Gay Marriage for NY State

[Clipper]

There was also a time when blacks were allowed to participate in everyday life on an equal footing in a limited number of Northern states. Every state that passes such a law, is another step toward equality for all people, and another nail in the coffin of discrimination.

[firstamendment]

Califonia's Prop 8 was struck down in Federal court and is currently under appeal. It is highly unlikely that it will be overturned on appeal because usually the appellate court looks at procedural issues not finding of fact. The articles I've read concerning the Perry case against Prop 8, the judge tried prodding more answers out of the defenders of Prop 8. They just could not muster a solid legal reason against gay marriage. The case against Prop 8, which the voters in CA passed to legally define marriage as one man and one woman, was presented very strongly with lots of evidence and lots of witnesses for their side. Even if Perry is pushed to SCOTUS, it is highly unlikely it will be overturned and gay marriage will be restored in CA. Eventually, other states will follow suit and DOMA will end up being repealled on the Federal level. Obama already stated they were not going to defend DOMA.

For those that don't know, it is the Defense Of Marriage Act. If Perry v Schwarznegger results in Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional on the grounds of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which is how it currently is ruled, eventually DOMA would also be. If the states cannot pass legislation defining marriage as one man and one woman, thereby discriminating against others who are not heterosexual, then how can the federal government? DOMA states that the federal government will not recognize same sex marriages even if states do. And if Prop 8 stands unconstitutional under the Federal constitution, then DOMA certainly is as well. The ruling on the Perry case is going to be the floodgates for gay marriage in this country.

[firstamendment]

I posted this on the OD earlier:

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed''

That all men are created equal. The very document that gave birth to this country.

Notice, there is no asterisk or footnote in the Declaration that states ''women, homosexuals, negros, et al'' exempt from being created equal. Yet, women did not have rights for a long time, along with blacks. And here we are, still breaking down barriers to freedoms some have been denied.

You will also take note it says ''that they are endowed by their Creator''. It does not say God, nor Buddha, nor Abraham, nor Allah, nor extraterrestrials, etc. It says ''by their creator''. It was phrased as such because they wanted it neutral of religion. Using and capitalizing ''creator'' implies a spirituality yet is a generic term so it does not give preference to ANY faith.

[JGRobinson]

Nothing ever stopped the politicians from fixing the inequities between Married and Unmarried couples before. They always had the power to give every citizen equal rights under the law. There was no need to redefine the meaning of marriage, they could easily have made it illegal to discriminate against any couple based upon their gender. All cohabitation rights, freedoms and responsibilities are Common law and ubiquitous with Partnerships not vauge unequal Marriages.

So why is it that all Men and Women in this country are are not yet equal after 200+ years of fixing the inequities? We arent considered generic gender nonspecific humans under the law, not even close. Our current laws and rules differentiate greatly between Men and Women where is the outrage over that?

Why is a man not able to choose life for his unborn child over the Womans right to choose death?
Why do Woman get custody of children in 80%+ cases of divorce?
Why do Young adults of different Genders still have different legal ages of consent?
Why are Women exempt from Selective Service Registration and still not allowed to serve in most Combat roles.
Why do some Americans get different rights and benefits than others based on their Breeding Ability and propensity?
Why do some Americans get legal higher consideration for employment based on their Race?

All things being equal, they aren't! Some for good reasons, other just for none at all.

I guess its because they haven't yet derived all of their their just powers from the governed'', its not for lack of trying. Those powers we the people didn't give them, they seem to take regardless. If they can force you to buy health insurance or record any of your Communications without a Court order by law, there isnt anything they cant do if they want.

The numbers do not show overwhelming support for this, they never have. If anything they were marginal at best, overstated at worst. That means that even though we didnt really ask for them to do this as a State or a Nation, they will do it anyways, power granted or not.

Its done, I am glad for anyone that will be helped by this but very unhappy that our chosen adult lifestyles are still granted and regulated by the US and State Government. Its like we never grew up, we still need Uncle Sugars permission to live. Maybe they will come into our bedrooms and give us some pointers for sanctioned sexual practices next.

That's not freedom nor personal choice, its just big brother progressing us as they see fit instead of how we choose!

[firstamendment]

I do agree with much of what you are saying, JG. There are places government doesn't belong and powers we did not give them yet they seem to have. Yes, this could have been solved and should have been solved a long time ago, but some felt the need to be divisive.

Even if a majority did not want gay marriage passed, consider the ruling opinion of the judge in the Perry case in CA. The vote of the majority with no reasonable basis cannot pass laws denying rights to others.

Says Judge Walker :''An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.''

What is to say, if the majority of NY'ers were Catholic and they decided to pass a Proposition of law where you could not practice any other religion other than Catholicism? Does that seem right or fair? Should majority rule take rights away from you or deprive you of any rights?

[stoney]

YAY!! Why should straight people be the only ones that are miserable???

[I'm only KIDDING, Jim...<kiss-kiss> ]

[virgilgal]

So many references to the quagmire that is marriage today and they are all true. I think we need a new paradigm for relationship structures and have pushed my brain about it for quite a few years with no satisfactory results. Has there ever been a really successful model for marriage other than for those rare couples who really do continue to love and cherish each other and somehow keep it together? A commitment, whether religious or legal can provide some "rights" to those who choose this. Some folks marry for security or for insurance, some don't because their taxes will be too extreme. Some have pre-nups; that seems like it's meant to try to squash an ugly outcome right at the moment a couple is promising to love each other forever! No one ever marries with the idea that it is not forever, yet almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce now. There's not a lot of reality to this act anymore. In many respects I do see legal marriage as a governmental intrusion yet without it we have all those situations lamented as gay's struggle to attain this right. Either way there are losses and gains that do not always seem to fit the current expectations of a legal marriage...

[chris]

only people benefiting from this new law will be the divorce lawyers once the marriages are over. as for marraige...you always seem to want what you can't have. It's only a piece of paper and that piece of paper guarnatees absolutely nothing.

[dgriffin]

Jun 26, 2011 12:42:42 GMT -5 virgilgal said:

So many references to the quagmire that is marriage today and they are all true. I think we need a new paradigm for relationship structures and have pushed my brain about it for quite a few years with no satisfactory results. Has there ever been a really successful model for marriage other than for those rare couples who really do continue to love and cherish each other and somehow keep it together? A commitment, whether religious or legal can provide some "rights" to those who choose this. Some folks marry for security or for insurance, some don't because their taxes will be too extreme. Some have pre-nups; that seems like it's meant to try to squash an ugly outcome right at the moment a couple is promising to love each other forever! No one ever marries with the idea that it is not forever, yet almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce now. There's not a lot of reality to this act anymore. In many respects I do see legal marriage as a governmental intrusion yet without it we have all those situations lamented as gay's struggle to attain this right. Either way there are losses and gains that do not always seem to fit the current expectations of a legal marriage...

I don't think anyone spoke against marriage. What some of us are against is government intruding on relationships between people. The "legal marriage for same sex couples " was for many here an argument premised on a reluctant acceptance of government sanction of marriage, and if that was the case, some here felt that same sex unions should be sanctioned as well as marriage between heterosexuals. Some didn't.

And by the way, the fifty percent of us who have had successful (if sometimes stormy) lifelong marriages don't think we are all that "rare." If you continue to push your brain and find a new paradigm you like, it will most likely be the best solution for you. Each couple has to build their own marriage, I think.

[clarencebunsen]

I know that the statistic are 40-50% divorce rate, but stable, long-term marriages have never seemed that rare to me. I've mentioned I have an extensive family; I have 7 siblings, my wife has 5. Of that group all but one are in marriages 20-40 years long. The one eception is in a 20+ year non-marriage relationship.

In the next generation (35 nieces, nephews & children) about half have married so far, 2 divorces. In the small group of that generation who had children without marrying, a 75% relationship failure rate.

[dgriffin]

This is interesting, from ...





Subject: Granular statistics on US divorce rate.


We often hear that "50% of all marriages in the US end in divorce", a
statement that makes it seem like a coin toss. That figure hides all
the details about distribution, however. My question can be answered
in one of two ways -- either a source of raw data on the demographics
of marriage and divorce in the US I can slice and dice myself, or, if
that doesn't exist, answers to the questions below:

A: What is the breakdown of likelihood of a marriage ending in divorce
broken down by age (either age of bride, or average age of couple?)
B: What percentage of first marriages end in divorce, vs second or third?
C: What percentage of divorces occur with childless couples vs.
couples that have had at least one child?
D: What percentage of men over 40, and of women over 40, have never been married?


The answers are quite complete, with references. I can't post the url for them because of a thing they use called threadview.

So copy and paste the following phrase into the google search engine:

Subject: Granular statistics on US divorce rate. Category: Family and Home > Relationships Asked by: clay_shirky-ga.


Then the Q and Answers should be at the top of the list.

Also, some info about divorce by race is at:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/divorce-rate-by-race-and-_n_805580.html#s220307&title=American_Indian_and

and

www.bgsu.edu/downloads/cas/file35757.pdf

[stoney]

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm

[Swimmy]

I rather resent that comment, Chris. My heterosexual matrimonial clients don't pay me now! Why should I be callous to assume gay matrimonial clients will be different?!

[Swimmy]

So they still haven't provided gay couples with a mechanism to sue for custody and visitation where children are involved. Interestingly, someone suggested that the non-biological parent adopt the child first, and then sue for custody. I played devil's advocate against it. I countered that their example of treating the non-biological parent as a step parent is inaccurate because you would not treat an ex-boyfriend as a step parent and require him to adopt his own child.

[chris]

I rather resent that comment, Chris. My heterosexual matrimonial clients don't pay me now! Why should I be callous to assume gay matrimonial clients will be different?!

Sorry Swimmy I wasn't counting you in this equation.