New York Legalizes same sex marriage.

[Ericgamer1]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/....gay.marriage/

Albany, New York (CNN) -- New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the state's marriage equality bill hours after it passed the Republican-controlled Senate on Friday night, making it the sixth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage

took long enough

[Screwby]

Good news

[The Angelic Anathema]

Out of everything that they could be doing, allowing people to legally bind themselves to each other isn't very impressive. Whatever helps people sleep at night, and politicians to get re-elected.

 

So, basically this.

[Screwby]

At least they are doing something I guess.

[GameGeeks]

Out of everything that they could be doing, allowing people to legally bind themselves to each other isn't very impressive. Whatever helps people sleep at night, and politicians to get re-elected.

 

So, basically this.

I don't see how granting a basic right is a waste of time.

[Wio]

States aren't really that involved when it comes to marriage. The only time they jump in is during divorce. They just provide a few incentives for marriage, because to divorce people you need them to marry first.

Family courts are very confused when they have to divide assets among same sex couples, and that might be why same sex marriage is not so easily passed despite a media that glamorizes homosexuality and demonizes homophobia. The heterosexual procedure is very easy: man bad woman good. If there are children, you hide them from the scary creature with the penis. You order the scary creature to pay his poor ex-wife a percentage of a highball of his income. If he neglects or is unable to pay, you throw him in jail for a year or two to set an example. The worse case scenario is if the creature becomes a fugitive or lights himself on fire. Give yourself a pat on the back as you've just eased a potential burden off the public sector and all it took was gross injustice.

Same sex marriage is a total enigma. If there are two women, how do you decide who pays whom? If there are two men, which one's life do you destroy? Maybe the judge could flip a coin and have them call it, but your typical family court judge is too incompetent to flip a coin.

Edit: Apparently you can't make a hyperlink to a YouTube video without the link being replaced by the actual video.

[The Angelic Anathema]

I don't see how granting a basic right is a waste of time.

Exactly how important is it, really?

[Ericgamer1]

Exactly how important is it, really?

If you have a world where laws are edging closer towards being based in logic and reality, rather than opinion and feelings, then yes, it's quite important.

[Wio]

If you have a world where laws are edging closer towards being based in logic and reality, rather than opinion and feelings, then yes, it's quite important.

In which case, the article would be titled "New York governor signs marriage voiding bill into law". It would then go on to instruct gold diggers on alternative legally binding contracts they might use if they wish to steal money from their spouse.

[Feferi]

Really? Thats gay.

 

But I feel incredibly happy that they passed it. ^^ What makes it more interesting, I watched Chuck and Larry last night. ;P

[Aku no Hikari]

If you have a world where laws are edging closer towards being based in logic and reality, rather than opinion and feelings, then yes, it's quite important.

Rather than "logic and reality", you mean consistency.

Allowing marriage between same sex people just like it's allowed between opposite sex people make things seem more consistent on the surface (as in, less discrimination in the law). But for reasons Wio explained, the consistency is only superficial. There will be even more inconsistencies on the inside than there are for opposite-sex marriage to make this work.

"Legal" marriage is bullcrap in the first place. Marriage on principle is a promise for commitment. First, you don't need to make a legal contract and pay money to a court to make that promise. And second, the contract will not guarantee that either person would abide by their promise*, or that this commitment will continue. The marriage is the promise itself, not the contract. So the contract is not just delusional, but a waste of money.

When people are actually willing to commit their butt to each other and call it a marriage, they can manage that without a court. This works whether they are religious or not. (The only difference is that religious people who think there should be some "rituals" for the marriage would do it in a church or whatever, whereas irreligious people would just celebrate it.) People who don't want to be committed have no reason to "get married" in the first place. There's absolutely no point in such a "marriage".

I agree about voiding "legal" marriage altogether in the states.


_____________
* Unless you suggest the state regulates said commitment, like enforcing punishments on "cheating", where "cheating" is defined in a radical way rather than the ludicrous inconsistent garbage about emotional involvement currently present in the legal system as far as I know.

[Masakisu]

If you have a world where laws are edging closer towards being based in logic and reality

Oh cool, does this mean they're going to abolish prison soon?

What? 'Nope'? ): 'K then.

[The Angelic Anathema]

"Legal" marriage is bullcrap in the first place. Marriage on principle is a promise for commitment. First, you don't need to make a legal contract and pay money to a court to make that promise. And second, the contract will not guarantee that either person would abide by their promise*, or that this commitment will continue. The marriage is the promise itself, not the contract. So the contract is not just delusional, but a waste of money.

When people are actually willing to commit their butt to each other and call it a marriage, they can manage that without a court. This works whether they are religious or not. (The only difference is that religious people who think there should be some "rituals" for the marriage would do it in a church or whatever, whereas irreligious people would just celebrate it.) People who don't want to be committed have no reason to "get married" in the first place. There's absolutely no point in such a "marriage".

I agree about voiding "legal" marriage altogether in the states.

Yeah, this^

 

Because I'm lazy and tired, and they typed it much better than I ever would.

[GameGeeks]

Exactly how important is it, really?

Well considering the benefits afforded to married couples, least of which is the right to make medical decisions for their lover.

[The Angelic Anathema]

Well considering the benefits afforded to married couples, least of which is the right to make medical decisions for their lover.

How is giving the spouse(?) power to making medical decisions important? I would easily agree that a doctor is more qualified to make medical decisions, but the person you're screwing - not so much.

[GameGeeks]

How is giving the spouse(?) power to making medical decisions important? I would easily agree that a doctor is more qualified to make medical decisions, but the person your screwing - not so much.

Except doctors can only make decisions in cases of emergencies. If the patient is deemed unfit to make decisions then it falls to the spouse since they're deemed to know what they'd have wanted.

[The Wing Man]

I wish I had something important to say about this, but it really has no impact on my life at all.

Good for gay people

[Chigumi]

Yaoi dango approves this =)

[Ericgamer1]

Rather than "logic and reality", you mean consistency.

Allowing marriage between same sex people just like it's allowed between opposite sex people make things seem more consistent on the surface (as in, less discrimination in the law). But for reasons Wio explained, the consistency is only superficial. There will be even more inconsistencies on the inside than there are for opposite-sex marriage to make this work.

"Legal" marriage is bullcrap in the first place. Marriage on principle is a promise for commitment. First, you don't need to make a legal contract and pay money to a court to make that promise. And second, the contract will not guarantee that either person would abide by their promise*, or that this commitment will continue. The marriage is the promise itself, not the contract. So the contract is not just delusional, but a waste of money.

When people are actually willing to commit their butt to each other and call it a marriage, they can manage that without a court. This works whether they are religious or not. (The only difference is that religious people who think there should be some "rituals" for the marriage would do it in a church or whatever, whereas irreligious people would just celebrate it.) People who don't want to be committed have no reason to "get married" in the first place. There's absolutely no point in such a "marriage".

I agree about voiding "legal" marriage altogether in the states.

I think you misunderstand a bit. I'm well aware that "marriage" is just some word that has some legal bindings to it. We can't tackle everything all at once though, and not without first taking the preceding steps to allow for logicality to follow through.

Oh cool, does this mean they're going to abolish prison soon?

What? 'Nope'? ): 'K then.

Patience. Can't fix the whole world in one day.

[Aku no Hikari]

We can't tackle everything all at once though, and not without first taking the preceding steps to allow for logicality to follow through.

I'm not sure if this is what you intended to say, but the meaning of your words is that legalizing another kind of marriage (and all the accompanying complications and mess) is a "logical step" towards abolishing legal marriage... which it's outright not.

Please don't use the drugs legalization analogy. It doesn't work here. And this isn't any sort of a "make it more complex as a step to make it more simple" deal, either.

This legalization is simply one thing: giving people what they want. (Be that in a good sense or a bad one.) Therefore, if it's any kind of "step", it's one on the liberty scale. It's not a step towards abolishing legal marriage.

To clarify: I'm not saying a step on the liberty scale is something I do not like. I'm saying that this has nothing to do with that.

[-GAZKUL-]

good on them, though slightly bemused as to why it took them so long

[animeyay]

Go NY!! I already liked NY, but now I like it even more!

Surely the legislators in my state can learn a thing or two from the NY Republicans. Considering that Democrats hold supermajorities in both my state Senate and the House of Delegates, I was kinda surprised when the same-sex marriage bill passed the Senate but fell a few votes short in the House earlier this year. >=( The last minute pull-out Delegate(s) cited "pressure from local churches..." >.>

[wolfgirl90]

"Legal" marriage is bullcrap in the first place. Marriage on principle is a promise for commitment. First, you don't need to make a legal contract and pay money to a court to make that promise. And second, the contract will not guarantee that either person would abide by their promise*, or that this commitment will continue. The marriage is the promise itself, not the contract. So the contract is not just delusional, but a waste of money.

Hur hur hur...since when has "commitment" been a requirement for marriage? Last time I checked, marriage was a contract, a social union between people. While a promise of commitment is something that most people want when they get married, the prospect of committing one's life to another person is not the only reason why people get married.

Plus, while a legal contract can't guarantee that a person will stay committed to their relationship, words can't either. I could hold a person to a promise, but it's up to them to keep it and they can break it whenever they want to. If you think that a contract is delusional, believing that a "promise" can't be broken is just as much.

Or we could regulate said commitment, but that would mean finding a definition to "cheating" and since I highly doubt that we could EVER find some radical way of defining the term that would apply to all married parties, let's not open that can of worms.

 

Especially since Lawrence v. Texas has made it harder to enforce what little adultery laws that exist in this country (hell, it calls the legality of those laws into question), since it ruled that sexual conduct between two consenting parties was something that was private and couldn't be regulated by law.

When people are actually willing to commit their butt to each other and call it a marriage, they can manage that without a court. This works whether they are religious or not. (The only difference is that religious people who think there should be some "rituals" for the marriage would do it in a church or whatever, whereas irreligious people would just celebrate it.) People who don't want to be committed have no reason to "get married" in the first place. There's absolutely no point in such a "marriage".

I agree about voiding "legal" marriage altogether in the states.

Again, while adorable, commitment is not a requirement for marriage in this country. There might some religious or personal connections to commitment requirements, but legally, there is nothing that says that two people need to "commit" to each other; and quite frankly, I don't think that there should EVER be such a requirement, whether to get married or to maintain said marriage. People get married for a variety of reasons; committing to each other is just ONE of them (and the definition of commitment varies between parties). If we are going to limit marriage to just between people who "wuv each other", that's about as close-minded (if not more so) than just keeping it between people of the opposite sex.

What point would there be to void "legal" marriage? BTW, I am simply using the term that you are using; other than common law marriage, I honestly have no idea what alternative to marriage you might be referring to (plus, I believe the word you might want to use is "abolish", not "void"; nullifying ALL marriages makes no sense).

While I'm pretty sure that people can make marital commitments on their own, they probably can't handle divorce on their own. Hell, even people who have been married via a common law marriage still have to have their divorce (and the subsequent fallout) handled by the court (as even the best marriages can end in divorce and humans can be vindictive little creatures).

[Wio]

Hur hur hur...since when has "commitment" been a requirement for marriage? Last time I checked, marriage was a contract, a social union between people. While a promise of commitment is something that most people want when they get married, the prospect of committing one's life to another person is not the only reason why people get married.

You totally missed the point, and you aren't in any position to type out special noises.

Do you think that Aku just pulled the word "commitment" out his rear end and attached it to marriage? He didn't. He is speaking about a common attitude that people have towards marriage. It is society as a whole which perceives marriage as a lifelong (some might say eternal) commitment in which sexual behavior is exclusive. These are attitudes that have persisted long before any government recognized marriage. It is because society has these notions about marriage which make legal marriage so sinister, as I shall soon explain.

Even if you don't think Aku's post is a good reason as to why legal marriage shouldn't exist, it at the very least is a debunking of many popular reasons as to why legal marriage does exist. If you can accept the fact that legal marriage doesn't encourage commitment or fidelity then you're a step ahead of the game.

The thing is, the question should never be "Why shouldn't legal marriage exist?" but instead "Why should legal marriage exist?" The same should be said about any government institution. None the less, I will still answer why it shouldn't exist.

The problem with legal marriage is that it is a deadly combination. Not only is it deceptive to the point of being fraudulent, but the amount of power it gives the government over the lives of its participants is tremendous. If it were merely a fraudulent inconsequential contract, it would be wasteful but tolerable. If it were merely an extremely powerful contract that was clear and concise, it would be fine. However, it is a deadly combination.

Legal marriage is deceptive, because marriage is a charged concept that comes with certain expectations. People feel pressured, sometimes even obligated, to get legally married to prove that they are committed. This pressure can come from their partners, peers, or society as a whole, and there is no denying that it exists.

It is also deceptive, because it is so complicated. Different states attach different obligations to it, and have different protocol when it comes to divorce. People get married having no idea what the "penalty" for breaking the contract is, because they might not know the state in where they will reside or what the laws that state will have at the time should they divorce. It's a constantly changing contract, you see.

Now if the consequences to all of this were pennies, it would be merely wasteful but tolerable. The thing about a promise, is that people know words are just words. They understand the breaking of that promise is legally inconsequential.
The consequences of legal marriage can be very severe though. E.G. In New Hampshire, if a spouse quits their job to take care of domestic chores, they can get lifetime alimony upon divorce. How many married couples in NH know this, and how many would've gotten married had they known it?

While I'm pretty sure that people can make marital commitments on their own, they probably can't handle divorce on their own. Hell, even people who have been married via a common law marriage still have to have their divorce (and the subsequent fallout) handled by the court (as even the best marriages can end in divorce and humans can be vindictive little creatures).

This gets to the core of what is so wrong about legal marriage. How can you let someone sign a contract without their knowing what that contract means, and when that contract's terms change significantly based on the location and the time during when it is broken? It's more sensible to let children buy prescriptions over the counter (which is nonsense).

So how do you handle break ups? Legal marriage is NOT the answer!
When people make nonlegal marital commitments to each other, their assets and property should, by default, NOT be shared. They should keep their assets completely separate as if the government didn't even know what marriage is.
If and only if they want to share assets should they enter an asset sharing contract which is constant, explicit, and concise. Those asset sharing contracts would NOT discriminate based on things like sexuality. Want to quit your job, and become a stay at home partner, but need a safety net? Then see if your partner would agree to an alimony contract before you even think of quitting that job!

You see? There is no confusion here, no need to incompetent arrogant family judges, and no need for opportunistic lawyers. Everything is agreed beforehand, and it doesn't change just because you were relocated by your company or because the laws changed last year. Since legal marriage exists, people neglect do these things (i.e. financial and custodial planning) that they ought to do. They fall back on a vague, arbitrary agreement to take care of everything. It's an irresponsible substitute! Worst of all, many people look down on prenuptial agreements when they're the only honest part of legal marriage. (By the way, many states allow prenuptial agreements to be thrown out over frivolous discrepancies!)

Last but not least, just look at the thread title. By having legal marriage we must have a legal definition for it, and by defining legal marriage we are bound to discriminate against a group. In many states homosexuals are legally discriminated against, because legal marriage exists. There would be no issue otherwise. Even now, NY probably discriminates against polygamous partnerships by limiting the number of parties per marriage contract and by limiting the number of marriage contracts per person.


TL;DR: Legal marriage is an unnecessary evil. It fraudulently screws over people, it prevents people from making responsible, fair marital agreements, and it causes the government to discriminate against certain lifestyles.

[BoldMushroom]

How is giving the spouse(?) power to making medical decisions important? I would easily agree that a doctor is more qualified to make medical decisions, but the person your screwing - not so much.

Doctors are more qualified to diagnose patients, but that doesn't mean they get to make the decisions - not in modern American society, anyway. Paternalism is taboo, and the role of patient autonomy has skyrocketed in prominence in recent decades; the doctor can suggest a course of action, but that doesn't mean you have to follow it. You're the patient, and it's your right to do with your body what you wish - and if you're married, and your medical state inhibits your decisional capacity, the rights fall to your spouse (or the "person your[sic] screwing" if you wish to be cynical about it).

This line of thinking may sound ludicrous - "doctor knows best," as you say - but sometimes there isn't just one possible course of action. One option may be life-saving but carries great risks of severe complications or death, while another may be a temporary fix that's only delaying the inevitable. The patient may choose neither, and opt for palliative care.

Right now, there are over a thousand federal provisions (who knows how many on the state level) for which marital status is a factor. Some of these include medical insurance, income tax deductions, Medicaid, Social Security benefits, and property inheritance rights. Those are all denied to same-sex couples in states who can't marry, or in states where such marriages are not recognized (which is many of them).

Some argue that marriage is a private affair, and shouldn't be linked to any kind of benefits on the federal, state, or local levels (as I can already see in this thread). I'm somewhat neutral on the issue - I think there are some instances where it's reasonable and beneficial, and others where it's unnecessary. It would certainly be a legal hassle to untangle marriage from its role in federal law, though.