Well we got New York...

know1

I still can't figure out why the government is involved in sanctioning marriage in the first place.

It should be an agreement, commitment, etc. between the PEOPLE INVOLVED. That's all.

Who Princess

know1 wrote:

I still can't figure out why the government is involved in sanctioning marriage in the first place.

It should be an agreement, commitment, etc. between the PEOPLE INVOLVED. That's all.

Governments became involved because of the ownership of property and questions of inheritance. That was the bottom line.

ComeToTX

whoprincess wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

It really is a shame that this is still even an issue. I hope this has a domino effect on other states.

:thumbup:
Although I can just about guarantee that Texas will be the last. :oops: :-x

we'll be late for sure but we'll pass it well before Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc...

know1

whoprincess wrote:

know1 wrote:

I still can't figure out why the government is involved in sanctioning marriage in the first place.

It should be an agreement, commitment, etc. between the PEOPLE INVOLVED. That's all.

Governments became involved because of the ownership of property and questions of inheritance. That was the bottom line.

Wills and contracts solve those issues. They don't have to be about marriage.

And there certainly aren't any real tax advantages to being married. I've paid a lot more since getting hitched.

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

Wills and contracts solve those issues. They don't have to be about marriage.

And there certainly aren't any real tax advantages to being married. I've paid a lot more since getting hitched.

There are over 1300 rights, responsibilities, protections, privileges and yes... even tax breaks... that come with marriage and nothing else. You cannot "solve those issues" with wills and contracts. And even if you could... why should gay and lesbian couples have to jump through extra hoops?

How is it that my husband and I have FAR fewer rights and protections than Britney Spears got when she staggered drunk into a chapel with some guy she knew from high school and married him "for fun?"

I can't sponsor my husband for a green card so we have to spend thousands of dollars and about 5 years on immigration lawyers when if we were a straight couple, that would just be a perk. I will not get his pension payments like a straight couple would and no contract or will takes care of that.

I'm also not able to visit him in the hospital if he's in a coma and I'm not the one who would be considered "next of kin" when medical decisions have to be made.

You know that back in the 80s at the height of the AIDS crisis, if one partner died the other would often be evicted from their apartment if they weren't on the lease but that never happened to married couples.

Sadly, there are many perks that are afforded to married couples that civil unions don't cover.

Eliot Rosewater

This is fantastic. It's a shame that we are halfway through 2011 and still not giving every human equal rights.

I really don't understand it. Obviously progress has been made and will continue to be made until one glorious day when all humans will have equal rights. It is crystal clear that this is the right thing and this is a huge step towards that. Why there is so much resistance is just mind boggling. 50 years from now (or hopefully much sooner) we will all be shaking our heads in disbelief that people were ever discriminated against because of their sexual preference. Just like we do now regarding gender and race. So let's all make a strong push to get this over with quicker and get our gay community some equality already.

Prince Of Dorkness

Can I just say how... happy (?) I am that we're 4 pages in and it hasn't turned into a huge clusterfuck of people saying "why can't you just live together?"

It really is changing out there when the vast majority of the messages here have been positive.

(by the way... I should point out that my parents are now very supportive of my marriage... took them a while but now they get it. Last time we vacationed together my father introduced us to someone he knew as "My son and son in law." So that was pretty cool.)

norm

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

(by the way... I should point out that my parents are now very supportive of my marriage... took them a while but now they get it. Last time we vacationed together my father introduced us to someone he knew as "My son and son in law." So that was pretty cool.)

that's really awesome...wtg dad!

Godfather.

Wilds wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

what if I worded my thoughts about gay's and their rights like this...corn hole c*ck sucker aids macines's are just ruining the natural progression of man kind ..

Godfather.

Now you have worded them that way. And don't even have to look like the person you passively try to pretend you are not.


Politely smiling while spewing hate and intolerance in the name of religion is the same to me as if you were just using the words you displayed in ().

But I'm sure you are a really 'good' person.


As to the topic at hand. (which you had to chime in on of course), Thank 'god' we are progressing and equal rights is still moving forward.

thank who ???

Godfather.

Who Princess

know1 wrote:

whoprincess wrote:

know1 wrote:

I still can't figure out why the government is involved in sanctioning marriage in the first place.

It should be an agreement, commitment, etc. between the PEOPLE INVOLVED. That's all.

Governments became involved because of the ownership of property and questions of inheritance. That was the bottom line.

Wills and contracts solve those issues. They don't have to be about marriage.

And there certainly aren't any real tax advantages to being married. I've paid a lot more since getting hitched.

I disagree that wills and contracts will cover everything. But to the point, I was answering your question about why government is involved in regulating marriage. And that fact goes back for centuries. Once people started to claim ownership of property, questions of possession, inheritance and particularly debts became pertinent.

I seriously doubt there will ever be a day when government isn't involved to some degree in saying what defines marriage.

kenny olav

I'm remembering when the state supreme court struck down the ban on same-sex marriage here in MA. For awhile afterward, I listened to the talk radio shows to see what people were saying, and a lot of people were calling in to express how upset they were about it. All of the arguments against it were stupid, of course, like 'why can't a man marry a sheep?' I remember one guy calling in to say he was moving his family to New Hampshire. I don't know if he followed thru with that, but it would be funny if he did, because it's legal in NH now too.

Prince Of Dorkness

kenny olav wrote:

I'm remembering when the state supreme court struck down the ban on same-sex marriage here in MA. For awhile afterward, I listened to the talk radio shows to see what people were saying, and a lot of people were calling in to express how upset they were about it. All of the arguments against it were stupid, of course, like 'why can't a man marry a sheep?' I remember one guy calling in to say he was moving his family to New Hampshire. I don't know if he followed thru with that, but it would be funny if he did, because it's legal in NH now too.

Well maybe he left New Hampshire and moved to Iowa and then New York.

Let's send him to Alabama and see what happens.

catefrances

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Gay Marriage Passes in New York.

eMMI

Well done, New York! :thumbup:

know1 wrote:

I still can't figure out why the government is involved in sanctioning marriage in the first place.

It should be an agreement, commitment, etc. between the PEOPLE INVOLVED. That's all.

Personally, I don't mind the government's involvement in marriage, but what at times bothers me is the fact that the Church/religion have such a big say in these matters. It's fair enough (though still a bit upsetting) if the church doesn't approve of same-sex marriage, it's in the Bible etc, etc. So gay couples can't get married in a church.

But the fact that some of the religious "reasoning" is used when it comes to just the legal action of getting married is pretty outrageous. Church and State should not be in that way intertwined.

In Finland, same-sex couples can have a civil partnership and, if they so wish, they can get their union blessed in a church. It's not perfect, but it's a wobbling step to the right direction.

Our recently formed government did not put same-sex marriage in the government program, because the Christian Democrat party said that they would not co-operate otherwise. (Frustrating!) But since the Left Party have announced that they will pursue the issue and will try to get a same-sex marriage through. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

(Whoo, a bit of a long post. :oops: )

In conclusion, the church should only be able to decide whether it wants to marry gay couples, while the government should absolutely make same-sex marriage a non-issue. This is not about gay rights, after all, it's human rights.

blackredyellow

There are a lot of things wrong with how our political system works in this state where I've lived for the past 5 or so years, but this is one very good thing that our government has done, it's about time.

Good on ya, New York...

pjfan021

Godfather. wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it does make me happy. it means that we are finally pulling our heads out of our asses and allowing people to be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of sexual orientation. this is a big step in that movement, but i have no delusions and i know that there are many areas in this country, particularly in red states, where this fight will go on for potentially decades, just as the civil rights movement. good for the courageous politicians in new york that made history yesterday.

maybe teaching's like this are why.

Genesis 19:23 KJV

"The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. (24)Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; (25) And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. (26) But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."

it (gay thing) just goes aginst everything I believe but it's not up to me to judge you or anybody else.

Godfather.

this doesn't make sense to me for 2 reasons; we are supposed to separate religion from govt so why should this be a valid argument in the eyes of govt. second, what's the big deal if this is all just civil unions...it's not like they're being married in churches. I just always figured that it should be legal on paper and that piece of paper doesn't change anything about how God would view this...so doesn't everyone win.

fife

While i am very happy that NY has done this, i still find it hard to take that freedom is voted on.

anyway, congrats to all LGBTQ community in New York and across the US.

just think it only took you guys almost 8 years to catch up to Ontario Canada