New York State legalizes same-sex marriage

[Scooter]

The Marriage Equality Act just passed the state senate by a vote of 33-29.

[BoSoxGal]

Bravo!

[Sean]

How many states have legalised same-sex marriage now Scoot?

Yeah I know... I could look it up but I'm too damn lazy and my net connection is running slow...

[Andrew D]

Excellent!

If you were in my head -- not that I would wish that on anyone -- you could hear Parry's I Was Glad. Really, really loud.

Excellent, excellent, excellent!

[Gob]

Gay weddings look a load of fun!!

[rubato]

Encouraging.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

And Governor Cuomo has already signed the bill into law. It takes effect in 30 days. Congrats to NY State for doing the right thing!

[Guinevere]

Sean: Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and DC. Maryland recognises same sex marriage but does not issue licenses.

A solid challenge to the so-called defense of marriage act, has to be coming soon.

[Andrew D]

A solid challenge to the so-called defense of marriage act, has to be coming soon.

"So-called Defense of Marriage Act." Exactly.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how anyone's heterosexual marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage. To produce even a single heterosexual married couple whose marriage has somehow been damaged by homosexual marriage. (No, damage caused by one's attitude toward homosexual marriage is not damage caused by homosexual marriage.)

I am heterosexual. I am married. I do not feel threatened in the slightest, and neither does my wife.

"Defense" from what?

[Jarlaxle]

Maryland recognises same sex marriage but does not issue licenses.

OK, how the hell does THAT work?

[Lord Jim]

OK, how the hell does THAT work?

I would guess Jarl that means that they legally recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states, but don't have a provision for them actually be performed in Maryland.

[Scooter]

Because it can be done through executive action. The Attorney General of Maryland issued a ruling that same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions would be recognized in Maryland. The rationale (I believe) was that since the state gives recognition to certain heterosexual marriages performed out of state which could not legally be performed in-state, that there was no reason why the same should not be true of same-sex marriages. There was a similar situation in New York State except that it came about through a court ruling.

[Joe Guy]

I am still waiting for someone to explain how anyone's heterosexual marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage.

It ain't natural, y'all.

Next thing they's gonna be doin' is havin' homosexual babies!!

It's that doggone agenda they's imposin' on us regular peoples that burns my hide!

Dancin' together. Sleepin' together. Being lovey dovey and all that with each other'n.

What's up with that?

[dgs49]

Andrew, the question I have for you is, what difference does THAT make?

If I torture and kill my dog, how does that harm anyone else? Does that mean it's OK to torture and kill my dog?

In my view (not exactly the Conservative line), I have no problem with any state recognizing alternative forms of interpersonal commitments. If they want to call it a "marriage," it is stupid, but stupidity is perfectly fine and constitutional.

What should be done next is to remove the power of clergy to perform state "marriages." Taking this step will make it perfectly clear (if you'll pardon my Nixonism) that what the State calls marriage and what the "Church" calls marriage are two different things, and they don't necessarily have to track exactly. Couples would then have to decide which institution(s) they want to enter into, and consider them independently and appropriately.

This is consistent with my view that if it makes sense to get a civil divorce for tax benefits, there is no reason not to do so. I would still be married in the eyes of the Church, which is as I want it.

[Scooter]

If I torture and kill my dog, how does that harm anyone else?

Aside from the dog, you mean?

[Scooter]

In my view (not exactly the Conservative line), I have no problem with any state recognizing alternative forms of interpersonal commitments.

Actually it is a very conservative position to take. Anything that contributes to the stability of family units and reduces the burden on the public purse should be welcomed by those calling themselves conservatives.

I'm not sure why most people who call themselves conservative choose to disagree, but that's on them.

What should be done next is to remove the power of clergy to perform state "marriages." Taking this step will make it perfectly clear (if you'll pardon my Nixonism) that what the State calls marriage and what the "Church" calls marriage are two different things, and they don't necessarily have to track exactly. Couples would then have to decide which institution(s) they want to enter into, and consider them independently and appropriately.

Dave, you and I think alike on more issues than either of us would be willing to admit.

[BoSoxGal]

How marriage is defined by the variouses churches and by law are already divergent, dgs. Case in point is no- fault divorce v. the unwillingness of some churches to recognize or forgive divorce. I am perfectly happy with government applying marriage equally to all persons & letting the religious implications be an entirely separate thing; that is as it should be.

[Gob]

I was looking to see if there was anything online about my two friend's marriage, I couldn't find anything. Though I did find plenty of stuff about one of the couple, he's a famous (in gay circles) author.

I found the fact that he now refers to his partner as his husband, very moving, and very touching.

It reaffirmed my support for loving couples to be allowed to marry, even if they both have willies or vagainas.

[Andrew D]

My comment, dgs49, is directed to the fundamental dishonesty of the name of the statute, not to its substance (with which I also disagree). By calling the statute (the federal one) the "Defense of Marriage Act," its authors and proponents are asserting that heterosexual marriages need "defending" from something. What is it that heterosexual marriages need to be defended from, and how does prohibiting homosexual marriage accomplish that defense?

[dgs49]

State 'A' needs to be "defended" from State B redefining "Marriage" within the bounds of State A, by virtue of the "full faith & credit clause." Gay couple gets married in New York, moves to South Carolina, demanding all the rights and privileges of a married couple in South Carolina. Two South Carolinian lesbians vacation to New York, get "married," come back home; demand to be considered married by the South Carolina courts, based on the FF&C clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Thus the DOMA, to the extent it affords this protection, remains valid and appropriate law. If and when the people of SC decide they want to have gay marriages, they can do so; until then, hands off.

Of course, as you also know, the Pinko's are keen to get Barry elected for another term in the expectation that he would be able to pack the court with people with no regard for the constitution, so that they can find a "right to marry whoever (or whatever) you want" within the odious "Right of Privacy," and take this choice away from the State Legislatures and the People (refer to the Tenth Amendment for clarification).