T Nation

Gay Marriage Defeated In NY and NJ

It looks like gay marriage suffered yet another set back as it was recently defeated in both New York and New Jersey. Since the big push for gay marriage it has pretty much been defeated across the country with the exceptions being NH, CT, I, Mass and Vermont, most of which were pushed forward by liberal state courts.

Yet, even now plans are under way in a few of those states to overturn existing law. When the people get a vote it has been defeated in every single referendum across the country. When the legislator gets a vote it is also usually defeated as it was in NY and NJ recently.

California which allowed gay marriage for a scant four months back in 2008 backed by the liberal California supreme court was over turned by the people on a voter initiative which reinstated the ban on gay marriage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38861-2004Aug4.html

It seems to me if the powerful gay marriage forces cammpt get same sex marriage passed in such liberal states as NY and NJ what chance do they really have for recognition across the country?

None I suspect.

Thoughts?

Who cares?

V

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Who cares?

V[/quote]

This.

Seriously Zeb, does this topic really need to be discussed again?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It looks like gay marriage suffered yet another set back as it was recently defeated in both New York and New Jersey. Since the big push for gay marriage it has pretty much been defeated across the country with the exceptions being NH, CT, I, Mass and Vermont, most of which were pushed forward by liberal state courts.

Yet, even now plans are under way in a few of those states to overturn existing law. When the people get a vote it has been defeated in every single referendum across the country. When the legislator gets a vote it is also usually defeated as it was in NY and NJ recently.

California which allowed gay marriage for a scant four months back in 2008 backed by the liberal California supreme court was over turned by the people on a voter initiative which reinstated the ban on gay marriage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38861-2004Aug4.html

It seems to me if the powerful gay marriage forces cammpt get same sex marriage passed in such liberal states as NY and NJ what chance do they really have for recognition across the country?

None I suspect.

Thoughts?[/quote]

The high point of liberalism has been reached and is being turned back. Maybe now we can dump all that crap back into the sewers of history and get back to small government that minds its own fucking business.

What’s the big problem with gay people in a union recognised by the state? here in the UK we have ‘civil partnerships’ which few people have problems with. Is it actually being called ‘marriage’ that is the issue or two people that are gay living together? Genuinely interested

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Who cares?

V[/quote]

This.

Seriously Zeb, does this topic really need to be discussed again?[/quote]

Not by you, if you’re not interested just keep going. What you’re really trying to say is that you don’t want to discuss it. Does that mean no one else can? These are two recent and very meaningful defeats for same sex unions.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
What’s the big problem with gay people in a union recognised by the state? here in the UK we have ‘civil partnerships’ which few people have problems with. Is it actually being called ‘marriage’ that is the issue or two people that are gay living together? Genuinely interested[/quote]

The reason is that these attempts at new laws have nothing to do with enabling gay people to do things they cannot do just as well now.

It isn’t, as proponents try to paint, remotely about “letting” gays do anything they now can’t or have any problem doing. It’s a scam when they claim that.

It is instead about using government power to force OTHER people to do differently than they choose to do.

E.g., if I own a company, I can choose to extend health benefits to say someone’s sister if they live with their sister, or not offer that benefit; to someone’s roommate of any sort, or not offer that benefit; or to a gay partner or not offer that benefit.

I can choose to offer a benefit to employees that drive American cars, if I want, or choose not to offer that. Etc.

My employees already have the right to either choose to work for me in exchange for the benefits I offer, or not to do so.

And if you’re wondering why I might have my company set up where, all else being equal, an employee who is married to a person of the opposite sex might be in say the same pay grade as other employees in the same position but receive the extra value of a health benefit offered to his family whereas I don’t offer it in these other cases, it is because a married man, having a wife at home insisting on it, is likely to sacrifice more for the company because of the wife or wife and kids depending on him. It’s an economic decision that companies have found to be a profitable choice for them.

But actually the reason doesn’t matter: liberty to enter into mutually-agreed employment arrangements is the fundamental thing here. I can now choose whatever benefit plan I think best to offer; potential employees can choose to work for me in exchange for that, or not. Liberty.

What this legislation is about is to do things such as to take away such liberty from employers and force them to pay benefits they could have chosen to pay, but didn’t, with the result of the employees getting benefits more than they had agreed to to work for those employers.

It’s about taking away rights of other people to choose as they wish, to use government force to mandate already voluntarily-agreed-to agreements between people to shift to something else at the cost of one of those parties, rather than providing gays with an opportunity to have whatever relationship they want between themselves that they don’t now have.

Without any new legislation, gays in America already have all the legal rights as anyone else and can have whatever relationship they want between themselves.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
What’s the big problem with gay people in a union recognised by the state? here in the UK we have ‘civil partnerships’ which few people have problems with. Is it actually being called ‘marriage’ that is the issue or two people that are gay living together? Genuinely interested[/quote]

Hey guess, wouldn’t it be more productive if you saw the differences between the United Kingdom and their proud and vocal socialist government, compared to America’s hidden socialist government? We have different values, we are not all homogeneous in values and beliefs, are we?

No i wasn’t criticising I was trying to understand the difference in mindsets. And I don’t think our government here is socialist. It is statist certainly but its values (if it indeed has any) are far from socialist

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Without any new legislation, gays in America already have all the legal rights as anyone else and can have whatever relationship they want between themselves.[/quote]
That’s not true. Well, if by rights you mean treatment under the law.

Marital status is legally relevant when dealing with taxes, estate & inheritance, power of attorney, and so forth. Things that require a familial connection or blood relation, in general, can be a bit tricky. Some states have tried to thoroughly accommodate gays into these legal processes and others are still in a muddle.

I wish I were gay. I think I’d be good at it.

I don’t consider receiving taxpayer money to be a “right.”

Additionally, each gay person is as potentially eligible as anyone else. Many choose not to obtain that eligibility.

So it is not that they are denied it actually, just that they have to do the same as others do to get whatever benefit is in question, but may not want to, just as many heterosexual people also do not want to.

But the main point is, trying to obtain these benefits from such legislation – which is an example of the real purpose of the “gay marriage” efforts, not “letting them” have whatever relationship they want between themselves which they can already do – is not a matter of rights, but a matter of trying to force other people to do differently, e.g., have their tax dollars go towards these benefits contrary to the repeatedly expressed wishes of the voters.

If you consider marriage benefits to be a burden to the taxpayer, then aren’t you upset that gays are paying taxes to fund the government assistance of breeders?

[quote]Bambi wrote:
No i wasn’t criticising I was trying to understand the difference in mindsets. And I don’t think our government here is socialist. It is statist certainly but its values (if it indeed has any) are far from socialist[/quote]

How is the UK not socialist, you are taxed for social programs. Socialist.

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:
If you consider marriage benefits to be a burden to the taxpayer, then aren’t you upset that gays are paying taxes to fund the government assistance of breeders?

[/quote]

I am, I wish no homosexual person to pay taxes for “breeders” (I like your derogatory term ;)), I also wish no heterosexual person to pay taxes that go into a homosexual person’s pocket. I’m equally prejudice and selfish like that.

[quote]Mangusrah wrote:
If you consider marriage benefits to be a burden to the taxpayer, then aren’t you upset that gays are paying taxes to fund the government assistance of breeders?

[/quote]

  1. Are you insisting equally much that heterosexuals who choose to not be married to a person of the opposite sex not pay taxes or not get some major break? If not then you are being hypocritical.

  2. If those arguing for these proposed laws would be straightforward and say that your purpose is to force employers and other persons to pay you more benefits than agreed to in the contracts you already agreed to, and to make the Federal government give you more money, rather than pretend it’s about “letting gays be married, why do you care what they do, isn’t it their business” then at least you’d be intellectually honest.

Oh but wait a second: couching it as to how you want more money from the government and from employers (above and beyond already-agreed pay) doesn’t get the sympathy votes the way it does to falsely pretend that you’re being prevented from having any relationship you want to have and it’s just about “letting” you do that.

  1. Since you consider the term “breeders” to be appropriate for you to use when you mean heterosexuals, is it okay if on this forum we switch from using the terms gays or homosexuals to derogatorily saying butt burglars or perhaps ass pirates? Just wondering.

  2. Agreed with Brother Chris.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
No i wasn’t criticising I was trying to understand the difference in mindsets. And I don’t think our government here is socialist. It is statist certainly but its values (if it indeed has any) are far from socialist[/quote]

How is the UK not socialist, you are taxed for social programs. Socialist.[/quote]

So are we you dipshit.

And the gang’s all here :slight_smile:

I wish some of those breeders would have missed the mark in certain cases.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

  1. Are you insisting equally much that heterosexuals who choose to not be married to a person of the opposite sex not pay taxes or not get some major break? If not then you are being hypocritical.[/quote]
    Let’s start by running this first question through a standard sentence machine.

This shouldn’t offend, because you can write, and you know it.

[quote]Babblefish returned:

  1. Are you advocating that unmarried heterosexuals get some major break or not pay taxes? If not then you are being hypocritical.[/quote]
    My opinion is that the government should be powerless to offer incentives for social behavior, because it’s unfair and the entitlements are infinite. I am not an advocate for gay rights in any way that promotes an expansion of government.

The only thing I’ve promoted in this thread is the use of honest argument – clear as it may be at this point that I am an acquaintance of Dorothy.

As for the question, I’m not sure I get your meaning. There is a rationale behind offering certain tax considerations to families that are not also available to bachelors. Queer couplets are similar enough to hetero ones – nigh identical depending on the adoption policies – so it would be only fair to treat them that way under the law.

But I am not an advocate for this equalization, because it compromises my lovely solidarity.

[quote]2) If those arguing for these proposed laws would be straightforward and say that your purpose is to force employers and other persons to pay you more benefits than agreed to in the contracts you already agreed to, and to make the Federal government give you more money, rather than pretend it’s about “letting gays be married, why do you care what they do, isn’t it their business” then at least you’d be intellectually honest.

Oh but wait a second: couching it as to how you want more money from the government and from employers (above and beyond already-agreed pay) doesn’t get the sympathy votes the way it does to falsely pretend that you’re being prevented from having any relationship you want to have and it’s just about “letting” you do that.
[/quote]
As I’ve pointed out, there are marital laws that place no further burden on the citizenry. Inheritance protocol, for example.

There was a story within the last decade – I think it eventually became a doco – about a couple of old cockatoos who lived on a ranch together for eons. When the one on the deed suddenly died without a will, his land and assets went by law to some estranged family member. I don’t know the details, and I’m sure there was a legal infrastructure in place that would have let them make preparations, but they just never bothered. This case was unfortunate because the wrongful heir to the ranch thought Judy was a drugged up trollop, had never approved of this sort of thing – thus the estrangement – and had the widower evicted. They had wanted to marry, which would have consolidated all that neglected legal procedure.

Similarly, there are family-only hospital scenarios and deferred emergency decisions.

I think that gay activists are spurred more by emotion and inequity than their own financial interests. Present one of them with an anecdote like the one above, and then mention how the language of the tax form or some worker’s contract isn’t designed with them in mind. They’ll run baying after the sob story every time. Not even with a reform in mind, just a chanting angry letter.

You’re right of course, that the end result channels money from taxpayers to gay couples and impositions a new definition of marriage into existing contracts, but this has nearly already happened, thanks to domestic partnership legislation. Once it becomes a semantic argument, I’ll strongly endorse a change of nomenclature and I assume that you will not. Until then, we’re on the same side and this is a precious mini-game.

[quote]3) Since you consider the term “breeders” to be appropriate for you to use when you mean heterosexuals, is it okay if on this forum we switch from using the terms gays or homosexuals to derogatorily saying butt burglars or perhaps ass pirates? Just wondering.
[/quote]
I’d rather settle on something less traditional. Like cumjunkies, or firemen.

[quote]4) Agreed with Brother Chris.
[/quote]
That’s the beauty of not viewing the government as your own personal sneakthief. If you disagree with someone, there’s nothing at stake and no mediating force that must be persuaded in your favor. In a universe with truly minimal government, drunks would still quibble over this stuff, and some citizens might even wish there were a marauding overlord who agreed with them, who could go and meddle with the pimps and honkies and preachers and opium sellers. But you and I and Brother Chris would be away on a picnic, despite our whiplash differences, because it is all by the wayside for those who have no desire to control others.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
No i wasn’t criticising I was trying to understand the difference in mindsets. And I don’t think our government here is socialist. It is statist certainly but its values (if it indeed has any) are far from socialist[/quote]

How is the UK not socialist, you are taxed for social programs. Socialist.[/quote]

So are we you dipshit.[/quote]

You should read what I said then and refrain from throwing shit around before doing the above action.