New York State legalizes same-sex marriage

[Scooter]

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.

Full faith and credit clause only applies to court rulings, not contracts. How were states able to avoid recognition of interracial marriages performed in other states, when they were banned within those states, without a "Defence against Interracial Marriages Act"? Answer - it wasn't necessary because full faith and credit did not obligate states to recognize those marriages.

Besides which, as you well know, that is not all DOMA purports to do. It also imposes a definition of marriage for federal gov't purposes that declares an entire class of marriages performed in certain states to be invalid in the eyes of the federal gov't (costing itself billions of dollars in the process, but that's another matter).

[loCAtek]

Some good news for a change!

[Andrew D]

Even assuming the correctness of your latest posting, dgs49 -- and I am not accepting its correctness; I am just assuming its correctness for the sake of discussion -- it does not answer why the (federal) statute should be called the "Defense of Marriage Act". As you posted:

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."

Saying that State A needs to be defended does not explain how heterosexual marriage needs to be defended. "State A" and "heterosexual marriage" are not synonymous.

If the concern is to protect State A from having to recognize a homosexual marriage solemnized in State B, why didn't the authors and proponents of the (federal) statute just say so? Surely it would have been simple enough to call the statute the "Defense of States' Rights About Marriage Act". (Or something catchier but to the same effect.)

So why didn't they? Why did (and do) they call it the "Defense of Marriage Act"?

Okay, assume -- and I emphasize "assume" -- that State A needs to be protected from State B's choice to recognize homosexual marriage. (It has some impact on State A's social welfare programs or whatever.) And forget about the federal-law consequences that have nothing to do with States' rights.

Even so, how is any heterosexual marriage threatened by the recognition of homosexual marriage? It is called the "Defense of Marriage Act," not the "Defense of States' Rights Act".

Whose heterosexual marriage is threatened -- needs to be defended -- by the recognition of homosexual marriage? What is the nature of that supposed threat to any heterosexual marriage? How does a prohibition of homosexual marriage accomplish the supposed defense against that supposed threat?

Those are the questions posed by the name "Defense of Marriage Act". And I think that most of us know the answers.

[Long Run]

I think the misleading nature of the name is that "marriage" needs defending. If they had called the law "The Defense of a State to Define Marriage the Way they Want to", that would be more appropriate, but hardly as marketable, and legislators like making their legislation attractive.

Why did they call healthcare reform, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"? While there are patient protections there are few if any affordable care provisions in the law, which are swamped by several very costly provisions that make healthcare more expensive for most people. Misleading or outright incorrect? Probably, but that is marketing.

[dgs49]

It is the institution of MARRIAGE (as defined by each State, respectively) which is being defended.

No individual marriages are under attack, except in the philosophical sense that the institution has lost a bit of its integrity when same-sex couples are allowed to go in through the back door (play on words entirely intentional). It might be analogous to the sense that an Academy Award winner might get from a Michael Moore movie winning an Oscar for best picture. It doesn't hurt him, but what he has is devalued.

[Andrew D]

Doesn't allowing parents to keep children on their insurance policies through age 25 (or 26 or whatever) make health care more affordable for those young adults? Doesn't providing health insurance to 30 million people who didn't have it before make health care more affordable -- i.e., affordable at all -- for those 30 million people?

Whose health care has been made more expensive?

[Long Run]

Whose health care has been made more expensive?

Yours, mine and everyone else's. Talk to any employer about whether their costs are less or more; every consultant I've heard explain the rise in premiums to employers has attributed a significant portion to PPACA, along with cost-shifting by Medicare/Medicaid (government pays less so everyone else pays more). While some people can be covered now under plans that were not available before, their coverage is not free -- it comes at a cost. Whether that cost is taken on by the individual or the "system", there is an added cost. For many people they are in fact paying that cost: the healthy young person now pays for insurance where they didn't have to before; workers pay for their employer's increased premiums by having their contribution increase or taking less take-home pay; individual insurance market customers are paying huge increases this year; and so on. The few that now have coverage at less cost are being paid for by the many who already had coverage and are now paying more as a result of PPACA.

One legitimate criticism of PPACA is that it did nothing to reduce the rising cost of healthcare. Instead, it has increased the cost of coverage by eliminating annual and lifetime caps, removing pre-existing conditions, etc. There are good arguments for doing these things, but they have not made healthcare more affordable, unless you are one of the few who directly benefit from those provisions; rather, the cost has gone up a lot for the vast majority.

Not to make this a PPACA topic, rather than one about the inevitable fall of DOMA, but it highlights that politicians are marketing savvy in how they pitch name their legislation, no matter what the topic. There should be an acronym for that practice.

[Andrew D]

Thanks, Long Run. I'll have to think about most of what you said before I can respond intelligently to it. (And today is not a convenient day for that. I'm waiting for the pool guy to show up, because the damn pump is on the fritz; and the sound-system installation people are supposed to show up today, which will probably mean moving a lot of furniture around, which I can't do, and our housemate was going to be here, but he had to go to Oregon for family stuff; and ....)

Meanwhile, however, one thing that struck me immediately was this:

government pays less so everyone else pays more

Who are everyone else? When government pays, we pay. That's what "government pays" means: We who fund the government pay.

So I lost you there.

[Guinevere]

It is the institution of MARRIAGE (as defined by each State, respectively) which is being defended.

No individual marriages are under attack, except in the philosophical sense that the institution has lost a bit of its integrity when same-sex couples are allowed to go in through the back door (play on words entirely intentional). It might be analogous to the sense that an Academy Award winner might get from a Michael Moore movie winning an Oscar for best picture. It doesn't hurt him, but what he has is devalued.

Again, how does same-sex marriage "devalue" heterosexual marriage?

And Scoot, the FFACC also applies to public acts and records -- so a marriage certificate valid in Massachusetts should be valid in, say, Utah, by virtue of the FFACC.

[Grim Reaper]

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).

The fact that you threw in (or whatever) shows that you are an extremely hateful individual. That you would stoop to such an obvious ploy shows that you have no real argument against allowing gay marriage and only oppose it because of your religious views.

[Crackpot]

No he uses his religious views to justify being a hateful individual. A trait that is unfortunately all too common.

[Long Run]

Meanwhile, however, one thing that struck me immediately was this:

government pays less so everyone else pays more

Who are everyone else? When government pays, we pay. That's what "government pays" means: We who fund the government pay.

So I lost you there.

That is my general point about PPACA not making healthcare more affordable. It has done nothing to make the system less costly (quite the opposite). But when we break down who pays how much more (find the "winners and losers" of PPACA), when the government pays providers less for the health plans it runs, the providers shift their costs to other payers, which by and large are employers and the employed workers. I guess employers and employed workers may at some point see less of an increase in their taxes that go to pay for those government plans, but in the short run, they are paying the same taxes and higher medical premiums.

[dgs49]

Grim Reaper, maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but please explain what it is about the quoted paragraph that is "hateful."

Against whom is my hate directed?

Is what I have said factually incorrect?

Do tell.

And BTW, I have indicated that I respect the rights of States to recognize alternative "marriages," in spite of the fact that I (and the vast majority of Americans) find the conduct of those availing themselves to be morally reprehensible.

Or is it just "hateful" in your eyes when someone has a different view of morality than yours?

Which would make you a narrow-minded bigot, FWIW.

[Grim Reaper]

Grim Reaper, maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but please explain what it is about the quoted paragraph that is "hateful."

The whole thing actually. But the part I replied to specifically was beyond the pale. It represented the most pure example of your complete disregard for your fellow man.

Against whom is my hate directed?

Apparently two people of the same gender wanting to marry each other matters way too much to you.

Is what I have said factually incorrect?

What you said, the (or whatever) portion was extremely childish, shameful, and outright moronic. It contained no rational thought and was comprised of pure spitefulness at the idea that two people could be married, without regards to their sexual orientation or gender.

Or is it just "hateful" in your eyes when someone has a different view of morality than yours?

No morality was present in your post. Just pure unthinking hatred. You're just trying to dress it up with pretty words and concerns about the "straight folk" being somehow magically harmed by gay people getting married.

And BTW, I have indicated that I respect the rights of States to recognize alternative "marriages," in spite of the fact that I (and the vast majority of Americans) find the conduct of those availing themselves to be morally reprehensible.

Here's another flat out lie from you. 53% of Americans support gay marriage. So take your bigotry and stuff it down a deep dark hole.

Which would make you a narrow-minded bigot, FWIW.

Those words don't mean what you think they mean. I'm not the one making up potential scenarios. I'm not the one spreading fear and misinformation. I'm not the one concerned about a 2000 year old piece of fiction that's not even the complete book.

And it's funny how Christians are so quick to stomp on gays while at the same time admitting that the bible may have been wrong about allowing slavery. The double standards required to hold your position are astounding.

[Grim Reaper]

And here's an article by David Frum, who used to adamantly fight against same-sex marriage.

And here's a quote from him about what helped change his mind:

Whatever is driving this negative trend, it seems more than implausible to connect it to same-sex marriage. How would it even work that a 15-year-old girl in Van Nuys, California, becomes more likely to have a baby because two men in Des Moines, Iowa, can marry?

It just drives home the point that opposing same-sex marriage has no rational argument, and is composed purely of the irrational.

[dgs49]

Grim Reaper, I don't know whether you are stupid or just pointedly obtuse, but let's review a few things:

I have indicated numerous times in this forum that I have no problem whatsoever with a gay couple entering into a lifetime, monogamous relationship, or with the states facilitating that relationship.

What is hateful about that?

My issue is with trying to make a homosexual arrangement and a NORMAL heterosexual marriage into the SAME THING, which it decidedly is not. One is based on the sanctity of the nuclear family, one the other is, frankly, two people who want to formalize their friendship - with "benefits." Although there are many similarities, they are not the same thing, and repeating the same old falsehoods a million times won't change that.

You quoted a paragraph in which I said that Democrats want Barry to be re-elected, so that he can change the balance on the Supreme Court. Is that not true?

In every state where gay marriage has been put on the ballot for the voters themselves to decide, IT HAS LOST. Some legislatures have acted, and some courts - most notably Massachusetts - but there is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of Americans do not favor gay "marriages."

Also, the vast, vast majority of Americans agree with me that the SEXUAL PRACTICES that are commonly associated with gay relationships are morally repugnant. This is not to say that gay people are EVIL, just that they are doing things that are sinful. Just like everyone else. But the rest of us are not marching in parades, proclaiming that our sinful behavior is virtuous.

Where is the "hate"?

[Liberty1]

What is hateful about that?

I believe it is quite hateful to destroy eons of cultural evolution which defines marraige as being between a man and a woman in virtually every culture in the world. People today believe they are somehow "enlightened" and thousands of generations that came before them were just stupid.

Now that's what I call arrogant and hateful.

[Grim Reaper]

Grim Reaper, I don't know whether you are stupid or just pointedly obtuse, but let's review a few things:

Yes, let's. Let's see what new misdirection and lies you come up with now.

I have indicated numerous times in this forum that I have no problem whatsoever with a gay couple entering into a lifetime, monogamous relationship, or with the states facilitating that relationship.

What is hateful about that?

That you would deny them the label of marriage. That is pure unthinking hatred.

My issue is with trying to make a homosexual arrangement and a NORMAL heterosexual marriage into the SAME THING, which it decidedly is not. One is based on the sanctity of the nuclear family, one the other is, frankly, two people who want to formalize their friendship - with "benefits." Although there are many similarities, they are not the same thing, and repeating the same old falsehoods a million times won't change that.

Yet you would deny them the same rights as other people just because of the genders involved. It's pure, unthinking, irrational, and small-minded, hatred.

And I want to hear how two people of the same gender marrying is any different from two people of different genders marrying, where one is sterile, or where they just never choose to have a child. Having a child, or being able to have a child, is not a prerequisite to being married. So bringing up the "nuclear family" is just more smokescreen to try and pretend you have a point.

You quoted a paragraph in which I said that Democrats want Barry to be re-elected, so that he can change the balance on the Supreme Court. Is that not true?

I specified which portion of that quote I was referring to. The "or whatever" portion since you have to bring up the absolutely asinine slippery slope that same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality.

In every state where gay marriage has been put on the ballot for the voters themselves to decide, IT HAS LOST. Some legislatures have acted, and some courts - most notably Massachusetts - but there is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of Americans do not favor gay "marriages."

And? That's not the same thing and you know it. That just means some states have majority against same-sex marriage. And it doesn't even really mean that. It means the people who are against same-sex marriage are more vocal and better organized. That doesn't mean the whole country is behind your misguided point of view.

Also, the vast, vast majority of Americans agree with me that the SEXUAL PRACTICES that are commonly associated with gay relationships are morally repugnant. This is not to say that gay people are EVIL, just that they are doing things that are sinful. Just like everyone else. But the rest of us are not marching in parades, proclaiming that our sinful behavior is virtuous.

Yet the majority support same-sex marriage. Somehow they can manage to do that and be opposed to the sexual practices involved? I don't think so.

Oh, and St Paddy's Day disagrees with you. And Oktoberfest. And any other myriad holidays based off of so-called "sinful" behavior.

Where is the "hate"?

Throughout your entire being. You despise your fellow man so much that you would deny them rights based off of an incomplete translation of a fragmented chunk of a several thousand year old book.

Marriage should not be defined by outdated religious views.

After all, this is the "sanctity" that you're trying to protect:

[Grim Reaper]

I believe it is quite hateful to destroy eons of cultural evolution which defines marraige as being between a man and a woman in virtually every culture in the world. People today believe they are somehow "enlightened" and thousands of generations that came before them were just stupid.

Now that's what I call arrogant and hateful.

What's arrogant and hateful is saying that the old way should never change, especially if it's being used as a tool against other people.

And the difference between "enlightened" and "unenlightened" doesn't mean that those unenlightened were stupid, just that they didn't know any better.

[Guinevere]

What is hateful about that?

I believe it is quite hateful to destroy eons of cultural evolution which defines marraige as being between a man and a woman in virtually every culture in the world. People today believe they are somehow "enlightened" and thousands of generations that came before them were just stupid.

Now that's what I call arrogant and hateful.

I don't see any where that expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples somehow rejects the concept that different sex couples can be married.

Culture evolves, Lib. We don't speak the same language we spoke 300 years ago. We don't dress the same way as we did 300 years ago. We don't hold slaves. That doesn't mean what happened before was stupid -- and if you think that's the point here, you're completely missing it.