Gay Marriage Approved by New York Senate

[BluPhire]

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.

I always wondered about that. To me the process for recognition here in the US is more Civil than Religious in respect that you must have a license, must be married in the US to make it legal, and in some states must be done 30 days from filing the license for it to be recognized. Don't know from state to state, but it seems for some of the states I have experience with, it could be argued that the recognition has nothing to do with religion but by an state recognized officiant.

That's why i say this whole thing is political because certain interest see gay marriage as against their financial interest.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

That's why i say this whole thing is political because certain interest see gay marriage as against their financial interest.

Against whose financial interest is it?

On Maddow's show, she mentioned that gay marriage is expected to pump a little over $100 million into NYC's economy, in part because NY State has no residency requirement for getting married. To me, it seems like it's in a lot of people's financial interests.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Against whose financial interest is it?

On Maddow's show, she mentioned that gay marriage is expected to pump a little over $100 million into NYC's economy, in part because NY State has no residency requirement for getting married. To me, it seems like it's in a lot of people's financial interests.

That's nice, Maddow is biased so I take her opinion and counter with another opinionated source that is contrary, Fox News (LOL); the cost it places on healthcare to cover domestic partners and blah blah.

I'm sure somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer it better.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

That's nice, Maddow is biased so I take her opinion and counter with another opinionated source that is contrary, Fox News (LOL); the cost it places on healthcare to cover domestic partners and blah blah.

I'm sure somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer it better.

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).

[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.

[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.

[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%.

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

I always wondered about that. To me the process for recognition here in the US is more Civil than Religious in respect that you must have a license, must be married in the US to make it legal, and in some states must be done 30 days from filing the license for it to be recognized. Don't know from state to state, but it seems for some of the states I have experience with, it could be argued that the recognition has nothing to do with religion but by an state recognized officiant.

The bolded is what I'm talking about. In every state, so far as I know, a religion-related officiant (priest, minister, rabbi . . . ) is a state-recognized and state-empowered officiant, so that the religion-related officiant's participation in the marriage ceremony (and signature on the marriage license) makes the marriage legally recognized and legally binding.

In many countries, this is not the case. In Spain, to continue the example I was using, a church wedding means that the couple are married in the eyes of the church, but they are not married in the eyes of the state. They must be married by a civil authority for the state to consider them married. So what happens is that to get married, a couple goes first to the civil authority (the magistrate's office or whatever) and gets married civilly. They then go to the church for the religious ceremony, if they want that.

Hardly a scientific survey, I know, but almost every member of the clergy I have heard express an opinion on the subject dislikes the way we do things here. They dislike being agents of the state and would rather keep civil marriage and religious marriage separate.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The bolded is what I'm talking about. In every state, so far as I know, a religion-related officiant (priest, minister, rabbi . . . ) is a state-recognized and state-empowered officiant, so that the religion-related officiant's participation in the marriage ceremony (and signature on the marriage license) makes the marriage legally recognized and legally binding.

In many countries, this is not the case. In Spain, to continue the example I was using, a church wedding means that the couple are married in the eyes of the church, but they are not married in the eyes of the state. They must be married by a civil authority for the state to consider them married. So what happens is that to get married, a couple goes first to the civil authority (the magistrate's office or whatever) and gets married civilly. They then go to the church for the religious ceremony, if they want that.

Hardly a scientific survey, I know, but almost every member of the clergy I have heard express an opinion on the subject dislikes the way we do things here. They dislike being agents of the state and would rather keep civil marriage and religious marriage separate.

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.

[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.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

.

Umm that is the point. That is the state's perogative. The state feels it is in its best interest to say "Hey, you religious guy do marriage, make sure they get the paperwork in order and we will recognize that you married them."

Nothing to do with we being embedded with religion, but more so of the state just passing the buck. The proof is in the ability of having a legal marriage outside of religion. If it was the only way to have your marriage recognized is through a religious ceremony then I would agree 100% with you, but there are, have, and always be other options outside of religion.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Umm that is the point. That is the state's perogative. The state feels it is in its best interest to say "Hey, you religious guy do marriage, make sure they get the paperwork in order and we will recognize that you married them."

No, that's NOT the point - the point is that states create a quagmire by doing this. Nobody is arguing whether or not it is the state's "prerogative" - that's a silly, tautological argument that intentionally obscures the issues.

You really can't see why having a priest or pastor as state's representative in the marriage ceremony has created unintended negative consequences?

Nothing to do with we being embedded with religion, but more so of the state just passing the buck. The proof is in the ability of having a legal marriage outside of religion. If it was the only way to have your marriage recognized is through a religious ceremony then I would agree 100% with you, but there are, have, and always be other options outside of religion.

Again, you're missing the point - in most cases, the religious ceremony and legal act are somewhere between partially and completely intertwined (think "by the power vested in me by _____"). The state can (and often does) provide another option, but THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO with MysticCat's point, which is that the religious component's utter dominance over how marriages actually take place means that people view the law through a religious lens, and that this sucks.

The exception doesn't DISPROVE the rule - it actually confirms what MC is saying! I commend you on your slavish devotion to all things conspiracy, but you are indeed the one missing the point here.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Umm that is the point. That is the state's perogative. The state feels it is in its best interest to say "Hey, you religious guy do marriage, make sure they get the paperwork in order and we will recognize that you married them."

Nothing to do with we being embedded with religion, but more so of the state just passing the buck. The proof is in the ability of having a legal marriage outside of religion. If it was the only way to have your marriage recognized is through a religious ceremony then I would agree 100% with you, but there are, have, and always be other options outside of religion.

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.

It's really not that hard:

1) For a variety of historical reasons, American states have chosen to allow clergy to act as agents of the state for the purpose of solemnizing marriage. No state has limited solemnization of marriage to the clergy, but all states have authorized the clergy to act as their agents in this regard.

2) Because of this historic arrangement, Americans in general do not see a clear difference between marriage in the legal/civil sense and marriage in the religious sense.

I never said that religion is "embedded" or "in bed with" religion. Those are your words. Nor did I ever suggest that religion or the clergy control marriage in this country. What I said was that "civil marriage and religious marriage are intertwined and entangled in our current system." That's a very different thing.

Because we do not have a clear distinction between civil and religious marriage, then any discussion of "marriage" is likely to pull in and refer to both, without regard to how they may be different. And it provokes arguments about whether if same-sex marriages are legalized, clergy can be required to perform them against their consciences, or whether, say, churches can be held liable for refusing to let their facilities be used for them. In a country where there is a clear distinction between marriage in the civil/legal sense and marriage in the religious sense, such questions aren't nearly as likely to arise.


ETA: What KSig RC said.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.

LOL.

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