Same-sex marriage fails in NY State

[ponderingturtle]

I would say so. It's quite unfortunate.

[personal anecdote]My current GF and I have "shacked up" together. In this regard, I am her "closest" relative and the most likely to be around should (read when) something happens. In the case of a kitchen fire a few months ago, I was not allowed to tell the Paramedics to take her to the hospital over her own objections (she could barely breathe, but didn't want to cause any more of a hassle for me or the rest of her family - partly due to insurance reasons, but that's another issue). I was forced to convince her to let the Paramedics take her to the emergency room. At the same time, I was forced to drive myself to the emergency room instead of being able to ride in the ambulance with her (I'm damned certain she would have appreciated me being there with her on the ride). This isn't the only time we've been to the emergency room and other times I've had to fight to be in the room with her.
[/personal anecdote]

In NY at least, a husband can not force his wife to go to the hospital against her wishes. As an EMT in that situation I would have done anything I could to get her to go to the hospital but no matter what you did I couldn't force her if she was of legally competent mind.

As for riding, well you wouldn't have been allowed to ride in the back, and may have been allowed to ride in the front, but it is relatively uncommon.

 

[tyr_13]

Has the argument really become, 'if gays can get married, we'll have to admit that in school'?

What bs.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I should have made it clear that my second paragraph was not so much directed at you in particular, as well as in general to the audience, and more in response to Parky's ideas in this respect.

No problem. My position needed clarification anyway.

I understand the issue. And one state conferring the rights of married couples to civil unions doesn't help much because there's also a shedload of federal law which uses the word "marriage" to which this would not apply.

This is exactly why DOMA was preemptively passed in Congress (1996) - among other things. Block it at the federal level so that it leaves states in a quandry and acceptance/denial of legitimate gay marriages as a jumble state-to-state rather than something recognized by the nation and therefore extensible internationally. My greatest surprise was that Clinton, who had made all sorts of campaign promises to gay constituents (to get votes, obviously), reneged on most of them and we ended up with pearls like "DADT" instead of open service in the military. Of course, Bush seeded the Supreme Court with more conservative judges so that none of that "legislatin' from the bench" would be used to repeal or overturn DOMA.

In the sense that such laws reflect social norms, could you say that the US socially also treats, say, straight couples "shacking up" differently than married ones?

Yes, this is true. It provides no legal rights except wherein common-law marriage is accepted. Just do a search on 'Cohabitation'. The USA is rather indifferent comparatively.

 

[Beerina]

I was going to start a thread on this too. It saddens me. I'm a New Yorker too, and I wanted legal gay marriage pretty badly. (Make Niagara the honeymoon capital again!)

New York isn't as liberal as it seems. Upstate is much, much further right than NYC. Believe me.

It also demonstrates why the US is a 2-party system rather than many parties, like the parliamentary systems through much the rest of the world. Parties band together to "win" the presidency, a hugely valuable political prize given the veto powers, among others.

So every issue gets adopted as a poster child for one or the other party, to suck in more votes, even if groups who love that particular issue don't like other issues their party adopts.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It also demonstrates why the US is a 2-party system rather than many parties, like the parliamentary systems through much the rest of the world. Parties band together to "win" the presidency, a hugely valuable political prize given the veto powers, among others.

So every issue gets adopted as a poster child for one or the other party, to suck in more votes, even if groups who love that particular issue don't like other issues their party adopts.

 

[Meadmaker]

I would say so. It's quite unfortunate.

[personal anecdote]My current GF and I have "shacked up" together. In this regard, I am her "closest" relative and the most likely to be around should (read when) something happens. In the case of a kitchen fire a few months ago, I was not allowed to tell the Paramedics to take her to the hospital over her own objections (she could barely breathe, but didn't want to cause any more of a hassle for me or the rest of her family - partly due to insurance reasons, but that's another issue). I was forced to convince her to let the Paramedics take her to the emergency room. At the same time, I was forced to drive myself to the emergency room instead of being able to ride in the ambulance with her (I'm damned certain she would have appreciated me being there with her on the ride). This isn't the only time we've been to the emergency room and other times I've had to fight to be in the room with her.
[/personal anecdote]

So....make it legal.

Actually, I think that what we need is a "civil union" that is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals, but isn't marriage. i.e. a relationship that recognizes a legal status between the two people involved, but implies no obligation for maintaining that relationship. Marriage, on the other hand, would imply an obligation to remain in the relationship, and would involve imposing restrictions on the dissolution of the marriage, and possibly penalties for breaking the terms of the marriage.