wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

People entering into their first marriages have a relluctance towards prenups, because it shows an admission that divorce is possible. Even then prenups are contested all the time. Then there's the possiblity of getting hit for child support. Look at how Michael Strahan got raped in his divorce settlement.

Trust me, the happiest people right now are the California Lawyers. Cha-Ching!

raymond
prenup!

D!
that's the sweetest post, thanks

In the category of "be careful what you wish for." I wonder how hard working gay people are going to feel when they have to hand over half their money and possesions to an unfaithful spouse, and pay the lawyer's fees to boot. Gay-vorces promise to be even messier. At least in hetero marriages we know who the blue chiffon dress belongs to.

16--hjs, if we got married, it'd be bigamy. it would be big of you, too. and based on your posts, the dinner talk would be interesting.

Now Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie will have to get married. They said they were waiting for gay marriage to be legal. Here it is. In CA and soon in NY.

Eat your hearts out Fundamentalists.

Marriage was around before religion and should not be restricted to only religious people.

d!
to be honest i hadn't read them all until now, busy day,(I was referring to ur bio, my father was in the army personally speaking)
but still i said interesting not that i agree. but we can't get married yet so it doesn't matter if we don't agree on everything. :)

14 hjs--i agree with you

you're welcome...i feel as though i've been pulled through the wringer. i blame no one but myself. i voluntarily listed the original epistle that drew the responses. mea culpe!

(see, i do accept blame! :-) )

David!
correct me if i'm wrong, regardless of how marriage started, the state today allows clergy to sign the marriage license aka contract. the state as allows some non clergy (at city hall) to marry certain persons. the state allows a judge to break a marriage contract. (no catholic priest would do this even if the state said he could.) marriage is a state function. if you wanted to marry, say a 10 year, anyone who wants to start a church could marry u but the state would not see it as legal. Since the marriage is a state function with certain legal protections the state must stop discrimination between 2 adults who want legal protection.

ps you had some interesting posts today. thanks

John, at first reading, I was quickly coming up with all sorts of opposing thoughts to what you were saying, but on second reading I think I see where you're coming from.

Let me see if I have this right: you're saying that a union of couples commonly known as "marriage" traces its roots to various religious traditions, and despite the necessity of having a state-issued license to marry, it is still a religious concept.

To solve the issue, you propose a new entity that is recognized by the state.

Do I correctly understand you?

Question: if we were to move to this, would clergy be allowed by the government to conduct and pronounce this union?

john
Marriage is a legal contract.

It's not within the power of ANY government to "legalize" ANY kind of "marriage" -- gay OR straight.

"Marriage" always is a RELIGIOUS institution -- i.e., however one wishes to define religion, "marriage" is something which can be authenticated only by a "sanctifying agency" (for want of a better phrase), whether that agency is a church; family and friends; or a self-sanctifying agency of the two who are married.

The only way to fulfill the Constitutional ideals of equality and freedom of religion -- including freedom FROM religion -- is to move the country toward a policy of...

Universal Civil Unions, in which the only LEGAL recognition that ANY couple, gay OR straight, receive is a civil union.

"Marriage" is a private matter that can and should be recognized only at the CULTURAL level of church, family, friends, and social networks.

Government never has had any more ability to grant or deny the status of "marriage" than it has had the ability to legislate "prayer" in public schools -- which is to say, no ability at all.

That last caller criticizing Gov Paterson on moral grounds, was not only mean-spirited, but the argument he made was poor. In fact his argument did more to point out that all the damage done to the "Institution of Marriage" and "The Family" over the centuries has been strictly the province of heterosexuals.

My fiance and I will be in California in October for the 30th Annual General Conference of Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, however, as New York residents, me for almost sixty-five years he for fiveish years, we'll wait for the New York State Senate to have a Democratic majority, which will be in a little over six months, to marry.

John Adrian

good for him, at least he's making some effort.

if u want to respect marriage, outlaw DIVORCE

Well, I think this is significant because as more and more LEGALLY MARRIED gay couples appear, it will seem increasingly futile to oppose it. It's not going to happen overnight. You're not going to get Washington's backing without precedents being set in at least a handful of states. It has to appear to be an inevitability before they will sign on to it. So while it's not the end of the road by any stretch, don't scoff at it either.

Also, a company can offer benefits BUT, we must pay the taxes on them at the end of the year which can be more expensive than getting insurance on your own.

this is SO 20th century.

I want to have Federal rights. We are a bi-national couple who need immigration rights. I am not sure state law governs this right.

Isn't Governor Paterson, simply instructing the State to give full faith and credit to legal rulings in California.

Since my partner is an undocumented immigrant, does this really matter for us? Looks like this is going to continue the discrimination against me. Will he get a drivers license in NY? Probably not. And without a Social Security Number can he even get married? Probably not. While Gov Patterson's move is admirable, unless something happens in Washington - any action in a state house is irrelevant.