Gay Marriage Approved by New York Senate

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Well, she had to get those numbers from somewhere.

This is from the New York Daily News--hardly a hotbed of elite liberalism:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...ge-gay-couples

Their projection--$184 million--is a little higher than I've heard.

My question remains--in whose "best financial interest" is it to not legalize gay marriage? The cost it would take to cover same-sex partners isn't that much more than it would be now, considering most gay households consist of dual-income earners (both of whom typically carry their own insurance).

That's the key in your article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...e=domesticNews

We really don't know, but the key in this article is this.

"Parties on both sides of the issue frequently invoke the hypothetical economic impact of same-sex marriage, Leonard pointed out, so the influx of real-world data from New York could go a long way toward changing those hypotheticals into concrete facts."

Like I said, somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer the question better than I can.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I agree, though, with what some others have said: that this is an issue made much more complicated by the way civil marriage and religious marriage are intertwined and entangled in our current system. I think that's why this isn't the problem in, say, Catholic Spain that it can be here -- in Spain, a civil marriage is a completely seperate thing from a religious marriage, and the civil marriage is the only one that has any legal effect. Here, a religious marriage has legal effect.

This is the crux of the issue for my family members (evangelical Christians) who are vehemently opposed to the legal recognition of any marriage other than one man and one woman.

I think that they are most angry, for several reasons.

1) They feel that the values they consider fundamental to this country are doing down the drain.

2) They feel that proponents of the "Gay Agenda" (both gay advocates and allies) are pushing to legislate acceptance, which is something they will never do.

3) They simply refuse to separate civil partnership from religious marriage.

When I've suggested that, perhaps, we should begin moving in the direction of civil partnerships for all (both homosexual and heterosexual couples) in the eyes of the law, I'm told that "the gays" would never approve, because they want their relationships to be as socially valid as heterosexual marriages. Well...duh. Who doesn't want equality? But, social acceptance, in my opinion, isn't ever going to be the first step.

In any case, I wouldn't suggest it if I didn't want it for myself. I'd rather the state not have the power to deem my relationship a marriage. The state has nothing to do with it. All I want from the government is certain rights.

At some point, we're going to have to figure out a way to accommodate a variety of legally recognized family configurations. Marriage equality doesn't end here.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Here, a religious marriage has legal effect.

Not necessarily. Consider homosexual marriage, polygamy, or marriages where no one bothers to get a license and there's no common law marriage provision in the state's law.

In many states, the only aspect that gives religious marriage the power to legally marry someone is that we authorize certain people to act for the state in obtaining, filling out and filing marriage licenses.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

We really don't know, but the key in this article is this.

Like I said, somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer the question better than I can.

You're the one who said that gay marriage is not in "the best financial interest" of "certain parties." Since you asserted that, I'm simply asking who you mean by these "certain parties." That's all. It seems like a slightly more involved question than you're able to answer, and that's okay.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

I'm under the understanding that the current legal precedent is set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

It is, but Casey didn't change the basic legal analysis of Roe. While some aspects of Roe have been overturned, the basic idea of the right to choose as being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment has not been overturned and continues to underlie abortion/right to choose cases.

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Yes, but also in many states, the person does not have to be religious as well be it a justice of the peace, judge, ship captain (LOL) that's why I said it could be argued we are not so much in bed with religion as we think we are sometimes.

Every state provides for some non-religious officiant -- justice of the peace, magistrate, judge, etc. That's not the point.

The point is that every state authorizes clergy to act as agents of the state in officiating at weddings. In every state, provided certain other requirements are met (licenses and the like -- thanks, Kevin), a religious wedding will also create a legal marriage. In other words, participation in a religious ceremony results in a change in legal status. I can't think of any other instance where this happens in our legal system. The result is that we think of marriage in the civil sense and marriage in the religious sense as the same thing.

Because we do not draw a distinction between marriage as a religious institution/status and marriage as a legal institution/status, the lines get blurred in a discussion on something like same-sex marriage, and it can be difficult, like preciousjeni says, to distinguish between marriage as a religious status and marriage as a legal status. This problem doesn't exist where a clear line is drawn between civil and religious understandings of marriage.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not necessarily. Consider homosexual marriage, polygamy, or marriages where no one bothers to get a license and there's no common law marriage provision in the state's law.

In many states, the only aspect that gives religious marriage the power to legally marry someone is that we authorize certain people to act for the state in obtaining, filling out and filing marriage licenses.

Very true, and thanks for the clarification.

And always the only thing that gives clergy the power to legally marry is that the state has authorized clergy to act for the state. But is there any state that doesn't do that? The result is that Americans generally see marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense as being the same thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by agzg

I'm under the understanding that the current legal precedent is set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Yes, at least that's what it was when I was in law school. Back to Ghostwriter's states rights comment--Even in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the anti-choice side wasn't framed as a "states rights" or 10th Amendement issue, it was that the state has a compelling interest in preserving life. Or at least that's the argument that carried the day.

Casey stood for a number of things, but the main theme is that once the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb, the states have the power to forbid abortion completely, except in cases where the health of the mother [this is not defined at all, and is arguably the exception which swallows the rule] is at risk.

Getting a little more "meta," the principles at play are the rights of the mother, i.e., the fundamental liberty interest she has in her privacy and the right to an abortion. When someone has a fundamental liberty interest, the state has to have a compelling state interest to override it. The Court found that once the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, there is in fact a compelling state interest. Not because of the 10th Amendment, but because the state has a compelling interest in protecting life.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But I still don't get why you singled out the Bill of Rights as opposed to all amendments. The amendments that come after the Bill of Rights amend the entire Contitution, including (often) the Bill of Rights. The question shouldn't be "does it violate the Bill of Rights"; it should be "does it violate the Constitution." By what legal basis do the Bill of Rights take precedence over the rest of the Constitution?

I believe Amendment 10 says it all and should end the debates but your point is valid and I amend my statement to include the whole Constitution.

I simply disagree with the current law on abortion and its reading and would rather us allow the States to make their own laws. We as a country tend to over look the part where powers not enumerated in this Constitution are granted to the States (Amendment 10) and fall back on the life, liberty, etc clause to try to argue everything and allow everything on a National basis.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

You're the one who said that gay marriage is not in "the best financial interest" of "certain parties."

Who would those parties be? All I can think of are insurance companies...

As a divorce lawyer, I welcome expanding my client base by 10%.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As a divorce lawyer, I welcome expanding my client base by 10%.

This made me laugh and frown at the same time. lol

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I believe Amendment 10 says it all and should end the debates but your point is valid and I amend my statement to include the whole Constitution.

I simply disagree with the current law on abortion and its reading and would rather us allow the States to make their own laws. We as a country tend to over look the part where powers not enumerated in this Constitution are granted to the States (Amendment 10) and fall back on the life, liberty, etc clause to try to argue everything and allow everything on a National basis.

But case law says that this isn't a powers issue, which is what the 10th deals with. This is a rights issue.

In Constitutional law, just about everything can be viewed as powers of the states versus rights of the people. Those are the two forces usually at play.

The 10th Amendment would allow the states to proscribe abortion, absolutely true, BUT, case law says there's a fundamental liberty interest in abortion. That means the power of the state to proscribe abortion versus the right of the woman to have one must be weighed according to constitutional standards of review.

The applicable standard of review is often referred to as "strict scrutiny." To come out on top, the state has to prove a compelling state interest. See the above discussion for further elaboration on the point.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

You're the one who said that gay marriage is not in "the best financial interest" of "certain parties." Since you asserted that, I'm simply asking who you mean by these "certain parties." That's all. It seems like a slightly more involved question than you're able to answer, and that's okay.

**Yawn**

Exactly, I'm glad you finally get it. I'm a certain believer that nothing is voted on in Congress and is a hot button issue unless it affects somebody's wallet.


That's why we've had almost 40 years and 4 republican administrations of Roe v Wade and it has yet to be overturned.

All these companies change their insurance policies because of Universal Healthcare, but now that a lot of the provisions have stalled companies aren't reinstating the "Cadillac" insurance.

Gay Marriage the same, yes there will be a big boost in revenue for cash strapped states and what not, but somebody is looking at this from their private interest and is not liking it at all. Or sometimes, the fight is more lucrative than the victory.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Who would those parties be? All I can think of are insurance companies...

As a divorce lawyer, I welcome expanding my client base by 10%.

I'm trying to figure out who these parties would be!

Have you had to deal with any gay "divorces"? I put "divorce" in quotes because I know gay marriage is not legal, or recognized, in OK--but informal unions, especially when kids are involved, dissolve all the time.

I'm not even sure if insurance companies would suffer, since most gay households are dual-income and, it stands to reason, are insured individually. We didn't hear anything from the insurance lobby in NYS so they might not even be impacted negatively.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

**Yawn**

Exactly, I'm glad you finally get it. I'm a certain believer that nothing is voted on in Congress and is a hot button issue unless it affects somebody's wallet.

Yeah, I finally got it. You're full of shit and I called you out on it.

[agzg]

If it all ended with the 10th Amendment, Gays wouldn't be allowed in Texas (well, maybe lesbians because they're sexxxy, but only femme ones), interracial marriages would be banned, and women and minorities wouldn't have the right to vote.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Gay Marriage the same, yes there will be a big boost in revenue for cash strapped states and what not, but somebody is looking at this from their private interest and is not liking it at all. Or sometimes, the fight is more lucrative than the victory.

I could totally be buying into foolishness, but I feel like I remember a reputable survey that estimated about 4% of the population identifies as LGBT. I assume an even smaller number of these people are going to be getting married.

How significant could the financial repercussions or windfall really even be? And, why is it a concern?