Mayor Charged for Marrying Same-Sex Couples

Same Sex Marriage Forum

New York Mayor charged with 19 criminal counts for marrying same-sex couples.

More soon...

Source: AP

On Friday, West married about two dozen couples in a festive atmosphere in the town, about 80 miles north of Manhattan. He described the weddings as "legal marriage ceremonies" even though the state defines marriage as between a man and a woman and none of the couples had marriage licenses.

Source: Reuters

What was West thinking?

I was beginning to think our laws don't matter. My hope is being restored, but I'll hold off the rejoicing until the end. We'll see if he finds a loophole somewhere.

Marc, I'm assuming you're referring to the NY mayor right? What about SF? I don't see anything about him yet.

Still no word on the status of the SF mayor. But the movement grows...

--------

First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Oregon.

Source: AP

Well West (in NY) supposedly did issue marriage licenses. There are too many conflicting reports in the press (for me) to determine the facts. If he did it without a license and is calling it legal, shame on him. Some reports say he did have the licenses and some say they were not issued.

NY rules not legal, however they did rule that samesex marriages performed in other states and countries (canada, they specifically mentioned) are considered legal by NY State.

From Lambda Legal
Lambda Legal Vows Legal Action if Needed To Ensure Compliance With NY Attorney General’s Order that Gay Couples Married Elsewhere Are Legally Married in NY
‘The bottom line is that same-sex couples all over New York are married, and the state’s top legal authority has made it clear that their marriages are no different than anyone else’s.’

(New York, Wednesday, March 3, 2004) - The Attorney General of New York State said today that same-sex couples who validly married elsewhere are legally married throughout the state, and Lambda Legal vowed to take legal action if any local governments refuse to comply with the law.


Attorney General Elliott Spitzer issued an advisory to local officials saying they should not authorize or solemnize marriages of same-sex couples themselves, though he did not say whether it’s constitutional to deny such marriages. But in the first statewide clarification of its kind in the nation, Spitzer made it clear that couples who have legally married in Canada, San Francisco, Portland, Oregon, or elsewhere are also married under New York law and must be given all of the rights and protections of marriage in the state.

I'd love to hear a melody on that little ditty there mystic

Wow... justification for war and murder as long as it's in the name of God because a book that man wrote says so... Brilliant.

So Native Americans who had lived in North and South America for thousands of years, believing in spirits, unfamiliar with Anglo-Christianity were rightfully slaughtered and should have had their land taken over because according to a book, they worshipped false idols? Brilliant theory.

Mystic, as usual, I think you nailed it!

Bloody shame for those Native Americans then who, without reasons they could control; technology etc. they weren't aware they were worshipping false idols. Indeed, bloody shame. Most tribes are extinct now because of that I guess. But as long as it's justified by some book, I guess that makes it ok. But only if that book is believed to be the word of God. So maybe the muslims who murdered thousands during 9/11 should be sympathized with for their cause. After all, it was their interpretations of a book of God that justified their actions. Hmmm interesting.

Again I see that someone is forcing their religious views into the issue. Surprise, surprise. Mystic, AGAIN, you nailed it. Separation of church and state along with freedom of religion is meant to prevent the kind of radical ideals that justify hate, bigotry and even murder. Right on sister!

think you used the wrong smiley for the religious propaganda making you sick Mystic!

I just find it baffling that someone would think that the slaughter of millions of Native Americans was justifyable because though they didn't know the Bible, nor could they have, regardless, they were "without excuse". That would almost be a laughable statement if the tragedy of their murders wasn't real.
I mean, you gotta be kidding me!

I find your propoganada disgusting, but you don't see that because you can't fathom God rejecting homosexuality. And as for me bringing in "my religion" into the debate, show me where I can't. You bring in whatever arguments you want to use to support your views, but you can't stand it when someone else brings in an argument that opposes your views. You can't stand it even more when it has to do with God.

You can't show me anywhere that God accepts the sins of people. He accepts and loves all people, but no place does it say He accepts our sins. If He did, then why would He send Christ to die for us if sins don't matter to Him anyway?

So your god accepts sin? Interesting.

Funny how you don't want our government telling us what to believe in, yet you want ALL of America to accept a man with a man, and woman with a woman. Perhaps there should be a separation of government in that area too.

Oh but that's different.. I forgot... you want the world to side with you and you want those that oppose your views to have a different set of rules. We'll separate our views from the government because it's "church and state" issues, but it's ok for you to try to push your views on someone when biologically speaking, if nothing more, men don't even FIT with men, and women don't FIT with women. That alone should have been a clue that something is physically wrong. But since you can't see that as a non-equal issue, you will never be able to understand why the rest of us say this is not an "equal rights" issue.

So, once again we are at a stalemate.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you are bothered by my views. Other than one or two other people on the forum, you have the majority of support. Guess you can't win all of us to your side, nor argue in a manner that makes sense.

I do understand you not accepting my views because you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God. Without that, my argument would still be supportive by the majority because of the biological issues. I'm still not sure how you are supporting your views, other than free will.

If it were just free will, I wouldn't be fighting this whole issue. I would just say "let them go do whatever they want". But you see, it doesn't stop at free will. Next will be laws forcing the rest of us to comply, or else end up in court. So, off to the fights (poll booths) I go.

It's amazing to me what religion brings about in people. All kinds of fired up emotions!
Listen, faith is a fine and beautiful thing. It's also a personal and private relationship with God that should be celebrated with an individual's discretion, without the government stepping in saying that "you should believe this or that". Nor should the government claim that even though our Constitution declares equal rights for all mankind, men and women, that because of religious guidelines it's "ok" to deny equal rights to certain individuals. Now that defies the Constitution.
Some then argue that "biology" plays a factor. Because "Tab A" doesn't fit into "Tab B" or "Slot A" doesn't fit into "Slot B", that based on this, people should not be considered equal. Come on, what are we doing here? Assembling a piece of furniture or talking about the equal rights of human beings ? BIOLOGICALLY speaking, it's never been proven scientifically that homosexuality is NOT a natural occurance among human beings. But of coarse if it was scientifically proven to be a NATURAL part of human behavior, I'm sure religious nuts would then insist that it is incorrect, and blame the anti-God teachings of Tom Cruise's church of Scientology.

Anyway, not all people on this board, in this country or on the face of this planet believe that the Bible is the "true" word of God. And because there are so many differing faiths of who or what God really is, is the exact reason why governments should not inflict religious beliefs, rules, guidelines and laws on their people.

** ~ In AWE of Outsider's Response ~ **

I have nothing to add but my applause.

Outsider... thank you!!!

You know, the next time I make love with my future wife, I'm going to see if I have slot A, or if she does. Then, I'm going to see if things "fit". Maybe I've just been doing it wrong all these years. You think that's possible?

Hmmm... I think all of the letters I had on me when I was born have worn off. I guess I'm not a good person to ask. I can't even find the original manual, and I'm sure my warranty has worn out as well.

Can we download this information somewhere off the internet? It might be helpful, I'm just confused.

It's possible... you can find anything on the internet now-a-days.

Seriously... isn't is amazing that no matter what the thread is, if it's dealing with same sex, it just becomes a thread of preaching? I'm so glad that I have the option to just skip over where needed!

Yeah, I was thinking of utilizing the "Ignore" feature that INReview provides us with.

Did you see that the mayor is going to marry more couples? Good for him. At first I was disappointed by him not having licenses for the couples but now, it's really a political stand. Besides, according to NY law, I can get married to a partner in Canada and move to NY stste and they have to legally recognize my marriage. I just love that.

I saw that too. I was reading about that on the CNN.com website earlier today.
I find that to be double-standards.... you can't do it here, but if you do it elsewhere, we will approve it.

I thought it was strange as well, but law is very contradictory in that respect. Lambda Legal has some info about NY. Personally I would think that NYC would be the most liberal place in the USA, they encompass all communities. I am sure they will change the law there.

I would have thought that NY would be more accepting than other states of equality as well. I'm certain the Mayor won't do any time for this..I hope it will be dropped.

I read an article yesterday that said they could not stop him.

"Should not base laws against religious beliefs"

FACT: The goverment recognizes marriages between people of differing religions, even if said religions do not approve.
Question: Since it's inflicting on the beliefs of those religions, should those marriages now be no longer valid?

"They're passing laws based on their beliefs"

FACT: It is their duty in their positions in our government to execise, protect and grant the equal rights of all individuals based on the laws of our state Constitutions...NOT ON PERSONAL BELIEFS...

I could do the whole post in caps lock, and some people would STILL be too blind to read it.

This is a legal battle. If it is a religious battle then you won't mind giving up these legal rights.

Because lesbians and gay men cannot marry, they have no right to:
Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
Appointment as guardian of a minor;
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
Burial of service member's dependents;
Certificates of occupation;
Consent to post-mortem examination;
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
Criminal injuries compensation;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
Disclosure of vital statistics records;
Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
Exemption from conveyance tax;
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
Funeral leave for government employees;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
Inheritance of land patents;
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
Legal status with partner’s children;
Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
Making partner medical decisions;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
Notice of probate proceedings;
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
Proof of business partnership;
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
Right to change names;
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Right to file action for nonsupport;
Right to inherit property;
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
Right to support after divorce;
Right to support from spouse;
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
Sole interest in property;
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
Spousal immigration benefits;
Status of children;
Support payments in divorce action;
Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
In vitro fertilization coverage;
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

Those were the federal. Here are some of the state benefits. Different in each state of course.

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Right on Outsider, thanks for bringing the FACTS to the table.

Note that these same rights and privileges are awarded to opposite sex couples through marriage regardless of race, color, nationality or religion.

Did you also know that There are over 4,600 California state laws that treat people differently based on their marital status?

Well I'm not an attorney, so I don't know what they are, and I promise if I find out I won't post all 4,600 of them. But I find it interesting that some people seem to think that marriage is not a civil rights or legal issue. Looks clearly like discriminatiion to me.

having people tell you that you can't drink out of a certain water fountain because of the color of your skin is a civil rights issue.

not being able to own property or get a job or vote because you don't have a penis is a civil rights issue.

twisting marriage into some kind of a trophy to show the world how committed you are is not.


*braces himself for the angry replies*

It's not a civil rights issue to "twist" marriage Dekka, it's a civil rights issue when civil unions don't carry the same rights as marriage, when in essence they're supposed to be the same thing. Marriage (for heterosexuals) should be equivilant to Civil Unions (for homosexuals), but they're not. That's why it's a civil rights issue.

hmmmm.... this is what I'm thinking: Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. A man has the right to have a relationship with another man, but since it's another man, it's not marriage. If a homosexual man wants to marry a woman, he has the right to.

That's why I don't see this as a civil rights issue. It's not seperate but equal, but homosexual marriage (in my mind) is an oxymoron.

Gays not being allowed in the military, people not hiring someone because they're gay, and those types of things are civil rights issues. But this is an issue of trying to redefine what a marriage should be, not civil rights.

Now, if you disagree with the mainstream Christianity-based view of marriage, well, you have the right to do so.

But to compare the right to get tax benefits from the legal status of marriage to the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness seems a little out there to me.

For example: self-employed people also get certain tax breaks that employees of other companies don't get. It seems ridiculous for the employee to claim equal rights to get the same tax breaks.



Well, I think I may have contradicted myself or something, but I gotta run to work. I'll sort my thoughts out later.

Ciao, folks.

You didn't contradict yourself Dekka. You're right, they want to change what marriage is. And the oxymoron was a good example.

It's no different than trying to change your gender. You may have the parts shaped like a man if your a woman, or a woman if you're a man... but inside.... you are still the same gender you were before you had surgery.

As for marriage, you can put a man with a man or a woman with a woman, but it is not marriage. Changing what marriage is known as, and has been known as for all of time, is not a civil rights issue. They can find another name for it, but it's not marriage.

Many will argue that marriage is not about the couple, it is about the family, or marriage is for the children, or marriage is to procreate. These are all false.

Marriage is about the love two people share. It is a contract between two individuals. It is about that relationship.

If you have ever been to a wedding you will know that the below information is very similar to what is said.

MINISTER:
This relationship stands for love, loyalty, honesty and trust, but most of all for friendship. Before they knew love, they were friends, and it was from this seed of friendship that is their destiny. Do not think that you can direct the course of love – for love, if it finds you worthy, shall direct you.

Marriage is an act of faith and a personal commitment as well as a moral and physical union between two people. Marriage has been described as the best and most important relationship that can exist between them. It is the construction of their love and trust into a single growing energy of spiritual life. It is amoral commitment that requires and deserves daily attention. Marriage should be a life long consecration of the ideal of loving kindness – backed with the will to make it last.


Exchange of Vows

MINISTER TO GROOM:
Do you GROOM'S NAME take BRIDE'S NAME to be your wife – to live together – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?

GROOM:
I will.

MINISTER TO BRIDE:
Do you BRIDE'S NAME) take GROOM'S NAME to be your husband – to live together – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon him your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto him as long as you both shall live?

BRIDE:
I will.


Exchange of Wedding Rings

MINISTER:
What token of your love do you offer? Would you place the ring(s) in my hand?

May this/these ring(s) be blessed as the symbol of this affectionate unity. These two lives are now joined in one unbroken circle. Wherever they go – may they always return to one another. May these two find in each other the love for which all men and women yearn. May they grow in understanding and in compassion. May the home which they establish together be such a place that many will find there a friend. May this/these ring(s) on her/their finger(s) symbolize the touch of the spirit of love in their hearts.


Handing ring to the Groom

MINISTER TO GROOM:
GROOM'S NAME, in placing this ring on BRIDE'S NAME finger, repeat after me: BRIDE'S NAME), you are now consecrated to me as my wife from this day forward and I give you this ring as the pledge of my love and as the symbol of our unity and with this ring, I thee wed.


Handing ring to the Bride

MINISTER TO BRIDE:
BRIDE'S NAME, in placing this ring on GROOM'S NAME finger, repeat after me: GROOM'S NAME, you are now consecrate to me as my husband from this day forward and I give you this ring as the pledge of my love and as the symbol of our unity and with this ring, I thee wed.


Pronouncement

MINISTER:
May you always share with each other the gifts of love – be one in heart and in mind – may you always create a home together that puts in your hearts – love – generosity and kindness.

In as much as GROOM'S NAME and BRIDE'S NAME have consented together in marriage before this company of friends and family and have pledged their faith – and declared their unity by giving and receiving a ring – are now joined.

You have pronounced yourselves husband and wife but remember to always be each other’s best friend.

What – therefore – God has joined together – let no man put asunder.

And so, by the power vested in me by the State of ______ and Almighty God, I now pronounce you man and wife – and may your days be good and long upon the earth.

You may now kiss the bride.

What part of those vows has anything to do with anyone except the couple taking the vows? Marriage is a partnership between two adults. And when that partnership is entered into there are also legal responsibilities and benefits that go along with that commitment.
Most wedding vows fall into the above scenario, or a very close version of it. Marriage is a partnership.

Yes, but it's [supposed to] unite two families.

two people unite to continue a family.

because the two people who are uniting in a marriage, well, two people united to create each of them. And their kids will unite with other people to further continue the family. and so and and so forth.

that's where my "marriage is the glue of society" comes from.

but again, you probably disagree with that. which brings us back to square one: we have different definitions of marriage.

The marriage laws that are in effect today came from the Judeo-Christian definition. I know it doesn't apply exclusively to Jews and Christians, but that's America's historical background, whether you like it or not.

Of course, what about seperation of church and state? That makes me pretty apathetic about the whole thing. So when gay marriages become legal (I say when because it's already started, and if it doesn't happen this generation, it probably will the next) I'm not gonna pitch a fit about it. Marriage has already gone down the tubes anyway.

But I'm not gonna accept it as right.

Well Dekka, I think we will disagree on marriage because we disagree on what a family is.

Marriage has only gone down the tubes with those who do not take the commitment seriously. Those people who are together, and have been together for many decades, and still love their spouse, have succeded.

Good points mystic.

And what about the couples that have a lifetime commitment, have children and never get married. They are a family.

Families can exist without marriage.

Family is the people you are related to. Period.

So if two people get married but decide not to continue their family... don't they each have a mother and a father? And a whole bunch of in-laws?

Technically, if we trace our family histories back far enough we're all related



when I said related I didn't mean by blood. If someone gives their baby up for adoption, that baby is not part of their family anymore. The people who adopt them adopt them into their family.

I guess the only thing I'm trying to get at is that marriage is the institution that family is based on. Continuations of families center around the relationship between a guy and a girl. Your family is the thing that raises you and affects your view the most. And the shape society takes is comprised of those individuals.

So like I said, many people are worried about how legally accepting homosexual marriages is going to affect marriage, and therefore society. But, like I said, marriage has already fallen apart in America. Besides homosexuals are getting married anyway. Whether the law decides to recognize it is irrelevent. (I read somehwere that it takes a generation for laws to catch up with society).

Kooka: my apparant lack of hope is based on the fact that America is Babylon. I've placed my hope elsewhere.

So anyway, as long as they don't pass any laws forbidding me from carrying out my view of marriage, I'll be happy.

disregard..... double post

I didn't contradict myself: see post #58



well, I think I'm about done here. We found out that the reason we disagree is because we have different ideas of what family/marriage is. And we've gone over this in many other threads.

Thank you all for posting your ideas intelligently, but I can only have this debate so many times.

Found this in a local free publication. I thought it was worth sharing:
For all those who think we should get back to the Bible on marriage, here are a few guidelines:

(A) Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

(B) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

(C) A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

(D) Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

(E) Since marriage is for life, no government or law shall be able to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

(F) If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

chelktty,
*clears his throat*

I looked up all those passages. Did you?

The Bible isn't just a long list of commands.

Yes,many of the people described in the Bible had more than one wife. That doesn't make it right. But it happened.

I'm waiting for people to tell me the burn ox's testicles (can't be deformed, of course), because the odore is pleasing to the Lord.