by grasping at straws. Why would govt's pull funding of church homeless shelters or AIDS hostels? Unless, SD, you are linking gays to homelessness and AIDS. Which wouldn't help convince people that you aren't homophobic.

These arguments against polygamy are falling very flat. You say that there is no precedent or movement for polygamy? Baloney! Just because hip media outlets like the Gothamist don't cover it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I wouldn't be shocked if polygamy had more support in this country than gay marriage did. And there is no mutual consent in a polygamous marriage? Who are you to say? If I introduce you to three willing adults of sound mind who want to marry will you deny them this "right"?

What it comes down to is people who oppose polygamy and gay marriage oppose it for a combination of moral and practical reasons. You may agree or disagree with those reasons but our democratic system allows us to reach a workable compromise on these kinds of issues, even if it doesn't make everyone happy.

yes, polygamy exist nola, but it's movement is dead. it's essentially a non-issue because it's practitioners are very few and the support for it's legalization is practically non-existant. and what non-'hip media outlets' are you reading that cover polygamy more than the gay marriage issue?! puhleeeze.

i personally do not have a problem with it... those crazy right-wing christian fundamentalists can marry everyone they want for all i care. but like i say (and you love to ignore), polygamy is a choice, not a result of genetics. that is a big difference. and who ever said 'no mutual consent' in polygamous relationships? it seems your favorite sport is misquoting to invent an argument. it's not hard to get consent after you brainwash people with religous ideology. why don't you try answering my questions since i waste my time on yours...

what would be the negative effect on any individual, couple, or society as a whole if gay marriage were legal? is it nothing more than the majority trying to impose it's moral superiority over a minority? why are you against it?

Good point R. Also, why is it that it's always the "moral" anti-gay marriage people (who want to have the bumbling "big government" out of healthcare, education and feeding the poor) for some reason turn around and want the bumbling big government controlling our religion and morals?

I'm not accusing the pro-gay marriage people here of anything, I just disagree with the argument that the government has no power to limit the right to marry. The government won't allow me to marry another woman as long as I'm married to my wife, yet you refuse to recognize that this limitation exists for moral/religious reasons.

Not one person has put forward a convincing argument to allow gay marriage while disallowing polygamy. That's because the arguments against polygamy are very similar to the arguments against gay marriage. I'm not saying polygamy is better, just that any discussion of marriage does involve moral, and therefore religious, issues.

That is not to say everyone should oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, just that someone who opposes it for that reason shouldn't be written off as a zealot. The fact is most people here seem to oppose polygamy for some very old-fashioned and outdated reasons.

Polygamy may not get the media coverage gay marriage gets, but it has been around forever and will always exist. Does hijiki's argument against polygamy depend on how many news stories it garners? As for the "genetics vs. choice" claim, one can easily argue that monogomy goes against human nature and therefore polygamy is more in tune with our genetics.

I'm sure the world is frustrating for someone as narrow minded and intolerant as bmad. It must be hard when you are so much better than your fellow man. Most of us recognize that good people can disagree on most anything, while extremists like you hate anyone who doesn't tow the line. Try a little tolerance.

"Anyone else out there opposed to gay marriage? Anyone who is not a fool? No? Fine. It's settled. YOU LOSE."

Yep, that settles it for me: Try to explain an Opinion/Belief:

• Get bashed (Loved the spelling comments)
• Have people read things into what I type that isn't there (Probably will do that with this one too)
• have any and all examples thrown out as irrelevant.
• Get insulted and called a Bigot for expressing my belief (I suppose the 3 Gay couples I mentioned earlier are "bigots" too.)
• Point out potential issues and Bang! YOU exclusively get to redefine Marriage Legally, anyone points anything else out just "can't form a coherent thought"

A lot of you people simply don't want to hear an opinion that you don't like and certainly don't want anyone to discuss it with you. Basically, to you people, anyone disagreeing with you and actually tries to explain their belief is simply a Bigot. You don't want to hear other opinions, you'll simply stereotype me into a Bigot or a Moron. While I couldn't care less, it says more about you guys than it does about me.

For you people trolling around and dogging me in other topics, knock yourself out. I'm sticking to Topic.

hijiki, if you really want to discuss it further, you certainly have my EMail.

Hijiki, now you claim you didn't argue against polygamy? Since you are all over the map, just answer: Should polygamy be legalized or not? And if not, why?

My point about the media is that polygamy has been more commonly accepted than gay marriage all over the world and if you legalized it there would probably be more polygamists rushing to the altar than gays. But polygamists don't have the media trumpeting their cause 24/7 so people like you who only respond to flavor of the month issues don't give it any thought. But anyone who favors gay marriage should be prepared to explain why they oppose polygamy - without resort to religous or moral arguments, of course, because those are illegitimate.

sd and nola won't answer the questions posed to them. what about gay marriage affects them personally. how are they harmed if their neighbors or two gay men in another town or state choose to marry?

I didn't realize that question had been posed to me, but here is my answer: Gay marriage does not affect me personally and I am not harmed if gay men in any town or state marry. Of course we all have opinions about issues that may not affect us personally. I don't know anyone in Fiji, but I would oppose bombing the place because it would be wrong.

Now, j, will you tell us whether you support legalized polygamy and if not, why?

As for hijiki, you are all over the map because you are unable to answer a simple question without cluttering your response with irrelevant nonsense. Just admit you are in favor of legalized polygamy and shut up. Your blather about "right wing Christians" being in favor of polygamy is way off base. Polygamy is illegal because of it offends Christians - Utah almost wasn't admitted to the US because of the practice. And the idea that it would be legalized on religious grounds ranks among the dumbest things you have ever posted (and that says a lot). It might be legal for religious reasons in Saudi Arabia, but never here. If it were legalized here it would be done under the same weak legal and Constitutional arguements that support gay marriage.

And regarding your obsession with my point about media coverage - the Utah Supreme Court is considering a case that would decriminalize the practice. Very interesting. Has it gotten the media attention that any of the gay marriage cases have? Of course not. But I'm glad to enlighten lightweights like hijiki who rely on the Daily Show for information.

you don't need to tell me to shut up nola. i'm sorry i've shown how foolish you are with simple logic, but you deserve it and trying to shut me up is a pathetic substitute for an argument. did you not understand my answer to your question?

"And the idea that it would be legalized on religious grounds ranks among the dumbest things you have ever posted (and that says a lot)."

the only court cases regarding polygamy that i know of were coming from christian extremist and they were pushing their cases for polygamy on religious grounds. in fact there are christian pro-polygamy non-profits. most polygamists in the US, including the ones you refer to in utah, are fighting for legalization on grounds of religious freedom. what part of my statement is dumb? who's off base? now comparing gay marriage to bombing fiji just might be a little off-based.

i've never seen the daily show, nola. you try so hard to stereotype me instead of debating the issue at hand. very telling.

Gay-raldo:
1. As I mentioned above, an issue doesn't have to impact you personally to take a position on it. We all have opinions on issues that may impact society at large but not us personally.
2. There is nothing wrong with allowing a homosexual to visit his/her partner in the hospital. In fact, it happens right now without gay marriage. As for taxes, I don't oppose the idea of a gay couple being able to file jointly.
3. Did I say that the "sanctity of marriage" was at stake here? I have an opinion as to whether redefining marriage will be good or not for marrage as an institution, but I've never stated or implied anything so grand as that. As for divorce and adultery, I do think we'd be better off with more restrictive rules than we have now.

j:
With all due respect, I don't think your argument against polygamy is persuasive. The logistical questions relating to things like social security can be overcome. How about simply limiting everyone to one social security check, regardless of how many wives or husbands you have? Actually, polygamy is quite easy to defend from a pragmatic standpoint - wouldn't it be better for children to have more caretakers available? And more incomes in the household?

The fact is, polygamy is illegal because it offends most people. Our Judeo-Christian culture does not find that lifestyle acceptable and does not want it sanctioned by the government. But everyone is taking pains not to admit this for fear of admitting that morality and religion do inform our opinions of issues related to marriage. I'm not posting here in hope of changing anyone's mind on this issue. I think reasonable people can and will disagree. But we should admit that any discussion of the definition of marriage is inseperable from religious, moral and ethical questions. In fact, the best arguments that I have seen in favor of gay marriage do not shy away from those issues, they make use of them to support their case.

hijiki:
I did not compare gay marriage to bombing Fiji. I was making the point that you do not have to be directly impacted by something to have an opinion on it. Sorry if it went over your head. Maybe you should go back to the Nickleodeon website for a while and let the grownups discuss this one.

it's one of the first steps of lawmaking: if you are going to make something illegal, you have to prove that not doing so would somehow cause harm to the community or that current laws are not sufficient to protect the community from harm.

even if we disagree with pro-lifers, we can see why they want to make abortion illegal. They think unborn children are being murdered and they want to protect them. they think there is a legitimate harm to the community and want laws to protect against that harm.

but the question with anti-gay marriage people and those who would want a Constitutional ammendment banning it is that they can't prove any tangible harm caused by allowing gays to marry.

nola, what's the harm?

j and sue:
First, no one is advocating "making" gay marriage illegal. Marriage has always been understood to be between one man and one woman. This has been true for the entire history of our country and, for the most part, true for the whole world. Now you can argue that up until now the world has been a bunch of narrow minded bigots who just didn't get it. But I don't see it that way, and neither do most people in the US and around the world.

So I don't think the burden is on me to prove anything. The burden in on those who want to redefine one of the most important institutions in our society. And I don't believe that burden has been met. I think it is fair to ask whether the institution of marriage will benefit from this change, and if so, how? I don't mean to be evasive, but I think you are the ones who should be convincing me, not vice versa.

One of the reasons I keep raising the question of polygamy is I genuinely believe that legalized gay marriage will be followed by legalized polygamy. And that could spell the end of marriage as we know it. The arguments for and against polygamy and gay marriage are remarkably similar and no one here has made a convincing argument against polygamy, which only heightens my concern.

hijiki:
Read this slowly: I wasn't comparing the two, I was using bombing as an illustration of how people can have an opinion on things that don't impact them. Since you seem to be having a breakdown over this, here is a more prosaic example: I don't ride the Long Island Railroad but I oppose an increase in their fares. Try twising that one around.

The benefits to gays would be enormous...thousands of legal benefits associated with marriage beyond hospital visitation rights and taxes.

And, nola, in the last election many states passed ammendments to their constitutions banning gay marriage. Our president has said he might push an ammendment to the US constitution. Therefore, it might be interpreted that some people are, in fact, seeking to outlaw gay marriage. I think the onus is on those who wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman to describe the harm that allowing gay marriage would create.

The question is not really whether or not the institution of marriage will benefit, because whether marriage is an institution that needs any help is up for debate. The question is about equal rights for adults.

But since you have your definition of the institution, I'll tell you mine.

I believe that the institution of marriage will benefit immeasurably from allowing gays to marry. Having more people who want to enter into a bond of matrimony strengthens the very idea of marriage, especially when those people have to fight great discrimination and legal hurdles to achieve their goal of a free and fair society. It strenghtens the very idea of my marriage to know that there are some who will do whatever it takes against great odds to join a club, so to speak, into which I was granted free and easy admission for little more than the $75 cost of a marriage license.

I've told you my reason for why I think allowing gays to marry will benefit the institution of marriage, now I want you to tell me your reason for why it won't.

If we're having a discussion here, answer the question. Stop throwing it back on to other people and take responsibility for your political, ethical, religious or philosophical opinions.

Oh my god, nola, you're a piece of work.

"A court decided to redefine marriage[...]"

"Our individual freedoms are restricted all the time in the name of the greater good."

"Right or wrong, these restrictions exist because society has created them and we have to live with them."

We have three branches of government in this country. They are supposed to balance each other out; no branch should overpower another (also known as "checks and balances").

God forbid questioning authority! Gasp! Your allegiance to authority is amazing. Thank god politicians are always right....

This is called fascism. Read your history.

I'll be a gentleman and post an interesting snippet, courtesy of the Columbia Encyclopedia:

Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

Read some more history on which world leaders were fans of your far-right political philosophy. People like you scare me, and not just for views on marriage.

"I respect your opinion but am not convinced the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks if marriage were redefined."

What are those drawbacks if gay marriage was legalized, again? I carefully re-read every post you've made here, and I only found one concern: polygamy. You're afraid that gay marriage will lead to a scourge of polygamy, which would then lead to the destruction of marriage. Sales of two-person beds will plummet.

Actually, nola, I have bad news for you. The destruction of marriage is already happening. It wipes out nearly one in two marriages. Churches are appalled by the practice. Crying children are torn from parents. It's called DIVORCE.

Oh wait, divorce is legal. But that's okay, just as long as two "dudes" aren't kissing. [sarcasm]

const. ghost: You need a diaper change. Let's see, I point out that we all face restrictions on our individual rights (and never deny anyone's right to oppose these restrictions) and suddenly I'm a fascist! Brilliant reasoning. Pinheads like you who throw accusations of fascism around are too shallow to be taken seriously. Do you disagree with all the restrictions I listed above? Do you think there should be no restrictions on gun ownership, for example? Because if you do agree with any of those restrictions, you are a fascist, too (at least by your silly definition).

An increase in the divorce rate and the advent of polygamy are drawbacks, in my opinion. You are not obligated to care about those things and obviously don't. But most people do and that is one reason you sobbing lefties keep losing elections. Keep up the good work - your flip attitude towards marriage and divorce are a great help to us Republicans. We're going to be kicking your ass for years to come.

hijiki: There is no issue of equal treatment. Everyone of either gender is free to get married. Of course you have to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that is what marriage is, and always has been. It is still available to all.

Both polygamy and gay marriage are being fought on multiple grounds and courts can find for their legality on either or both religious or privacy reasons. If marriage is redefined, both will end up being legal.

The case for women's suffrage was easily made. The case for gay marriage is not. There's your difference. And stop using CAPS as a crutch for your lame arguments.

You're = your

Yes, the US is unfortunately leaning more towards a fascist state. (compare Patriot Act to "Enabling Act"). But again, a whole different can of worms.

I swear, this debate has the weirdest analogies brought up by the homophobes. Public restrooms? Inc est? Defecating on the sidewalk?

So I was wrong about the caps lock. Boy am I an idiot. At least I can admit when I'm proven wrong on a point.

Myself, hijiki and a lot of others simply want gay marriage to be legalized. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that this seriously hurts people is appalling.

When gay marriage is legalized, you don't have to worry about the scary polygamists coming to eat your babies in the middle of the night. I promise.

Yes, my posts make it perfectly clear that I oppose gay marriage because polygamists will eat my babies. Your analytical abilities will take you far in life.

Sorry the use of analogy seems to have taxed you and hijiki beyond your means. It must have been challenging to explain why anyone who supports any restriction on individual liberty is a fascist. Of course Gothamist can restrict our posts, so they are fascists too, correct? So why are you posting on a fascist website? Go play with your skateboard, junior.

First of all, if I was a coward I wouldn't choose to post on a board where I did not expect a single person to take my side. And it's very nice of you to refrain from calling me a fascist - but is that only because you "don't think it's helpful" or because you don't think my views are fascist? I'd just like to know if I'm debating with a sane person or a hijiki/con ghost-style lunatic.

I have never stated or implied that gay marriage impacts me directly. The "polygamy card" is being played because nobody here can explain why polygamy should be illegal - who does it directly impact? According to your rationale, polygamy should be legal. You keep dodging the issue by making irrelevant points - so what if there has been a downward trend? Maybe that's because people don't like ending up in prison. If the trend increases does that mean it should be leagalized? If a nationwide poll showed more people supporting polygamy than gay marriage should it be legalized?

You may think this issue is a distraction, but the reluctance to simply state that polygamy is morally wrong illustrates the greater divide that exists between most of the people supporting the redefinition of marriage and most of the people opposing it. At issue is the definition of the institution and the role it plays in society. Polygamy is every bit as relevant as gay marriage.

As far as divorce goes, it should not be illegal but I think most of the changes to the divorce laws in the past forty years have been harmful to society. Would you support gay marriage if divorce were much harder to obtain? More importantly, how many gay men would be interested in marriage under those circumstance?

If I haven't addressed your questions, then I'm sorry, but the fact is you haven't answered mine either. And I do think anyone advocating the redefinition of marriage has to adequately address these concerns.

Nola, I'm trying to be nice, but it's getting harder and harder to believe that you aren't a close-minded bigot. And a manipulative one at that. Obviously you haven't read anything anyone has written, nor do you care to. Your questions about polygamy have been answered over and over again. Yet you refuse to take any responsibility for your own opinions.

I see your tactics: pick up on the one or two things that offend you (ie. being called a fascist, misinterpreting a stupid baby-eating comment) and use it as an excuse to avoid backing up your opinions. Your arguments are about the tactics of arguing, not about the topic of the conversation itself.

I wouldn't call you a fascist because I don't think you are one and I would never throw that label around casually. I believe that the government can and should restrict certain activities, and you would have seen that we agree on that point had you read my posts. We have a lot more in common than you think. But you aren't thinking too much, just reacting to a word here and there without taking in the whole of a poster's argument.

You are right: you never exactly said that homosexuality or gay marriage affects you directly. But the basis for any and all arguments, including yours, against gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage would have a direct AFFECT on another institution, traditional heterosexual marriage, and that institution is populated by real people who would be affected. What are the direct affects, then? If I'm in a loving relationship with my wife, how will that be affected by gay marriage? Can you answer that question?

I never said that polls should dictate laws or that an upward trend in polygamy would mean that we should move to legalize it. I was simply pointing out that your argument - that gay marriage would lead to polygamy - doesn't hold water in the face of a growing acceptance of homosexuality in general and less interest in polygamy in general. If that has been because of high enforcement of anti-polygamy laws rather than less interest, great. But your argument that gay marriage would lead to increased polygamy or at least increased acceptance of polygamy is tenuous at best in the face of the evidence: gays are getting more rights across the country, yet polygamy rules have still been enforced. If gay rights have such an effect on society, why is that happening?

But again: polygamy is and has historically been a HETEROSEXUAL pursuit. One man who wants two or more wives, generally. He has sex with both of them, but rarely do the two women have sex with each other. That would make it the product of heterosexuality, not homosexuality.

And would gay still men be interested in marriage if divorce were harder to obtain? I'll answer your question, as I have been doing ever since I started posting. I think so, since plenty of Catholics enter into marriage even though their religion makes divorce difficult. Orthodox Jews have high marriage rates, and divorce is hardly easy to come by in ultra-Orthodox communities. (Do some research on the "get" and other aspects of Orthodox Jewish marriage and you'll see this, too.)

Nevertheless, your question about gays and divorce strikes me as somewhat homophobic, somehow implying that those promiscuous gays might never want to get married if they still couldn't get out of it later to resume their freewheeling, sleepin' around ways. Are you saying that gay men wouldn't want to marry someone they love if there wasn't an escape clause? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but even if you aren't being homophobic, you are certainly trivializing the emotional bond between gay partners.

If you'd like to answer the questions posed to you, go ahead. Otherwise there is little more that can be said. If you can't be responsible enough to read the entirety of someone's argument, how can you have a conversation?

Gay marriage won't hurt heterosexuals and Nola has shown again and again the baselessness of the idea that it could.
However by NOT allowing homosexuals to marry, gays will remain second class citizens without the rights that so many heterosexaul couples take for granted. Do people actaully think that amending the constitution to exclude gays will produce a favorable outcome? That the issue will just dissapear and gays will march back into the closet and live out the rest of thier lives as the subhumans that the bigots have consigned them too?
Gay people are NOT going away. History has shown that only negative things can come off an oppression of an entire group of people.
Noone is asking anyone to change thier own perosonal ideas about gay marriage. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal in a diverse democratic country. Quite simply: If you don't like gay marriage, Don't have a gay marriage!!!!

con ghost: We are in agreement - you are definitely not a comedian. Your jokes fall flat and your attempts to portray me as a fascist were funnier than anything else you have said. Now I'm a homophobe. How about a Nazi? Racist? Klansman? Keep 'em coming. The nutty accusations are better than the jokes.

j: I do not see gay marriage as an isolated issue but part of the larger issue of what marriage is and what role it plays in our society. That is obviously too large an issue to adequately address in this forum (and arguing serious matters with the likes of hijiki and con ghost is a fool's errand). I've repeatedly explained that I believe polygamy will follow (or precede) gay marriage. This (in my opinion, which I recognize cannot be proven because it has not yet happened) will have a negative impact on marriage in our society. There are already too many out of wedlock births and divorces. The redefinition of marriage to expand gays and polygamists will foreclose the possibility of making divorce more restrictive because most gays and polygamists will oppose such a movement.

As you point out, Catholics (practicing ones, not phonies like Kerry and Kennedy) and Orthodox Jews enter into and stay in marriages despite lax divorce laws. But that is because of their religious beliefs. I've seen no evidence that this kind of faith is prevalent in the gay community, but if there were a genuine movement among gays for marriage without easy divorce I might rethink my position. You can take the easy way out and characterize my views as homophobic but to deny the enormous differences between the cultures of, say, Chelsea and Crown Heights is absurd. I don't think many gay men would pursue marriage if there wasn't easy divorce available.

The question of polygamy's popularity cannot be proven definitively one way or another. But the expansion of gay rights and the restrictions placed on polygamy are completely unrelated and I think polygamy would be far more common than gay marriage if they were both legal. You don't think that polygamy would follow gay marriage and we just have to agree to disagree.

Finally, I deny that anyone opposed to gay marriage has to prove that it impacts them directly. Who here is impacted by polygamy? Does everyone here support legalized polygamy or not? For all the complaints I'm getting about my evasiveness, I keep asking for a simple yes or no on polygamy and everyone finds some way to avoid answering the question.

I could argue that these things impact the culture at large that in turn impacts all of us, but it is a speculative argument and not necessary to my original point, which is that I won't support the redefinition of marriage unless I believe it will have a positive impact on the institution and its role in society.

hijiki: The record for same-sex civil unions is irrelevant. It's like saying a baseball player's minor league stats are as important as his major league stats. Whoops - I forgot that analogies confuse you. Now you'll accuse me of comparing civil rights to statistics.

And my implication is not that gay couples are less capable of long-term relationships, it is that they are less interested. For one thing, children are often the glue that keeps married couples together. There may be other reasons for the relative instability of gay relationships - I'm sure you think it's all society's fault. There is also no denying that men are more promiscuous by nature than women, so it isn't surprising that lesbians are more inclined to long-term relatioinships than gay men. Whatever the cause, it is impossible to ignore the instability so prevalent in the gay community.

Been watching from the sidelines but have to point out this glaring contradiction.

Nola said, "The question of polygamy's popularity cannot be proven definitively one way or another. But the expansion of gay rights and the restrictions placed on polygamy are completely unrelated and I think polygamy would be far more common than gay marriage if they were both legal."

Let's see if I get it. Polygamy's popularity can't be proven, but it's the entire support for your argument against gay marriage. Is that right? How can you claim gay marriage will lead to increased polygamy if you can't cite stats or don't have a measure for polygamy's popularity? Surely someone as obsessed with it as you would have a copy of the Polygamy Association's newsletter. If you're posting as the foremost authority on the link between gay marriage and a potential rise in polygamy, be so kind as to provide the good people with facts, my brother.

Did you know there's a high rate of spousal abuse in Orthodox communities? If they are staying married because of their religious beliefs and not because of laws, as you assert, why the hell are they beating their wives? I guess a strict religious belief about marriage is not a panacea for society's ills.

Nola again, "I won't support the redefinition of marriage unless I believe it will have a positive impact on the institution and its role in society." Okay. What if there was a net zero impact? No harm whatsover but no noticible benefit to the institution overall. No effect on Adam and Eve living down the street from Adam and Steve, to use a parlance you've probably chanted at rallies. If that could be proven would you accept legalizing gay marriage? I'd stick around for your answer, but I'm betting it will have something to do with polygamy.

Since you're so loose with the facts and have a hard time finding any to make your case, I'll give you an easy one: You are a total moron caught in a neverending loop of your own contradictions and stupidity.

nola, if you can't measure polygamy's popularity one way or the other, how would you later be able to measure it if gay marriage were legalized? how would you establish a causal link between gay marriage and polygamy, if that's where you think gay marriage leads?

this is just futile. if common sense, respect for your fellow citizen, simple logic, the reality of history, and statistics aren't enough, we can let the future make the final case. nola, it might be interesting for you to save a copy of this thread and read it in ten years. if it still hasn't sunk in, you'll at least marvel at your own contortionist routine.

If "righteous" people who damn gays are going to Heaven, then PLEASE God I'd rather be burning in Hell simply to get away from them.