Same-sex marriage recognition
Jun. 18th, 2008 10:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tinpraSo following the ruling in California allowing same-sex marriage, New York State (NYS) Governor, David Patterson, has said and has directed NYS official agencies to recognize same-sex marriages though the state itself does not perform them. This ruling has been challenged by the Alliance Defense Fund.
As a disclaimer, I haven't done much research into this but I've been feeling like I need to make a post about this for a while now but it wasn't until I randomly came across a news-thingy on it earlier this evening on PBS (can't give you a link since I caught whatever it was at the tail end) that was discussing some of the fallout of the California decision that I finally am posting. As you can see. Needless to say, lack of research now is no reason not to do research later, but I've been using that as an excuse not to post for too long. Anywho, on to the post, such as it is:
My fundemental Christian viewpoints aside, I must say I understand where the ADF is coming from. Gov. Patterson's reasoning behind his decision, as I understand it, is that NYS recognizes already recognizes marriages from other states and so this is just more of same. Here's where that argument doesn't hold water for me: The marriages that NYS recognize are the same marriages that the state performs. The state will perform a marriage between a man and a woman, and thus it recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman. It's almost like because the school at which I am the principal of has a 7th grade class, I will accept a 7th grade transfer student from another class. If I didn't have a 7th grade class, it would be silly for me to accept a 7th grade transfer student. This is, of course, an imperfect example and I am not, by any means, calling gay couples silly (it's one of the marks of the imperfect nature of my example), but I think you get my point. If NYS will not perform gay marriages, and currently have laws prohibiting them, where is the logic in recognizing what it will not do?
I'm sure someone has a good argument against it. I'm almost sure it's Katya ( :p ), but at the moment I'm at a loss to see Gov. Patterson's logic. Now if his point is to use this directive to smooth the way for same-sex marriages, which I believe he has said it is, then that's another thing altogether. And I feel like if that's the case, then that should be his stated reason and logic, not that "NYS recognizes marriage, this is just more of same." It's clearly not, sir.
As a disclaimer, I haven't done much research into this but I've been feeling like I need to make a post about this for a while now but it wasn't until I randomly came across a news-thingy on it earlier this evening on PBS (can't give you a link since I caught whatever it was at the tail end) that was discussing some of the fallout of the California decision that I finally am posting. As you can see. Needless to say, lack of research now is no reason not to do research later, but I've been using that as an excuse not to post for too long. Anywho, on to the post, such as it is:
My fundemental Christian viewpoints aside, I must say I understand where the ADF is coming from. Gov. Patterson's reasoning behind his decision, as I understand it, is that NYS recognizes already recognizes marriages from other states and so this is just more of same. Here's where that argument doesn't hold water for me: The marriages that NYS recognize are the same marriages that the state performs. The state will perform a marriage between a man and a woman, and thus it recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman. It's almost like because the school at which I am the principal of has a 7th grade class, I will accept a 7th grade transfer student from another class. If I didn't have a 7th grade class, it would be silly for me to accept a 7th grade transfer student. This is, of course, an imperfect example and I am not, by any means, calling gay couples silly (it's one of the marks of the imperfect nature of my example), but I think you get my point. If NYS will not perform gay marriages, and currently have laws prohibiting them, where is the logic in recognizing what it will not do?
I'm sure someone has a good argument against it. I'm almost sure it's Katya ( :p ), but at the moment I'm at a loss to see Gov. Patterson's logic. Now if his point is to use this directive to smooth the way for same-sex marriages, which I believe he has said it is, then that's another thing altogether. And I feel like if that's the case, then that should be his stated reason and logic, not that "NYS recognizes marriage, this is just more of same." It's clearly not, sir.