• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New York State Senate passes same sex marriage bill.e

Good for New York!

They got #6 because Arnold Schwarzeneggar, that defender of marriage from gays demeaning it, vetoed a bill to end discrimination twice.

Hopefully the federal lawsuit will make this the law across the nation.
 
:thumbsup:

I hope this trend continues to gains steam and becomes a right across the nation.
 
Last edited:
ActiveX said:
Sounds wrong. They should have never passed this.
Click to expand...

It is wrong. They are normally pronounced HUSBAND and wife, not man and wife.

Apparently, an alternative available for same-sex couples is 'pronounce you married.'

Sounds good.

And they should have passed this.
 
Craig234 said:
It is wrong. They are normally pronounced HUSBAND and wife, not man and wife.

Apparently, an alternative available for same-sex couples is 'pronounce you married.'

Sounds good.

And they should have passed this.
Click to expand...

I pronounce you wifeband.

I win.
 
NY didn't pass a bill acknowledging homosexual marriage full on . It passed a bill saying homosexuals can get married - but not in churches - and not in a way that constricts anyones religious morals. Basically, NY passed a cryptic civil union bill with a Fcuk-you religious provision built it. The added protections to religious groups/individuals reinforce their traditional positions rather than weaken them. So this has Pyrrhic victory written all over it - especially in a state like NY with lots of minorities (and 1000's of Hispanic immigrants) who are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. This will be a killer blow to Dems and RINO's alike
 
I am all for allowing everyone to be as miserable as possible in their relationship no matter what sex their partner may be.
 
I think it is great that New York voted on it to get what they wanted. I would not want to see a federal case make it the law of the land, it should be handled by how the states want to individually.
 
akahoovy said:
I think it is great that New York voted on it to get what they wanted. I would not want to see a federal case make it the law of the land, it should be handled by how the states want to individually.
Click to expand...

Should each state handle slavery how it wants, too? Where do you draw the line on violating human rights, much less constitutional rights?
 
ActiveX said:
Sounds wrong. They should have never passed this.
Click to expand...

Interesting... I waited after this passed, live coverage on MSNBC and other news media, I waited for the first reference or post to show up here. Tick tick tick, time passed. No posts.
Why?
Exactly my point... THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYONE!!!!!
Unless... if your gay and want to marry in N.Y. Or, if you’re invited to a gay marriage ceremony. Or, if you are a friend/family member of one or both of the happy couple.

Otherwise.... NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on ANYONE else in the good ole U.S.A.!!!

And so, I was not surprised no one was posting here, for quite some time, after the bill was passed in N.Y.

ANd yet... Here we have this person (quote above) pretending THIS has some effect on their little life. Pretending some outrage.
Pretending something is now totally off kilt in their little tiny bubble of a world.

A forum poster, that has way too much time on their hands and obviously no life of their own to engage with. In other words, a nobody (that sadly, can type).
 
sportage said:
Interesting... I waited after this passed, live coverage on MSNBC and other news media, I waited for the first reference or post to show up here. Tick tick tick, time passed. No posts.
Why?
Exactly my point... THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYONE!!!!!
Unless... if your gay and want to marry in N.Y. Or, if you’re invited to a gay marriage ceremony. Or, if you are a friend/family member of one or both of the happy couple.

Otherwise.... NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on ANYONE else in the good ole U.S.A.!!!

And so, I was not surprised no one was posting here, for quite some time, after the bill was passed in N.Y.

ANd yet... Here we have this person (quote above) pretending THIS has some effect on their little life. Pretending some outrage.
Pretending something is now totally off kilt in their little tiny bubble of a world.

A forum poster, that has way too much time on their hands and obviously no life of their own to engage with. In other words, a nobody (that sadly, can type).
Click to expand...

One problem in a democracy is that any question about rights the courts don't settle, treats 'is that their right?' and 'do you approve of them?' as largely the same question.
 
im more concerned with real national security threats. Like our upcoming and eventual naval war with Red China for example. Gay marriage isn't a threat to national security, and not a threat to me. if gay folks want to get married, all the power to them as far as im concerned.
 
akahoovy said:
I think it is great that New York voted on it to get what they wanted. I would not want to see a federal case make it the law of the land, it should be handled by how the states want to individually.
Click to expand...

Think about it...
Obama said this also just lately. And he was so wrong that I doubt he was listening to his own words coming out of his mouth.

IF...if, people were chained to their birth state, then maybe ok with this as a state issue. But that is not the case. People are mobile. People move around. Seek better jobs, better living conditions, better climate. People move around.

So it makes absolutely no sense for a couple to marry in N.Y., legally, but if they move to say Ohio, their marriage is null and void as far as that state goes.
Now I know... every heterosexual married reading here would not like that in their own life.
Mom and dad married in N.Y., then dad gets a great job offer in Ohio...BUT... mom and dad will no longer be legally man and wife.

Does THAT make sense? Really.... Does it?
So why anyone, and shockingly Obama, would feel this is some state matter is either retarded thinking, or just sucking up to a portion of the electorate for maybe a few votes in November of 2012.

Now I know Obama is not dumb. At least I don't think so. But having the opinion SS marriage is a state matter is thinking you usually only find with brain damaged people, unable to follow a logical thought from beginning to end.

I know why Obama pretends to be retarded on the issue of SS marriage. But that doesn’t explain others that hold the same opinion.
 
Karl Agathon said:
im more concerned with real national security threats. Like our upcoming and eventual naval war with Red China for example. Gay marriage isn't a threat to national security, and not a threat to me. if gay folks want to get married, all the power to them as far as im concerned.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to watch these attitudes people get in our less bigoted culture today. Decades ago, very few people would say what you did. Decades of fighting has worked.

I remember when the fight was younger - people were outraged that gays dared say anything about being gay (there's a reason they called it the closet).

I remember a show like the Rockford files snuck it into a plot in the 70's - quite rare.

Television kind of maps the history - later there might be a guest star who turned out to be gay, later a minor cast member, eventually you get 'Will & Grace' and 'Queer Eye'.

More shows would gradually work it into a plot rarely - it's still far below the population as represented on tv shows (just as blacks once were).

It's funny that while the facts are clear, it takes decade for the culture to shift away from bigotry, one baby step after another. Just as it did with blacks; and in some ways women.
 
Last edited:
akahoovy said:
I think it is great that New York voted on it to get what they wanted. I would not want to see a federal case make it the law of the land, it should be handled by how the states want to individually.
Click to expand...

New York citizens didn't vote on gay marriage (it would have failed because of so many minorities) - it was passed politically. When GOP RINOs are getting death threats and the largest GOP donor (Bloomberg) is pushing the agenda its easy to pass such a bill when the religious people are buttressed. Hey Obama was in NY and not supporting gay marriage the night before vote - for NY GOP to make this happen will cause a huge backlash in Dem/GOP base "Same-sex marriage foe State Sen. Ruben Diaz & family hit with death threats over stance on issue" http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-01/local/29623955_1_gay-marriage-death-threats-new-gay
 
One issue that was covered and a huge concern in the NY bill, was the issue of religion.
I really think that issue was totally moot.
I seriously doubt any gay couple wanting to marry, are going to seek out their local anti-gay Baptist or Catholic church, and walk up to the door and cry "I want to be married in here". I don't think anyone need worry about THAT happening.
That is just silly. And pretty much shows the lack of understanding by people that have no gay friends or family members to relate to.

If this were some atheist marriage issue, where a law was passed so that atheist could now marry, I doubt your typical atheist couple would want to run out and get a church wedding.
Not that gays are atheist. Most gays are just as religious as the next person.
Wedding day is a happy day. A major life event. People don't want that day to become their nightmare.
Every gay person I know, have ever known, were from religious family backgrounds and retained their full religious beliefs.
But I really doubt two gay people wanting to marry in NY, would "force" some non-gay friendly church to do their wedding. That just would not happen.

If any gay couple wanting to marry were to make a stink and try to force the issue to marry in a church that rejected their lifestyle, that gay couple would not be serious about their marriage in the first place. They would be pulling a stunt to create an issue or court challenge. If that were the case, then the church should have the right to say no.
But the issue is silly. Any serious "in love" gay couple wanting to marry in NY, would not want to turn their special day into some front page legal circus.

I just think too much emphases was placed on the fear and on protecting the church from something that will never happen.
There are plenty of gay friendly churches that will marry gay couples, anyway.
Plenty of gay friendly ministers.
I would suspect most gay couples will seek a civil service, or gay friendly church and minister. Or get married on a boat by a sea captain.
You don't just have to be a member of a church to get legally married, even though most religious fundie's would have you think that.

In other state laws that left out legal religious protections, like iOwa, I have not seen or heard ONE SINGLE challenge to the church. It just has not happen. Not one single time.
Not in iOwa or any other state allowing SS marriage. Not once.
So why the NY congress felt so concerned about a non issue, was to say the least pretty silly.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to pretend that I'm personaly thrilled over this but I'm also not going to say I have the right to tell a gay person they can't be married. To each his own I say.

What I will do though is comment on the whole "religion" side of this. If the state must recognize the rights of homosexuals to marry then it must also recognize the rights of the churches who do not want this to happen there.

Seperation of church and state does not just mean that government can't pass laws that support a religion. It also means that government can't pass laws that interfere with a religions practises. In fact some would argue that is all it means.
 
finglobes said:
It passed a bill saying homosexuals can get married - but not in churches - and not in a way that constricts anyones religious morals.
Click to expand...

Huh? You'll have to quote text from the passed bill to explain that. I would figure that if a gay friendly church wants to marry a gay couple, they will be able to. I certainly wouldn't expect a Catholic church to agree to it, or be forced to accommodate it.

I wouldn't have thought a religious aspect to gay marriage would even be addressed in such a bill.
 
Last edited:
RisenZealot said:
I'm not going to pretend that I'm personaly thrilled over this but I'm also not going to say I have the right to tell a gay person they can't be married. To each his own I say.

What I will do though is comment on the whole "religion" side of this. If the state must recognize the rights of homosexuals to marry then it must also recognize the rights of the churches who do not want this to happen there.

Seperation of church and state does not just mean that government can't pass laws that support a religion. It also means that government can't pass laws that interfere with a religions practises. In fact some would argue that is all it means.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that the right of gays to equality has to be balanced by the right of the churches to discriminate?

We're not talking about requiring the Churches to perform gay marriages or to do anything different.

That's a terrible argument. 'We have to balance the slave's rights against the slave owner's right to want to own slaves'.
 
Gooberlx2 said:
Huh? You'll have to quote text from the passed bill to explain that. I would figure that if a gay friendly church wants to marry a gay couple, they will be able to. I certainly wouldn't expect a Catholic church to agree to it, or be forced to accommodate it.

I wouldn't have thought a religious aspect to gay marriage would even be addressed in such a bill.
Click to expand...


50% of NY churches are Catholic - and many are now full of illegal immigrants to boot. The Catholic Churches are not independent and cant do what the Pope wouldn't. Immigrants and blacks are the most against homosexual joints to start out with. NY is a victory now - won't be in long term.


70% of blacks backed Prop. 8

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html

60% of balcks Oppose Gay Marriage

http://drboycespeaks.blogspot.com/2011/04/poll-over-60-of-african-americans.html

Only 37% of blacks support gay marriage

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/20/local/me-gaymarriage20

Majority of Hispanics Oppose ' Gay Marriage':

http://juantornoe.blogs.com/hispani..._campaign=Feed:+blogs/kJUd+(HispanicTrending)

150 Hispanic churches in New York rally against gay marriage

http://www.christianpost.com/news/h...-diaz-against-gay-marriage-in-new-york-51256/

A coalition of 34,000 black churches against of gay marriage.

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/na...-obama-for-abandoning-defense-of-marriage-act
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top