New York to back same-sex unions from elsewhere

I really do not know what to think. I am against the Government interfering with religion. I am also strongly in favor of people living their own lives they way they want to. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So I guess this is why I find this story interesting and wish to discuss this current event.

Marriage is not about religion, its about mutual rights and responsibilities. The govt should but out of telling people who they can and cannot marry.

I am against discrimination, in every one of its devious caricatures, and yet I do believe there is an economic aspect to this ruling that has yet to be fully realized. In particular, I am thinking about the still prevalent gender-based income disparities in this country, and the very real possibility that the rise in male/male unions will concentrate even more wealth (and subsequently power) in this sector of the population. There is a notable concentration of wealth in the gay male population, certainly not something marketing incentives have overlooked.

Notwithstanding the possibility that this concentration of power and wealth could be a good thing for this country, as a nation, we still refuse to adopt an equal rights amendment that includes equal pay for equal work, and gender based income disparities are alive and well in this country, so there is some additional irony inherent in both the California and New York decision. We cannot pretend that there is not an economic aspect to marriage. The economic aspect has been a great incentive for passing these initiatives, but quite frankly, it is disturbing to see progress in this arena when we see so many barriers that continue to exist for women, and equal pay for equal work is NOT a reality in this country.

Understandably, same sex marriage includes female couples, but a cursory examination of incomes in this nation will clearly demonstrate that the gender based concentration of power and wealth that will result from recognizing same sex marriage is not going to be in the camp of women. Gender-based discrimination continues to be an area that we tolerate, as a nation, often assuring ourselves that globally, we are much more advanced than many nations, so it remains an easily overlooked basis for discrimination.

I am NOT arguing that, therefore, same sex marriage should not be recognized, but rather pointing out the very real economic consequences and resulting distribution of power in a nation that still accepts gender based inequalities in what women are paid to do the same work men do.

aharvah--can you read...and actually comprehend WHAT you read? This is why I put in capital letters that I am NOT arguing against gay marriage, so that people like you who do not pay attention to what they are actually reading will not make the ridiculous comment you just made. Try reading my post again, and maybe this time pay attention to EVERYTHING I actually said, not what you think I am saying.

why would you even argue that here? you don't make sense lady

there is a monumental difference between arguing a point and making an observation...and I think the observation is relevant...unfortunately, that relevance is apparently lost on you. You are also making a HUGE assumption about my gender...apparently in your mind one has to be female to make the observation I made.

LOL

Gender inequality is one of the primary reasons for discrimination.

It is often thought that women were the first to be discriminated against, other argue that concentration of wealth led to discrimination and other argue still that race was the basis of all discrimination.

I would tend to agree that discrimination against women came first; sometime during our transition from hunter/gatherers to farmers and animal husbandry.

Women came long before money or race.

aharvath--try to consider for a moment the very real fact that neither the California nor New York measure would have passed without considerable support from the non-gay community. That says something about the ability of humans to move outside of their own immediate interests to consider the interests of others--others whose interests may be very different from their own...and that is only one of the reasons why the persistence of inequities between male and female earning power belongs in this discussion. John Donne, I believe, said it better than I can:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...

we can easily substitute any number of words for man and death...any discrimination diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...

Gays have the right to screw up there lives just like the rest of us. I want to see how the divorce rate among gays matches up against that of the so called straight population. That will be an interesting study of humanity.

The issue I have with same-sex marriage is as follows: What right does the Government have changing the definition of something like marriage? Religions may and disagree argue over everything there is to argue and disagree about. One thing that all religions agree on is that marriage is between a man and a women or husband and wife. Does the United States Government have the right to change this definition? I completely understand that two people want to live their lives together and even perhaps, live as a family. There is a clear economic advantage to marriage. I ask, can all of these economic advantages be afforded to same-sex couples in a legal domestic partnership? I think the advantage of same-sex couples being in a "domestic partnership" instead of a marriage is twofold. First, this would avoid the backlash Constitutional Amendment defining as a union between one man and one woman. Second, this would allow same-sex couples to have all of the benefits married couples have.

MJSmith, I understand your concern, but it's important to realize that the government is not changing the religious definition of marriage. If marriage was just a religious thing, then yes, the government would have no place to make any rules regarding it. But it's inaccurate to claim that marriage is only defined in a religious sense. There are thousands of people who get married every year outside of any church or religion; they are married by a justice of the peace or some other non-denominational officiate. Also, it is not just churches who recognize marriages as a bonding union, local, state, and national governments do as well. In fact, some marriages that are recognized by one church/religion are NOT recognized by another (for example, if a non-Jewish woman married a Jewish man in a reform synagogue, some conservative synagogues would not recognize their marriage under their interpretation of Judaic law.)

So while I agree with you that the government has no business telling religions what to do (within reason... no human sacrifices, obviously!), that is not what is happening.

It is time that we realize that marriage in America is more diverse than any one religion may dictate.

Finally, your suggestion for domestic partnerships is one I've heard many times before, and I'll tell you why I don't support it. First, they are not equal. Most domestic partnerships do not afford the same rights as marriages do. It's important to note there that we are talking beyond economic advantages alone. Under many domestic partnership laws if a member of the couple falls seriously ill, the partner does not have the same visitation rights as a spouse, nor do they have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner should that partner become incapacitated, which spouses would be allowed to do. There are countless other rights that domestic partnerships do not grant, such as adoption eligibility, wills/inheritance, and I won’t even get into the personal/sentimental advantages that they are being denied (simple things like having an actual wedding, being able to call your partner “wife” or “husband,” etc.) Finally, even if all domestic partnerships were overhauled and made to grant exactly the same rights as marriages, we learned over 40 years ago that “separate but equal” doesn’t fly in America. If it is equal, then why separate them by different names unless the intent is to insinuate that one is less than the other?

I have no problem with a church who decides not to recognize certain marriages. Freedom of religion is one of the things I love about America. But this debate is NOT ABOUT RELIGION.

Wow, I didn't realize there was so much to letting people be happy! I am still a kid so my heart speaks for me most of the time (I hope it stays that way until I'm on my deathbed, of course). I'm sure no one is expecting gays' divorce rates to remain at zero because they will appreciate the right to marriage so much. I'm not saying they won't appreciate it much more than the next couple who never had to fight for it, but that you just can't control love. Therefore, I really hope their divorce rates aren't judged by us at all because it really has no relevance to the fact that they should have just as equal a shot at marriage as the rest of us.

Good

Once again, law above people, money above people.
When will we learn, when will we rise. We are greater then our own self-imposed ideas. What will it take to stand for what is right. People first. Law and the moneys that drive the law are secondary considerations. They only and actually exist to serve people. So which are truly real? Need I say people. This doesn’t mean that law and money are not important, to the contrary, the intentions are good, but we should not let tools that serve us limit our growth. If we allow primitive ideas or popular believe stands in the way of our progress, our faults are only ours to blame. Gay or not, our civil rights are being oppressed. If it matters to you, get out there and unite as one and change it. Don't take ‘no’ for an answer. It does not matter who you marry. The idea of even having to ask for permission to marry seems absurd to me. Who are you marrying, your life partner or the State? Where do we get the right to instill our own ideas and beliefs and then enforce them onto others? Should we give this power over us to the government? Nobody will be hurt by same sex marriages. Do not buy into the propaganda and bullshit. Adjust your attitude… say, “Kiss my ass, you are not my master”.

I am truly sorry at what this nation has come to. It is a shame to witness the self-destruction of our nation in this generation. The Christian values this nation was founded upon are being rejected by our nation's leaders, and "freedom" is now being used as a warrant for those doing wrong. All men are created equal, yet this constitutional right does not give men the right to do wrong and expect to be treated equally. I know and am related to homosexuals, yet I refuse to sacrifice my Biblical principles to compromise with what I know is wrong. I sincerely hope New York will realize the mistake it is making and foresee the results this legislation will produce.

I think that all governments, states, and local jurisdictions should get out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage should be in the hands of Religions. If people want to get married, go to your church, temple, or synagogue.

As for all the citizens of the United States who want to have all the benefits of what is known as marriage today in the US, they should all be treated as Civil Unions.

All people who are now married legally should be required to obtain a Civil Union certificate from the US government. Civil Unions should be expanded to include any two consenting adults; gay or straight or bi or transgendered.

REPLACE ALL MARRIAGES WITH CIVIL UNIONS AND MAKE THEN EQUAL ACCESS FOR ALL WITH ALL THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

THEN PEOPLE WHO WANT HOLY MATRIMONY SHOULD GO TO THEIR CHURCH, TEMPLE, OR SYNAGOGUE TO HAVE THEIR CIVIL UNION BLESSED BY THEIR RELIGION.

Kind of pointless, why not just make gay marriage legal [period].

Are same sex unions the same as same sex marriages?

Jubal, I thought you said marriage had nothing to do with religion?

First, New Yorker's should feel lucky that an open minded Governor was handed down to us from the Spitzer Administration. Paterson could have been anti gay marriage, which would have been disasterous. Secondly, New York seems to be approaching the issue in a slow but sure way - remember the turtle won the race.

mrpibb19,
Whose bible? The "Christian" values you speak of only apply to you and those that choose that way of life. Why is it necessary to inflict that arcane dogma on anyone that does not wish it. You don't see gays trying stop hetero marriages do you?

Oddly some Conservatives and Christians always seemed to be a little too concerned about what other people are doing but only some of the time. Where was this Christian value system during slavery, suffrage or this last run up to an unnecessary war?

This is a country of laws not values. The law guarantees the right to follow the values that suit you best but not to force others into whatever outdated ritualistic belief system you happen to adhere to. Live and let live, isn't that some where in your bible?

I have no right to enforce my moral values on others. What I do have is the right to protect my posterity from the polluted society we live in. The Bible given to us by God is everyone's Bible who chooses life. I only use my freedom of speech (which people supporting your side of this issue use frequently and flippantly) to guarantee myself the right to witness to those who may not want to share in the Christian faith, but who still deserve a chance to see the truth.
Unfortunately, the Church is not perfect... I don't sit and play on my harp in some cloud in the sky. I make mistakes like every cursed human being on this earth... Slavery was never caused by Christianity, it was a problem brought about by all sinful men. And I do believe the men who brought down slavery (Abraham Lincoln in America and William Wilberforce in England) were Christians... Abraham Lincoln supplied suffrage to blacks by passing the 15th amendment. Oh, this war you speak of... and tell me if I'm wrong, (I won't be) was voted by both houses of Congress, including Hillary Clinton. And I'm very sure you weren't cheering on good ol' Saddam after 9/11 happened... Just because a war is longer than 6 years, doesn't make it a bad war. After all aren't we keeping the war on their soil? We haven't had an attack like 9/11 here in America again, have we? I support the servicemen fully who fight for our freedom, and I plan to become one of them someday.
This country was built on solid Christian values. Laws aid in keeping a country together, but what binds a country is the people who ensure the moral strength of their nation. My "belief system" is not "ritualistic" or "outdated." I believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who was, is, and will be. The "rituals" you see are what have kept this nation together for nearly 300 years, and I plan to do all I can to preserve our strong, historical Christian heritage.
Your "live and let live" quote... yea... I don't see that in my Bible (which I've read over and over). I'll let you know if I find it.

As a Christian, I judge off of one source, God's Word. I do not believe it is my duty to force my opinion on you or others. I value your opinion as a fellow American trying to aid his nation, yet I do believe it is my duty to do my best to preserve our great nation with the ways I know that work.

Good for New York! First, California, now NY. When will this parade of gay rights be making it's way to Illinois? ;)

I wish that New York would step up and allow homosexual marriage / civil union: bottom line, something where the government recognizes their relationship and gives the same legal benefits that straight couples have.

However, I am very pleased that they are recognizing its people as, well... people.