Statistics range anywhere from 4% to 11% of the population. I don't know of any conclusive research though, as self-reporting is awkward here.

If we assume your (worst-case) 4% figure, there are 19 million people in New York, so you're looking at about a million LBGT there. What's the average outlay on a wedding? Google claims something like $25k, and that doesn't include gifts, hotel rooms, liquor sales, flights in/out, etc. It adds up rapidly.

Now consider that you'll have other couples coming in from Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. ... $200MM seems easily reachable, especially if the actual number is closer to 11%.

Watch "Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition"

Yes, in a limited capacity. I was hired to help dissolve (by agreement) a lesbian household in Stillwater, OK. It basically never went anywhere though. In Oklahoma, were I hired on to one of these as a contested action, I'd treat it as a partnership and apply the same law to dissolving the "marriage" as I would to the dissolution of a for-profit partnership. On paper at least, it seems to be a viable theory.

That's the only non-religious reason I could cook up. Like you, I'm without much of an answer as to who is harmed here. But the religious folks seem willing to spend massive amounts of money on this fight.

LOL.

I think BluPhire knows that his logic works well in theory but not practice.

;) :D

And that is the point.

;) And in that case I have always really really really hated "devil's advocates" so say what you mean and mean what you say. :D

I don't know -- it really came across more to me as BluPhire rtotally missing the point I was trying to make, because his responses did miss the point. Which is why, as you say, say what you mean or at least give a heads up you're playing devil's advocate.

Meanwhile, the urge to quote Buffy was just too great. Sorry BluPhire. :D

To which I would respond with "the devil don't need no damn advocates!" :)

@ DrPhil, I understand your position on Devil's advocate, but earlier in this thread it started to get a little personal and contentious so I resolved not place my personal opinions and just to throw things out there for thought.

@ MysticCat, my responses didn't miss the point, you missed one key statement in my initial argument, which was , "One could argue..." in that respect I got your point, which was the application, but the theory based on how the state operate, you could actually and easily transition from marriage being a religious standard in the United States, to a civil standard just by having the states actually step up and offer MORE options outside of religion. There isn't any new law that needs to be created, nor societal upheaval that needs to be enforced. Just tell people that the reality per recognition by the state, all marriages are pretty much civil unions. We just chose to be lazy and let the religious folks handle it.

@ overall, as for the second conversation I was having, I really wasn't caring about the financial aspects which is why I constantly said in my responses somebody who is more opinionated could do it better...and Fox News. LOL

Let me add because I don't want anything to be taken out of context.

I'm not trying to start any beefs, and I don't take anything said back to me personally, it happens.

With all due respect, WOMP WOMP. :) Quit explaining.

For the record, you said SMARTERERERERRRRRR and more opinionated. :)

LOL. Sit down somewhere and stop ruining the joke potential.

Sorry, BluPhire, but you did miss my point and you still appear to miss my point, though you're getting closer. I'm not talking about making any societal upheavals, nor did I suggest changing how we do things. And I didn't say we operate under a religious standard or need to transition to a civil standard. I said we confuse and conflate the civil standard and the religious standard -- that's what my use of "entangled" and "intertwined" referred to -- and that the confusion and conflation has consequences when it comes to how we talk about marriage.

Way upthread, Tulip86 asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulip86 (Post 2065521) If dominantly religious countries like Spain, Argentina and Mexico can support gay marriage, why can't the U.S.?

My point was that the answer to her question lies, at least in part, in how the countries she mentions draw a sharper distinction than we historically have done between marriage in the religious sense and marriage in the civil sense. My point had little do with how we ought to do marriage, and everything to do with how the way we actually do marriage influences the assumptions we bring when we debate marriage.

Come on now, I've already ruined the thread you gonna take away my ability to ruin the joke too??

You are soooo mean to me sometimes.

LOL

Well Dr Phil did point out the fact that I asked somebody SMARTER to do a better job than me.

I do get it now. You are correct.

LOL. People will get over it and go back to, what you considered, the personal and contentious.

ETA: Now you all see why I hate devil's advocates?! LOL.

And it's fine with me for you to do whatever you want with the jokes. :D

But it's ok because State's Rights!

That argument just doesn't hold water with me, and yay it doesn't with the courts either.

Everything else in this thread has been said.

My opinion and that of many others is that the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion. Again, my argument is that a State has the right to determine what rights are granted to their citizens. This is my belief whether it involves gay marriage, polygamy, gambling, drugs, abortion or other concerns. Hopefully the "Constitutional Right" to an abortion will some day be overturned and it will be thrown back to the States where I believe it belongs.

I am not arguing that abortions are "illegal" or not the law of the land at this time (because it obviously is). I am stating that I disagree with the way the law has been instituted (via Judicial fiat by SCOTUS). The NY process for allowing "gay marriage" is the proper methodology/blueprint for implementation IMO. Each state should be allowed to make their own laws regarding this and a host of other "compelling" issues.

Well, this is strongly oversimplified (which I imagine you realize, but for purposes of discussion we'll outline it) - states have the right to determine its own laws, provided those laws do not interfere with Constitutional/unalienable/etc. rights granted to the people, and the powers reserved by the Federal Government.

That distinction is important, because it's at the root of why what you want to happen (state-by-state legislation of early-trimester abortions) simply cannot, under current judicial interpretation: until the fetus is viable, the woman's body is her own to deal with, as is her right.

Also, can we declare a moratorium on unnecessarily inflammatory terms like "judicial activism" that really don't serve a discussion purpose? Making a judicial decision isn't "activism" - it's what judges are supposed to do. It's their job.

You can believe a lot of things, that doesn't make them actual legal points. Case law says other than what you believe. So, Don't Stop Believin' but there's a reason the lawyers in this thread are pointing out up one side and down the other the difference.

^^ Just for you

:rolleyes: Damn, I didn't know that this site was a "court of law" and we were arguing legal points.:confused: I guess only lawyers can disagree with a decision by SCOTUS or any other court in your world? Per your post, if one disagrees with a person with a JD after their name he/she are automatically invalidated.

Many of the lawyers on this thread happen to view things as you do. That doesn't mean an end to a discussion or that those who believe as I do have no valid points to offer legal or otherwise. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else on this site agree with every decision by SCOTUS, the Federal Courts or any court for that matter. The more liberal of you and some of the attorneys on this site might even vehemently disagree with some of the most recent decisions to come out of the SC. Since these decisions were argued by lawyers and decided on by Judges I guess it necessarily invalidates your beliefs or your opinions.

Hmm, I wonder if a court ever gets it wrong (Plessy v. Ferguson?).

As usual, this is just you trying to pick another fight. Not playing in your cesspool this time.

Yes I know you're easily confused. But you keep insisting that you "BELIEVE" a certain thing. Case law disagrees. You can find that case law wrong, but still that doesn't mean that you are correct. And since the case law exists, until or unless it is overturned, that is the current correct interpretation of the law. Your belief is irrelevant.

Also, post less than four paragraphs if you're going to tell me how much you don't care.

Not necessarily. Like I said earlier, lots of legal scholars think Roe and its progeny are terrible decisions, even if they're in sympathy with the outcome. Of course, courts get it wrong sometime, but there's no point in throwing an opinion out there if you're not willing to back it up or are unwilling to have it challenged.

Which brings us to . . .

This to me is an interesting assertion, given your emphasis on the Bill of Rights. The whole concept of the Bill of Rights, the roots of which can be traced to Magna Carta, is that government does not have the authority to determine what rights it will and will not grant it citizens. Rather the perspective of the Bill of Rights is that the government, which can validly exist only with the consent of the governed, is required to respect the rights that citizens inherently possess. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, people "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." In the view of the Bill of Rights, rights are not granted by the state; rights are held by the people.

At most, government must balance governmental needs with the rights of citizens, but under the Bill of Rights, the burden is always on the government to justify any intrusion on citizen's rights.

There are some things that make life very confusing if it is left to the state. Gay marriage is one of them. If you want to get divorced, do you have to go to a state where gay marriage is recognized to do it? Are you married on federal tax forms? Logistically, it is kind of crazy to have it banned in some places and not in others. Then again, if all you had to do to get divorced is move to a state that doesn't recognize your marriage, that would be a true "quickie" divorce.

I'm always kind of flabbergasted by the people who think marriage is a religious event first and then a civil event. It is clearly civil first because you have to have a license, from the government. You can get married without religion involved. You can't get married without the government involvement. Marriage is the legal combining of two people's lives, finances, etc.

Probably because the religious event takes more planning, more time, more money and involves a lot of people. ;)

:D Except for the weddings with religious content in which people keep it simple and inexpensive. And the weddings without religious content in which people are elaborate and expensive.

Perhaps people are going based on components of different religions that make reference to "marital union." Many people who want to get married based on a higher power(s) (or some spiritual reference) will view marriage as religious first and civil second regardless of the ordering of the license and ceremony (if there is a ceremony). People consider themselves presenting their union before the higher power(s) and family and friends.

I wonder if same-sex couples will be considered for common law marriages in the states that allow common law.

Tell that to the polygamists who consider themselves very married despite the lack of government approval. ;)

You can get married without government involvement. The marriage just won't be recognized by the state.

Dr Phil is right -- people will emphasize the primacy of marriage in the religious sense or marriage in the legal sense depending on their own opinions and beliefs.

Yes, this is what I was thinking when I read that. In some of those countries discussed earlier where civil and religious marriages are separate events, it's not uncommon to do one and not the other...including the religious without the civil.