NY, GA say no to gay marriage

[nelson]

Associated Press: New York Appeals Court Won't Allow Gay Marriage (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,202339,00.html)

Associated Press: Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,202360,00.html)

Both stories published today.

[Ais Sedai]

well, they're idiots.

[Teiwaz]

Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

Seems logical. If they have the same rights, it is not discriminatory. Marriage is a man and a woman to me. They want to re-define the term, or expand it's meaning. It is grandstanding for political gain to demand their union be recognized as the same as a heterosexual union and if a homosexual couple can have a civil union with all the rights of a marriage, but insist on the term "amrriage" being applied, they may as well admit it has nothing to do with the union and everything to do with Public Relations.

["shazbat"]

To me "marriage" is what you want to believe it is. There are too many states that allow "common law" to be binding to be to damned rigid on what constitutes "marriage".
It's also just as legal whether performed by a judge, JOP, Ships Captain, clergyman of any accepted or obscure denomination or in a Las Vegas chapel.
Quite frankly there are some of the listed options that would leave me feeling quite shall we say "un-kosher".
What ever they call it I don't feel that letting two same sex partners enjoy the legal roller coaster of "marriage or civil union" in anyway belittles or demeans the sanctity of my vows spoken between my wife and I.
In many South American countries they have both a civil and religious weddings because neither recognizes the other.
So don't give me any crap about what "marriage" is.
One could argue that it's really all just a plot by business and governement to keep from paying out death or insurance benefits.

[nelson]

When I ponder this issue I have several profound questions, I hope they do not offend anyone and I am sorry if they do. They are real questions that I can't answer.

In reality, do not heterosexuals routinely discriminate against homosexuals and vice versa? Before selecting a partner, the heterosexual has already ruled out all homosexuals on earth - not by assessing each individual's own merit, mind you - but simply by virtue of their homosexuality. Is this not discrimination?

As far as I know, most heterosexuals marry in order to procreate at some point. Isn't that practice highly exclusive and discriminatory? Should heterosexuals cease an activity that cannot be participated in by homosexuals? Or, alternatively, should humanity find ways for homosexuals to procreate and encourage it, to balance the what appears to be the innate unfairness of heterosexuality (i.e. the desire/ability to procreate)?

I think human children benefit most from the balance of a secure, masculine paternity and a secure, feminine maternity. If I am right and this is true, then doesn't that fact discriminate against the homosexual community? Or, if it does not, then how do married homosexuals best provide these distinct influences? Does one partner provide one influence and the other partner the other? Or do both partners provide mixed influences? Do they seek assistance from others to provide these influences?

[The_Man]

Again Nelson thanks for the voice of reason.
Funny how those that promote or defend certain agendas neglect to show the negative impact that certain lifestyles have historically had on society. Homosexuality, beastuality, and many other alternative life styles have been in existence in societies since the beginning of society and have always brought about the same negative benefits. Not the natural order of things IMHO.

["shazbat"]

When I ponder this issue I have several profound questions, I hope they do not offend anyone and I am sorry if they do. They are real questions that I can't answer.

In reality, do not heterosexuals routinely discriminate against homosexuals and vice versa? Before selecting a partner, the heterosexual has already ruled out all homosexuals on earth - not by assessing each individual's own merit, mind you - but simply by virtue of their homosexuality. Is this not discrimination?

Nelson, you're going way out on a limb here. There is no concious thought to go outside the bounds of what is natural to each individual thus there is no discrimination.

As far as I know, most heterosexuals marry in order to procreate at some point. Isn't that practice highly exclusive and discriminatory? Should heterosexuals cease an activity that cannot be participated in by homosexuals? Or, alternatively, should humanity find ways for homosexuals to procreate and encourage it, to balance the what appears to be the innate unfairness of heterosexuality (i.e. the desire/ability to procreate)?

Let's be serious. Heterosexuals marry for a wide variety of reasons and procreation is generally a bi-product of most of the others. For the most part even marriage is a bi-product of the baser human urges (desire, physical attraction, lust etc.). Then there are unions of convenience, arranged unions, unions sparked by accidental pregnancy, etc.
And BTW, I will not even begin to broach the subject of human cloning here.

I think human children benefit most from the balance of a secure, masculine paternity and a secure, feminine maternity. If I am right and this is true, then doesn't that fact discriminate against the homosexual community? Or, if it does not, then how do married homosexuals best provide these distinct influences? Does one partner provide one influence and the other partner the other? Or do both partners provide mixed influences? Do they seek assistance from others to provide these influences?

What we think is merely speculation. There are many studies related to this subject and as many conclusions to be drawn from them as there are studies. The benefits of the effect of a "secure" male/female parent environment on the psycological make up of a child is generally accepted though largely children will benefit more from the secure, stable and consistant aspect of a caring parent (singular) more than from the gender or number of parents alone. So many more children are casualties of broken homes than are distressed by same sex partnered parentage.

["shazbat"]

Again Nelson thanks for the voice of reason.
Funny how those that promote or defend certain agendas neglect to show the negative impact that certain lifestyles have historically had on society. Homosexuality, beastuality, and many other alternative life styles have been in existence in societies since the beginning of society and have always brought about the same negative benefits. Not the natural order of things IMHO.

Reason? Nelson's comment was more comic and satire in nature.
I have no agenda to promote or defend. I am naturally heterosexual and perfectly satisfied with the circumstance.
I do however see a great difference between sexual deviations and perversions of the types you mentioned (beastiallity, necrophilia, pedophilia of both homo and hetero varieties) and the devout dedicated caring relationship between two partners of the same sex which is no different than that held between a man and a woman.
We're not talking about legalising or granting acceptance to criminally deviant behavior. That's the Christian Conservative Right agenda talking.
The crux of the issue is mostly the aspects of couples rights. The right to chain of inheiritance, the right to be able to make life/death decisions in extreme medical cases, the issues of spousal benefits and compensations for committed partners etc.
I don't understand homosexuality but I can't condemn the relationship between knowing, "consenting" adults nor can I demean or belittle the level of caring and commitment therein.
They should enjoy the same rights enjoyed by my wife and myself, and with it the same heartbreaks, aggrevations and legal turmoil when the relationship crumbles.
It may not be the "natural order of things" but we live in a very extra-natural world.

[The_Man]

We're not talking about legalising or granting acceptance to criminally deviant behavior.

Since almost all states had on the books laws against sodomy until the early 1970’s You are indeed talking about legalizing and granting acceptance to criminally deviant behavior. Thanks to one of the worst organizations in this country IMHO, the ACLU the list of states with laws pertaining to sodomy have been reduced by 26:
Alaska (1980)
Arizona (2001)
California (1976)
Colorado (1972)
Connecticut (1971)
Delaware (1973)
District of Columbia (1993)
Hawaii (1973)
Illinois (1962)
Indiana (1977)
Iowa (1978)
Maine (1976)
Nebraska (1978)
Nevada (1993)
New Hampshire (1975)
New Jersey (1979)
New Mexico (1975)
North Dakota (1973)
Ohio (1974)
Oregon (1972)
Rhode Island (1998)
South Dakota (1977)
Vermont (1977)
Washington (1976)
West Virginia (1976)
Wisconsin (1983)
Wyoming (1977)

["shazbat"]

I notice the two states in the original question are not on the list. Hmmmm...
There are 27 on the list, which are these the ones that allow or not?

[nelson]

shazbat, I value intelligent discussion with articulate people and I appreciate your taking the time to make this argument. Here is my response.

Nelson, you're going way out on a limb here. There is no concious thought to go outside the bounds of what is natural to each individual thus there is no discrimination.How do we know whether a thought was conscious? Shall a court of law decide? And using "what is natural" as a determinant, since it is "natural" for many males to desire multiple females... should polygamy be legal?

It's not going out on a limb to say human beings do consciously, naturally, freely, and legally discriminate - on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, also race, ethnicity, religion, and in other ways - when selecting a mate, even when selecting friends.

Let's be serious. Heterosexuals marry for a wide variety of reasons and procreation is generally a bi-product of most of the others. For the most part even marriage is a bi-product of the baser human urges (desire, physical attraction, lust etc.). I am, and I agree we marry for a variety of reasons, but I do not think procreation is a by-product. Sometimes it is unintended, but always it is instinctively the primary objective -- reproduction is, after all, the underlying human urge causing every one of the more superficial human urges you listed. Is it fair to say that homosexuals, by virtue of their homosexuality, wholly reject this deepest and most basic of all human urges?

I think human children benefit most from the balance of a secure, masculine paternity and a secure, feminine maternity. If I am right and this is true, then doesn't that fact discriminate against the homosexual community? Or, if it does not, then how do married homosexuals best provide these distinct influences? Does one partner provide one influence and the other partner the other? Or do both partners provide mixed influences? Do they seek assistance from others to provide these influences?What we think is merely speculation. There are many studies related to this subject and as many conclusions to be drawn from them as there are studies. The benefits of the effect of a "secure" male/female parent environment on the psycological make up of a child is generally accepted though largely children will benefit more from the secure, stable and consistant aspect of a caring parent (singular) more than from the gender or number of parents alone. So many more children are casualties of broken homes than are distressed by same sex partnered parentage.When we have enough data to fully assess the effects of a large quantity of same sex partnered parentages over time, the last sentence in your above paragraph may be debated. For now let it simply be my opinion that traditional gender roles, and loving interaction between them, benefit young children the most by providing proper expectations about themselves, their identities, and their futures.

["shazbat"]

shazbat, I value intelligent discussion with articulate people and I appreciate your taking the time to make this argument. Here is my response.

How do we know whether a thought was conscious? Shall a court of law decide? And using "what is natural" as a determinant, since it is "natural" for many males to desire multiple females... should polygamy be legal?

It's not going out on a limb to say human beings do consciously, naturally, freely, and legally discriminate - on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, also race, ethnicity, religion, and in other ways - when selecting a mate, even when selecting friends.

I am, and I agree we marry for a variety of reasons, but I do not think procreation is a by-product. Sometimes it is unintended, but always it is instinctively the primary objective -- reproduction is, after all, the underlying human urge causing every one of the more superficial human urges you listed. Is it fair to say that homosexuals, by virtue of their homosexuality, wholly reject this deepest and most basic of all human urges?

When we have enough data to fully assess the effects of a large quantity of same sex partnered parentages over time, the last sentence in your above paragraph may be debated. For now let it simply be my opinion that traditional gender roles, and loving interaction between them, benefit young children the most by providing proper expectations about themselves, their identities, and their futures.

I'll concede the discrimination even without forethought but the broad sweeping comment that reproduction "is always" the underlying human urge to marry is bosh.
Procreation amongst dual gendered species is instinct. Pairing and bonding for extended periods may also be instinct or merely convenient but Marriage is social ceremony created by man.
As for polygamy, if one heterosexual spouse is good should not more be better ? ;) Seems I recall some Biblical patriarchs with multiple spouses.

[The_Man]

Shazbat,
The above is a list of states that due to lawsuits brought by the ACLU have had their sodomy laws legislatively repealed. You will notice that I said 26 and listed 27 to include the District of Columbia.

[nelson]

Today the Washington State Supreme Court upheld that state's defense of marriage act prohibiting same-sex marriage. At issue was whether or not the state legislature has the power to limit marriage in Washington State to opposite-sex couples. There are nine total justices on the court, five of them concurred with the majority opinion: The state constitution and controlling case law compel us to answer 'yes,' and we therefore reverse the trial courts. Four dissented. Some of the very items we've talked about here were discussed in the justices' opinions, all of which can be read here (http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=707).

The local press quickly began chiding the decision:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: State's high court upholds ban on gay marriage
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/278896_samesex26ww.html

The national media only has briefs posted at the moment but it's clear they don't like it either:

Reuters: Washington state court upholds gay marriage ban
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-26T151623Z_01_N25240839_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-GAY-MARRIAGE.xml




.