New York Appeals Court Won't Allow Gay Marriage

[jallman]

Again, should we not focus on civil unions, or are we going to go in to how f**ked up marriage is again, and if that's true, wouldn't you like your own definition?

I couldnt agree more...let the churches keep their definitions and rituals and establish civil unions for the legal purposes of extending legal rights.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else under the law....

They do not deserve however to be able to change the traditional definition of a word.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else under the law....

They do not deserve however to be able to change the traditional definition of a word.

And the government should not be using the law to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It's that simple. Preacher Bob and his congregation can believe whatever they want about marriage and what it means, but the law and the government have no business defining it for everyone.

 

[Kandahar]

Most religions teach love the sinner and hate the sin be it Adultery, gay sex, etc....

You know, you guys cite "love the sinner, hate the sin" so much that if one didn't know better, one might think that Jesus actually said it. The central tenet of Jesus' teaching was something more along the lines of "love the sinner, forgive the sin."

That is not my reason for being against gay marriage though............I have posted my reasons many times in this forum and they have very little to do with religion.......

No, they have to do with the actions of judges that you don't agree with. Which, incidentally, makes no sense whatsoever even if one accepts your premise that the judge is incorrect. If a judge incorrectly rules that driving a car is a constitutional right, you don't fix the problem by making it illegal to drive.

 

[Alex]

Again, should we not focus on civil unions, or are we going to go in to how f**ked up marriage is again, and if that's true, wouldn't you like your own definition?

You're right. I believe the government should stay out of marriage all together and call them all "civil unions", whether gay, straight, or multiple. I am still trying to get out of the habit using the word "marriage" in regard to this subject.

 

[ProudAmerican]

And the government should not be using the law to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

its unfortunate that they have to.

too bad homosexuals feel the need to attack tradition.

 

[Stace]

The bottom line is that, whatever laws are passed in regard to marriage, you can ignore them if you choose to do so. If you marry without getting a license, you are still married, and many states still recognize "common law" marriages, which is what they are. Whether you are married or not is in the eyes of God, not man (through government).

Actually, only eleven states and D.C. actually allow common law marriages, though, per Wikipedia:

Nevertheless, all states - including those that have abolished common-law marriage - continue to recognise common-law marriages lawfully contracted in Scotland and those U.S. jurisdictions that still permit this irregular contract of a marriage. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution - which has never been used to validate a sister-state marriage, and is completely irrelevant to common-law marriages to start with (because there is no sister-state public act, public record or judicial proceeding to recognise pursuant to the clause). Rather, states recognise each other's marriages, and those from foreign countries, under their own conflict and choice of law rules. In general, a marriage that is validly contracted in the foreign state will be recognised as valid in the forum state, unless the marriage is odious to the public policy of the forum state.

Regardless, marriage is NOT through the eyes of God. That would imply that those of us who don't believe in God aren't really married or something. That is exactly WHY marriage is a governmental thing - us non believers deserve to be married just as much as the believers. Not to mention needing a way to keep track of marriages for tax purposes, insurance, estates....all kinds of stuff. It's very necessary for the government to recognize marriages.

Religious folks certainly don't have a monopoly on marriage, nor should they.

 

[Stace]

You're right. I believe the government should stay out of marriage all together and call them all "civil unions", whether gay, straight, or multiple. I am still trying to get out of the habit using the word "marriage" in regard to this subject.

That'll never happen. People aren't just going to start saying "Oh yes, I'm in a civil union with so-and-so"....

And the government should not be using the law to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It's that simple. Preacher Bob and his congregation can believe whatever they want about marriage and what it means, but the law and the government have no business defining it for everyone.

Preacher Bob and his congregation would still be free to think whatever they like. Churches already have the freedom to not perform a ceremony for couples for any reason. But Preacher Bob and his congregation do not have a monopoly on marriage. There are all kinds of reasons as to why the government pretty much HAS to have their hand in marriages. Legal and equal protection for all those involved is a big part of that. People shouldn't be denied certain things, such as having their spouses covered under their insurance policies, just because you personally don't like their marriage. You personally can be against any marriage you like, for any reason imagineable, but legally, you have to treat all marriages the same, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We can't just pick and choose who receives the benefits of marriage - it's all or none.

 

[Alex]

That'll never happen. People aren't just going to start saying "Oh yes, I'm in a civil union with so-and-so"....

They will not have to say "civil union" because their churches will still marry them, therefore, it is still a marriage if they wish it to be.

 

[Stace]

They will not have to say "civil union" because their churches will still marry them, therefore, it is still a marriage if they wish it to be.

And for those of us that aren't religious? Why should there be a difference? My marriage isn't of any lessor value just because it wasn't performed in a religious ceremony.

 

[doughgirl]

"let the churches keep their definitions and rituals and establish civil unions for the legal purposes of extending legal rights."

What civil unions then would you recognize? Do we extend legal rights to polygamists?

"Preacher Bob and his congregation would still be free to think whatever they like. Churches already have the freedom to not perform a ceremony for couples for any reason."

Shouldn't they have that right?

"We can't just pick and choose who receives the benefits of marriage - it's all or none."

Then anyone one who wants to be married whether it be two males, two females, man and woman, groups of more than two, three, four etc..........should legally have the rights and privledges and benefits of the government recognizing their marriage?

kandahar said, "The central tenet of Jesus' teaching was something more along the lines of "love the sinner, forgive the sin."

True but there is more to it than that.

To forgive the sin......Jesus would have to be asked to forgive it. So unless someone repented, felt bad about the sin they committed......then there would be nothing to forgive.

Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:46-47, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

 

[Stace]

Shouldn't they have that right?

Never said they shouldn't. I couldn't care less about which marriages a church will or won't recognize, that doesn't affect me in the least.

Then anyone one who wants to be married whether it be two males, two females, man and woman, groups of more than two, three, four etc..........should legally have the rights and privledges and benefits of the government recognizing their marriage?

That's taking it a little far. All marriages that fall within the parameters set forth by the government have to be recognized. Otherwise, people would get crazy with discriminating against certain couples for the most asinine reasons.

 

[Alex]

And for those of us that aren't religious? Why should there be a difference? My marriage isn't of any lessor value just because it wasn't performed in a religious ceremony.

I do not think it would be a lesser value because under the law, all would be civil unions. The churches would decide marriage but that could not take away any value because we would all be equal under the law as required by The Constitution. I believe religions have a right to define their own institutions, even though I am a strict Atheist. As an Atheist, I would not be bothered by their definitions. My concern is equality under the law that is governed by a free society.

 

[26 X World Champs]

its unfortunate that they have to.

too bad homosexuals feel the need to attack tradition.

Yeah those damn homosexuals! All they want to do is attack the tradition of marriage, that's their objective for sure.

How can anyone suggest that the heterosexual ritual of marriage is worthy of defending when more than 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce? Add in X% more who don't divorce but live in a loveless marriage and then we can talk about the true meaning of the "tradition of marriage."

It cracks me up when people defend marriage as if it is sacred! How can something be sacred when more than half the time to people who committed to their sacred vows get divorced?

I think that people who are "traditionally" anti-gay overall use the marriage issue as a smokescreen or shield that allows them to express their true displeasure for Gay people.

To suggest that one holds marriage as "tradtional" between a man and a woman is more ethical and moral than two people who care immensely about each other is bogus. Toss in that these same anti-gay citizens know that by denying Gays the right to marriage it also denies them more than 1000 civil rights laws that protect heteros who are married and it's not too much of a stretch to believe that the tradition that these people want to uphold is hidden homophobia that is allowed to be expressed in their so-called anti-marriage stand....I don't buy it. I think it's a front.

 

[Deegan]

You're right. I believe the government should stay out of marriage all together and call them all "civil unions", whether gay, straight, or multiple. I am still trying to get out of the habit using the word "marriage" in regard to this subject.

Marriage has earned the right to be here, allow civil unions the same chance, but I can't allow marriage to be tossed to the curb to make others feel better about themselves. It's not about religion, not for many of us, it's about what marriage has meant to millions of people, a special bond between man and wife. We now know same sex couples would like their own special bond, let us allow them that, it can't hurt, well, unless we change the meaning for millions of other men and women.

 

[TheNextEra]

In reality, all the government should license is "civil unions" to EVERYONE and then let the individual churces and religion decide if they should be called marriage or not. But the majority of the "straight" people wouldn't want to give up their state sanctioned marriages I'm sure. I've already talked with my wife on this subject and we wouldn't care if the government changed everything to civil union as far as the state is concerned.

 

[Alex]

Marriage has earned the right to be here, allow civil unions the same chance, but I can't allow marriage to be tossed to the curb to make others feel better about themselves. It's not about religion, not for many of us, it's about what marriage has meant to millions of people, a special bond between man and wife. We now know same sex couples would like their own special bond, let us allow them that, it can't hurt, well, unless we change the meaning for millions of other men and women.

I am not suggesting that marriage be tossed to the curb, just that we are all equal under the law. If churches want to marry, then let them call it marriage, but the law should be the same for all.

 

[Navy Pride]

You know, you guys cite "love the sinner, hate the sin" so much that if one didn't know better, one might think that Jesus actually said it. The central tenet of Jesus' teaching was something more along the lines of "love the sinner, forgive the sin."



No, they have to do with the actions of judges that you don't agree with. Which, incidentally, makes no sense whatsoever even if one accepts your premise that the judge is incorrect. If a judge incorrectly rules that driving a car is a constitutional right, you don't fix the problem by making it illegal to drive.

1. I did not say Jesus said that..I said it is a precept of most religions....

2. Judges are suppose to interpret law not make it...........

I am for equal rights for every Ameircan and when it comes to gays I think that can be accomplished via civil unions.........As jallman has said and I agree that is what most gay people want........Its just a small group of militant gays and "Feel good" Liberals who stir the pot and cause the problems.......

 

[Kandahar]

I am for equal rights for every Ameircan and when it comes to gays I think that can be accomplished via civil unions.........As jallman has said and I agree that is what most gay people want........Its just a small group of militant gays and "Feel good" Liberals who stir the pot and cause the problems.......

That is fine, as long as you are willing to settle for a civil union too. If not, why should they have to settle for something less? Whatever you and Jallman believe that "most gay people want" is irrelevant. Most people don't want to go para-sailing, or eat Spaghetti-O's, or read Slaughterhouse Five, or attend a NRA meeting, or watch Lola Rennt, or take a class to learn to speak Japanese, etc. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal for those who do want to do those things.

 

[Navy Pride]

That is fine, as long as you are willing to settle for a civil union too. If not, why should they have to settle for something less? Whatever you and Jallman believe that "most gay people want" is irrelevant. Most people don't want to go para-sailing, or eat Spaghetti-O's, or read Slaughterhouse Five, or attend a NRA meeting, or watch Lola Rennt, or take a class to learn to speak Japanese, etc. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal for those who do want to do those things.

I have been married for 40 years and was married in the Catholic Church and at the American Embassy in Seoul South Korea......

The American people want Marriage to remain a union between a man and a woman and know matter how good it makes you nd other liberals to think you can change that it won't happen in our lifetime.......

 

[drobforever]

That is fine, as long as you are willing to settle for a civil union too. If not, why should they have to settle for something less?

As long as civil union is re-defined to have the same civil rights as marriage I don't think anyone can say it's 'something less'.

 

[Kandahar]

As long as civil union is re-defined to have the same civil rights as marriage I don't think anyone can say it's 'something less'.

I'm pretty sure that Brown v. Board of Education overturned the idea of "separate but equal." If they are truly equal, why can't the government call them the same thing?

 

[Kandahar]

I have been married for 40 years and was married in the Catholic Church and at the American Embassy in Seoul South Korea......

Fine and dandy. So would you be willing to settle for a civil union? If you think it's good enough for gay people, it should be good enough for you too.

The American people want Marriage to remain a union between a man and a woman and know matter how good it makes you nd other liberals to think you can change that it won't happen in our lifetime.......

It will happen in our lifetime, in fact it will probably happen within 5-10 years.

 

[doughgirl]

“That's taking it a little far. All marriages that fall within the parameters set forth by the government have to be recognized. Otherwise, people would get crazy with discriminating against certain couples for the most asinine reasons.”

Well for some gay marriage is taking it to far. Who would have ever thought 25 years ago………20 years ago that gay marriage would be an issue today. But it is.



Why really am I taking it to far by simply asking the question about group marriage? Its not to far way........
Who sets the parameters?


By denying the polygamist you do exactly what you say those against gay unions are doing. Why shouldn’t the government acknowledge group marriages?

“Yeah those damn homosexuals! All they want to do is attack the tradition of marriage, that's their objective for sure.”

I am not sure they are attacking the issue of marriage, they just want a part of it legally.

“How can anyone suggest that the heterosexual ritual of marriage is worthy of defending when more than 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce? Add in X% more who don't divorce but live in a loveless marriage and then we can talk about the true meaning of the "tradition of marriage."

You make a good point here. The divorce rate is out of control. I have been married for 25 years to the same man. We had our problems, in fact we filed for divorce once.……..but it was not a loveless marriage. I prayed about it a lot… I’ll be honest. God wanted me to stay married and I am glad that I did. Today it is better than ever.

“It cracks me up when people defend marriage as if it is sacred! How can something be sacred when more than half the time to people who committed to their sacred vows get divorced?”

To me it is. I take it seriously. I look at the covenant I made with my husband and I honor it, every day. I made a promise to him and I plan to keep it. Its not just about me……..it is about him and our children. They are grown but nevertheless they are important in our lives and always will be. My husband isn’t even a believer. But he sees the faith I have in Christ and how I honor Him in ALL I do and I am telling ya, it rubs off.

I think people in my childrens generation look at marrige differently. They do not take it seriously. If it doesnt work out.....try try again. Maybe I am wrong.....

“I think that people who are "traditionally" anti-gay overall use the marriage issue as a smokescreen or shield that allows them to express their true displeasure for Gay people.”

I am a fundamental Christian I think most people know that by now. I believe the scriptures say marriage is between a man and a woman….But that in no way means that I hate gays and treat them any differently than I would anyone else. It is my opinion. I feel in my heart that they are Gods creatures. It is not hard to love them even though I think the lifestyle is wrong. It is their choice to make not mine. I have enough sin issues of my own to worry about.

I am honest to the hilt…….Believe you me I hide behind no front.

NavyPride said, “2. Judges are suppose to interpret law not make it...........”

Tell that to the Supreme Court. :rofl

 

[Kandahar]

Well for some gay marriage is taking it to far. Who would have ever thought 25 years ago………20 years ago that gay marriage would be an issue today. But it is.


Why really am I taking it to far by simply asking the question about group marriage? Its not to far way........
Who sets the parameters?


By denying the polygamist you do exactly what you say those against gay unions are doing. Why shouldn’t the government acknowledge group marriages?

I wouldn't have any problem with the government legalizing polygamy from a moral perspective. If that's what people want to do, I don't see any reason that the government should stop them from doing so. To each his own.

The main issue with polygamy is one of practicality. The government would have to rewrite massive amounts of federal law to legalize it, on everything from immigration, to employment, to income tax, to husband-wife confidentiality privileges. The question I ask is simply "Is it worth it?" to revise such a huge amount of existing law for an issue that would affect very very few people.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, would affect a significant amount of people (between 3-10% of the population) and would require very few changes in federal law. That may not be the best philosophical argument for rejecting one but not the other, but it makes sense from a PRACTICAL perspective.

Polygamy is also not the same thing as gay marriage from a legal perspective. If the government allows people to have a contract tying all of their assets to one other person, they can't discriminate on the basis of gender. As long as everyone has equal rights to this, we're fine. The government does not necessarily have to allow more than two people from marrying one another; as it stands, NO ONE has that right so it's not an issue of inequality.