New York Appeals Court Won't Allow Gay Marriage

[Stace]

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.

Very well said!! I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Goobieman]

I wonder how this will effect the rest of the nation...

Unless it goes to the SCotUS and reversed -- it won't.

 

[doughgirl]

“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.”

But we are talking about RIGHTS HERE ARENT WE? It would be worth it for them wouldn’t it? Few people? How many people does gay marriage affect?

“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.”

That is not significant. And I think it would require more federal laws then you think. Practical……….or FAIR?

“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.”

Youre trying to make excuses for why it shouldn’t be legal. We are talking about a persons right to have their marriage acknowledged. Divide everything legally or in whatever proportions necessary then.

You are still denying a segment of the population who wants to have their marriages legailized. Gays especially should be in the polygamists corner.

Are you saying now that marriages of only two people should be recognized simply because its more practical?

Then I could say….marriages between one man and one woman are held by the majority and for practical purposes……..it should stay that way.

You watch how the attitudes on polygamy changes in the country. There is a television program already with a polygamist marriage. Slow changes. The gay issue started out this way.

 

[danarhea]

Great idea! Let's pour all available funds into a PRO-GOD ABSTINENCE PROGRAM....one that rewards people for NOT HAVING SEX by PAYING them the tax money that was collected from the GAY TAX?

Let them have their abstinance programs. Then they dont procreate, and eventually, their kind wont exist.

 

[26 X World Champs]

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.

Maybe your lifetime dude, you're way older than most of us.
The fact that you're unable to offer equal rights to other human beings and other Americans speaks VOLUMES for who you are and what you stand for.

Hopefully views such as yours will die out and be replaced by intelligent thinkers who are not threatened by their own insecurities and phobias. I wrote earlier that the Gay Marriage issue is a smokescreen for all the anti-gay homophobics who are prejudiced against Gay people and I stand by that fact.

 

[danarhea]

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



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.

Not true, although I could have worded it better. Marriage is between whoever decides they are going to be married, and the government can go screw itself. Our founding fathers never saw the need for the government to regulate marriage, and marriage licenses never existed until after the Civil War, when rascism was the motivating factor in their creation.

As with any other issue, you only empower the government to run your life when you buy into their arguments that they, and not you, control your life. You are your owner, not the government.

Now having said that, I must admit that my wife and I got married by obtaining a marriage license, then performing a ceremony. It is not hypocrisy. This was from my former days as a Republican, when I did not know any better.

 

[mpg]

Maybe your lifetime dude, you're way older than most of us.
The fact that you're unable to offer equal rights to other human beings and other Americans speaks VOLUMES for who you are and what you stand for.

Hopefully views such as yours will die out and be replaced by intelligent thinkers who are not threatened by their own insecurities and phobias. I wrote earlier that the Gay Marriage issue is a smokescreen for all the anti-gay homophobics who are prejudiced against Gay people and I stand by that fact.

I don't believe that homosexual conduct is necessarily wrong, and I do believe that gay marriage should be legal, but, this isn't about equal rights. Gay marriage is illegal for everybody. Furthermore, if someone believes that certain behavior is wrong, that does not fit the definition of bigotry. You are falsely accusing him of bigotry, and that's worse than bigotry itself.

 

[Deegan]

I don't believe that homosexual conduct is necessarily wrong, and I do believe that gay marriage should be legal, but, this isn't about equal rights. Gay marriage is illegal for everybody. Furthermore, if someone believes that certain behavior is wrong, that does not fit the definition of bigotry. You are falsely accusing him of bigotry, and that's worse than bigotry itself.

Well said sir, I was quite inspired by that actually.

 

[mpg]

Well said sir, I was quite inspired by that actually.

Thank you.

 

[Kandahar]

But we are talking about RIGHTS HERE ARENT WE? It would be worth it for them wouldn’t it? Few people? How many people does gay marriage affect?

That is not significant. And I think it would require more federal laws then you think. Practical……….or FAIR?

3-10% is certainly a significant proportion of the population, especially compared with the <0.1% who would be interested in polygamy.

It wouldn't require rewriting federal laws, because there isn't much room for abuse with gay marriage laws. There's no way gay couples could take advantage of the public with their new rights. On the other hand, here are just a few ways that people could abuse marriage laws regarding polygamy if we didn't change massive amounts of tax code:

1. A gangster marries all his underlings so that they never have to testify against each other.
2. A pro-immigrant activist marries a thousand foreigners so that they can pursue US citizenship.
3. A movie star marries a thousand of his adoring fans so that they can all visit him in the hospital.
4. An employer requires all of his employees marry him so that he can take advantage of looser labor laws regarding family members.
5. A tax evader marries ten women with no income and lots of deductions.

Etc, etc, etc. There is no comparable scenario for abuse of the law with gay marriage.

Youre trying to make excuses for why it shouldn’t be legal.

Like I said, I have no problem with polygamy. If someone can rewrite the laws appropriately to avoid these situations, I'm all for it.

We are talking about a persons right to have their marriage acknowledged. Divide everything legally or in whatever proportions necessary then.

Division of assets is the least of the legal worries.

You are still denying a segment of the population who wants to have their marriages legailized. Gays especially should be in the polygamists corner. Are you saying now that marriages of only two people should be recognized simply because its more practical?

No. Show me how the laws can be rewritten and I'll vote for it in a referendum.

Then I could say….marriages between one man and one woman are held by the majority and for practical purposes……..it should stay that way.

Denying a minority their rights simply because a majority does something differently is not a good argument. It's a question of fairness: Men can marry women, but women can't marry women. That isn't fair. NO ONE can marry more than one person, so there's no injustice.

You watch how the attitudes on polygamy changes in the country. There is a television program already with a polygamist marriage. Slow changes. The gay issue started out this way.

You're assuming that I care if attitudes change, and you're assuming that I'm against this. I'm all in favor of people becoming more tolerant of one another's lifestyles.

 

[Kandahar]

I don't believe that homosexual conduct is necessarily wrong, and I do believe that gay marriage should be legal, but, this isn't about equal rights. Gay marriage is illegal for everybody.

Marrying a female is legal for men but not for women. Gender discrimination at its finest.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I don't believe that homosexual conduct is necessarily wrong, and I do believe that gay marriage should be legal, but, this isn't about equal rights. Gay marriage is illegal for everybody. Furthermore, if someone believes that certain behavior is wrong, that does not fit the definition of bigotry. You are falsely accusing him of bigotry, and that's worse than bigotry itself.

Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your thesis. Gay marriage IS legal in Massachuesetts, for example, also in San Francisco and quite a few other municipalities throughout the USA.

I wasn't accusing anyone specifically BTW. I was saying that the majority of people who are against Gay marriage are also homophobic, anti-gay everything and do not want Gay people to have the same rights they enjoy. The sole reason they want to deny Gays their civil rights is because they are Gay, and that is BIGOTRY no matter how you spin it.

Allow me to further clarify that not everyone who is anti-gay marriage is a bigot, not at all. However I do believe that a MAJORITY of those who are anti-gay marriage are homophobes and are gay bigots. Sad? Of course! Pathetic in my mind. Anti-Gay marriage for most (not all) who take this stance is a smokescreen for deeper rooted prejudices against Gays, IMHO.

 

[mpg]

Marrying a female is legal for men but not for women. Gender discrimination at its finest.

Males are equally restricted. You fail.

 

[mpg]

I wrote earlier that the Gay Marriage issue is a smokescreen for all the anti-gay homophobics who are prejudiced against Gay people and I stand by that fact.

Do you have any evidence to back up this "fact"?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Do you have any evidence to back up this "fact"?

Prove me wrong! There are zillions of websites devoted to anti-gay marriage...

http://www.protectmarriageillinois.org/getinformed.htm

Homosexuality is about promiscuity (as shown by this Family Research Council paper). By their own admission, most homosexual men allow for "extra-relational relationships," even when they agree to somewhat permanent arrangements. In those European countries where homosexuals are given state recognition, studies reveal that they are not monogamous and that their relationships last an average of only about one-and-a-half years.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD04F01

However, in order to defend what we are for--the family--we often must define what we are against. We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that ideal. That means that we are against parents snuffing out the lives of their own unborn children through abortion. It means that we are against drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse. It means that we are against illegitimacy, abandonment, and divorce. And it means that we are against any sexual behavior that would undermine the uniqueness of the faithful, lifelong marriage bond between a husband and wife. We are against premarital sex, pornography, adultery, and prostitution. And yes, we are also against the practice of homosexuality.

Do you really want me to list 10 more sites just like these?

The Family Research Council has the support of Republicans and the President. They are VERY representative of anti-gay marriage = anti-gay EVERYTHING...

 

[Geekybrunette]

Males are equally restricted. You fail.

And blacks could only marry blacks, and whites could only marry whites. Equal restriction am I right?

 

[70s_guy]

Huge Huge Huge, New York being the huge media and cultural center it is. :smile:

-------------------------
Judge Robert Smith wrote.

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," .
-------------------------

Thus gay rights promoters tactics of going around the American people via the courts and their monkeywrenchers hits a very huge fan SPLAT!

 

[mpg]

And blacks could only marry blacks, and whites could only marry whites. Equal restriction am I right?

That would be incredibly bad (I'm in an interracial marriage), but it WOULD be equality. Don't forget that I'm FOR gay marriage.

 

[Kandahar]

Males are equally restricted. You fail.

No they aren't.

Men can marry women, and women cannot. That is gender discrimination. Women can marry men, and men cannot. That is also gender discrimination. Two separate cases of gender discrimination don't simply cancel each other out, any more than police brutally beating a white guy excuses a completely separate case of police brutality against blacks.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Males are equally restricted. You fail.

Sorry that is convoluted logic at best. Either instance is discrimination making it two separate cases and thus two excellent examples of civil rights violations.

I just don't understand how anyone can justify treating someone differently because of who they sleep and live with. Gay people do not choose to be Gay anymore than white people choose to be white. The absurd argument that a Gay man chooses to be Gay and could easily be straight is crazy. Best example is a straight man would not choose to be Gay nor would he be sexually aroused by another man.

 

[mpg]

Perhaps you guys are right, but don't forget that the ERA was never ratified. Even if it is gender discrimination (quite a stretch), it's not discrimination against gays.

 

[Navy Pride]

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.



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

1. No I wouldn't but I don't have to worry about that do I......This country defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman........If you don't like it go to Canada.........

2. Only in your "Feel Good Liberal dreams...........In 5 ot 10 years almost every state will have the own Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman........Get use to it........

 

[Navy Pride]

And blacks could only marry blacks, and whites could only marry whites. Equal restriction am I right?

And Blacks and whites are races of people........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference.......Huge difference........

 

[26 X World Champs]

And Blacks and whites are races of people........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference.......Huge difference........

How so? One does not choose to be Black nor does one choose to be Gay so there is zero difference.

The bottom line is that anyone who prevents someone from marrying someone else simply due to gender is discriminating against that person. There's no way around it no matter how often someone denies it...all it sounds like is "some of my best friends are black" remarks people who denied being racially prejudiced made / make. Same thing different person = same result - unequal rights for people who choose to live together but who are not hetero.

 

[Navy Pride]

How so? One does not choose to be Black nor does one choose to be Gay so there is zero difference.

The bottom line is that anyone who prevents someone from marrying someone else simply due to gender is discriminating against that person. There's no way around it no matter how often someone denies it...all it sounds like is "some of my best friends are black" remarks people who denied being racially prejudiced made / make. Same thing different person = same result - unequal rights for people who choose to live together but who are not hetero.

Being African American means you are born into a race........You can't change that.............I don't believe your born gay but even if you are thousands have changed their sexual Orientation........Ann Heche come to mind off the top who was a lesbian living in a lesbian relationship and she gave it all up and now is happily married to a man with children......