78 replies to this topic

[katinka]

So, today the NY court of appeals ruled against gay marriage. Judge Robert Smith wrote the decision for the 4 person majority, and used reasons such as the well being of children, as one of the reasons. Polls, however, show that 53% of New Yorkers support same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/nyregion...&ei=5087%0A

Personally, I support gay marriage, becuase i know people in gay relationships who are more commited than people in heterosexual ones. I also find the well being of children reason particulary funny, as i know people who were raised by gay parents (including a student that graduated tech this year), and i also know gay people who are more capable of being parents than most straight people. For those who went to any of the Pride events, this year's theme was the fight for Love and Life, and the Empire State Pride Agenda was really optimistic. In between shouting "More Gay Cops!" while they Gay Officers Action League marched by, and doing marriage chants with the pride agenda, and crying as ACT-UP, GMHC, amFAR, BodyPositive, and other AIDS organizations walked by, it was also really nice to see so many tech students in the parade. All those who didn't go or didn't get a chance to go this year should make it a point to go next year, since it really is a colorful celebration.

I'm interested in knowing your opinions about the court's ruling. What do you guys think?

[z2z007]

I think it is wrong to say that they ruled against gay marriage. They simply said it is not illegal to restrict it and for gay marriage to be legal, it would have to go through the legislature.

And keep in mind, I'm saying this as a supporter for gay marriage.

[esong27]

Polls are deceiving, so I wouldn't trust that figure, although 50something percent isn't exactly a whopping majority. Although New York is the liberal of liberals, a lot of people do lie on polls, by giving the answer they think is expected instead of what they really feel.

What do you feel about civil union? Do you think it's a satisfactory compromise or not?

[katinka]

Personally, I don't think its satisfactory. Its "separate but equal" all over again. I'll further elaborate in the morning, and now its off to sleep.

[djharkavy]

angelicmidnite, on Jul 7 2006, 01:32 AM, said:

Personally, I don't think its satisfactory. Its "separate but equal" all over again. I'll further elaborate in the morning, and now its off to sleep.

But half a pie is better than none. Civil Unions in law would provide for the rights that are currently limited only to marriage and would be a stepping stone for declaring that separate but equal doesn't cut the mustard.

Personally I think the problem could best be dealt with by abolishing marriage licenses and replacing them with Civil Unions throughout. Marriage would be reserved for whatever social/religious group chooses to sanction your union if any.

All CUs would get the same rights as the State now grants for marriage. Marriage would mean nothing legally.

[qt101]

Thank God.

[AFaust3]

qt101, on Jul 7 2006, 10:29 AM, said:

Thank God.

Not quite sure what that means, but here's my take.

The courts made the right decision, because it's not their job to write laws. They ruled on what the constitution said, and if anyone wants gay marriage, the laws must be changed. I am not in favor of gay marriage because the term "marriage" is defined in the dictionary as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I agree that gays should be able to receive marital benefits, but "civil union" is a much more appropriate term.

[djharkavy]

AFaust3, on Jul 7 2006, 01:18 PM, said:

The courts made the right decision, because it's not their job to write laws. They ruled on what the constitution said, and if anyone wants gay marriage, the laws must be changed. I am not in favor of gay marriage because the term "marriage" is defined in the dictionary as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

And slightly over a hundred years ago, marriage was a property deal where the 'ownership' of the woman was transferred from her father to her husband.'

And 50 years ago, marriage was defined as a union of a man and a woman of the same race.

And...

And...

And... (add additional historical definitions/changes in marriage as needed)

Civil Union is only acceptable if it gives exactly the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Otherwise it is unequal.

That said, I think the court made the right decision with respect to NY Law. Hopefully (although doubtfully) the Legislature will also make the right decision and pass something appropriate.

[Alpha2005]

Whoah. We all know that this will become legal eventually. Why delay the inevitable!

[djharkavy]

Alpha2005, on Jul 7 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

Whoah. We all know that this will become legal eventually. Why delay the inevitable!

Primarily because it is not the job of the Court to persue the inevitable, but rather to interpret what is currently legal/Constitutional.

[tycoonboy388]

djharkavy, on Jul 8 2006, 01:13 AM, said:

Primarily because it is not the job of the Court to persue the inevitable, but rather to interpret what is currently legal/Constitutional.

If the Courts never attempted to pursue the inevitable, then we might still have segregated schools, or be denying abortions to women, or denying people of opposite races the right to get married. Sometimes it takes a court to be a little bit on the activist side to stir great change. I understand that it is not the place of a court to make law, but that is what they do, their precedent is formed into law. And their law is perhaps more dangerous than any normal law, because they are the deciders of conflicts between any decision that is made and any law that might try to change it.

Personally, I like Mr. Harkavy's idea of abolishing the term "marriage" as a legal term, to be replaced with a civil union. It will allow for the definition to be clearly established by the state, rather than a variety of religions and other societies definitions of marriage. This way, the supposed sanctity of marriage can be maintained, because institutions then have the right to add that title onto a basic civil union.

However, I feel that the real gripe that opponents of same sex marriage have is that they have a problem with gays getting married rather than them just "violating" the sanctity of marriage.

[Alpha2005]

tycoonboy388, on Jul 8 2006, 06:49 AM, said:

If the Courts never attempted to pursue the inevitable, then we might still have segregated schools, or be denying abortions to women, or denying people of opposite races the right to get married. Sometimes it takes a court to be a little bit on the activist side to stir great change. I understand that it is not the place of a court to make law, but that is what they do, their precedent is formed into law. And their law is perhaps more dangerous than any normal law, because they are the deciders of conflicts between any decision that is made and any law that might try to change it.

Personally, I like Mr. Harkavy's idea of abolishing the term "marriage" as a legal term, to be replaced with a civil union. It will allow for the definition to be clearly established by the state, rather than a variety of religions and other societies definitions of marriage. This way, the supposed sanctity of marriage can be maintained, because institutions then have the right to add that title onto a basic civil union.

However, I feel that the real gripe that opponents of same sex marriage have is that they have a problem with gays getting married rather than them just "violating" the sanctity of marriage.

Read up on cohabitation regarding marriage.

(And my opinion is that this country is headed towards a more "acceptable" stance towards gay marriage etc. So I view the inevitable as something very very close, not something far off. Hence I don't see why It's wrong to consider it a delay, in my opinion, they are delaying an issue due to their personal bias, and ignoring the basic principal of "freedom for all"--- to djharkavy)

See: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Cohabitation

Mod note: Post edited -- block of text changed to link.

Edited by ZoSo, 08 July 2006 - 07:05 PM.

[djharkavy]

tycoonboy388, on Jul 8 2006, 08:49 AM, said:

If the Courts never attempted to pursue the inevitable, then we might still have segregated schools, or be denying abortions to women, or denying people of opposite races the right to get married. Sometimes it takes a court to be a little bit on the activist side to stir great change. I understand that it is not the place of a court to make law, but that is what they do, their precedent is formed into law. And their law is perhaps more dangerous than any normal law, because they are the deciders of conflicts between any decision that is made and any law that might try to change it.

In the Brown v. Board of Ed decision, and the Loving v. Virignia decision, there were clear cases where the laws involved directly violated the rights of the people involved. Loving more closely resembles the current case, but the legal definition of marriage used in it had no restrictions by race (except to restrict the mixing of races) as opposed to the definition of marriage used by New York which does restrict by gender the Bride and Groom.

Neither of these was 'activist' as there was plenty in the existing law to support the decision. Further neither of these was truly radical as various State Legislatures were already directly headed in the right direction.

We could debate the legal activism in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood for a long time to come. I agree with the outcome of more freedom for women in terms of reproductive rights, but the legal argument is vague at best. And the result was more than thirty years of political controversy on an issue that, had it been left up to the State legislatures, would probably have ended in the same results with far less animosity (as the legislatures were already leaning in the direction of allowing abortions in many States)

In my opinion, activism short-circuits the legislative process and prevents the "will of the people" from being developed before it is forced on them. Indeed, much of the current anti-gay-marriage legislation/amendments results not from a concern of most people over gay marriage, but rather a concern that an activist court will do to xxx (pick a state) what they did to Massachusetts.

Time will make gay marriage a non-issue, I think. But the Courts cannot act without legitimate basis to try to force it into one.

tycoonboy388, on Jul 8 2006, 08:49 AM, said:

Personally, I like Mr. Harkavy's idea of abolishing the term "marriage" as a legal term, to be replaced with a civil union. It will allow for the definition to be clearly established by the state, rather than a variety of religions and other societies definitions of marriage. This way, the supposed sanctity of marriage can be maintained, because institutions then have the right to add that title onto a basic civil union.

It's not just my idea, but it seems to cover all bases. Thank you.

tycoonboy388, on Jul 8 2006, 08:49 AM, said:

However, I feel that the real gripe that opponents of same sex marriage have is that they have a problem with gays getting married rather than them just "violating" the sanctity of marriage.

I agree. Those concerned with the sanctity of marriage would best look at their own houses, trying to curb the divorce rate (which directly violates such 'sanctity') than at committed couples who wish to get married on their own.

[Josh]

djharkavy, on Jul 9 2006, 02:28 AM, said:

We could debate the legal activism in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood for a long time to come. I agree with the outcome of more freedom for women in terms of reproductive rights, but the legal argument is vague at best. And the result was more than thirty years of political controversy on an issue that, had it been left up to the State legislatures, would probably have ended in the same results with far less animosity (as the legislatures were already leaning in the direction of allowing abortions in many States)

If the decision had been left up to the states, then there would be huge areas of the country where a person would not be able to get an abortion. The activists tried to avoid that problem by pushing the decision to the Supreme Court.

[djharkavy]

ZoSo, on Jul 9 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

If the decision had been left up to the states, then there would be huge areas of the country where a person would not be able to get an abortion. The activists tried to avoid that problem by pushing the decision to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps true.

But the decision itself WAS an example of legislating from the Bench. The legal reasoning was questionable at best. Even strong supporters of it often disagree with the legal argument.

And as a result of it, those who are against abortion have had a groundswell of support, taking every opportunity to rally the troops politically. Roe v. Wade polarized the country as nothing did before it. And that polarity has continued to lead to the politics of fear and hate that exist today.

The current Congress, Senate and President are the direct result of Roe v. Wade.

[tycoonboy388]

In an attempt to get back on topic:

Its a shame the issue of same sex marriage even has to be a legal debate. I was very thankful that the most recent attempt by Congress to ban same-sex marriage failed in the Senate, and I'm hoping that in response to that failure in the Senate, it will begin the move in the states to legalize same-sex marriages. At the very least, I hope that some review begins in other states where there are bans on same-sex marriage (some of which are imposed by court decisions, surprisingly enough).

At times like this, I wish that political issues were resolved the way they were done on South Park.

[mxichiro]

agreed, this topic has been blown way out of porportion, and I too think that people, for some reason, has this paranoia against gay marriage.

in the end i feel that it will be legalized because it just seems to me that its stupid to be against gay marriage as it is nearly the same as religious tolerance. As angelicmidnight said, the excuse of trying to 'protect' people is absoutly absurd, other than that I see no reasonable idea as to why it should be banned or w/e. from what I see, alot of the complaints come from a religious viewpoint. my question is, since when did the US have an official religion?

random question for tycoonboy388 : how do they resolve political issues on South Park? (loved the show but never found the time to watch it often)

[Alpha2005]

mxichiro, on Jul 9 2006, 06:48 PM, said:

agreed, this topic has been blown way out of porportion, and I too think that people, for some reason, has this paranoia against gay marriage.

in the end i feel that it will be legalized because it just seems to me that its stupid to be against gay marriage as it is nearly the same as religious tolerance. As angelicmidnight said, the excuse of trying to 'protect' people is absoutly absurd, other than that I see no reasonable idea as to why it should be banned or w/e. from what I see, alot of the complaints come from a religious viewpoint. my question is, since when did the US have an official religion?

random question for tycoonboy388 : how do they resolve political issues on South Park? (loved the show but never found the time to watch it often)

Not directed towards me but: They have terrance and philip fart on each other, have kenny die, have kyles jewish mother intervene, or have the fox network fix (or is it break?) everything.

Lol.

[esong27]

I don't think it is. Not that I agree with it, at all.

[RiNo]

Dart, on Jul 10 2006, 06:50 PM, said:

Well, I'm sort of a religious guy, a Christian (YEA!!! DONT MESS!!! ) From my point of view and from other Christians point of view, God made man and women to marry w/ each other, not same sex.

And i completely respect yours and all people's religious beliefs, but what happened to the seperation of church and state? It seams that that's what people are forgetting. Why is it fair for you to pose your beliefs on everyone. And this is not even a matter of having a dispute with someone over what is "wrong and right", these are peoples LIVES we're talking about.

And i just what to put a question out there... What do you guys honestly think about "the rights" reasoning in trying to prevent gay marriage.