Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

[Farnhamia]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

As long as no one married in a religious ceremony calls their union a marriage, yes. I only get bent out of shape when people say, "Well, you can just call it a civil union, you know, because 'marriage' is a sacred word that belongs to religion." Sorry, no. Since the only meaningful part, the registration of your union with the state, is not religious, I get to say "marriage," too. Anything else is second-class citizenship.

I think I understand what you say. As long as you still get to call it all marriage, even if the legal term has change, its okay. That is what you mean, right? If so, I do not believ that is what grave means.

The legal term is "marriage," as far as I know. But I suppose so, if the underlying terminology changes.

[Omnicracy]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

It's the less immediate argument - but I'm not a short-term-victory guy.

'Marrying' is bringing things together in union. 'Marriage' IS a civil union. It already is. There's no point in letting an entire second system be set up when one already exists - and the fact that we've BEEN tolerating it, has created a second class society. Separate but equal is a lie - if it's separate, it's not equal.

I do not say have legal defenition of marriage with civil unions. I say take the marriage lisence, take the word marriage out of it, and make it so it is between two concenting adults. The only arguments I've see that oppose that so far a just as baseless as the "Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage," argument. In what I propose, marriage does not become a purely religious term, but a purely cultural one. All of the unions would still be called marriages by people.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LolWut?

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

But, there is no "Creator and Master of the Universe," so that argument fails. If you choose to worship the deity of a Bronze Age tribe of desert nomads, that's fine for you but please don't try to enshrine their 3,000 year-old morality on me in the 21st century. I am an adult citizen of the United States of America. Why should I - who happens to be gay - have fewer rights than any heterosexual citizen?

You apparently follow the False Gods of the Religion called Science, and you can have all the rights I do except for marriage. I mean its not like I am asking for it to be legal to execute gays by stoning.

[Omnicracy]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

As long as no one married in a religious ceremony calls their union a marriage, yes. I only get bent out of shape when people say, "Well, you can just call it a civil union, you know, because 'marriage' is a sacred word that belongs to religion." Sorry, no. Since the only meaningful part, the registration of your union with the state, is not religious, I get to say "marriage," too. Anything else is second-class citizenship.

I think I understand what you say. As long as you still get to call it all marriage, even if the legal term has change, its okay. That is what you mean, right? If so, I do not believ that is what grave means.

The legal term is "marriage," as far as I know. But I suppose so, if the underlying terminology changes.

I know it is the current terminology, I was proposing change.

[Milks Empire]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

I don't fucking care what your god says. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says it's 100% irrelevant.

[Omnicracy]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

I don't fucking care what your god says. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says it's 100% irrelevant.

I am sorry but you are just wrong. His argument is defeated by several amendments, of wich the fist is only one.

[Farnhamia]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

I don't fucking care what your god says. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says it's 100% irrelevant.

Come on, Milks, don't be feeding the troll. It just makes them all swollen and full of themselves.

[Grave_n_idle]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

It's the less immediate argument - but I'm not a short-term-victory guy.

'Marrying' is bringing things together in union. 'Marriage' IS a civil union. It already is. There's no point in letting an entire second system be set up when one already exists - and the fact that we've BEEN tolerating it, has created a second class society. Separate but equal is a lie - if it's separate, it's not equal.

I do not say have legal defenition of marriage with civil unions. I say take the marriage lisence, take the word marriage out of it, and make it so it is between two concenting adults. The only arguments I've see that oppose that so far a just as baseless as the "Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage," argument. In what I propose, marriage does not become a purely religious term, but a purely cultural one. All of the unions would still be called marriages by people.

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

Also - I have to point out - it's not as simple as you seem to believe. People oppose 'civil unions', too. There's a large proportion of the American population that doesn't want homosexuals to have ANY kind of recognise unions.

[Omnicracy]

Make all marriage alegal; the government should only deal in civil unions.

Marriage is a civil union. So... your wish is already granted.

I understand the point you are makeing, okay. Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to comproise and make it all civil unions in name in stead of marriage licenses for the sake of achieving equal rights? That sounds like a foolish argument to be making.

It's the less immediate argument - but I'm not a short-term-victory guy.

'Marrying' is bringing things together in union. 'Marriage' IS a civil union. It already is. There's no point in letting an entire second system be set up when one already exists - and the fact that we've BEEN tolerating it, has created a second class society. Separate but equal is a lie - if it's separate, it's not equal.

I do not say have legal defenition of marriage with civil unions. I say take the marriage lisence, take the word marriage out of it, and make it so it is between two concenting adults. The only arguments I've see that oppose that so far a just as baseless as the "Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage," argument. In what I propose, marriage does not become a purely religious term, but a purely cultural one. All of the unions would still be called marriages by people.

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

Also - I have to point out - it's not as simple as you seem to believe. People oppose 'civil unions', too. There's a large proportion of the American population that doesn't want homosexuals to have ANY kind of recognise unions.

First of all, no. If you do what I propose there is no "seperate but equal" in the system. Could you tell me what makes you keep saying that? Second, you are right, there would still be an argument about culturaly aplying the word to homosexual unions. At that point though, who care? Equal rights are achieved. Let the ignorant complain. Finaly, I have not herd one anti-civil union argument that wasn't hate based. With my compromise, equal rights gets the whole middle of the debate. I'm pretty sure that should be enough to push it ouve the edge on the pro-rights side. Whats wrong with that?

[Grave_n_idle]

First of all, no. If you do what I propose there is no "seperate but equal" in the system.

Of course there is - all civil unions would be called civil unions - in theory - but only half of them would get to call them marriages.

Second, you are right, there would still be an argument about culturaly aplying the word to homosexual unions. At that point though, who care? Equal rights are achieved.

See - you've just made the point I was making.

Let the ignorant complain. Finaly, I have not herd one anti-civil union argument that wasn't hate based.

They use the same arguments as the anti-marriage-equality people. Are you saying that all anti-marriage-equality arguments are hate-based?

I'm inclined to agree... and that's the problem.

You can't reason with that.

With my compromise, equal rights gets the whole middle of the debate. I'm pretty sure that should be enough to push it ouve the edge on the pro-rights side. Whats wrong with that?

It wouldn't happen, and it's half a solution.

[Buffett and Colbert]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

Who is this God of whom you speak?

[JarVik]

What a truly long thread for what to me seems a simple question.

I'm sure buried in the length of this post are many disscussions on yea or nay that are likely to be more elegant to what I will issue, but for the record Yea.

Why? Why not? I'm not gay so this isn't a big issue on my radar but I don't see where it hurts me to let gay or lesbians marry and I can see where it would hurt their rights and dignity (of the gay community) to deny it to them. So the answer is obvious to me, let them have gay marriage.

I think bemusedly about who will wear the dress, and wonder if the dresses for the bridesmaids will be less hideous than usual, but mostly I think they can do it in what ever manner suits them. I don't see where it matters to me what they do with their ceremony, or that I or anyone else has the right to tell them they can't have one.

[Dyakovo]

Why should religious people get to vote on what other people do with their lives?


Nosy gits.

Because we know better than you.

LolWut?

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

But, there is no "Creator and Master of the Universe," so that argument fails. If you choose to worship the deity of a Bronze Age tribe of desert nomads, that's fine for you but please don't try to enshrine their 3,000 year-old morality on me in the 21st century. I am an adult citizen of the United States of America. Why should I - who happens to be gay - have fewer rights than any heterosexual citizen?

Because teh ghey makes you Ebul!

[Buffett and Colbert]

You apparently follow the False Gods of the Religion called Science,

Oxymoronic, much?

and you can have all the rights I do except for marriage.

What if the gays were the majority and didn't grant you the right to marry?

I mean its not like I am asking for it to be legal to execute gays by stoning.

You're asking for their inherent rights to be restricted, which is (Buzzword time!) unconstitutional and un-American.

EDIT-- By thew way, Kormanthor, we know it's you.

[Omnicracy]

First of all, no. If you do what I propose there is no "seperate but equal" in the system.

Of course there is - all civil unions would be called civil unions - in theory - but only half of them would get to call them marriages.

Second, you are right, there would still be an argument about culturaly aplying the word to homosexual unions. At that point though, who care? Equal rights are achieved.

See - you've just made the point I was making.

Let the ignorant complain. Finaly, I have not herd one anti-civil union argument that wasn't hate based.

They use the same arguments as the anti-marriage-equality people. Are you saying that all anti-marriage-equality arguments are hate-based?

I'm inclined to agree... and that's the problem.

You can't reason with that.

With my compromise, equal rights gets the whole middle of the debate. I'm pretty sure that should be enough to push it ouve the edge on the pro-rights side. Whats wrong with that?

It wouldn't happen, and it's half a solution.

1) Why would only the strait one be called marriages??? That makes no sence!

2) So the point you were making was that the rights don't matter but the terminology does?

3) No, the argument arnt the same. If they were, why would so many posters have said the same argument i did?

4) Why wouldn't it happen? Why is it a half solution? Because you dont get the legal word you want?

[Dyakovo]

The legal term is "marriage," as far as I know.

Yuppers

The Marriage License
Where do you get one?

A couple who intends to be married in New York State must apply in person for a marriage license to any town or city clerk in the state. The application for a license must be signed by both the bride and groom in the presence of the town or city clerk. A representative cannot apply for the license on behalf of the bride or groom. This applies even if the representative has been given the Power of Attorney. Notarized marriage license affidavits signed by the bride or groom cannot be substituted for their personal appearance.
Is there a waiting period?

Yes. Although the marriage license is issued immediately, the marriage ceremony may not take place within 24 hours from the exact time that the license was issued. When both applicants are 16 years of age or older, the 24-hour waiting period may be waived by an order of a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the County Court of the county in which either the bride or groom resides. If either person is under 16 years of age, the order must be from the Family Court judge of the county in which the person under 16 years of age resides.
How long is the license valid?

A marriage license is valid for 60 days, beginning the day after it is issued.
How much does it cost?

If the marriage license is issued by a town or city clerk in New York State outside of New York City, it costs $40. This fee includes the issuance of a Certificate of Marriage Registration. This certificate is automatically sent by the issuing clerk to the applicants within 15 days after the completed license is returned by the officiant (person who performs the marriage ceremony). It serves as notice that a record of the marriage is on file. Couples who do not receive a Certificate of Marriage Registration within four weeks of the wedding should contact the town or city clerk who issued the license.

If the license is to be issued by the City Clerk of the City of New York, please contact the New York City Clerk's Office for current fees and requirements. The City Clerk's Office can be reached at (212) 669-2400 or via their web site at New York City Marriage Bureau.
Is a premarital physical exam required?

No premarital examination or blood test is required to obtain a marriage license in New York State.
What are the age and consent requirements for minors?

* If either applicant is under 14 years of age, a marriage license cannot be issued.
* If either applicant is 14 or 15 years of age, such applicant(s) must present the written consent of both parents and a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Family Court having jurisdiction over the town or city in which the application is made.
* If either applicant is 16 or 17 years of age, such applicant(s) must present the written consent of both parents.
* If both applicants are 18 years of age or older, no consents are required.
* One parent alone may consent to a minor's marriage if:
o The other parent has been missing for one year preceding the application;
o The parents are divorced and the consenting parent was given sole custody of the child when the divorce decree was awarded;
o The other parent has been judged incompetent; or the other parent is deceased.
o Parents, guardians or other people consenting to the marriage of a minor must personally appear and acknowledge or execute their consent before the town or city clerk or some other authorized official. If the notarized affidavit is made before an official outside of the State of New York, it must be accompanied by a certificate of authentication when the consent is filed in New York State.

Proof of Age and Identity

A person is required to establish proof of age and identity by submitting to the issuing clerk one of the following age related documents:

1. Birth Certificate
2. Baptismal record
3. Naturalization record
4. Census record

And one of the following identity related documents:

1. Driver's license
2. Passport
3. Employment picture ID
4. Immigration record

Familial Restrictions

A marriage may not take place in New York State between an ancestor and descendant, a brother and sister (full or half blood), an uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew, regardless of whether or not these persons are legitimate or illegitimate offspring.
Previous Marriages

Information regarding previous marriages must be furnished in the application for a marriage license. This includes whether the former spouse or spouses are living, and whether the applicants are divorced and, if so, when, where and against whom the divorce or divorces were granted. A certified copy of the Decree of Divorce or a Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage may be required by the clerk issuing the marriage license.
Surname Options

Every person has the right to adopt any name by which he or she wishes to be known simply by using that name consistently and without intent to defraud. A person's last name (surname) does not automatically change upon marriage, and neither party to the marriage is required to change his or her last name. The bride and groom need not take the same last name.

One or both parties to a marriage may elect to change the surname by which he or she wishes to be known after the marriage by entering the new name in the appropriate space provided on the marriage license. The new name must consist of one of the following options:

* the surname of the other spouse;
* any former surname of either spouse;
* a name combining into a single surname all or a segment of the premarriage surname or any former surname of each spouse;
* a combination name separated by a hyphen, provided that each part of such combination surname is the premarriage surname, or any former surname, of each of the spouses.

The use of this option will provide a record of your change of name. The marriage certificate, containing the new name, if any, is proof that the use of the new name, or the retention of the former name, is lawful. The local Social Security Administration office should be contacted so that its records and your social security identification card reflect the name change. There is no charge for this service.

Whether you decide to use or not use this option at the time of your marriage license application, you still have the right to adopt a different name through usage at some future date. However, your marriage license cannot be changed to record a surname you decide to use after your marriage.

If you plan to use your married name at work, be sure to have your name changed in Social Security records. This way, you will get credit for all your earnings. It's easy and it's absolutely free. Contact any Social Security office. Look in the telephone book for the address and phone number. You will need documentary evidence showing both your old name and your new name.
Where can a marriage take place?

A New York State marriage license may be used within New York State only. Please note that if you go out of New York State to be married, your New York State marriage license will not be filed in New York State.
What about the ceremony?

There is no particular form or ceremony required except that the parties must state in the presence of an authorized member of the clergy or public official and at least one other witness that they take each other as husband and wife. There is no minimum age for a witness. However, in selecting a witness, choose at least one person who you feel would be competent to testify in a court proceeding as to what he or she witnessed.
Who can perform a marriage ceremony?

To be valid, a marriage ceremony must be performed by any of the individuals specified in Section 11 of the New York State Domestic Relations Law. These include:

* the mayor of a city or village;
* the former mayor, the city clerk or one of the deputy city clerks of a city of more than one million inhabitants;
* a marriage officer appointed by the town or village board or the city common council;
* a justice or judge of the following courts: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern or Western Districts of New York, the New York State Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, the New York State Supreme Court, the Court of Claims, the Family Court, a Surrogates Court, the Civil and Criminal Courts of New York City (including Housing judges of the Civil Court) and other courts of record;
* a village, town or county justice;
* a member of the clergy or minister who has been officially ordained and granted authority to perform marriage ceremonies from a governing church body in accordance with the rules and regulations of the church body;
* a member of the clergy or minister who is not authorized by a governing church body but who has been chosen by a spiritual group to preside over their spiritual affairs;
* other officiants as specified by Section 11 of the Domestic Relations Law.

The person performing the ceremony must be registered with the City of New York in order to perform a ceremony within the New York City limits. The officiant does not have to be a resident of New York State. Ship captains are not authorized to perform marriage ceremonies in New York State.

[Lord Sibley]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

Who is this God of whom you speak?

Jesus, there is no other God.Obviously.

[Buffett and Colbert]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

Who is this God of whom you speak?

Jesus, there is no other God.Obviously.

I've never heard of him.

Well... was he that guy I saw on the news a couple of days ago?

[Dyakovo]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

You apparently follow the False Gods of the Religion called Science,

Oxymoronic, much?

and you can have all the rights I do except for marriage.

What if the gays were the majority and didn't grant you the right to marry?

I mean its not like I am asking for it to be legal to execute gays by stoning.

You're asking for their inherent rights to be restricted, which is (Buzzword time!) unconstitutional and un-American.

EDIT-- By thew way, Kormanthor, we know it's you.

Kormanthor, who is that? I know what my minister and Rush Limbaugh told me is true no matter what you say.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

We know the Creator and Master of the Universe says about marriage, and He says its not for the gays.

We know what the United States Constitution has to say about that, and it's this:
A. The United States of America is not a theocracy, and so that part of your point is invalid.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens, and thus is your entire point invalid.

God's Law is Absolute, so your arguments are invalid.

Who is this God of whom you speak?

Jesus, there is no other God.Obviously.

I've never heard of him.

Well... was he that guy I saw on the news a couple of days ago?

If you were watching Glenn Beck then yes. The other news channels hate Jesus.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I know what my minister and Rush Limbaugh told me is true no matter what you say.

I am Rush Limbaugh, son.

[New Kereptica]

I know what my minister and Rush Limbaugh told me is true no matter what you say.

I am Rush Limbaugh, son.

Daddy?