What is Digg?267 Comments
- SheilaNoya, on 05/29/2008, -8/+106The evangelicals are the first ones to scream "INDIVIDUAL STATE'S RIGHTS" when they want to ban abortion in their state. Yet when another state has a legal ruling they don't like (like legalizing gay marriage), the first thing they yell is "CHANGE THE U.S. CONSITUTION AND OVERRIDE INDIVIDUAL STATE DECISIONS".
One of the best things about this year's election cycle is that the crazy evangelicals don't have a viable candidate to represent them anymore. Although McCain is currently sucking up to them for votes, even he would quickly kick them all to the curb if he somehow managed to win.
The homophobes and religious extremists are finally losing their political power and fading into obscurity. Good riddance. - bulletproofx, on 05/29/2008, -12/+77Definitely a step in the right direction! Cheers, New York.
- inactive, on 05/30/2008, -9/+59Suck it evangelicals, suck it hard, suck it slow, suck it deep suck it out.
- sgiffy, on 05/29/2008, -6/+46Good for New York. Lets hope more states follow suit and lets hope in ten or twenty years anti-gay marriage laws go the way of jim crow.
- paradexes, on 05/30/2008, -7/+43For the homophobes posting...I am guessing you have major issues with your own sexuality or you would not take a position of fear and start proclaiming hate. I may not be into the lifestyle or like it myself, but people are free to choose what they do with their lives for good or ill. That is what our country was founded on. Clearly you chose a position of fear which speaks volume about your character as a human being. The redneck mentality that is sweeping parts of the nation is getting old and shows the ugly side of the US that the international community hates about us because they are a loud obnoxious bunch.
- fearofsociety, on 05/30/2008, -3/+34America works best when it's about freedom and personal liberty. I think this is the right decision. If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married. Otherwise, it's really none of your business. Individual rights should supercede tradition or religious dogma.
- mikey2dope, on 05/30/2008, -5/+36I don't get it. What's so wrong about allowing gays to marry? The fact that they may want to do it in a church? Not good enough, there's a ton of "gay" churches. Maybe because we have to abide by religion or we'll all go to hell? Not good enough. Religion is a personal thing, nothing you do or anything I allow you to do, short of harming others, will interfere in my own salvation. I say let everyone be allowed to live their lives, make their decisions within the bounds of the law, as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of anyone else.
A gay couple marrying across town doesn't affect you. Get off your high horse. If you think they're going to hell, then fine. But ultimately it does not affect you AT ALL.
If people want to ban gay marriages, they might as well go all the way and say ban gays altogether. We know that's what they truly feel.
From a heterosexual Christian male living in New York City. - tech42er, on 05/30/2008, -1/+29Sure. We don't need marriage to be a government institution, just a private partnership. Of course, if marriage is going to be a government institution, it better be offered to all citizens.
- pintomp3, on 05/30/2008, -2/+29they tried the "states rights" argument for slavery, now are doing it for abortion and gay marriage. even a lot of libertarians try to make this point. funny how the rights of the state government are more important than the freedoms of the individual.
- DavidinBoston, on 05/30/2008, -2/+28The bottom line is SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVOR BENEFITS.
No federal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples means that gay citizens don't get such benefits.
If the evangelicals have their way, an elderly gay American citizen who is left by him or herself after the death of a partner of 50 years gets NO SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVOR BENEFITS to help them in their own final years. For that matter, even a younger gay American whose partner passes away will end up unprotected with respect to being able to access those Social Security Survior Benefits. - jasoninoakland, on 05/30/2008, -4/+30Finally, more and more people understand that "protecting marriage" should mean extending it to more people, and not restricting it.
- inactive, on 05/30/2008, -2/+27Not where I'm typing from.
*happy dance from California* - pintomp3, on 05/30/2008, -2/+27oh they will. in the men's bathroom at the airport.
- sgiffy, on 05/29/2008, -1/+26While I have no problem with guns, concealed or otherwise, legally the issues are distinct. Concealed carry permits have never been given full faith and credit protection, though many states do offer reciprocity.
- DreKor, on 05/30/2008, -1/+25This wasn't anything new for N.Y. Marriages from other states have always been recognized there, and there are no laws on the books prohibiting the recognition of marriages which happen to be between people of the same gender. Gov. Paterson wants to make sure that the rest of the state understands that and that government agencies act in accordance with current state law.
- ZephyrNinety, on 05/30/2008, -4/+26Good! I still don't understand how it can be justified by the constitution that same-sex marriage or unions can be made illegal, it's *****. Very good New York!
- jasoninoakland, on 05/30/2008, -1/+22Treating gay people like human beings doesn't make more of them. That's decided before birth.
- mizike, on 05/30/2008, -6/+25Congratulations New York!!! Welcome to the 21st century....
- FatLoser, on 05/30/2008, -1/+19The war against oneself is the hardest war to wage. Good luck to you, girlfriend.
- EtherGnat, on 05/30/2008, -0/+18"and it's handled by private churches"
What about people that aren't religious, of mixed faith, or just don't want to get married by the church? If the government isn't involved in marriage how do you guarantee that your marriage will be recognized for legal rights?
If getting married is only for the purpose of having kids would you deny the right to those who are infertile? What about those who don't want children?
Finally, if you can prove to me your cat is intelligent and aware enough to give informed consent I'd be happy to let you marry your cat. - ngmcs8203, on 05/30/2008, -2/+20Way to carry the thorny crown of douchebaggery. They can have kids via surrogacy, adoption or artificial insemination. And the government is involved in the marriage issue for one reason: they give benefits to couples who are married.
- chrispr, on 05/30/2008, -1/+19Pro Tip: Same sex marriage doesn't breed gay people.
- absurdist, on 05/30/2008, -1/+17And thanks for playing "Really Bad Analogy."
- secrity, on 05/30/2008, -2/+17Why do you want gays to remain ***** over for another ten to twenty years? This ***** needs to be fixed now.
- OrangeCrush, on 05/30/2008, -0/+15Baby steps, baby steps. As much as I'd love to see legalized gay marriage nationwide right now, it's going to take time for people's minds to change, and unfortunately, a few more old bigots need to die.
- Hefelumpman, on 05/30/2008, -4/+19Are you seriously going to be the first person to comment on every single one of his stories, just to state that you're burying the story because he submitted it?
Go outside, there's a whole world out there, with stuff to do that doesn't involve stalking someone on the internet. - failedprototype, on 05/30/2008, -1/+16The purpose of getting married is whatever the CONSENTING (meows don't count) individuals choose it to be. You can be married and choose not to have kids if you'd like. Should a woman who was in an accident that left her infertile be able to marry? Should an impotent man be able to marry? By the way, marriage doesn't have to be handled by a church. I do agree with you though in the fact that government should stay out of the marriage issue as much as possible.
- fmaxwell, on 05/30/2008, -3/+17@JettaMan: "BTW Can I get married to my cat now? We have about the same chance of having kids as a gay couple."
I guess if two men can be married, so can two pussies... - ericnorris1, on 05/30/2008, -0/+14Umm, it was about 64 years ago. Hitlers long dead buddy.
- leonardutah, on 05/30/2008, -0/+14*****, can one of the admins ban this guy already?
- Puppyfam, on 05/30/2008, -1/+14Funny, I'm the exact opposite. I'm not a huge fan of the ruling, but think that it should be accepted across state lines... Really, as I understand US Government, this should be a non-story. I believe the legal doctrine behind why driver's licences are valid across state lines applies in this case... States have the obligation to accept certain legal documents from other states... I believe driver's licences and marriages fall into this category. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
- ericnorris1, on 05/30/2008, -1/+14What the hell do Jewish people have to do with this???? Second of all, ***** you, and what the hell does everyone have against onetimer?
- mizike, on 05/30/2008, -2/+15Do you agree with everything in the old testament? If yes, you're probably lying; if not, then why single this one part out?
- Amadeus2490, on 05/30/2008, -1/+13The entire reason for the anti-gay movement is, whether they say it directly or not, "It offends me and threatens my sexuality." They've done brainwave scans on men and women while they were being shown various images, and when the males viewed the slide of gay anal sex, their brain responded in the classic "fight or flight" pattern.
- gadgetlust, on 05/30/2008, -0/+12Wrong, legend. Marriage was invented by the part (however small) of human nature that tends toward monogamy, that and the acquisition of property and/or status through beneficial family alliances.
The church co-opted marriage in 1563 (at the council of Trent) as a way to further extend its influence over the people in the empire (who had been happily declaring themselves to be married without the church's help for hundreds of years).
Tech42er, I wish I could digg you twice. - Obzerva, on 05/30/2008, -0/+11Well said, I feel EXACTLY the same way. I just don't get what all the fuss is about.
- gadgetlust, on 05/30/2008, -1/+12Sorry, Jettaman, but your understanding of the relationship between the church and marriage fails to account for history. The Catholic position that marriage was intended to be an action of the church officiated over by a priest wasn't formalized until the council of Trent in 1563, and that position was taken in reaction to the protestant notion that marriage was "a worldly thing.. something belonging to the realm of government".
As a pastor, I have the privilege of conducting weddings -- the "wedding" part is a civil service that I do on behalf of my provincial government. Prayers and blessings are an extra piece that accompany weddings that I do as a religious officiant, but weddings performed without these pieces (ie by a civil authority) are absolutely valid, provided they're properly registered with the government.
Given that weddings have a tendency to be gong shows, and that people who come to be married in religious ceremonies often do so due to coercion from someone in the bride/groom's family rather than any strong religious conviction of their own ---- I'd gladly hand over all the administrative aspects of weddings back over to the government. - analogkid01, on 05/30/2008, -0/+11Obviously that won't happen, since more and more states are recognizing the *fact* that gay people have just as many rights as heterosexual people. What's your problem with people having rights, anyway?
- EtherGnat, on 05/30/2008, -1/+12Why should the Bible have anything to do with marriage? (...and whose Bible?) I guess if you're Jewish or atheist or Muslim you're just out of luck if you want to get married in this country by your rules. So much for separation of church and state.
- leonardutah, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11You leave the Jews and their tasty knishes out of this! If i have to put up with your ***** comments then you can put up with two of my male friends getting married in a synagogue.
- yosserhughes, on 05/30/2008, -0/+10Yes indeed, as long as its between consenting adults they can do what the heck they want.
Its only when your multiple wives include under-age girls. - mikelieman, on 05/30/2008, -0/+10-------------- C O M M E N T A R Y ----------------------------
Having the status of "Being Married" provides many financial benefits.
When paying taxes, executing wills, real-estate contracts, buying insurance, getting credit, almost every legal issue has a "spousal" component.
Those benefits are governed by Contract Law. More specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code in New York.
-------------- T H E L A W ----------------------------------
* New York State Consolidated Laws
o Uniform Commercial Code
PART 1
SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, APPLICATION AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACT
Section 1--101. Short Title.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code.
Section 1--102. Purposes; Rules of Construction; Variation by Agreement.
(1) This Act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.
(2) Underlying purposes and policies of this Act are
(a) to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions;
(b) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties;
(c) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.
(3) The effect of provisions of this Act may be varied by agreement, except as otherwise provided in this Act and except that the obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care prescribed by this Act may not be disclaimed by agreement but the parties may by agreement determine the standards by which the performance of such obligations is to be measured if such standards are not manifestly unreasonable.
(4) The presence in certain provisions of this Act of the words "unless otherwise agreed" or words of similar import does not imply that the effect of other provisions may not be varied by agreement under subsection (3).
(5) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires
(a) words in the singular number include the plural, and in the plural include the singular;
(b) words of the masculine gender include the feminine and the neuter, and when the sense so indicates words of the neuter gender may refer to any gender.
------------ C O M M E N T A R Y -------------------------------------
I included the whole thing, because there's a few important concepts:
Sec. 1 102 (1) says "liberally construed and applied"
Sec. 1 102 (5) (b) words of the masculine gender include the feminine and the neuter.
So it's pretty clear the the Legislature of New York wanted, when considering CONTRACTS for there to be no difference between male, female, and neutral.
Keep that in mind, it's the key. As far as contracts in New York go, there's no legal difference between Male, Female, and Other.
Is Marriage a Contract?
-------------- T H E L A W ----------------------------------
* New York State Consolidated Laws
o Domestic Relations
ARTICLE 3
Solemnization, Proof and Effect of Marriage
S 10. Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.
----------------- C O M M E N T A R Y --------------------------
That was quick. That "gender neutral" thing also applies to every other contract. Not just the marriage contract.
-------------- T H E L A W ----------------------------------
S 14-a. Town and city clerks to issue certificates of marriage registration; form. 1. Upon receipt of the return of the marriage license, properly endorsed and completed by the person who shall have solemnized a marriage as provided in this article, the town and city clerks of each and every town or city in the state shall, after abstracting, recording and indexing the statement of performance of
solemnization, issue to the couple within fifteen days after such receipt or return of the completed marriage license a certificate of marriage, which certificate shall be substantially in the following form and contain the following facts:
Record No............of Year........
THIS IS TO CERTIFY
that ................................................................. ,
first name, premarriage surname, new surname (if applicable)
residing at .......................................................... ,
who was born on ........................., at ........................ ,
date
and .................................................................. ,
first name, premarriage surname, new surname (if applicable)
residing at .......................................................... ,
who was born ........................, at ............................ ,
date
............................. , were married on.......................at
date
............. as shown by the duly registered license and certificate of
marriage of said persons on file in this office.
(SEAL) ......................................
Town or City Clerk
Dated at.................., N. Y.
No other facts contained in the affidavits, statements, consents or
licenses shall be certified by such town and city clerks, unless
expressly requested in writing by the man or woman named in such
affidavit, license, statement or record.
----------------- C O M M E N T A R Y --------------------------
The Legislature meant what they wrote. See anything about "One Man AND One Woman"? I don't. Closest you're going to get is the "... by the man or woman named in such affidavit ..." above. But attempting to extend the concept that the documentation MUST come from the parties to be "One Man AND One Woman" would be foolish. - cjnkns, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11It's about time states started recognizing a human right. How freaking long does it take for people to put their fears aside and just let people love and live life.
- THETEH, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11The old testament also says that it's a sin for divorced people to remarry. Shall we illegalize that as well?
Besides, believe it or not, not everyone in America believes in the Bible. There is this other, fairly obscure document called the Bill of Rights that a few Americans read now and then. - frelk, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11Well spoken... jedi.
- fuzzmeister, on 05/30/2008, -2/+12"from other jurisdictions, like California and Canada."
What about Massachusetts? It's right next door, and was the first to legalize same-sex marriage. - secrity, on 05/30/2008, -2/+12It used to be claimed that the bible prohibited mixed race marriages. The bible is used to ***** anybody that the right wing christian nut jobs want to ***** over.
- paradexes, on 05/30/2008, -3/+12Except....Canada is not a state. It another nation. But hey semantics.
- wendelgee2, on 05/30/2008, -2/+11Since everyone else basically eviscerated your ridiculous argument, I want only to add: JETTAS SUCK.
- InfiniteNothing, on 05/30/2008, -0/+9State can be synonymous with nation.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 273 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is