New York State legalizes same-sex marriage

[dgs49]

Hate to bring up the same old points, but "spousal benefits" arose historically because of the traditional roles of man and wife: Man earns the money, wife nurtures the kids and keeps up the household. Because the wife held, in effect, a full-time, non-compensated position in the home, she was not readily able to purchase health benefits or to get them from her employer. This does NOT apply to gay couples, who biologically cannot reproduce. If one does not work outside the home, it is entirely a matter of choice.

NObody is talking about "prohibiting" gays from getting married. They never have been able to get married, and are now demanding something that is unprecedented.

And anyone who does not perceive that anal intercourse between two males is "abnormal" must have been asleep in biology class. Or is simply an idiot.

Isn't it amazing that with gays & lesbians constituting about 2-2.5% of the population, and only a small fraction of them having any interest in entering into long-term monogamous relationships, the whole fucking country is in an uproar about this issue.

Honestly, WGAS?

[Grim Reaper]

Hate to bring up the same old points, but "spousal benefits" arose historically because of the traditional roles of man and wife: Man earns the money, wife nurtures the kids and keeps up the household. Because the wife held, in effect, a full-time, non-compensated position in the home, she was not readily able to purchase health benefits or to get them from her employer. This does NOT apply to gay couples, who biologically cannot reproduce. If one does not work outside the home, it is entirely a matter of choice.

Except that's no longer the case, but is still being used today. People still get these benefits even if they never have children.

Oh, and let's use some more examples:

Couple A: Male is sterile, female is fertile. They use a donor program to have a child.

Couple B: Two females in a same-sex relationship. They use a donor program to have a child.

Why should one couple be treated differently despite the child being born the exact same way in both cases? Oh right, because you're a hateful homophobic bigot who despises people who are different from him.

NObody is talking about "prohibiting" gays from getting married. They never have been able to get married, and are now demanding something that is unprecedented.

More doublespeak. If you don't allow someone to do something, that means that you are prohibiting them from doing something. The fact that same-sex marriage was never allowed in the US means that it was prohibited all that time.

Your same logic would have kept black people in chains and women unable to vote.

And anyone who does not perceive that anal intercourse between two males is "abnormal" must have been asleep in biology class. Or is simply an idiot.

Or is more of an adult than you and realizes that anal intercourse between two men is not really abnormal just because some people are small minded cowards.

Isn't it amazing that with gays & lesbians constituting about 2-2.5% of the population, and only a small fraction of them having any interest in entering into long-term monogamous relationships, the whole fucking country is in an uproar about this issue.

Remember, if you belong to a very small percentage, that means you shouldn't expect to have any rights. One of the main functions of a government is to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

Honestly, WGAS?

You, apparently, give quite a shit about this issue.

[Andrew D]

Shhh!

Don't pester him.

He's busy jerking off to all-female porn.

[Guinevere]

Dave is almost as obsessed with anal sex as Edi was . . .

[Scooter]

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.

Interesting. Several analyses I have read say that states have always had the right to refuse recognition of out-of-state marriages on public policy grounds, for example:

Regarding the precise point at issue here, marriages entered into in one state have never been considered constitutionally entitled to automatic recognition in other states. This is in part because marriages are not like judicial judgments, which are announced only after lengthy formal court proceedings in which both sides are represented by counsel. It is also because of the special importance in American law of family relationships, which (as noted above) makes family law distinctive. Finally, it has always been too easy for people to avoid their home-state law by traveling to another state to take advantage of more lenient marriage laws.[10] For all of these reasons, states have always had greater freedom to re-examine the validity of marriages entered into elsewhere than they have to re-examine the merits of a judicial award in a tort or contract case. The state has a right to take into account its local “public policy.”

Among the types of marriages that have been denied recognition are:
• Marriages between cousins, or between uncles and nieces;[11]
• Polygamous marriages;[12] and
• Marriages by an individual who was very recently divorced.[13]



__________________________
[10] See, e.g., Lanham v. Lanham, 117 N.W. 787 (Wisc. 1908) (plaintiffs, who were prohibited from getting married in Wisconsin because law prohibited marriage within one year of divorce, were married in Michigan and returned to Wisconsin; Wisconsin held that marriage was not valid, since it violated Wisconsin’s public policy).
[11] See, e.g., Osoinach v. Watkins, 180 So. 577 (Ala. 1938) (marriage between nephew and widow of uncle in Georgia not recognized in Alabama); In re Estate of May, 114 N.E.2d 4 (N.Y. 1953) (marriage between uncle and niece in Rhode Island questioned in New York; marriage ultimately considered valid); Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726 (Conn. 1961) (marriage between uncle and niece in Italy questioned in Connecticut, where such marriages were prohibited; marriage considered invalid); Petition of Lieberman, 50 F. Supp. 120 (E.D.N.Y. 1943) (petition for naturalization approved where petitioner married her uncle in Rhode Island and returned to New York, where such marriages were not valid).
[12] See, e.g., Matter of Darwish, 14 I & N Dec. 307 (Board of Immigration Appeals 1973) (spouse of U.S. citizen’s petition for naturalization denied because she was second wife of her husband, which was valid under Jordanian-Muslim law, because such marriages were against public policy of the United States); Toler v. Oakwood Smokeless Coal Corp., 4 S.E.2d 364 (Va. 1939) (marriage performed and valid in West Virginia questioned in Virginia, where the marriage was considered bigamous; marriage declared void).
[13] See, e.g., Lanham v. Lanham, 117 N.W. 787 (Wisc. 1908) (plaintiffs, who were prohibited from getting
married in Wisconsin because law prohibited marriage within one year of divorce, were married in Michigan and returned to Wisconsin; Wisconsin held that marriage was not valid, since it violated Wisconsin’s public policy); Horton v. Horton, 198 P. 1105 (Ariz. 1921) (marriage celebrated in New Mexico within the one-year time period when remarriage was prohibited in Arizona questioned; validity of marriage questioned but marriage ultimately upheld).

If FFAC does indeed require the recognition of out-of-state marriages, why would FFAC have not merited even a mention in Loving v. Virginia, based on a law that not only voided interracial marriages but made it a criminal act to travel out-of-state to enter into one?

[Guinevere]

I said "should" not require -- but I'll read your research when I have some time. The 10th Circuit (in 2007, can't recall name of case) did invalidate an Oklahoma law refusing to recognize out of state adoptions by same-sex couples. Now that's a judgment, so it may be treated differently than a record or a license.

I do understand the Court based the Loving decision on Equal Protection, not the FFACC -- I'd love to know whether FFACC was even raised as an issue in the course of the litigation.

[Long Run]

The bottom line, though, is that reasonably knowledgeable people were concerned that the FFACC would require one state to recognize a same-sex marriage in another state. They were also concerned that the federal government would have to recognize such a marriage. They may well have been wrong one or both of those, but they saw it as an issue. Their answer was DOMA. The tide has turned a lot since then, and it would be nice if Congress saw fit to give us a DOMA-less world.

[Scooter]

If they were "reasonable knowledgeable people", they wouldn't have had any cause to be concerned about the recognition of same-sex marriage by either state or federal governments. They had such concerns because they were heterosexist bigots.

And if it was a legitimate concern, it would be nice to see the case law that says so.

[Liberty1]

Aren't all these anti-democratic opinions enlightening.

[Scooter]

They are anti-democratic as those who opposed slavery and lynching when the majorities in those states practicing them supported them.

Of course, it is no longer true that a majority opposes SSM.

[Andrew D]

Aren't all these anti-democratic opinions enlightening.

I certainly hope so.

Rights are essentially anti-democratic.

Pick a right. Any right.

Free speech? That's the right to say what you want to say, even if the majority would rather shut you up. That is anti-democratic.

Freedom of religion? That's the right to be a Sikh or a Baptist or a Hindu or a Mormon or whatever, even if the majority would rather prohibit you from doing whatever your religion says that you should do. That is anti-democratic.

Etc., etc., etc.

Rights are anti-democratic. And an elightened society recognizes them as anti-democratic and protects them precisely because they are anti-democratic.

Where is the problem?

[Liberty1]

They are anti-democratic as those who opposed slavery and lynching when the majorities in those states practicing them supported them.

SSM has lost every single time it has been put up to a vote, even in Cali.

Since when did marriage become so important to you leftests anyway. 40 years ago you called it an antiquated institution, said people should just live together. You even put anti-marriage institutions in place such as welfare and changed divorce laws so people can split up if they just feel like it. Now you're all for marriage, but only if you're gay.

[Scooter]

SSM has lost every single time it has been put up to a vote, even in Cali.

And if the abolition of slavery had been put up for a vote, it would have lost in every state where it was practiced. I take it that means you support slavery.

Heck, as late as 2004, the good people of Alabama had the opportunity to remove language mandating racial segregation from their state constitution, and they voted to keep it in. I guess in your opinion that makes racial segregation a good thing.

Since when did marriage become so important to you leftests anyway. 40 years ago you called it an antiquated institution

40 years ago I was 6 years old, I doubt very much that I was saying anything about marriage, or that you were old enough to care.

And marriage became important to me when I had a dead partner whose parents were trying to invalidate his will and every succession instrument that we had devised to ensure an orderly transfer of property when one of us died, when I faced the prospect of being penniless and without a roof over my head because the parents who threw him out into the street when he was 17 were now making a claim to the assets the two of us had spent a lifetime buiding together. So yes, the issue is very personal to me. What the fuck gives you the right to make your opinion count for shit?

[Liberty1]

40 years ago I was 6 years old, I doubt very much that I was saying anything about marriage, or that you were old enough to care.

So you're thinking those old leftest grew out of their dementia? there may be hope for you yet.

[Scooter]

If they were "old leftists" 40 years ago, then I am guessing they are dead now.

[Liberty1]

If they were "old leftists" 40 years ago, then I am guessing they are dead now.

It was primarilly out of the hipster movement, so no just 10 to 20 years older than me and I would guess you. I didn't call them old.


And I live in this society, my opinion actually counts, and yours my canuck friend, does not.

[Scooter]

I didn't call them old.

Didn't you just say:

those old leftest [sic]

Must be someone else posting under your handle again.

[Sue U]

Since when did marriage become so important to you leftests anyway. 40 years ago you called it an antiquated institution, said people should just live together. You even put anti-marriage institutions in place such as welfare and changed divorce laws so people can split up if they just feel like it. Now you're all for marriage, but only if you're gay.

That's right, welfare was a plot designed to destroy marriage hatched by that noted radical commie free-loving leftist Lyndon Johnson.

And please identify any actual "leftist" political campaign to abolish marriage. And changed divorce laws? You mean like the ones used by right-wing messiah Ronald Reagan?

You funny.

In the head.

ETA:

Funny thing: lowest divorce rate in the nation belongs to .... Massachusetts, home of gay marriage. Clearly, allowing same-sex marriages in Massachusetts is threatenting hetero marriages, uh, somehwere else?

[Liberty1]

If they were "old leftists" 40 years ago, then I am guessing they are dead now.

So you assume someone old enough to have a leftest opinion in 71 is now dead. Don't be quite so literal by old I meant younger than me, I know plenty of folks who were 40 in 71' and are still alivve to this day.

That's right, welfare was a plot designed to destroy marriage hatched by that noted radical commie leftist Lyndon Johnson.

Well that was certainly a huge effect, look at the black community. It was probably just another unintended consequences of a leftest policy, not so unusual.

And please identify any actual "leftist" political campaign to abolish marriage.

No political campaign, just a cultural movement. Kinda like you guys and SSM.

And changed divorce laws? You mean like the ones used by right-wing messiah Ronald Reagan?

I think Reagan was divorced in 1949.

[Scooter]

Don't be quite so literal by old I meant younger than me

So when you said "old" you meant "young".

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is, I guess.