Gay Marriage Approved by New York Senate

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

@ 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.

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:

Originally Posted by Tulip86

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.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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;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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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.

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Drolefille]

^^ Just for you

[AGDee]

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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.