February 4, 2005
Gay Marriage May Be Coming to NY
A NY State Supreme Court judge has ruled that gay and lesbian couples must have equal access to marriage. Lambda Legal, which had filed the lawsuit on behalf of gay and lesbian couples, has a PDF of the decision, and the AP reports about the ruling:
State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the words "husband," "wife," "groom" and "bride" in relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law "shall be construed to mean 'spouse,' and all personal pronouns ... shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women."But the Village Voice warns that the law won't go into effect for 30 days, and that the city could appeal. Gothamist suggests that the city carefully consider the benefits of offering gay marriage - think of the boon to the economy!
|
oh, no! my heterosexual marriage is now threatened!!!
Interesting thing won't be what Bloomberg does, he's already broken with the White House on this and a number of other issues. He'll let it ride.
Interesting thing is what Pataki does. He's the one who's joined at the gonads with the Bushies.
Let's see who wins the race of the first politician up for re-election in 2005 to draft an amendment to the state constitution.
wait. I can still marry a chick, right?
//Dumb question
///and I'm not marrying anyone if I'm calling them a "chick", I suppose
Chick!
You see what this opens up! Man on bird action! Deplorable (unless you are Brittish I guess)
As a gay with a long-term live-in boyfriend whom I intend to marry one day, can I please voice the opinion that cases like this are BAD BAD BAD for the cause. The advancement of marriage equality MUST take place through a legislative process in which people feel included. Although I absolutely believe that the courts must protect minority rights, if we in fact aim to create permanent change, we must use the power of a gradual but massive cultural shift. Most people are on the fence about marriage equality (hence the greater palatability of alternatives like DPs or CUs) and in a matter of just a few years will be comfortable amending their state constitutions to include all citizens in this fundamental social institution. Meanwhile, proceeding through the courts only leaves people feeling passed-over, trampled-upon, and hostile to the radical appearance of this change. Inclusion is a participatory process!
Yeah!
This is a great decision, and great for New York to once again show a progressive stance in the face of such a hateful political arena.
Bravo Judge Ling-Cohan!
Goodness Jen, that was FAST! You totally beat the NYT. Well done.
Larry, you know that we ARE talking about elected officials, voted into office by the people, making decisions, right? The judge in question was elected by a majority of republicans AND democrats in her district.
Oh yeah, let's definitely leave this up to state senators and voters. If the Supreme Court hadn't heard cases like Brown v. Board of Ed., it might still be legal to have separate drinking fountains in some parts of the south.
Sometimes the courts have to step in. I think it has to do with something called the "tyranny of the majority."
Forgot to mention another item of note -- if you read the decision, the judge actually talks about this. She points out that legislatures were strongly resistant to interracial marriage too, and that the same arguments were used about how it was a bad idea to have the courts allow people from different races to get married. But as we all hopefully know, that's exactly what the courts did do, first in a few states, then in more, and now it's mostly a moot point even in states where it's still technically illegal.
...
...
So when I got married Last Monday, I could have been the Bride and My Wife the Groom? Amusingly enough, the Computer has the Gender as a selectable data field for the "Groom" and the "Bride"...
"all personal pronouns ... shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women."
Huh. So, if I read that right Gender Pronouns are not Politcally/Legally correct?
Note: Let me say in advance, I'm **NOT** Homophobic, don't deny that Love and Permanent relationships exist between people of the same gender and am most certainly NOT a Republican/"Neo-con"/"Marriage" ammendment supporter.
Look, While I don't think "Gay Marriage" rises to the level of passing a Law: Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. Larry, in all due respect, I'm for the right of an individual to choose whom shall recieve their benefits, but not for people of the same gender getting "maried". If people want the same legal extensions and rights that Marriage confer, they need to get laws passed.
People or in this case a judge, Re-defining the word "Marriage" to "fit" the conceptions of a few, doesn't make it right.
Calling a car a Bycycle doesn't make it one. Two people of the same gender going thru a "Marriage" Ceromony does not a Marriage make.
What amuses me is: Doris Ling-Cohan was elected to the Supreme Court of the State of New York on November 2002.
Is she trying for a higher office? Or does she want to ensure that Pataki has Yet Another Non Issue to Wave the flag at?
"tyranny of the majority."?
Wow. I had no idea that I was being a tyrant...
Bad Me. I guess between me and my brother: I *Am* the Evil twin!
Are there any other "Rights" being violated by Society?
Let's get creative... I Know, Driving Licences! They discrimate against Blind people!
Can't violate their "rights" can we??
Let's see: Taxation! Can't have Taxation without representation. Therefore, we can't Tax minors that work at, say, a fast food place. After all, they can't vote till they reach their Majority...
Must think up some more...
Must you?
Yes, S.D.
Gay people getting married = blind people driving. An excellent analogy. And certainly one that backs up your claim of being a non-homophobe.
It still amazes me how anyone can feel threatened by the idea of two people in a committed relationship being able to marry one another.
Also, as a man in an "Interracial" Marriage, Equating the laws outlawing a Man and a Woman of different "races" to this is IMO, Apples and Oranges.
I want a Jaguar X-J6L (much more leg room!) so should I pettition the court to Label a Chevy coupe a Jaguar? Is that "denying" me the right to Own a Jaguar?
FYI, the General Accounting Office has a list of 1,049 rights and benefits that come with marriage. Not religious marriage, which churches and temples would still be able to define as they see fit, but legal marriage.
http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=1049_federal (directs you to a PDF file)
S.D., you're mixing it up. Marriage is a religious practice but also a state practice. The marriage we're talking about here is the paperwork marriage. If you pay your taxes and are a citizen, then the state should work for you. So don't get it mixed. You're being a tyrant.
(sigh)
It still amazes me how anyone can feel threatened by the idea of two people in a committed relationship being able to marry one another.
Then you'll love my Jag = Chevy analogy...
(Begin Sarcasm)
Yes, thirdparty, You,ve hit the Nail on the Head! I think Calling A Carnation, a pretty flower to be sure, a Rose is a mistake so therefore, I **MUST** be Homophobic!
Bravo! My Hat's Off to you! You, sir/madam (Use the Noun of your choice), have successfully outed me! Let the Name calling begin!
As if.
(End Sarcasm)
I Can't speak for anyone else but I'm not threatened by "Gay Marriage". IMO, It's not marriage.
Jim, when I said:
What do you suppose I meant by that? Could it be, I meant that the legal benefits appled by the state to "Married" couples should (gasp) apply to any couple? In all honesty, Maybe It's me. Mayhap I didn't spell it out clearly enough.
Signed,
S.D., The Tyrant!
Wow! I like That...
One reason you can't avoid appearing homophobic, S.D., is that you (rather flippantly; you don't seem to realize how insulting that is) say that marriage will never include us, yet you don't lay out serious alternatives. I once proposed that gay couples might want to create parallel institutions with their own terminology that recognize the differences between men and women -- it wouldn't be marriage, but neither would it be something less than marriage, like civil union. But your response is the belittling "Don't be ridiculous; whatever the courts say, you'll never really have marriage."
Opponents of gay marriage often act like they invented the thing. Marriage is an institution we all inherited, but some of us are not being allowed to use it. The fact that you are allowed to use it doesn't mean it's yours to decide what to do with. I say it's the permanent union of two people who love each other, and the community I live in agrees.
what exactly are you arguing against here, s.d.? is it really just the semantics? is it your religion? how will you ever be personally effected by this in any way? maybe you have a point... i just haven't heard it through all the bad analogies.
You really have to wonder why straight people are so threatened by gay people getting married. I mean, I really can't figure it out. The whole group just comes off as that neighborhood busy body who's watching over her fence in a housecoat and curlers under a shower cap muttering "it just ain't right" and ever-ready to espouse her antiquated and repressed opinions to a public that is ever-ready to listen to them because everyone just needs to have someone to look down on. I guess now the trailer trash can feel better about themselves because the law pretty much explicitely states gay people are second class citizens while it's only an unsupported public opinion that has no legal recourse that makes them second class citizens. No matter how much we may want to shove people we consider 'undesirable' into a deep dark corner we can't do it just because we may not like them for whatever ultimately inconsequential reason. Just get on with your own lives people and worry about you for a change.
Here's the thing that always amazes me about this topic: WHO CARES???!!! I have friends who are gay and were married by a minister and have called themselves married for the last twenty years. OK, as a straight married man, is this screwing with my marriage? Is my straight marriage diminished in any way? Is it less of a marriage because these people are our friends? Because they were allowed to marry?
Their marriage impacts on my life not one damn bit, except they are about to adopt a child and we couldn't be happier for them.
Honestly, we think of more things to get upset about. Would this even be an issue if people didn't hate gays so much (not you SD, lift your hands and move away from the keyboard!:>) )? So much of this argument seems to stem from some people wanting a PC (or RC, religiously correct) manner to express their bigotry.
Since gays will be allowed to marry, what about Animals and Humans? Does anyone want to date my dog?
Shes 3 years old . . . and shes ovulating.
;-)
Wow! I must cut back on the Coffee... (Note, yet again, that's a Joke! I'm quite responsible for what I type.)
Well, Mike, I think the alternative is to get the state to recognize that people should be allowed to designate anyone else as there recipient of their benefits and as their legal heir. I'm sorry if my sarcasm has insulted, your right in that I did not consider how insulting the delivery was.
My sincere apologies if my rant caused anyone to be belittled or insulted. My belief that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman is exactly that, my belief. That's why I put that "Note". When I said I don't deny that Love and Permanent relationships exist between people of the same gender, I meant it.
Mike, I don't think anyone invented it as much as it has Evolved. That's your belief, I respect it and you, but I disagree with it. Also, IMO, I think that Judge Ling-Cohan went about this in the wrong way.
hijiki, I'm just not going to get into it with you about religion but I guarantee in I'll provide more analogies, bad or otherwise. I just can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, at myself, that you in particular think I make Bad analogies...
MT, You said "Just get on with your own lives people and worry about you for a change.";
Do you suppose that some people see this ruling (Right or Wrong) as a change that does affect them? As I've stated, I **DON"T** think "Marriage" needs to have a law or an Constitutional Amendment to "protect" it and am certainly Not threatened by this (Hell, with my sense of Humor, I might have put MY name as the Bride last week...).
I just don't think this is what Marriage is.
Hey! Did you refer to me as trailer Trash? If So, I prefer Tyrant or The Evil Twin...
On a more serious Note, I post my email address so that people CAN interact with me, be it here or via Email.
Feel free to contact me via these channels.
i don't care about your religion, s.d. so i repeat my question to you... i meant it as an honest question, i know you're getting ganged up on, but don't take offense. i'm sorry i pointed out how bad your analogies were, but they were masking your opinion and i truly wondered what the basis of your argument was. i just don't think it's that big of a deal yet it really hurts lots of good people. so i wonder why. why exactly are you against this and how would it effect you? is it merely the definition of the word?
Ugh, this kind of annoys me, not because there is disagreement--I enjoy the disagreement--but because the arguments and the responses and the counter-responses are so predictable, and so completely missing the point.
"What," you may ask, "is the point, then, smartass?"
There are, in my opinion, three important, overlooked points:
1. The role of anxiety in this and other policy debates. "Marriage equality" encompasses a range of issues that touch on some of the most frightening experiences of our selves and our world. For example, "Am I too different to be accepted?" "Do my choices reflect the love I feel for my parents and others?" "If my child or sister or spouse were too different, how would that change my ability to love and accept him or her?" "How well do I understand and accept myself?" Though these sound insubstantial next to the very materially significant consequences of expanding or limiting participation in marriage, they are without a doubt the frameworks through which all the facts, logic, and opinions are seen.
2. Demos vs. Poloi. There is a dynamic tension built into the primary task of the democratic state: to institutionalize (in law) the will of the majority while protecting the inalienable rights of the minority. Representative democracy creates a layer of intermediation which moderates the expression of popular will. (When) Do our representatives in government--including judges--have a superior claim on interpreting the will of the people over time (i.e., against the "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule")? How can we assess in a regular, permanent, objective way when to trust these representatives with unpopular decisions? When is the expense to individuals of undertaking a slower and more participatory legislative process justified? How do we assess what historical precedents are merely artifacts, and which prove by their endurance to be real institutionalizations of the will of the people over time?
3. The instrumentalization of God. The rise of religious fundamentalism represents one of the greatest threats to human thriving in all of history. Modernity has led us to confront a world in which superstitious explanations are useless, yet we are continually faced with almost whimsical experiences of evil. Because it is clear that God is not doing the job that we've traditionally assigned God (protecting the faithful, punishing the wicked), it's an almost irresistable urge to try to keep God busy. If God has a job, what is it? Does it involve demonstrations of love toward humankind? Does it involve tests of faith and discipline? Does it involve judgment and the meting out of punishment? If God doesn't have a job, how can we be certain God exists? As God goes on disappointing our expectations (even as they evolve), is it because we haven't yet identified God's real task, or is it because we go on mobilizing God to undertake ever more specialized work? Is it possible that God's job is just to be God, and we don't really need help originating species, forming human bonds, creating new life, and demonstrating our innate compassion toward one another? Would that be a gain, or a loss? How do we act socially and politically to hold on to an idea of God that seems to be slipping away?
"i'm sorry i pointed out how bad your analogies were,"
No, No, You misunderstand: I really can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, at myself, because I'm not disappointed at all...
I can't believe you just walked into that!!!
;)
I didn't take offense, I just didn't want to get into it, religion that is.
My Belief as stated above is based on lots of things, My "logic", My religion, what I think the word and legal institution means, etc.
IMO, the Legal definition of marriage is Not hurting people, but rather denying legal status to people and allowing people to decide their beneficiary and heir (Short of making a Will that is).
A while (a few months?) ago there was an interesting article/opinion piece in the NY Times on the topic of legal inheritance. In the article when the writer's father (Former member of the Army) had died, the Army wanted to only consult with her, the child rather than her mother as to the Military Funeral. Why?
Her Parents never LEGALLY married.
As far as They were concerned, they were Husband and Wife and didn't feel the need to get outside recognition. As a result, He could not name the woman he loved as his heir. The Army was legally bound to discuss it with the Next of Kin Only.
To me, this is wrong. I think that Anyone should be able to designate Anyone else as their beneficiary and heir, be it a Man/woman/someone elses child.
Would this take the State out of the Marriage business? Possibly, but so what?
I still think Marriage is between a Man and Woman.
Larry & others: Tell you what: I'll Completely leave Any and All Sarcasm out of this Topic.
But I'm still shocked, hijiki, that you just walked into that one...
;)
Correction:
Should be:
That Is, Dennying people the choice of whom their beneficiary and heir is what is hurting people.
hehe... actually, the misunderstanding was yours. mine was a back-handed apology to follow up your sarcastic personal attack on me. maybe i should have hit harder to make that clear, but i was hoping to get an honest answer from you. and i never tried to get into religion. i merely asked if that was your argument because it was unclear.
by "hurting" people i was referring to gay couples' feelings of being unwelcome outsiders in the marriage world. i know people who are emmotionally hurt by the fact that so many people deny them equal rights because they are 'different'. i know you listed the reasons as being essentially personal beliefs, but i still have the question of why you are against other people having a different interpretation... seriously, just wonderin.
*there is no sarcasm or nasty intent in the above post.
Larry, some comments regarding your very interesting points:
For # 1: Hmmm, this one is a hard one for me to currently fully appreciate. As I've think I've painfully shown (unfortunately, to others) It's been a long time since I've worried what strangers think. Even among friends and Family, If I've come to a conclusion that I've worked out to myself I'll listen to others but likely will not be convinced.
That is to say, about an opinion as opposed to a fact, especially if that opinion doesn't hurt anyone. Opinions are often like favorite colors. Today, mine is blue. Can that be wrong?
Regarding # 2, this is a balance that Society has to deal with constantly. Me, while I recognize that Majority Rule is possibly the best compromise, I have a conceptual problem with it: A majority is often the Side with all the Fools on it. Believe me, I'm not thrilled at being lumped with the "Religious" Right on any Issue, even peripherally regarding the definition of marriage...
Which bring us to # 3... This is a tricky one to comment on. One Man's Religion is another Man's Superstitious myth.
Hmmm, IMO it's possible to be religious and Modern. Without getting deeply into it: Myself, I have no expectation from God. I don't expect God to Punish the Guilty or protect the innocent in this world. As far as I'm concerned, God gave us a Marvelous playground and listens to us when we want to talk. It's up to us to take responsibility for the world we live in.
I think this summed it up best: "Calvin, do you believe in God?" Calvin's reply is: "Well, someone is out to get me."
hijiki & others; I sorry if this offends anyone: I just don't see it as an rights issue or keeping people out of the "marriage world" (An interesting way of putting it). Maybe I'll be considered narrow minded, but to me, Marriage is between two people of different Gender. To Me this isn't comparable to Denying a man and a woman of different "Races", legal Marriage. To me, it really is labeling a Carnation, a beautiful flower, A Rose.
I'm not against anyone having a different Interpretation of anything, This is My interpretation and my belief.
And as for my sarcasm to you, It wasn't being personal, to me, but IMHO, You so walked into it...
;)
What is equal protection? A law cannot be applied differently to a citizen based on their gender.
If "Citizen A" wants to marry a woman, the law must apply equally to Citizen A, regardless of whether Citizen A is male or female.
If a "Citizen B" wants to marry a man, Citizen B can be male or female.
Currently, laws are saying that "Citizen A" is legal only if he is male, and "Citizen B" is only legal if she is female. This means that the laws change based on gender, which violates equal protection.
It just so happens that this equal protection violation caused a ban on gay marriage. This denial of rights based on gender is very much an obvious disregard of our rights from the Constitution, if I ever saw one.
But,"constitution's ghost", Your basing this on a couple of very Big Assumption: Marriage is defined as you like it, despite legal and societal precedent, and that it is a right.
As a very extreme example: Is it Sexual based discrimination when a Womans bathroom does NOT have any Urinals in a Woman's Bathroom?
(BTW: I am NOT comparing this issue to a Bathroom, just making an example of an discrimination as you've defined.)
"This means that the laws change based on gender, which violates equal protection."
But that's just it, the Law hasn't changed for as long as there has been marriage license's it was assumed that the Bride was a woman and the Groom a man. The basis of Common Law (which is what the judge has used) is precedent. As many examples as she's given in the Legal judgement, other lawyers will show that this is a re-definition of an existing Legal precedent, to wit: a Groom is a Man , a bride is a woman.
Is it discrimination to use legal accepted terms based on decades if not centuries of legal precedent? In the past 200 years, When a Wife applies for Palimony, it was legally assumed that a Wife is a woman. Is calling a Married Woman the Bride discriminating against her?
Think about it.
I meant "Alimony" not "Palimony"...
I guess hermaphrodites could only use the UNISEX room, right?
The restroom analogy isn't valid. Men and Women signs on restrooms are simply polite guidelines as to which has the urinals, not a legal mandate. A woman can legally use the men's room, and a man can legally use the women's room. I personally have crossed the gender chasm when confronted with a long line at a crowded bar. Thank god it's not against the law.
The "legal precedent" you mentioned attaches unique rights and definitions to a particular gender, which is not equal protection, no matter which way you hold it up to the light. The legal precedent was wrong, because assigning particular gender roles in a law isn't equal protection.
The precedent of "bride" meaning a woman means that the word may as well BE "woman," which means that the law applies to only a particular gender configuration. The law is nullified if the gender configuration is changed, which is not equal protection. Laws written for a particular gender is not equal protection! Why are you trying to deny that?
This is because the only difference between the two cases is one person's gender, and the law has no business determining what is right or wrong for a particular gender.
This is not particularly a marriage issue, this is an equal protection issue.
Also, there have been many occasions where long-lived precendents have been later determined to violate people's rights, and were corrected. Interracial marriage bans, segregation, women's denial of the right to vote, slavery, etc.
I've also said, at least twice:
and
So, other then trying to say what I think Marriage is, how am I trying to deny anyone anything? I'm not, Try this on: The Gov't mandates that we must drive on the right hand side of the road. Would you discriminate against Lefty's? So in that case, let's get the Gov't out of the "Marriage" world entirely. I think that may well be the most equitable solution. Not every one see's it that way. See Jag = Chevy... Absolutely. In all due respect, I just don't think re labeling something, just because you don't like it is right.
IMO, you're first analogy that you used (see "Citizen A") was in my opinion, invalid. Marriage is legally defined by precedent as being between a Bride and Groom. Would you define "Bride" and "Groom" as you see fit too?
As mentioned, It is against the law in many states for a Man to use a Ladies rest room.
As another extreme example: What about the Battered Wife Laws? Laws against Wife Abuse? They are on the books since at least the 50's. Do they get overturned by a judge too? (NOTE: I'm NOT calling for that!) In many states, the law gives preferential treatment to Divorced mothers over the custody of their child. In Many states a Man has to pay alimony despite his ex-wife earning more than he does.
Right or Wrong, The Law currently makes reference to a person's Gender in a lot more places than a Marriage license.
Look, you want to see this existing legal definition of "Marriage" as "discrimination", great. Good luck with that. As I've said I don't believe it is.
S.D., you asked,
Well since when is it okay to discriminate? It's not right to discriminate by gender, just like it's not right to discriminate by skin color.
While I agree that judges probably shouldn't be trying to hand down decisions that go against widely established precedents, I can at least recognize that things have to change.
By the way, the Federal government does a lot of things that aren't quite kosher with the Constitution. Look at federal funding of public schools. I'm not saying let's burn the Constitution because the Constitution certainly is an important part of American government, but I am saying that just pointing to the Constitution doesn't wholly justify your argument.
A law, any law, that is distinctly written for one particular gender is not equal protection, whether it's for good (battered wife laws) or bad (banning of same-sex marriage). A gay marriage ban is state-sanctioned unequal protection, no matter how much sugar you pour on it.
Why can't you just admit it? Repeat after me: "I support unequal protection."
constitution's ghost, you'd feel a lot better if everyone just agreed with your point of view, No? Admit It, you want me to say "Yes, A Carnation IS a Rose!" despite my explaining my point of view thoroughly.
Again, IMO, Repeat IMO, A Third time IMO, There is no gay marriage ban because there is no Marriage between people of the same gender. If you or any one else want to think I'm "Homophobic", then you're also calling at least three Gay couples whom feel the same way homophobic. You might want to be careful about that.
I'm speaking from discussion with personal friends. And No, they are NOT "hiding in the closet" and they do NOT hate themselves.
In any case, I think I've said my point enough times. Unless something news comes up, I'm done on this topic. Feel free to bait me with "Why can't you just admit it?" to your hearts content.
s.d., i know you think you burnt me, but you clearly did not... reread the posts if you don't believe me. then drop it because we're not really interested in childish arguments... i want to understand why people think this way about gay marriage.
instead of hiding behind analogies that don't even come close to fitting the subject why don't you finally explain why you think you should disallow people from getting married? i know, i know you said it's your logic, your religion, semantics, etc etc. but unlike previous debates where you clearly backed up your opinion with facts and reasoning, you still haven't shown any reason to deny gays to marry. you haven't explained how you (or anyone else) would be effected. i've seen logical arguments in support of gay marraige but i'm still waiting to hear ANYTHING from the opposition beyond "i believe...". why do people feel justified imposing their values on others. i just don't get it.
The thing about marriage is that it grants couples a LOT of legal benefits -- about 1,400 state and federal legal benefits, according to a 1996 Congressional report. Same-sex couples are routinely hurt by not having access to those benefits. A straight couple who just met, got drunk, and got married in Vegas automatically has those rights, while a same-sex couple that has been together for 40 years doesn't. You can paper your way around some things by doing wills, powers of attorney, health care proxies, etc., but not all of them. And you can only do those legal documents if you can spare several thousand dollars for an attorney, so same-sex couples who are economically advantaged are out in the cold. Treating committed couples as legal strangers simply isn't fair.
Hijiki, In all due respect, I've explained myself to my satisfaction. No Sarcasm, If my analogies are unacceptable to anyone, I'm sorry to hear it. I'm not "hiding behind analogies", I used what I feel is appropriate and you claiming they aren't doesn't automatically make them inappropriate.
What constitutes marriage, IMO, is an opinion and as such, as I've said before, isn't a clear cut case of right or wrong. If your favorite color is Blue, Is that right or wrong? This is NOT something that Reasoning, as you define it, will overcome. I don't call a Chevy a Jaguar either and Yes, that is an appropriate analogy. People are calling a Union between two people of the same Marriage which, as I've said Ad nauseam, IMO and others, is not.
As for "imposing their values", how is my or other's desire of Keeping the existing legal definition of marriage "imposing" values? As I've said, If you want the rest of world to call A Carnation, a beautiful flower, a Rose, Who's "imposing" on Whom? Because I refuse to change my belief to suit others, I'm "imposing" on them? Because I think A Carnation is Not a Rose?
Turn it around: You and others want to change the existing legal definition of an a institution to fit what you think it should be. According to the Hon. Doris Ling-Cohan, I legally married my "Spouse" not my Wife. I'm legally not a Husband, but a "Spouse". This change will affect all of NY Society and frankly,IMO, you want to Impose Your Will on me not vice versa.
Think about that.
IMO, it would be more accurate to say You don't want to accept any other argument contrary to your own as Logical. You don't "get it" so therefore the other side is wrong and illogical.Something else to you might want to think about.
having opposing opinions is great and i'd be the first to accept any reasoning that gay marriage would adversely effect others but i simply haven't heard it. i've heard plenty of evidence that gays are negatively effected by this issue, but not vice versa. frankly, you haven't explained your logic and i'm still hoping to hear it. i have a very open mind on this issue.
if we must sidetrack the conversation into the realm of abstraction... if my favorite color were blue, then i would enjoy my blueness whenever possible, but i wouldn't demand others to accept my shade of blue as the national favorite color. laws aren't based on opinion but universal morality, fairness and equality. is it accurate to say that your objection lies in the definition of the term "marriage"? if so, do you acknowledge that definitions of words constantly change and evolve over time? often becoming their antonym over just a couple centuries. like the definition of the phrase 'all men are created equal' has evolved over time. courts exist to provide these modern interpretations of the law and that's precisely what the judge did. if you don't like gay marriage, then it's fine that you don't marry a gay person, but why deny them the same opportunity to make that decision? the difference, s.d., is that i am not imposing my opinion on others... if you think this is untrue, then please explain who i am imposing on and what that imposition is? does allowing gay marriage effect straight marriage? is there a negative impact on society? again, if there's a reason, then i'm totally ready to hear it.
"i've seen logical arguments in support of gay marriage but i'm still waiting to hear ANYTHING from the opposition beyond "i believe...". why do people feel justified imposing their values on others. i just don't get it."
As S.D. has aptly demonstrated, there is no logical argument against gay marriage that does not include a homophobic premise. That premise can vary from "I do not want my tax money and my government supporting/promoting/endorsing gay relationships" to "I foam at the mouth thinking about homo sex".
No one wants to admit to being a bigot, which is why S.D. has spent hours spinning his argument into the the bizarre rant of misguided comparisons we've all spent too much time reading. To paraphrase his (horrifyingly popular) argument: "I believe marriage is(should) only be between a man and a woman, therefore the government should ignore our laws and constitution and discriminate against gay couples because homo sex makes me uncomfortable."
It's hard to tell, but I think he referenced another horrifyingly popular argument that marriage is essentially (always has been/always will be) a very specific relationship, and gay people and "activist judges" (bullshit rightist PR spin on people who are doing their jobs and providing a legal check against the legislative branch) cannot change marriage because it is this thing that it has always been. This argument sounds good to people who are ignorant of history, or really want to have some argument that sounds better than "I am uncomfortable thinking about homo sex."
Marriage has constantly evolved, and even to this day means different things in different cultures. S.D. has already dismissed the miscegenation comparison that is obviously directly relevant. A generation or so before that marriage was an economic relationship that joined family businesses or strengthened political relationships. A dowry was payment to the groom's family to make the bride more attractive. These relationships were all arranged and the modern idea of a romantic relationship would have been laughable.
If you go back further in history, you'd see women shamelessly sold as property through the "institution" of marriage. So what is "traditional" marriage. The marriage of my parent's generation? My grandparent's generation? You'll never hear an answer to that question, because the entire weak argument would fall apart when you acknowledge that marriage is an evolving relationship. Then S.D. is left with "I am uncomfortable with homo sex" and would have to own up to being a bigot.