|
Post by Clipper on Jun 23, 2011 10:03:21 GMT -5
www.uticaod.com/features/x1336448659/New-York-Gov-Cuomo-makes-major-push-for-gay-marriageSounds like it may be a case of simply insuring that religious group's rights are protected by exceptions to the law. Sounds to me like a workable compromise will be forthcoming. A simple matter of not forcing anyone to abandon their religious beliefs about conventional heterosexual marriage or the religious sacrament of marriage. I would think that a gay couple would be fine with that. If a church doesn't recognize your marital status, one would simply not go to that church. I would be amiable to the passage of such a law as long as they properly protect the religious rights of others, and don't leave a loophole that can be challenged later, infringing on the rights of religious groups. As I said before, jokingly, why should gay people be immune to the rigors and horrors of an UNSUCCESSFUL marriage, lol?
|
|
|
Post by realist13413 on Jun 23, 2011 10:18:25 GMT -5
There absolutely should be marriage equality. Oh my goodness, Clipper, we agree? How did that happen?!
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 23, 2011 10:37:15 GMT -5
Hmmm. I ate a Perkin's Restaurant last night. I wonder if someone slipped a little of that "liberal koolaid" into my diet soda, ROFL. If this continues to occur I may have to see a doctor, lol.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 23, 2011 11:15:59 GMT -5
I am at a loss on why religions needed the carve-outs anyway. If a religion believes their sacrament of marriage is between one man and one woman, it would seem moot what the legal definition will be since there is a separation of church and state.
Other than that, I think this is going to pass and be glad when it does. Marriage is a sacred bond between two people, or at least its supposed to be. Not my issue who wants to get married and why, and I don't feel its anyone else's business either. There are already laws on the books against incestuous and underage marriage, as there should. But gay marriage where we are talking about consenting adults, its no different than any other marriage. Two people love each other and want to commit to each other they should be allowed to do so.
Sarcastic, but true, Clip. Let everyone have the same opportunity to experience "for better or for worse".
The case of Loving v Virginia finally cleared the way for interracial marriages decades ago and is a major case cited in the push for gay marriage. At the heart of it is the 14th amendment regarding equal protection and due process clauses. The case of Perry v Schwarznegger struck down Prop 8 in California as unconstitution with regards to gay marriage under the same basis of Loving. The Perry case was so well constructed against Prop 8 that it is unlikely to be overturned on appeal, which is pending, and will probably go to the Supreme Court. The Perry case is going to be the modern version of the Loving case for gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 23, 2011 11:59:51 GMT -5
The feeble attempt at humor and sarcasm aside, I DO believe that gay people should be afforded the same privileges as others, in being able to obtain work related health benefits, and survivor benefits when it pertains to pension rights etc.
In all reality, along with the privileges of marriage, the liabilities or responsibilities are also a pertinent factor in drafting and applying the law. If one makes a commitment to another, and the relationship goes by the wayside at some point, there needs to be legal provisions, just as in heterosexual marriage, to provide for property division, and spousal support when deemed appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 23, 2011 12:52:26 GMT -5
Political motivations aside, how exactly does one determine a portion of the constitution to be unconstitutional?! The whole point of an amendment to the constitution is to amend it into the constitution and make it one and the same. So, if a constitutional amendment is passed and ratified into the constitution, then it is constitutional. I cannot wrap my brain around that Perry decision. That said, I agree that it will probably be affirmed. In theory, it should not, as the constitution cannot itself be unconstitutional, but as you can see, who cares. Politics and society have determined that prop 8 has to be overturned and to hell with the settled and sound legal principles...
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 23, 2011 13:17:30 GMT -5
Prop 8 was supposed to be an amendment to the California State constitution. However, how can state law circumvent the US constitution? Perry is about a state amendment, not a federal one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2011 14:14:29 GMT -5
Somehow the US Constitution is going to have to protect the cival rights of a gay couple who marry in a State that allows legal gay marriage and then move to another State that doesn't recognise gay marriage. The reasons for having to move to another State make no difference but the fact that the couple is legally married makes all the difference. I also wonder how the courts will react when they are confronted with the first gay marriage divorce! Also, is a gay married couple license recognized in Europe or elsewhere just in case they wish to travel! Could the day ever come when this new gay marriage law can be repealed and then what happens to all the people who married? I am all for this but I wonder if all the nuts( no pun intended) and bolts are worked out when the Bill becomes Law. And I can only imagine all the ignorant prople who will be right around the corner waiting to cause problems.
|
|
|
Post by virgilgal on Jun 23, 2011 14:28:05 GMT -5
I really appreciate that the points of view shared above are all in the spirit of the reasons that gay folks want the right to marry. I have had quite a few lesbian friends in my lifetime and can share some real horror stories of losses that one or both experienced during times of illness, injury, and death. Some really unfair losses have been had during a split, too when property has been in one partner's name and thus that person was the only one to retain that property in spite of it truly being communally owned, purchased and maintained for many many years. I have a dear friend; not even 40 years old, who has incurable cancer. She and her spouse (they were married in Canada) have had to live between a couple of states when she was initially diagnosed in order for her to receive medical insurance though her partners employment (My friend was diagnosed the week that she started a new teaching job in NYC and her insurance was not in effect yet. Her partner was a teacher in a special post for a year at a college in Pa where they recognized same sex marriages). In NYS their marriage is not recognized by her partner's employer and she has struggled to continue to teach and thus maintain her insurance through the public school system to pay for her multiple surgeries and 3 rounds of chemo. And as much as they do love each other and have for nearly 15 years, this is a stressor that is really challenging that. Life is hard enough without making love a crime...
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 23, 2011 16:07:31 GMT -5
Prop 8 was supposed to be an amendment to the California State constitution. However, how can state law circumvent the US constitution? Perry is about a state amendment, not a federal one. I understand that. But can you show me where in the US Constitution Prop 8 conflicts with it? To my knowledge, there is no federal case that has declared gay marriage a fundamental right. Otherwise, NY would have to recognize gay marriages from other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And by the way, I'm not opposed to gay unions. I am merely discussing the legal procedures, here. So, how can a state constitution be declared unconstitutional, even when compared to the US Constitution, which makes no such provision, not even in the case law? From a pure legal point of view, rather than a politically charged one, I do not think you can. It would be one thing if the Feds recognized a legal right to gay marriage and then Prop8 came along. But such is not the case. If I recall correctly, Michigan passed a similar proposition to its state constitution. But, I do not recall its constitutional status in the courts.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 23, 2011 16:15:27 GMT -5
I really appreciate that the points of view shared above are all in the spirit of the reasons that gay folks want the right to marry. I have had quite a few lesbian friends in my lifetime and can share some real horror stories of losses that one or both experienced during times of illness, injury, and death. Some really unfair losses have been had during a split, too when property has been in one partner's name and thus that person was the only one to retain that property in spite of it truly being communally owned, purchased and maintained for many many years. I have a dear friend; not even 40 years old, who has incurable cancer. She and her spouse (they were married in Canada) have had to live between a couple of states when she was initially diagnosed in order for her to receive medical insurance though her partners employment (My friend was diagnosed the week that she started a new teaching job in NYC and her insurance was not in effect yet. Her partner was a teacher in a special post for a year at a college in Pa where they recognized same sex marriages). In NYS their marriage is not recognized by her partner's employer and she has struggled to continue to teach and thus maintain her insurance through the public school system to pay for her multiple surgeries and 3 rounds of chemo. And as much as they do love each other and have for nearly 15 years, this is a stressor that is really challenging that. Life is hard enough without making love a crime... It is even worse when there is a child involved. I had one client who was the biological mother of their son. When she and her girlfriend split up, the ex kept harassing my client about visitation and even had an attorney send a threatening letter. Fortunately for my client's position, but overall unfortunately, the ex has no legal standing. Our office has an appeal pending where we represent a different girl who sued her ex for custody of their daughter. We tried under the extraordinary circumstances statute. But the judge denied the petition after trial. I think we have a case, the argument is the abandonment of the child by the the father. We'll see whether the appellate courts are persuaded. The law needs to change and quickly because it does prejudice non-biological parent, unintentionally, I think. As for the property aspects, there are still legal avenues. For example with real property, one can bring a partition action. Or with personal property, one can bring a conversion or trespass to chattel action.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 23, 2011 20:50:43 GMT -5
Read the case of Loving v Virginia. That case struck down Virginia's laws against interracial marriage on the basis of the 14th amendment. The ruling opinion called marriage ''a basic civil right''. The Loving case is a huge basis for the fight for same sex marriage. SCOTUS deemed Virginia's laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.htmlRight now the only federal legislation passed that defines marriage as one man and one woman is the Defense of Marriage Act (COMA) which I think was passed under Clinton. The federal government will not recognize same sex marriages even if the states do. the Perry case in CA actually cites Loving in the basis of its ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 23, 2011 23:57:08 GMT -5
Good point. However, the difference is that it was a VA law versus a CA constitutional amendment. It is easy to overturn a statute that is unconstitutional. I'm just curious how one goes about overturning a constitution.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 24, 2011 6:21:30 GMT -5
I cant support this because I think its the wrong way to do the right thing. Instead of splitting hairs to determine our classifications we would be much better off just cleansing the books of Gender, Racial and Religious selections of any type.
Ironic isnt it, You can get a marriage license and get married most generally by a Religious Agent or Government approved surrogate in about 24 hours. Thats the last time those people will ever be part of any decision to stay together or part from your betrothed. From that point on, its a court that will decide all for you and that can take years and a lifetime of savings to get through a divorce. That just proves that the Marriage ceremony and document itself is a joke to the government but they recognize the value in regulating every facet of it after the fact, its a cash cow of Biblical Proportions, Literally.
Actually we only have 2 classifications of American Humans with rights. Those that are considered Dependent and those considered Non-dependent. Age first then and then Mental ability are the biggest qualifiers, the courts can modify law but only case by case, not as a general rule. All other observational differences are bias creators not equalizers. The exception is legal joint ownership termed as a partnership for thousands of years. A Marriage contract does not make people equal partners otherwise Prenuptial Agreements wouldn't hold water in court.
They will unfortunately choose the perceived easiest answer, modify convoluted laws that barely stand the test of the Constitution already. Why is everyone Closing their eyes to the well established and vetted legal classification of Partnership to co-opt and change a religiously significant ceremony?
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it! At this moment, enough gray exits in the laws so that non-hetero couples can separate without the courts blessing, it just has to be amiable. Enter the Divorce court Dragon, now your divorce will cost you Thousands, tens of thousands, a complete invasion of your privacy and many months and years of your life to get a court ordered blessing.
This will go through, they will redefine every single Marriage contract that both Religious and non Religious Citizens have signed and agreed with regardless of the implications and inferential terminology! Coumo, Obama and the Movement as a whole will not stop the drum beat until its a done deal. At that moment, my Marriage will seem rather pointless to me. I should be able to sue for Damages, Breaching and Changing the terms of our contract by the Licensing Agency.
I honestly dont care who lives with who, what your terms of cohabitation are or what you do with your partner, not even slightly; live by the laws, care for your dependents, work for your bread and shelter and thrive. I actually support the right to self determination, just not by changing the terms on those that already have a running horse in this race.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 24, 2011 6:43:16 GMT -5
This will go through, they will redefine every single Marriage contract that both Religious and non Religious Citizens have signed and agreed with regardless of the implications and inferential terminology! Coumo, Obama and the Movement as a whole will not stop the drum beat until its a done deal. At that moment, my Marriage will seem rather pointless to me. I should be able to sue for Damages, Breaching and Changing the terms of our contract by the Licensing Agency. Nah. Wear the world as a loose cloak, JG. Advice from the Desert Fathers.
|
|