Same Sex Marriage Passed in New York

[CrusaderFrank]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

There ought not be a religious exemption; when religious officials take on the role of civil servants, they ought to be required to accept the responsibilities of that job, however,

the exemption is a worthwhile concession to achieve the greater good.

Age old struggle between religion and the state. Akiva was a Rebbe, NYCarbiner was a Fascist

"The Talmud relates that the wicked Roman government once decreed that Jewish people should not engage in the study of Torah (B. Brachot 61b). Rabbi Akiva publicly disobeyed this injunction and convened assemblies where he taught Torah.

When Rabbi Akiva's contemporary, Papus, discovered this blatant disregard for the Roman decree he wondered: "Akiva, are you not afraid of the regime?" Rabbi Akiva responded with a famous and colorful parable.

Once a fox took a walk near a brook and saw fish swimming past, darting from place to place as if they were fleeing some danger. "From what are you fleeing?" asked the fox.

The fish responded: "From the nets of people who try to catch us."

The fox had a cunning plan to help the fish: "Why not come up onto dry land where you will be safe from the nets? And we will dwell together, you and I, just as my ancestors dwelt with your ancestors."

The fish were not persuaded: "Are you the one that they describe as the cleverest of animals? You are not clever, but a fool! If we are afraid for our safety in our own habitat, finding it difficult to escape danger and remain alive in the water, in a place that ensures death - that is, dry land - should we not be afraid all the more so?!"

Concluding the tale, Rabbi Akiva turned to Papus to unpack the parable: "The situation facing us is similar. Now we sit and engage in the study of Torah, which is described by the words: For it is your life and the length of your days (Deuteronomy 30:20), and we nevertheless fear for our safety. Were we to forsake Torah, we would be in even greater danger." The extent of Rabbi Akiva's vivid parable is deeper than the short explanation he offered Papus."

On-Line Learning | Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies - Jerusalem Israel

 

[Seawytch]

Well, I must say a hearty "congrats" to NY. It's also nice to know that my marriage is recognized in another state. The number of people living under marriage equality has doubled.

The tide is turning and marriage equality across the US isn't far behind...

Yes, so the Dems will have to use another wedge-issue against the GOP.

I figure legalize Pot, let Gays marry, let women have their abortions but not funded with taxpayer's money.....and figure out some way of documenting illegals.....


Jeeze, we're quickly running out of excuses to demonize the right, aren't we???

Maybe they can make Muslims the vocal point of their election push.

You wish...as long as the GnOP is firmly in the pockets of big corps, there will always be reason do demonize them.

As for marriage equality, there's still a lot of states to go. Of course, if this would just hurry up and get to the SCOTUS...

 

[jillian]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

there won't be any lawsuits with respect to the religious exemption. no one can force a church to marry someone it doesn't choose to.

same as i couldn't have a second marriage in a temple (if i were to get divorced) without getting a get or someone catholic not being able to remarry in a church after a prior marriage, without a religious anullment. (even if they had six kids).

the side of the 1st amendment that the religious types should like and why they should stop whining about the flip side that protects non-religious types from them.

 

[jillian]

Well, I must say a hearty "congrats" to NY. It's also nice to know that my marriage is recognized in another state. The number of people living under marriage equality has doubled.

The tide is turning and marriage equality across the US isn't far behind...

Yes, so the Dems will have to use another wedge-issue against the GOP.

I figure legalize Pot, let Gays marry, let women have their abortions but not funded with taxpayer's money.....and figure out some way of documenting illegals.....


Jeeze, we're quickly running out of excuses to demonize the right, aren't we???

Maybe they can make Muslims the vocal point of their election push.

yeah...the wedge issue is keeping rightwingnuts from infringing on the rights of others?

you're butt backwards again, buddy.

 

[jillian]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

There ought not be a religious exemption; when religious officials take on the role of civil servants, they ought to be required to accept the responsibilities of that job, however,

the exemption is a worthwhile concession to achieve the greater good.

yes. there ought to be a religious exemption. it's not a concession to the greater good. it's a concession to the 1st amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

there won't be any lawsuits with respect to the religious exemption. no one can force a church to marry someone it doesn't choose to.

same as i couldn't have a second marriage in a temple (if i were to get divorced) without getting a get or someone catholic not being able to remarry in a church after a prior marriage, without a religious anullment. (even if they had six kids).

the side of the 1st amendment that the religious types should like and why they should stop whining about the flip side that protects non-religious types from them.

The 1st does not protect other people from religous types, it prevents the government from acknoledging X's religion as the government's religion. Remember the constitution is mostly about stopping government, not people.

And I think there will be lawsuits. The issue of gay marriage has been for the most part, a judicial struggle in most places. Someone will take the next step.

I also have another theoretical for you. Say a christian denomination, that doesnt perform gay marriage, wants to use a state park for the ceremony. Couldnt someone sue them on the basis of the state allowing a discriminitory organiztion to use government controlled land, and therefore in violation of government equal rights legislation?

Something like this will happen sooner or later.

 

[manifold]

Good for NY. Glad they got it done without 'legislating' from the bench.

 

[jillian]

Good for NY. Glad they got it done without 'legislating' from the bench.

enforcing a fundamental right like marriage isn't "legislating from the bench" any more than ruling that inter-racial marriage couldn't be prohibited was.

 

[jillian]

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

there won't be any lawsuits with respect to the religious exemption. no one can force a church to marry someone it doesn't choose to.

same as i couldn't have a second marriage in a temple (if i were to get divorced) without getting a get or someone catholic not being able to remarry in a church after a prior marriage, without a religious anullment. (even if they had six kids).

the side of the 1st amendment that the religious types should like and why they should stop whining about the flip side that protects non-religious types from them.

The 1st does not protect other people from religous types, it prevents the government from acknoledging X's religion as the government's religion. Remember the constitution is mostly about stopping government, not people.

And I think there will be lawsuits. The issue of gay marriage has been for the most part, a judicial struggle in most places. Someone will take the next step.

I also have another theoretical for you. Say a christian denomination, that doesnt perform gay marriage, wants to use a state park for the ceremony. Couldnt someone sue them on the basis of the state allowing a discriminitory organiztion to use government controlled land, and therefore in violation of government equal rights legislation?

Something like this will happen sooner or later.

that's incorrect. if you look at the caselaw, it very much goes both ways.

we can disagree as to whether there will be court battles. but i just got off the phone with one of my best friends, who was very active in the ny marriage equality movement and he seemed quite pleased. never mentioned the religious exemption.

as for the state not allowing discriminatory actions on state land. that's an interesting question. i don't know. but who would really have standing to litigate such an issue. it would have to be a gay couple prohibited from using the same park... and they wouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

i'm having a difficult time coming up with anyone who would be specifically impacted by such a happening.

 

[manifold]

Good for NY. Glad they got it done without 'legislating' from the bench.

enforcing a fundamental right like marriage isn't "legislating from the bench" any more than ruling that inter-racial marriage couldn't be prohibited was.

I'm well aware of your opinions and biases on the subject. But thanks for the reminder just the same.

Of course I can see why deviant rights activists prefer the judicial remedy. Giving authority to the legislature to decide the issue undermines the argument that it's a fundamental right.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The issue of gay marriage has been for the most part, a judicial struggle in most places.

Actually there are now 7 legal entities that will issue licenses to perform Same-sex Civil Marriages. Of those 4 of 7 (57% - a majority or "most") have been passed leglislatively not through actions of the courts.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

there won't be any lawsuits with respect to the religious exemption. no one can force a church to marry someone it doesn't choose to.

same as i couldn't have a second marriage in a temple (if i were to get divorced) without getting a get or someone catholic not being able to remarry in a church after a prior marriage, without a religious anullment. (even if they had six kids).

the side of the 1st amendment that the religious types should like and why they should stop whining about the flip side that protects non-religious types from them.

The 1st does not protect other people from religous types, it prevents the government from acknoledging X's religion as the government's religion. Remember the constitution is mostly about stopping government, not people.

And I think there will be lawsuits. The issue of gay marriage has been for the most part, a judicial struggle in most places. Someone will take the next step.

I also have another theoretical for you. Say a christian denomination, that doesnt perform gay marriage, wants to use a state park for the ceremony. Couldnt someone sue them on the basis of the state allowing a discriminitory organiztion to use government controlled land, and therefore in violation of government equal rights legislation?

Something like this will happen sooner or later.

that's incorrect. if you look at the caselaw, it very much goes both ways.

we can disagree as to whether there will be court battles. but i just got off the phone with one of my best friends, who was very active in the ny marriage equality movement and he seemed quite pleased. never mentioned the religious exemption.

as for the state not allowing discriminatory actions on state land. that's an interesting question. i don't know. but who would really have standing to litigate such an issue. it would have to be a gay couple prohibited from using the same park... and they wouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

i'm having a difficult time coming up with anyone who would be specifically impacted by such a happening.

What standing does an atheist have when suing to get the 10 commandments removed from the front of a courthouse? What standing did that lesbian couple have when they sued the photographer who didnt want to do thier gay wedding due to morality issues?

In both cases there are no monetary or physical damages, its all about how thier "feewings are hurt."

As for the caselaw, in my opinon, the courts are getting it wrong, taking a restriction on government and turning it into a restriction on people.

 

[martybegan]

Good for NY. Glad they got it done without 'legislating' from the bench.

enforcing a fundamental right like marriage isn't "legislating from the bench" any more than ruling that inter-racial marriage couldn't be prohibited was.

In the case of loving v. virginia the reason wasnt some sense of morality, it was that the ruling went against the 15th amendment explicitly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Bans on an interracial contract (including marriage) are prohibited by this, and this alone.

I dont see the right to gay marriage anywhere in the consitution as a fundemental right.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good for NY. Glad they got it done without 'legislating' from the bench.

enforcing a fundamental right like marriage isn't "legislating from the bench" any more than ruling that inter-racial marriage couldn't be prohibited was.

In the case of loving v. virginia the reason wasnt some sense of morality, it was that the ruling went against the 15th amendment explicitly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Bans on an interracial contract (including marriage) are prohibited by this, and this alone.

Here is a link to the decision -->> Loving v. Virginia.


All I see is the 14th Equal Protection and Due Process, I seem to be missing the part where the 15th and voting is even mentioned. Would you please point it out for us.


Thank you in advance.

I dont see the right to gay marriage anywhere in the consitution as a fundemental right.

Does this mean you are of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for they to exist for the people?



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

enforcing a fundamental right like marriage isn't "legislating from the bench" any more than ruling that inter-racial marriage couldn't be prohibited was.

In the case of loving v. virginia the reason wasnt some sense of morality, it was that the ruling went against the 15th amendment explicitly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Bans on an interracial contract (including marriage) are prohibited by this, and this alone.

I dont see the right to gay marriage anywhere in the consitution as a fundemental right.

Here is a link to the decision -->> Loving v. Virginia.


All I see is the 14th Equal Protection and Due Process, I seem to be missing the part where the 15th and voting is even mentioned. Would you please point it out for us.



Thank you in advance.

>>>>

Interesting, I always thought it was 15th amendment, which would make much more sense. But they went 14th, which I think was overkill. Once you get into due process and equal protection you lose the concrete sense, and get into intepretation.

And take your smarmy self satisfied last sentence and choke on it, you pompous asshat.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What standing did that lesbian couple have when they sued the photographer who didnt want to do thier gay wedding due to morality issues

New Mexico State Public Accommodation law which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And BTW - it wasn't a "gay wedding" as New Mexico does not have Same-sex Civil Marriage.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

enforcing a fundamental right like marriage isn't "legislating from the bench" any more than ruling that inter-racial marriage couldn't be prohibited was.

In the case of loving v. virginia the reason wasnt some sense of morality, it was that the ruling went against the 15th amendment explicitly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Bans on an interracial contract (including marriage) are prohibited by this, and this alone.

Here is a link to the decision -->> Loving v. Virginia.


All I see is the 14th Equal Protection and Due Process, I seem to be missing the part where the 15th and voting is even mentioned. Would you please point it out for us.


Thank you in advance.

I dont see the right to gay marriage anywhere in the consitution as a fundemental right.

Does this mean you are of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for they to exist for the people?



>>>>

No, I see it as in the realm of law, not consitution. Again, the constitution is a restriction on what the government can do, via laws. To me anything that isnt strictly prevented in the consitution becomes up to legislation, and can go both ways.

I have no issue with NY legislating gay marriage, even though I dont see two same sex people being together as a marriage (according to my religous/moral views, some other chruch/temple/shack can have thier view on it). What I see is unintended consequences due to futher legal action by people who just can't realize they have won, and that they cannot change how people think.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In the case of loving v. virginia the reason wasnt some sense of morality, it was that the ruling went against the 15th amendment explicitly.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Bans on an interracial contract (including marriage) are prohibited by this, and this alone.

I dont see the right to gay marriage anywhere in the consitution as a fundemental right.

Here is a link to the decision -->> Loving v. Virginia.


All I see is the 14th Equal Protection and Due Process, I seem to be missing the part where the 15th and voting is even mentioned. Would you please point it out for us.



Thank you in advance.

>>>>

Interesting, I always thought it was 15th amendment, which would make much more sense. But they went 14th, which I think was overkill. Once you get into due process and equal protection you lose the concrete sense, and get into intepretation.

Nope it was the 14th.

And take your smarmy self satisfied last sentence and choke on it, you pompous asshat.

So you realize you were about to step in it, good for you.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

What standing did that lesbian couple have when they sued the photographer who didnt want to do thier gay wedding due to morality issues

New Mexico State Public Accommodation law which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And BTW - it wasn't a "gay wedding" as New Mexico does not have Same-sex Civil Marriage.



>>>>

it may be legal standing, but to me it is stupid, and unconsitutional. Its the thought police, only with a $6k legal bill.

Fine gay-commitment type ceremony thingy. whatever.

 

[martybegan]

Here is a link to the decision -->> Loving v. Virginia.


All I see is the 14th Equal Protection and Due Process, I seem to be missing the part where the 15th and voting is even mentioned. Would you please point it out for us.



Thank you in advance.

>>>>

Interesting, I always thought it was 15th amendment, which would make much more sense. But they went 14th, which I think was overkill. Once you get into due process and equal protection you lose the concrete sense, and get into intepretation.

Nope it was the 14th.

And take your smarmy self satisfied last sentence and choke on it, you pompous asshat.

So you realize you were about to step in it, good for you.



>>>>

Step in what? I was wrong on the point of the decsion, it happens. What doesnt have to happen is you being a condescending prick.