Gay Marriage Approved by New York Senate

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well, the Bill of Rights protects a woman's right to choose and guarantees equal protection under the law...

Where? The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Which one gives a woman the right to choose?

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Where? The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Which one gives a woman the right to choose?

Well it was argued by the court during Roe v Wade that either the 9th or the 14th amendment gave it. It gets confusing unless you are a student of the law.

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[14] Douglas in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."[15] Thus, the Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I oppose "gay marriage" but believe it is the States right to make whatever laws they believe is in the best interest of the people who live within their borders so long as these laws do not disregard or trample on the Bill of Rights. So, in that same vain, I believe it is perfectly fine for a State to outlaw abortion and/or limit its scope. I do not believe that laws of one state should/would necessarily bind other states.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Where? The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Which one gives a woman the right to choose?

Why the Bill of Rights? It's not a super-Constitution; it's part of the Constitution, no more and no less important or binding, legally speaking.

The right to choose, according to the Supreme Court, is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, though the case law on that issue, and on the broader right to privacy, sometimes invoke the Ninth Amendment. That amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states that the fact that only some rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that the government can violate other, non-enumerated rights that the people have.


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.

[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.

[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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Why the Bill of Rights? It's not a super-Constitution; it's part of the Constitution, no more and no less important or binding, legally speaking.

The right to choose, according to the Supreme Court, is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, though the case law on that issue, and on the broader right to privacy, sometimes invoke the Ninth Amendment. That amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states that the fact that only some rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that the government can violate other, non-enumerated rights that the people have.

This decision is controversial and I believe it tramples on states rights. It also does not recognize the child as a viable being/person deserving protection. It is all opinion and hence the reason I stated specifically the Bill of Rights and not all amendments. It is the reading/interpretation of the amendments that I disagree with. I suspect that if Roe v. Wade were to come up now a different opinion might be forthcoming. I simply do not read the 14th as the court did. The 9th has been ruled to not have bearing on abortion so that argument is most probably moot.

The XIV Amendment also states "without due process" so one may be denied life, liberty etc if the States deem it. States restrict polygamy, bigamy, drugs, gambling (I can't legally gamble in NC, does this restrict liberty?) and many other actions so my reasoning is that a State can make a law restricting abortion. Hence the same argument which has haunted us since the decision was handed down. What is "due process", really? Books have been written on this so we will not resolve it in these threads.

Bottom line with me is that I would support a States right to abolish abortion as well as a States right to allow abortion and anything in between. I would not, however, live in the State that allowed it if it were truly an option available. Same with "gay marriage" as it should be up to the States.

I line up with White and Reinquist in their dissents. IMO this was Judicial activism with no true Constitutional foundation. The Justices should have left it to the States as it was at the time.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

This decision is controversial and I believe it tramples on states rights. It also does not recognize the child as a viable being/person deserving protection. It is all opinion and hence the reason I stated specifically the Bill of Rights and not all amendments. It is the reading/interpretation of the amendments that I disagree with. I suspect that if Roe v. Wade were to come up now a different opinion might be forthcoming. I simply do not read the 14th as the court did.

There is no question that the decision in Roe is controversial, nor is there any question that lots of legal scholars -- including many who support abortion rights -- think that Roe is terrible decision, both in its legal analysis and its jurisprudence. That said, it's still (at least in part) valid precedent, so whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it or not, it's the law and will be the law until the Supreme Court reverses its position or the Constitution is amended.

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?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There is no question that the decision in Roe is controversial, nor is there any question that lots of legal scholars -- including many who support abortion rights -- think that Roe is terrible decision, both in its legal analysis and its jurisprudence. That said, it's still (at least in part) valid precedent, so whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it or not, it's the law and will be the law until the Supreme Court reverses its position or the Constitution is amended.

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