Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
by David Badash
In 1691, traditional marriage included only whites. In 1724, traditional marriage was expanded to include blacks — with the permission of the slave owner. In 1769 wives were property…
Any questions?…
Anti-Gay Marriage Vote Biggest Mistake Of My Career -NJ Senate President
Religion nor politics should dictate what marriage is.
#1 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:00 AM EDTUnfortunately, politics and public policy dictate privilege for married people in taxation, in parenting,in insurance, in inheritance and more. Perhaps when we finally achieve equality for the individual these "discriminatory" practices will all change.
In 1691, traditional marriage included only whites.
Why is this so shocking? 80% of Americans believe there is a creator of this massive, beautiful, elegant universe. Christians also claim to know specifically that this God man looks suspiciously like a middle aged, middle century, western white man, who cares most about what people do when naked. Ah, the humility!
Actually, that is not quite right. In 1691, marriage was for PROPERTIED white people, which still excluded, depending on the colony, 20-50% of the WHITE population. For the poor whites, there was common law marriage - a legally recognized union after so many years of cohabitation.
Power is KNowledge
I agree why should gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transgenders or anyone else be deined the joys and sorrows of matrimony
Everyone regardless of the above should be able to enter into matromony and enjoy all the benefits there to.
Alimony, child support, spousal maintenance all should be available to all people
Traditional marriage in pre-Britan Ireland, lasted for one year and was renewed at the option and agreement of BOTH parties.
Would have saved me a Bundle in Attorney fees.
Barbara
I feel your pain
I built an attorney a house in Dallas and nver even got invited over for drinks
Not quite true. Considering that in pretty much every culture marriage is considered a sacred union no matter what the religion, usually carried out by the priest of the religion. If anything the question should be should the states be sanctioning religious ceremonies at all. Separation of church and state and all. Marriage in the form we know it now in the U.S. is a pretty new invention.
Robert in Ohio-(on a related subject) A business associate of mine, after he found out how much I paid my exes to 'get out' of the marriages, asked me how much settlement he could expect if we only 'dated'. I knew I was doing something wrong. ;>)
I've always viewed marriage as both religious and political. Being agnostic I've never really seen a need for it.
#2 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:24 AM EDTMany people enter into marriage not knowing the other person and the effort required to make the relationship work so why make it so expensive to get out of when it doesn't!
True. And yet, many people do enter into the commitment of marriage with the full understanding of what it takes to make it work, and they do.
What's important is to not believe there is only one kind of relationship and everyone must adhere to that definition. Everyone is not the same.
I've always viewed marriage as both religious and political.
Don't forget financial. For many years, marriage was a way of consolidating wealth and power. In some families, it's still that way.
Religion nor politics should dictate what marriage is.
Agreed. Marriage isn't for everyone, but I've been in a wonderful marriage my entire adult life and I wouldn't change a thing. Nobody should stop consenting adults from experiencing this.
#4 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:04 AM EDTIMO as a lesbian ?? a way to settle this ?
I don't mind if marriage is left for solely religious institutions. many already marry gays. if they don't want too that's their choice , but ........
the legal connection between marriage in a church , where the church is recognized as a legal procedure/ceremony should be stopped.
That way everyone wanting to marry will have to do so by getting a civil union via the government where any 2 consenting adults could be legally joined.
#5 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:14 AM EDTI agree; the state has no business accepting a religious ceremony as a legal concept to begin with. Many European countries have the rule that you have to have a civil ceremony and then it's up to you if you want a religious ceremony in addition to that civil one.
Never could find a female with the emotional maturity level I require to trust with finances and costly-to-acquire property such as motor vehicles.
Romance? BAH!!!!!
Statistics prove that arranged marriages result in fewer divorces.
Mass marketing/propaganda/brainwashing has infected far too many USA wimmenfolk'.
Observe the importance of the one special day but, so often, with little to no regard for what comes after.
Emotion-laden, frivolous, non-rational-thinking females.
What level-headed guy would want to become involved with such creatures?
Once married, gents, you will be responsible for her actions and inactions, financial, legalities, etc.
Then, once in divorce court entire bureaucracies exist to assist the female while you are assumed to be a pervert, a vile demon and every negative imaginable and too-often the female's word is assumed to be factual and the male has to prove innocence.
Far too dangerous to wed in modern USA society.
Then if you were stupid enough to spawn the vile offspring are merely another tool to be used against you.
Such is reality in modern-day USA.
#6 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:27 AM EDTObbop,
you make some wonderful points, but I think you're missing a critical piece of the puzzle about the lure of women:
they have boobies.
...the importance of which cannot be overstated.
they have boobies.
...the importance of which cannot be overstated.
obbop may have been kinda crude, but he makes a number of valid points, especially on weddings - oh, and my mother, who worked her entire adult life and was the family breadwinner both with my father before he died and with my stepfather (and both men worked fulltime too - my father was a teacher, my stepfather a factory worker) would COMPLETELY agree with his statements on the completely bubble headed attitude of females on weddings. She thinks these women are total morons and spendthirfts, and has turned down several invitations to be there for that "special" moment at some overpriced locale.
I've been following the developments from NY with baited breath. I live and work in Albany and I can see the Capital Building from my office window. I'm really, really hoping the state senate can work out a deal to pass the same sex marriage bill. I've been religiously following the twitter feeds of the reporters assigned to the state government. I hope Gov. Cuomo is able to sell this to a few holdouts -- we only need one more senator to commit to a "yes" vote. *fingers crossed*
#7 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:31 AM EDTI think there's still a chance, but it's starting to look bad. No agreement even on whether the bill will be brought to the senate floor for a vote. There's still time, and there are a lot of protestors hanging onto hope, but it's starting to look like the Senate GOP is using the "religious exemption" thing as a big, fat excuse. This is evidenced by NY Sen. Ball -- one of the biggest mouths about "protecting religious freedome" -- going on CNN last and refusing to state what language exactly would lead him to vote yes for SSM.
I've still got my fingers crossed, though.
Still no decision by GOP leadership on whether they'll even allow a vote to occur. Also, still no confirmed 32nd vote.
But don't worry, they did make time to vote on a state vegetable, and a state rock. Unfortunately, I'm not joking.
Mario Batalli is here in the state capital today to advocate for SSM. I have hope, still.
Also interesting, NOM commissioned a poll over the weekend which purports to show that 57% of NYers disapprove of SSM. However, the poll skewed heavily in favor of older voters, and disproportionately to GOPers. Plus, numerous reports of people answering in favor of SSM and being hung up on. Shady!
Twitterverse is abuzz with rumors that a 32nd vote has been secured. Some people sure that vote will happen tomorrow. Some openly gay legislators and their partners have apparently planned a press conference for tomorrow
Some openly gay legislators and their partners have apparently planned a press conference for tomorrow
I've discovered now that it hurts to knock on wood with crossed fingers. :)
NYCLU is tweeting in all caps that they've confirmed a 32nd vote. My stomach hurts I'm so nervous.
No other sources are confirming this, yet.
Rachael, My hopes are with you.
If NY comes into the 21st Century, it will be just another thing to make TX look like a Theocratic State.
A "Christian" Fundamentalist Theocratic State.
"Traditional Marriage"?
I always want to ask "who's tradition?"
Marriage has changed many times over the past thousands of years and in all the countries on the globe.
If by "traditional marriage" people mean the 1950's Leave it to Beaver version, they need to clarify that.
Although even that version never was portrayed realistically.
#8 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:44 AM EDTAww, my wife and I think everyone should have a wife like June Cleaver.
Barbara Billingsly, the actress who portrayed June Cleaver, is purported to have said during an interview:
"I was a working mother!"
ironic, no?
When I was a GM of a Technology office in SA, I wanted a "wife" because ALL the other GMs had one..
Not bad but you only covered "Traditional" marriage in America and the colonies. Remember that "traditional" marriage customs and practices go back a long, long time ago so you have to include
- Harems
- Arranged marriages for dowry, land, titles, commercial ties. (never for love, sigh)
- Droit du seigneur
- Polyandry
- Henogamy
- Ghost marriages
- Nikāḥ al-Mut‘ah (fixed term marriage, like a 30-year mortgage)
- Levirate marriage (it's in the Bible!!)
- Brother-Sister marriage (big in ancient Egypt, but also elsewhere)
- Cousin marriage (see above, also parts of America)
- Mop marriages (also Broomstick marriages)
Who knows how many more forms marriage has taken through the millenniums that humans have been shagging other humans.
#9 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:11 PM EDTWho cares what religion or poltics says. The issue is civil and moral rights. ALL PEOPLE have the same inalienable rights. As soon as we grant rights to one group we must grant those rights to all groups that are not violating civil law. Co-habitation is not a violation of civil law. What goes on in one's own home is no ones business. Let people get married.
#10 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:30 PM EDTYou are right about religion but of course it does matter what politics says or we would never evolve as a society. Civil rights are determined by laws and it takes politics to change laws. That's why we need activists to change the politics.
ALL PEOPLE have the same inalienable rights. As soon as we grant rights to one group we must grant those rights to all groups that are not violating civil law. Co-habitation is not a violation of civil law.
Exactly. Which is why we need to allow gays to marry. To not do so is to deny them rights we give to others.
Politics is a choice.
Marriage is a choice in so far as you choose to marry. The heart choose who you love.
I just asked this on another thread ~
Do heterosexuals remember the date and exact moment they chose to be attracted to the opposite sex?
This implies that we have choices and in order to make a conscious and informed choice or decision we'd have to experience those choices.
So, which day on the calendar do you celebrate fondly each year marking the day you chose to be straight?
#11 - Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:35 PM EDTi disagree with what the OP said. religion actually does define what marriage is, and i'm an athiest. if you guys want gay marriage, get the government out of it in the first place. then, just invent a church and get them to sanctify it. babam, gay marriage.
#12 - Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:01 AM EDTYou do realize that religion has not always defined marriage don't you? Even if you just keep to western history, England for example. They had to pass a freaking law (Marriage Act of 1753) that basically outlawed marriage outside the Church. So how common were such marriages in Britain that they had to pass a law prohibiting them?
i disagree with what the OP said. religion actually does define what marriage is, and i'm an athiest.
It only defines it for people of that specific religion. Lots of traditional marriages happen every day without a church or a religious officiant.
then, just invent a church and get them to sanctify it. babam, gay marriage.
Some churches and sects of christianity already accept gay marriage. The problem is that the marriage is not legally recognized at state (in most states) and federal levels. Anyone can have a marriage ceremony, the problem is that some people are not getting legal recognition of their commitment.
Anyone can have a marriage ceremony, the problem is that some people are not getting legal recognition of their commitment.
And that's the problem. The state and government should get out of the business of defining "marriage", except for what's in the interest of the state.
Religions can then be free to define the "ceremony of marriage" for it's worshipers in any way they see fit. If a religion only wants to marry left-handed red-heads in their church then more power to them. No one is forcing *any* religion or church to marry everyone, but you have religions and churches telling the government who should be legally married.
The state and government should get out of the business of defining "marriage", except for what's in the interest of the state.
There's the rub. What's in the interest of the state?
And that's the problem. The state and government should get out of the business of defining "marriage", except for what's in the interest of the state.
Religions can then be free to define the "ceremony of marriage" for it's worshipers in any way they see fit. If a religion only wants to marry left-handed red-heads in their church then more power to them. No one is forcing *any* religion or church to marry everyone, but you have religions and churches telling the government who should be legally married.
I agree that religions are telling the government who should be legally married, but I would then say that religion should stay out of the business of defining marriage, not the government.
The whole point is to have a couples marriage be legally recognized by the governments for legal and financial reasons. The living together and ceremony and commitment of a loving couple can all be had without the government or the church. But The legal recognition and the benefits do require the government but not the church.
Still no decision by GOP leadership on whether they'll even allow a vote to occur. Also, still no confirmed 32nd vote.
But don't worry, they did make time to vote on a state vegetable, and a state rock. Unfortunately, I'm not joking.
Mario Batalli is here in the state capital today to advocate for SSM. I have hope, still.
Where did Mario come down on the state vegetable?
#13 - Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:51 PM EDTPretty sure he refused to comment. But, interestingly, when queried on the culinary talent of the Gov's live-in girlfriend, Sandra Lee, Batali called her a "great person." Hmm . . . I would venture a guess that Chef Batali doesn't think much of Chef Lee's semi-homemade style.
what did they pick? I hope it wasn't something that's really a fruit.
Sweet corn, but some people are predicting it won't have the vote to pass in the Assembly. Seriously.
Corn is a fruit. NY, name something that is a stem, leaf or root.
One Senator had proposed onions as the State Veggie. I'm sure the Assembly will see the Senate's error and refuse to pass this very controversial legislation.
Are we ever off the path. Eventually states will brag about being near the front on this issue. It's inevitable. NY can live down having a fruit as the state vegetable if they are out front on gay marriage.
Some actually consider corn a grain. I think it's because you can make bread from corn meal, but I could be wrong.
Botanically, a grain is a type of fruit called a caryopsis.
So what's the latest up there? I'm being lazy and trying to get all my news from the vine.
#14 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:41 AM EDTLatest update from NY:
One of the undecideds, Sen. Lanza, has said that the Gov. and the GOP conference are "close" on religious exemption language that would acceptable to all.
No confirmation on who the mystery alleged 32nd vote is.
No news on when the legislative session will finally end, although some folks think today -- Monday was supposed to have been the last day, so we'll see.
It's still a "hurry up and wait" situation.
I need this to end soon. I have to actually do work during the day, instead of obsessively following the twitter feeds of all the state political beat reporters etc.
I've got my fingers crossed it's today. I think things are looking pretty good.
Oh, and for those dying to know -- the new official state mineral is the Herkimer Diamond (quartz crystal).
#15 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:27 AM EDTSkelos has confirmed that the SSM vote will be tonight! A couple of "undecided" Senators still won't say what their vote will be.
#16 - Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:48 PM EDTNow one of the undecideds -- Lanza -- is a confirmed no. I'm concerned but still hopeful. Chair of the Conservative Party, among others, has said it will pass. We'll see soon!
One of the Assembly sponsors has stated that he know who a 32nd vote is in the Senate, but refuses to say the name. Some speculation that they'll be 2 or 3 votes beyond the required 32 to pass. Looking pretty good, I think -- yeah, I did just knock on wood.
It's been a crazy champagne-fueled few hours! Amazing. Saw the Senators explain theirbotes, saw the Gov. begin his 2016 presidential campaign. Awesome.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
