Gay Marriage Approved by New York Senate

[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.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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

Congratulations, you win the award.

Take your victory lap.

You called me out. I've been exposed!!!!!!!!!


Arrrgghhhh!!!!!

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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?

I don't know, but if people are tracking it, it must be a reason why to either support or dispute a position.

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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.

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.

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

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%.

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by Mitch

I get that, but that's not what I was getting at. What I'm getting at is every time gay relationships come up, some tardbox pulls religion and race out of their ass. It's horse shit.

Watch "Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL.

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

And that is the point.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL.

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

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[BluPhire]

@ 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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

@ 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

With all due respect, WOMP WOMP. Quit explaining.

For the record, you said SMARTERERERERRRRRR and more opinionated.

Originally Posted by BluPhire

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.

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