Defense of Marriage Act struck down by New York Court

Source: BBC

Sorry if old (couldn't see anything), but what are your thoughts?

neat

Woop woop.

good, but this will still have to go before the Supreme Court, so this will take some time to settlelamprey263

Yay another loss for religious bigotry.

Lol, as if they actually thought they'd get them to pass it.

Oh wait, they did think that...

Lol, as if they actually thought they'd get them to pass it.

Oh wait, they did think that...

Celldrax

They believe in a magical sky daddy, a crazy law is easy by comparision.

Good, now its just time that it goes before the supreme court. Nice to see some of this bigotry dying even if it is slower than it should be.

Respect for your fellow human being, rationality, humanism

+1

Disdain for anything that differs from your norm, Ignorance, superstition, religion

0

It's a good start.

Sweet, a deffinate step in the right direction.

I don't even get why this is an issue. Like really people get all pissy when the idea of the government handling health insurance comes up but they're perfectly fine with oppressing a minority group? The f*ck?Ace6301

Government interfering in health care is socialism!

Government interfering in the personal lives of it's citizens in regards to marriage is preserving morality...or some sh*t like that!

Very good news.

I am surprised we haven't seen anyone come in here and complain about activist judges.

Remind me again why government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Remind me again why government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Storm_Marine

It involves tax.

Remind me again why government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

I never really understood the whole anti-gay marriage thing. I mean, it's not like the governement was forcing Churches to wed gay couples. And not letting them marry sure as hell wasn't going to turn them straight if that was the plan.General_X

The details are fuzzy but I'm sure there were some lawsuits in Canada about this. Sucessful ones too.

[QUOTE="General_X"]I never really understood the whole anti-gay marriage thing. I mean, it's not like the governement was forcing Churches to wed gay couples. And not letting them marry sure as hell wasn't going to turn them straight if that was the plan.Storm_Marine

The details are fuzzy but I'm sure there were some lawsuits in Canada about this. Sucessful ones too.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="General_X"]I never really understood the whole anti-gay marriage thing. I mean, it's not like the governement was forcing Churches to wed gay couples. And not letting them marry sure as hell wasn't going to turn them straight if that was the plan.General_X

The details are fuzzy but I'm sure there were some lawsuits in Canada about this. Sucessful ones too.

That's my assessment as well.

Remind me again why government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Storm_Marine

Because long before marriage was usurped by religious jack-@sses around the middle ages, it was a secular institution. One of the very first social contracts that society sought to recognize.

Marriage involves a lot of responsibilities and confers certain rights that we as a society felt needed to be put into law (the ability to make decision for a disabled spouse, decisions involving children, insurance, legal protections, etc, etc).

I don't even get why this is an issue. Like really people get all pissy when the idea of the government handling health insurance comes up but they're perfectly fine with oppressing a minority group? The f*ck?Ace6301

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Remind me again why government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Kinthalis

LOL! Because long before marriage was usurped by religious jack-@sses around the middle ages, it was a secular institution. One of the very first social contracts that society sought to recognize.

Marriage involves a lot of responsibilities and confers certain rights that we as a society felt needed to be put into law (the ability to make decision for a disabled spouse, decisions involving children, insurance, legal protections, etc, etc).

Can't we have private contracts regarding that? Speaking as one who's parents are divorced it would have been a hell of a lot easier if they had signed a contract when they married that clarifed all that.

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Remind me again why government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Kinthalis

Because long before marriage was usurped by religious jack-@sses around the middle ages, it was a secular institution. One of the very first social contracts that society sought to recognize.

Marriage involves a lot of responsibilities and confers certain rights that we as a society felt needed to be put into law (the ability to make decision for a disabled spouse, decisions involving children, insurance, legal protections, etc, etc).

Marriage is a sociological "institution". It has been a mixture of secular and religious for most of history, and it has always been influenced by varying religious beliefs.

Being a sociological institution that arose primarily out of function and necessity, it would very likely have existed if religion were not a part of the human experience, but in actual human history I doubt it was ever completely disconnected from religion before the modern era.

That being said, I still don't see any real reason why marriage should be a function of the State (at least, beyond the State's requirement to support certain contracts within a set of parameters). There really is no "one size fits all" marriage scheme, and so there shouldn't be one State standard for what constitutes a marriage, nor for who has to recognize it.

Marraige in none of government bussiness.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Remind me again why government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

m0zart

Because long before marriage was usurped by religious jack-@sses around the middle ages, it was a secular institution. One of the very first social contracts that society sought to recognize.

Marriage involves a lot of responsibilities and confers certain rights that we as a society felt needed to be put into law (the ability to make decision for a disabled spouse, decisions involving children, insurance, legal protections, etc, etc).

Marriage is a sociological "institution". It has been a mixture of secular and religious for most of history, and it has always been influenced by varying religious beliefs.

Being a sociological institution that arose primarily out of function and necessity, it would very likely have existed if religion were not a part of the human experience, but in actual human history I doubt it was ever completely disconnected from religion before the modern era.

That being said, I still don't see any real reason why marriage should be a function of the State (at least, beyond the State's requirement to support certain contracts within a set of parameters). There really is no "one size fits all" marriage scheme, and so there shouldn't be one State standard for what constitutes a marriage, nor for who has to recognize it.

If there isn't a standard set by the government, the only people that suffer are those who wish to marry.

What if some people in UTAH feel that if you aren't a mormon, married by the mormon church, you aren't married. So you're driving through Utah, somehting happens to your spouse, and the people there, not recognizing your marriage, decide that you have no visitaiton rights, and the children will have to be given to the mother's parent's or become wards of the state.

Who else is going to enforce this contract, if not the government. As a society we've decided that there is a baseline of protections marriage provides that shoudl be universal, or clsoe to that. If you want further custumization fo the contract, you're free to write up a pre-nup, after all.

But some very basic rights/responsibilities REQUIRE universal recognition, or they become meaningless. And the only entity society can and shoudl entrust with such a task is the (rightfully elected) government.

I don't know why we need government sanctioning our personal relationships.DaBrainz

If it didn't, none of the rights of marriage would mena anything, because in one part fo the contry they might eb respected, and i another they wouldn't be. What's the point?

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]I don't know why we need government sanctioning our personal relationships.Kinthalis

If it didn't, none of the rights of marriage would mena anything, because in one part fo the contry they might eb respected, and i another they wouldn't be. What's the point?

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]I don't know why we need government sanctioning our personal relationships.DaBrainz

If it didn't, none of the rights of marriage would mena anything, because in one part fo the contry they might eb respected, and i another they wouldn't be. What's the point?

You wrote: "If there isn't a standard set by the government, the only people that suffer are those who wish to marry."

Not obviously true. I could just as easily say "If there isn't a standard contract set by Govenrment for any particular human relationship, the only people that suffer are those who wish to enter into such a contract". If that's true, then we need to abolish contracts and make a hell of a lot more law.

You wrote: What if some people in UTAH feel that if you aren't a mormon, married by the mormon church, you aren't married. So you're driving through Utah, somehting happens to your spouse, and the people there, not recognizing your marriage, decide that you have no visitaiton rights, and the children will have to be given to the mother's parent's or become wards of the state.

No one should have to care if you are married. No one should have to recognize it. Your marriage is between you and your spouse(s) and possibly your deity. Nobody else really has to be involved at all. Your rights with respect to each other should be about what you agreed to when you entered that marriage (again, within certain parameters -- like all contract law, limits on what constitute 'indentured servitude' would apply).

You wrote: Who else is going to enforce this contract, if not the government. As a society we've decided that there is a baseline of protections marriage provides that shoudl be universal, or clsoe to that. If you want further custumization fo the contract, you're free to write up a pre-nup, after all.

If you reread what I said, you will see that I actually stated that Government must enforce contracts (within certain parameters), so I am not sure why you felt you needed to point that out. Contracts are already a matter of law, and do not need, in general, some "one size fits all" contract.

You wrote: But some very basic rights/responsibilities REQUIRE universal recognition, or they become meaningless. And the only entity society can and shoudl entrust with such a task is the (rightfully elected) government.

Actually I think the exact opposite is true. Basic human rights only require that law reocgnizes them for every individual to which they apply. Making a "one marriage to rule them all" actually violates the rights of any individuals who want to enter into marriage on their own terms, not the terms of a given State.

Why are people even bothering saying things like that government has no business in marriage? It's a useless point. And it's a good step in the right direction.Ring_of_fire

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]I'm surprised there haven't been any bigots in here yet complaining about this. Anyway, good news.dave123321

wut?

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]I'm surprised there haven't been any bigots in here yet complaining about this. Anyway, good news.Storm_Marine

wut?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"] OT is evolving their stance.dave123321

wut?

yes, what are they evolving from and what are they evolving to?

From bigotry that would impede gay marriage to accepting if not condoning.dave123321

Are there any examples of this evolution in place?

[QUOTE="dave123321"]From bigotry that would impede gay marriage to accepting if not condoning.Storm_Marine

Are there any examples of this evolution in place?

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]Why are people even bothering saying things like that government has no business in marriage? It's a useless point. And it's a good step in the right direction.dave123321

Not me. Long before gay marriage was the latest issue, I was arguing that marriage law should be removed as it presently stands and allowed to be what it should be -- a relationship between two or more individuals that is defined strictly by those two or more individuals.

I have to support the gay marriage movement (just as I'd have to support interracial marriage or polygamy) because it's obvious certain people are being put into a bad situation by marriage law existing as it does, but my druthers and on-going preachiness on the subject will remain that a law defining a relationship between human beings as personal as marriage should not based on a definition etched onto stone law books by politicians.

[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]Why are people even bothering saying things like that government has no business in marriage? It's a useless point. And it's a good step in the right direction.dave123321

No one has what?

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]Why are people even bothering saying things like that government has no business in marriage? It's a useless point. And it's a good step in the right direction.m0zart

Not me. Long before gay marriage was the latest issue, I was arguing that marriage law should be removed as it presently stands and allowed to be what it should be -- a relationship between two or more individuals that is defined strictly by those two or more individuals.

I have to support the gay marriage movement (just as I'd have to support interracial marriage or polygamy) because it's obvious certain people are being put into a bad situation by marriage law existing as it does, but my druthers and on-going preachiness on the subject will remain that a law defining a relationship between human beings as personal as marriage is should not be something etched onto stone law books by politicians.

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]Why are people even bothering saying things like that government has no business in marriage? It's a useless point. And it's a good step in the right direction.Storm_Marine

No one has what?

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]Why are people even bothering saying things like that government has no business in marriage? It's a useless point. And it's a good step in the right direction.m0zart

Not me. Long before gay marriage was the latest issue, I was arguing that marriage law should be removed as it presently stands and allowed to be what it should be -- a relationship between two or more individuals that is defined strictly by those two or more individuals.

I have to support the gay marriage movement (just as I'd have to support interracial marriage or polygamy) because it's obvious certain people are being put into a bad situation by marriage law existing as it does, but my druthers and on-going preachiness on the subject will remain that a law defining a relationship between human beings as personal as marriage should not based on a definition etched onto stone law books by politicians.

But what about things like child support and alimony? With out laws people would be left extremely vulnerable.