New York governor basically legalizes gay marriage statewide
posted at 9:15 pm on May 29, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Why “basically”? Because only the legislature can formally legalize it and all attempts to push a bill through have stalled so far. Which means gays can’t get married in New York … but they can, of course, now get married in California or Massachusetts and then come back to New York, where, per Paterson’s new executive order, their marriages will be recognized with full faith and credit (the same principle that lets straights run off to Vegas and then have their Nevada license recognized back home). Not the cleverest gay marriage gambit ever to be tried in NYS but still darned clever in how it (a) lets him argue semi-persuasively that he’s just following the law as it already is, (b) holds the virtue for most conservatives of at least being imposed by an elected official and not a court, and (c) nudges the legislature to make a move on passing a full-fledged gay marriage law of its own, especially since enforcement in the interim is apt to be messy:
It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.
I’m curious what the HA faithful think. Most of you are avowed federalists; here’s an example of the principle that might not cut your way. Opposition to the move is already stirring, meanwhile, which makes me wonder if the legislature won’t just duck the issue and let Paterson sink or swim on his own. Remember, too, that the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Bill Clinton, don’t forget) says states aren’t required to recognize gay marriages in other states. I wonder if some opponent won’t try to argue that because no New York state law has been passed formally granting full faith and credit to gay marriages, Paterson’s guilty of improperly/unilaterally “requiring” the state to recognize them and therefore in violation of DOMA. Seems like a stretch since DOMA’s really aimed at courts interpreting the federal constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, but any weapon to hand, I guess.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »
At least the people of NY will have a chance to vote their illustrious governor out of office. I think NY will have another GOP governor soon…if NY citizens care about this. I don’t live there, so it’s not my decision.
funky chicken on May 30, 2008 at 1:42 AM
From J.Corrigan’s dissenting opinion.
Mallard T. Drake on May 30, 2008 at 1:45 AM
This dude cant keep it in his pants, now he wants the gays to pretend their married in his state.
The only moral dude out there is Mitt…I mean as far as I can tell. The rest of these politicians are either divorced, have had affairs, dig on fellow dudes, or are pure evil (schmuckabee). this country is busted.
thank you and goodnight
Roger Waters on May 30, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Seems to be a separation of powers issue not a federalist issue.
Of course New York State has the right to choose to recognize same sex marriages preformed elsewhere. (Although I think that same sex marriage supports are adopting a definition of marriage that argues strongly for government getting out of the whole business of recognizing marriages).
The key issue at hand is whether the Governor has this authority. I don’t know the specifics of the New York State Constitution, but my impression is that under most state constitutions this would be an illegal usurpation of legislative powers by the executive.
Personally I am strongly opposed to same sex marriages being recognized by the state. I have come to realize this argument is primarily driven by differences in opinion about what marriage actually is.
Those who support same sex marriages seem to think marriage is a way of the state granting legitimacy to a sexual relationship. To which my response is: How is that any business of the government to decide which relationships are legitimate and which are not?
This is resulting from a confusion about the difference between society and government. Marriage is firstly a societal concept, and only secondarily a governmental contract. The legitimacy for sexual relationships that marriage provides comes from society, and should not come from government. Government involvement in marriage recognition can only be justified on the grounds that marriages provide large positive externalities. Namely a stable family union for the creation and raising of children.
Same sex “marriages” simply do not fulfill the requirements for this and so can not be justified as deserving of equal consideration by the government.
If same sex marriage advocates are correct in their assertion that marriages are no longer primarily viewed as binding contracts creating stable families for the raising of children (a plausible argument), then it seems to me the logical conclusion is that governments should stop recognizing marriages. Instead it should simply offer to any pairing (sexual or platonic) a simplified method of obtaining most of the legal rights associated with marriage (which currently can be gained through other legal means, but should be obtainable without the excessive paperwork).
Let people argue freely about which are legitimate marriages and which are not, just as we freely argue about whose baptisms are legitimate and whose are not. Government should remain silent on the matter. Thus returning marriage to a purely societal entity.
Surely this would be better then for the government to try and impose this radically new definition of marriage on a societal institution that predates not only our government, but also predates any government in existence.
Now I do not advocate this as I think that marriage is still primarily a binding contract to create a stable family to raise children. (My response to the evidences to the contrary is that those things are primarily due to previous government actions such as increasing the availability of no-fault divorce, and that government should undo the damage it has done, not use the damage it has done as an excuse to do more damage.)
However, I can not accept a government that insists on forcing me to recognize as legitimate sexual relationships when I believe them to be sinful. If that is truly what this is all about, then government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether.
Sackett on May 30, 2008 at 2:25 AM
What are you looking at?
If justice is blind then only the blind will have justice. I say we make bestiality legal, and work our way back from there.
AZCON on May 30, 2008 at 2:57 AM
Sexism means you don’t think both a man and womans influence is good for children. Sexism is the basis for homosexual feelings and behavior
PrezHussein on May 30, 2008 at 3:35 AM
As a proud Republican I’ll shock everyone by saying I completely support Gay marriage, and I’m shocked that reasonably intelligent people here are equating it with bestiality, or really even polygomy.
Sorry kids but Gays are Americans and should have the same rights as everyone else, and that included the right to pick a person who will inherit their goods. The whole idea of a Republic, and Republicanism, is that the state protects the individual’s rights from the Tyranny of the masses. In this case Social Cons are conflating the political and the theological insofar as their claiming the government protecting the rights of Homosexuals is in someway undermining morality, etc.
The government can grant Gays marriage rights and stay out o the theological debate No one but left wing extremists are advocating that Christian, Muslims and Jews be forced to accept Homosexuality as equal to Heterosexuality in Metaphysical terms, just that Two people of the same sex be able to leave their loved one their valuables in a will and name that person their next of kin for medical decisions. What’s wrong with that?
Gays are no more likely to abuse a child than a straight person, because Gays and pedophiles are different, so the anti-Adoption angle is simple bigotry.
I’m bi-racial, my family on my mothers side were slaves here. The Republican party freed us, and they were the first to elect Black judges, Mayors etc back in the late 1800s and they did so while fighting Democrats who said allowing Blacks to achieve positions of power was a slippery slope. The arguements here are similar.
If you believe in freedom and the American way you have to accept that it is the right of everyone. No one here would allow Sharia law in their state but now some are arguing that we use religious opinions to decide who gets rights. This is very disapointing.
Rob Taylor on May 30, 2008 at 3:55 AM
This is Homosexual Sharia. People must be forced to change their beliefs or be punished. A traditional religous person cannot be a justice of the peace.
PrezHussein on May 30, 2008 at 4:04 AM
Different states have different drinking ages
Should a youth be allowed to carry his drinking status to other states?
Different states have different ages of consent for sex and statutory rape.
Should persons be allowed to carry their ages of consent with them to other states?
If a state passes a law allowing a man to have sex with a donkey would that be transferrable?
What if a state allows a man to marry a donkey? Will the donkey be allowed to get food stamps and wick coupons for any offsping from extramarital affairs?
Marriage was never defined to be a homosexual state. It was defined as a heterosexual arrangement. It was statutorialy controlled for the protection of the partners, the family line, and society.
If a state wants to change the definition of a chicken to include hippos, no other state should have to alter it’s agricultural oversight to a transplanted hippo farmer
If you want the correct legal analogy: if two states both legalize homosexual marriages, than those two states will recognize each other’s marriages.
No other state is obligated to recognize an invented institution
entagor on May 30, 2008 at 5:24 AM
Honestly, the only problem I have with gay marriage, beyond the instant ramifications of calling it marriage, is the way its been instituted by a run-away judiciary.
Gay unions expose all the problems of a state controlling so many aspects of our lives. contracts and partnerships and associations need to be a private matter, one the state doesn’t involve itself in. They shouldn’t be involved beyond a redress of grievances should a party break that contract or if it harms someone.
morally gays might be goin’ to hell, but as W says we are all sinners in our own way. blah blah.
coondawg on May 30, 2008 at 6:12 AM
An interesting side kerfuffle here may come up if New York State current has a law requiring benefits packages to be offered for same-sex domestic partners.
Those rules, involving things like insurance coverage for partners in same-sex domestic relationships, were required under Massachusetts law until four years ago. But they weren’t mandated for opposite sex non-marrieds due to the simple fact that anyone could then shack up with someone of the opposite sex in order to obtain things like health care benefits from companies whose plans included spouses. But once the Supreme Court in Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, the benefit law for non-married gays was tossed out, because by continuing to permit it, the state would be discriminating against non-married domestic partners.
So technically, if Patterson recognizes out-of-state gay marriages, then even if the law on getting married inside New York is left unchanged, there is a legal argument to be made that if the state has a same-sex domestic partner benefit law, it now becomes discriminatory against opposite sex couples living together.
jon1979 on May 30, 2008 at 6:12 AM
No surprise here…the three pervert sanctuaries in the country (New York, MA and California) allow gay marriage. I expect Oregon to follow suit soon. At least that’s only four states out of 50. Maybe gays will all migrate to those four states and the other 46 will be rid of them. If we could only get all liberals in the country to follow, we’d be much better off.
orlandocajun on May 30, 2008 at 7:23 AM
Stop trying to sell “Log Cabins” to real republicans.
Even the American Psychological Association (APA) can no longer spin the yarn that homosexuality is genetic/innate, which was the argument (fantasy) used for removing homosexuality from its American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973.
The APA has recently changed its current document regarding homosexuality and replaced its earlier statement with the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”
Homosexuality is abnormal behavior and permitting homosexuals to marry is unacceptable. Homosexuals are demanding special privileges for their sex acts. What else differentiates them from the rest of society?
Most Americans reject homosexual marriage. Simply look at the number of citizens, in each state, that have voted to amend their state constitutions.
sinsing on May 30, 2008 at 7:37 AM
The last time this polygamy question came up I asked what was socially wrong with it, given that polygamous societies have survived for centuries and more.
The response I got was that it reduces the pool of marriageable women. The rich get all the women, the other men get nothing and become seething malcontents within society, and the woman get inferior status in the society. Those are all bad, but not worse perhaps than some of the arguments against gay marriage. IMO, polygamy is coming.
As for why anyone would want two or more wives, why wouldn’t a rich guy want many cars, new ones, in all different models. It’s not like you’d have to ask the car what it thinks or feels or wants.
Finally, in our modern polygamy, it will have to be two ways: Rich women can have multiple husbands. Take that Mr. Jeffs.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 8:31 AM
They already have that right – it’s called a will, or contract if you prefer.
This gay marriage thing is just one more rung in the ladder of decline this country has been in for the last 40 years. And Republicans have done nothing to stop it.
Marriage is already a mockery in this country, gay marriage just makes it more so.
Rest assured, as a nation we will be held accountable for this.
abcurtis on May 30, 2008 at 8:34 AM
When did John Travolta break his nose and cut his hair?
Charles Martel on May 30, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Well, that’s not the only problem I have with gay marriage, but it would be much preferable to have it debated and voted on, up or down, by a state legislature. I didnt know governors could rule by decree. Must be a socialist democrat thing.
abcurtis on May 30, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Are some gays American, or are some Americans gay. It makes a difference, as our friend Thatcher says above. Is “gay” a class of people, worthy of protection and rights, or a behavior engaged in by people essentially the same as everyone else who already have rights?
The way you answer that question would largely determine your view of the “republican” or “conservative” way to handle this issue. The modern view, that gay is innate, would suggest new rights. The traditional view, that gay is learned/acquired/chosen, whatever, would suggest no additional rights.
Pick your poison.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Patterson was elected? He was elevated to the position, but he was not elected to it. In any case, he is not following the will of the people, he is following the decision of 4 unelected judges in another state, which is a bit like our Supreme Court looking to France for direction in how to decide our constitutional issues.
Wouldn’t natural law would favor heterosexual unions?
Bingo.
Yes, and even if one could conclusively prove that homosexuality was determined by genetics it would not make it “normal”.
And not only would churches be subject to an inquisition, the schools would be forced to teach homosexual sex as part of their sex ed curriculum. Indeed, I have seen a GLSEN manifesto which explicitly stated that that was their goal
That is a strawman argument. There is nothing that prevent homosexuals from leaving their “goods” to anyone they wish, or that prevents them from including them in medical situations, and civil unions are one way to formalize those arrangements.
Indeed, if your oft-repeated argument was correct then unmarried heterosexual couples would be wailing about their property and medical rights being denied, but I haven’t heard a peep from them, have you?
As an aside, I find it so interesting that the Left argued for years that marriage was just a piece of paper, but now that piece of paper is the most important thing in the world.
Buy Danish on May 30, 2008 at 8:51 AM
They do have the same rights as everyone else. Everyone can get married. Homosexual marriage is a special right. Nobody is telling them who can inherit their stuff either (except the government through the death tax). The masses aren’t keeping gays from doing anything. The social cons aren’t doing anything. . . this whole debate comes from gays wanting special treatment.
You equate being bi-racial to homosexuality. Any person can wake up some day and say that they are gay, then the next day change their mind. No black person can become white, not can a white person become black (for minority scholarship). The homosexual agenda is the absurdity here. No police are rounding up gays for being gay. They can do what they want. . . but that’s not enough for them.
If I fall in love with a girl who happens to be 13, I don’t have a ‘right’ to marry her – in fact I’d be thrown in jail. That’s not discriminatory, that’s the law – no matter how much I loved her. The government has tons of restrictions on marriage other than ‘just’ the homosexual restriction. This makes a special right just for them, not an equal right.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 9:35 AM
As I understand it, the Guv based his executive order upon the February 2008 Martinez decision from the Appellate Division Court. This ruling in favor of a lesbian plaintiff seems to be grounded upon longstanding New York law and established precedent:
The argument can be made that the Guv acted precipitously since I think this case is under appeal to the NYS Court of Appeals (essentially their Supreme Court), but his decision is in compliance with the Martinez ruling. Opponents of this move can either hope the NYS Court of Appeals overturns the Martinez ruling, thereby stripping the basis for the Guv’s order, or have the Legislature essentially invalidate both the ruling and the order by passing a DOMA-style law. Given that the Legislature is divided at the moment, neither side in this debate is going to get anything through to further their goals. I guess it will have to wait until the next round of elections and to see if the voters provide either side enough control to ram their legislation through. Of course opponents have a more difficult hurdle at the moment with an pro-gay Guv who has a veto pen ready so perhaps they will have to wait for a new Guv as well.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM
sorry sonny, they already do. they want special rights. their ‘marriage’ is a lie, a grotesque aping of heterosexuals whom they sneer at as ‘breeders’. but they sure want us to breed children so they can ‘convert’ them into their sick lifestyle.
please, this is laughable. the gays are forcing their lifestyle on everyone else, and anyone dares disagree is guilty of a ‘hate crime’
sure they are, in their effort to recruit. just look at the catholic sex scandal. as far as adoption, its sick and twisted to give a child to a gay ‘couple’. children need a father and mother…not some sick imitaiton of a family, that is gay ‘marriage’
this is the result of your gay ‘adoption’
Gay couple left free to abuse boys – because social workers feared being branded homophobic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys–social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
but its not about whats good for the kids, its all about what the gays, and their sick perversion.
what BS. homosexuality is a choice not a genetic condition…so where is that gay gene at??? hmmmm?? can’t find it now can you?? and you NEVER will. if it was geneteic it would have been bred out of the population long ago.
you obviously do not. so what about the ‘rights’ of pedophiles? dirty little secret is that is what the gay movement is all about, to get recruits.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 9:48 AM
absolutely correct. they want to impose their hellish left-wing agenda on us, and any who disagree will be punished. oh no you must ‘think correctly’ now, or else.
kiss your freedom goodby. they don’t want to be ‘tolerated’ they want ‘acceptance’ or else.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 9:49 AM
thats for sure.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 9:54 AM
All I can say about this guy is what a damned moron!
kcd on May 30, 2008 at 10:09 AM
If the governor of NY can just make law then why do they even need a legislature?
Defense Guy on May 30, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Everyone has the same right to walk up the stairs to their job, yet the government has laws to expand equal access for those who need elevators or ramps.
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM
The response I got was that it reduces the pool of marriageable women. The rich get all the women, the other men get nothing and become seething malcontents within society, and the woman get inferior status in the society
JiangxiDad
There are already too many women in relation to men. I don’t know what that means, but it seems that there will be some left over chicks.
Krydor on May 30, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Nobody is denying them their rights, they can pass on to their beneficiaries anything they want, and gays can adopt in all 50 states, I don’t know what your beef is.
This is what we are denying, the word marriage…make it a partner contract or a gayiage certificate. But the term marriage applies to a man and woman. They use the term gay partner, they use the term “queer”, they identify themselves with a certain group, they have their gay parades (nice events to take your kids, huh?), so they can have a gay contract.
And, btw, don’t ignore the polygamy angle, if you are in love with someone why not get “married” that is their mantra. And if a father loves his daughter, hey, why not? Who are you to say what is love and not? And with parental consent, a 16 year old boy or girl, can “marry” a guardian that give her/him permission. Who are you to say it is wrong. The love a 40 year old man has for a 16 year old boy is just as real as any other “love”, who are you to say it isn’t?
right2bright on May 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM
It can’t be a casual choice like “Coke or Pepsi”. For a straight person to choose to marry someone of the same gender, they would have to be ignoring some incredibly strong feelings toward the opposite sex. I can’t imagine a straight guy, one who would naturally be aroused by the curves of a woman’s body, one who would be stimulated by the women he sees in film, on magazine covers, or walking down the street would just say “You know girls are really hot and cause erections and all but I think I’m going to exercise my choice and marry a guy so that I can spend the rest of my life having sex with him instead of those girls that naturally turn me on.”
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Your presumptions are so grotesque. Do a Google search once in a while.
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster04.htm
Is this your own ignorant presumption or do you have a scientific source?
Never mind. I don’t need a response.
I support gay marriage, but I agree that judicial and executive short cuts are the wrong way to do it.
SouthernDem on May 30, 2008 at 10:28 AM
There may be now. But that is place/time specific. That situation wouldn’t exist after legalized polygamy– at least that’s how the argument goes. So far, haven’t heard anything to challenge that.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 10:31 AM
How would making gay marriage legal throughout the country change anything?
Gay couples live together and raise families as it is now.
What would be different, and how would it actually affect the lives of people who are soooo ANTI gay?
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 10:32 AM
OK, so muslims are allowed to work in a store and not scan pork because pork is offensive to them and against their religion. If you fire them or require them to handle the pork, you face lawsuits for discrimination against religion.
Lets say a gay person applies for a job in a muslim owned business in America. That muslim says homosexuality is against his religion and fires him on that. In our ‘free’ society, which ‘freedom’ takes precedence? Is muslim religious integrity more important, or is gay sexual preference integrity more important?
One thing is for sure, the lawyers in this country will have an unending job because of these ridiculous victimization laws. The government wasn’t designed to do all these things that elected officials think. They aren’t supposed to have as much power as they are taking.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:32 AM
You are working on the fallacious assumption that being “gay” is somehow “normal” or “natural” IE: imposed by genetics and acceptable for a healthy western society.
IT IS NOT.
Homosexuality is a sexual and mental disorder. Even IF it is imposed by genetics (something that is still very much in debate, and grows more questionable every day) Then, like many other genetic disorders (Tay-Sachs, Phenylketonuria, Cystic fibrosis, etc.) it needs a CURE. NOT a political lobby, and CERTAINLY not special “rights” that allow people to WALLOW in their disorder!
As a New York State resident I’m APPALLED that our governor would do this.
But, then again, we have been having issues with our governors lately. Honestly, Patterson is EVEN MORE liberal than Spitzer was (at least socially. He’s actually been proposing some nice tax cuts and some very fiscally conservative economic policy. Go Figure.) So it’s not all that surprising that he would pull something like this.
Hopefully we can get it legislated away before it becomes an issue.
wearyman on May 30, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I’m actually very sympathetic to this argument. I don’t have a problem with folks defending the specific word “marriage” and settling on “civil unions”.
The main point, IMO, is to have a legal agreement wherein they have the same benefits of any other spousal contracts.
SouthernDem on May 30, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Hmmm….flimsy argument, sinsing. A recent poll in California showed a narrow majority supporting gay marriage there. California will have its vote once again on this issue in November. If the voters of CA reject the marriage amendment, will you then support gay marriage for citizens of CA?
It seems we just had a long thread on this issue last week, and yet here it is again. I am a conservative, and I support civil marriage for same sex couples. Civil marriage and church marriage are two separate creatures.
Civil marriage is a state-recognized contract between two people that grants hundreds of legally recognized rights. It is in the state’s interest to grant these rights to encourage a stable family unit. It is better, cheaper, and easier for two people look out for each other (and any children that might be produced) then for the state to do it. That is why I believe that SSM is the conservative position since it should reduce the state’s involvement in a person’s life. After all, it should not take a village (gov’t) but rather a family.
Religious marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman witnessed by the Church. SSM of the civil variety has no effect on religious marriage. The government can not nor should not dictate to churches who they can and cannot marry.
If you have difficulty separating these two in your minds, then I recommend that the state get out of the marriage business. Let the state call all such contracts “civil unions,” and let the churches call their unions “marriage.”
We cannot let God and the Bible get involved in the civil marriage issue.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Are you ‘outraged’ at the polygamist cult in ‘El Dorado’? Do you think that the government should have taken all those children? Why is what they were doing illegal? Why did the government have the right to take those people into custody? How does making what they were already doing illegal going to change anyone else’s life outside of the complex?
Because people are against gay marriage doesn’t mean they are anti-gay. This is the argument that is a slippery slope. Why not just say that if you don’t actually HAVE homosexual sex, then you are anti-gay. Nobody is here arguing that gay people should be arrested for what they do. People here are arguing that the law shouldn’t recognize and encourage behavior that is detrimental to society.
But I understand it is fun to call people bigots and ‘homophobic’ if they are against ‘gay marriage’.
ThackerAgency on May 30, 2008 at 10:37 AM
And they do have that right. It’s called a Will.
People in wheelchairs physically can’t walk up those stairs. There is nothing that physically prevents a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex.
The way I see it, the institution of marriage was never intended to be about love. It was about security, social stability, child rearing, etc…
If we want to change it so that it is instead about love, then the government needs to step away. The government shouldn’t do anything more than allow contracts between consenting adults, and it has no business passing judgment on those contracts no matter the gender of people involved, the number of people involved, or even the blood relations of those involved.
I don’t understand those who want to halfass it and just allow gay marriage… for now, so that we have this all over again with the next eradicated taboo.
Either all or nothing. We’ve got far more important things to worry about. This has already taken up too much of our time.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 10:39 AM
To be fair here, they were engaged in pedophilia.
It’s much different than just talking about polygamists.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Bruno will try. I doubt he’ll be able to get past Sheldon Silver and the Governor. Maybe the GOP can take the governor’s seat next election, though if Rudy is the candidate it might not become much of a wedge issue.
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 10:43 AM
That’s definitely a false statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_adoption
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM
When you live an immoral life (Paterson) then it is very easy to allow other major disfunctions to survive. Survival of the weakest. Darwin would be ashamed.
geminicontender on May 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM
For those of you who are using your religious faith to argue against this governmental question, let me ask y’all a question. How many of you are divorced? If you are, then you are a hypocrite if you use your faith to condemn civil SSM.
Jesus very specifically condemned divorce, yet he did not speak about homosexuality. If you can ignore Jesus’ teachings about marriage, why should we care what you think about civil SSM laws?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Interesting question. Can a member of one of the racist Christian Identity ‘churches’ fire a racial or religious minority without facing legal penalties?
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Depends on the stairs. Some could with great effort. Some couldn’t. No doubt it would be a difficult and unpleasant experience. Having sex with someone whose gender you aren’t stimulated by would seem either impossible or at least difficult and unpleasant.
Traditionally in the U.S. marriage for women meant that legally they could never refuse their husband sexually. The legal concept of rape within marriage is fairly recent. One could argue that a woman is always physically able to accomodate her husband penetrating her, though most people today, probably, would agree that mere physical capacity doesn’t compel the woman at all times, even within her own marriage.
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 10:57 AM
No, it is the result of political correctness gone amuck in the British Nanny-State. Failures on the part of the British political establishment and the appropriate investigative/enforcement agencies is not the fault of every person who is gay. These men should have been prosecuted for their crimes and the system failed the children allowed to remain in their care. Are you going to blame failures of both in cases of the abuse of foster children by opposite gender couples on all heterosexuals? Somehow I doubt it.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM
You must be one brilliant scientist to refute singlehandedly what countless psychologists and psychiatrists already concluded. The only alternative is to conclude that you are completely full of s*@t.
Biologists are not discovering exclusive homosexual behavior among the animal kingdom. This alone demonstrates that it is a natural behavior. It doesn’t so much matter whether homosexuality has a genetic basis; if it is a learned behavior; or if it is a combination of both.
The fact remanins that a small percentage of the population is attracted to the same sex. If you are not gay or do not have gay children, why should you care? How on earth does it affect you? How does having a gay coworker affect you? How does allowing gay couples to wed affect your marriage? Why does it matter if that movie was written by a gay man instead of a straight man?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Obviously that shoudl read now. Phew! Talk about the wrong time to make a typo.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Here’s something you “non-federalists” seem incapable of understanding. A principle is exactly that no matter the situation. Do I think sodomy should be legitimized by a politicians? NO! That doesn’t mean the principle isn’t sound just because the issue at hand runs against the grain for moral reasons. The people of NYS are the damned idiots that put people in office who have no problem with sodomy not the federalist principle behind the manuevering to do by edict which is not the will of the people.
highhopes on May 30, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Just to ensure that I understand you, you are in favor or not in favor of governmental laws against sodomy?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 11:06 AM
There has been no scientific evidence published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal proving that there is a gene that compels some men to seek out other men’s anuses and penises as the objects of their affection. So the one full of feces, aside from anal sex devotees, is you.
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Oh sure, let’s take our behavioral examples from the animal kingdom, red tooth and claw.
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 11:09 AM
So you think the government should lock up a wife who performs oral sex on her husband or perhapas both if they decide to explore the “backdoor” with each other? Hey, if you wanna be traditional let’s go all the way since “sodomy” includes everything beyond the make inserting his hoo-hoo inside the female’s va-jay-jay. What business of government is this again?
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM
A federalist would leave this, like abortion, to the states to decide. If you don’t like the laws of TX and can’t change them, move to OK.
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I am not asserting that scientists have concluded a genetic link. I am refuting wearyman’s claim that “homosexuality is a sexual and mental disorder.” We do not yet know whether homosexuality is a matter of nature, nurture or both. What doctors do agree on, for the most part, is that homosexuality is not a sexual or mental disorder.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM
How is the legitimization of sodomy by society NOT an issue that all citizens should have a voice? I don’t care what the sexual orientation of some movie writer is BUT I do have problems when the constructs on which society is built has to be re-written to accomodate a devient lifestyle choice.
There is a reason rat bastard liberal politicians are sneaking around and doing this without the voice of the people- they know they would fail if put to a real test of the public will.
highhopes on May 30, 2008 at 11:18 AM
This is a really divisive issue for conservatives. So many ostensibly conservative types – like AllahPundit – are pro-gay marriage and otherwise liberal on social issues, but side with the right on defense and security issues, primarily.
Witness AP suggesting that the fiat by an acting Governor in favor of gay marriage somehow becomes “hey, you guys claim to like Federalism; here’s your chance to prove it!” I question that his action represents Federalism, but maybe I’m wrong; certainly the guy issuing the executive order wasn’t elected to his position.
But both of those things could change. He now will run for actual election as Governor, and his defacto platform will be gay marriage, since he has already staked out that ground. If he wins re-election, it’s as good as a referendum, and the NY legislature would be challenged to consider legislation to make it legal there.
Jaibones on May 30, 2008 at 11:19 AM
You are just being a jerk. Throwing out stupid non-sequitors instead of dealing with the real issues.
highhopes on May 30, 2008 at 11:19 AM
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Thank you, John. That was the point of my questions. Many of the people here are arguing how dangerous homosexual sodomy is to our country, but then enjoy a blow job from their girlfriends or wives. To set the record straight, so to speak, oral sex of any variety is sodomy. So is anal sex of any variety.
We conservatives try to get the government out of our lives, from gun control laws to first amendment issues to health issues. Why, then, do you want the government to tell you what two consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own home?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 11:21 AM
So nature compels men to seek out other mens’ anuses as the object d’amore, and doctors find this normal – on no scientific bases. Interesting.
How is this approved by the god Evolution? Seems that people who play in others’ feces would face severe evolutionary penalties. Oh, and why to sodomists have semen and lesbians have ovaries, evolutionarily speaking?
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Actually, if the basis for someone’s objection to sodomy is the Bible, then male-female oral sex cannot form part of their objection. In the Song of Songs, cunnilingus is fondly described.
/”navel” = vjj, euphemistically speaking
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM
…within the confines of marriage, if that needs saying.
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Are you claiming “evolution” is a god? What kind of weird world do you live in? Why your fascination with feces? I will assume that you are straight. Do you “play” with semen and vaginal secretion or do you make love to your wife/girlfriend?
Can you with 100% certainty claim that your Creator did not create men and women with homosexual orientations? Are you willing to risk your immortal soul by being so intolerant to your gay brothers and sisters that you cannot envision a Divine purpose for His creating them? What if, for example, God created gay men to bring a little creative energy into the world (if I can be a little stereotypical). After all, why are so many gay men drawn to the creative arts?
I not willing to state that God created homosexuality, nor am I willing to claim that He did not. I have no idea why gay people exist. Homosexuality, like so many other issues, will remain for me a Divine mystery.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 11:32 AM
looks like the truth hurts. This is what the gay rights movement is all about. special rights, and their abuse of children is just another ‘lifestyle choice’
take a look at most gay relationships, where on man is older and the other much younger. get a clue.
oh and show me your ’scientific’ research that disproves what I’ve said.
no surprise you’re a ‘dem’
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The ultimate goal of gay marriage advocates is not benefits, civil recognition, or any other legal excuse, otherwise civil unions would be acceptable. Its to drop the decription of “gay” from “gay marriage” (or “same sex” from “same sex marriage” if you prefer). Once they succeed in equating the new definition from the traditional definition of marriage, any distinction of “gay” or “same sex” in reference to marriage will be called “hate speech” or [intolerant, divisive, bigoted, etc]. Unless of course extra rights are afforded to same-sex marriages (like quotas, tax breaks, preferred opportunities), then it will be OK to make the distinction.
AverageJoe on May 30, 2008 at 11:41 AM
it used to be. but now its not. looks like ’science’ is nothing more than politics.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:42 AM
There’s nothing divine about buggery.
Your pretend inquiry into the meanings of words and your equation of vaginal secretions and feces is disengenuous.
In a discussion of sodomists, it’s hard to ignore what they do to one another, which pretty much involves poop.
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 11:44 AM
to people like dawkins it sure seems to be.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Gee…as usual in a thread on this subject, mention “gay”, and it’s immediately onto “anal sex”.
This is about marriage…not sex. Gawd, if anything kills sex in a relationship, marriage is it.
JetBoy on May 30, 2008 at 11:46 AM
the bottom line is to impose a gay sharia. where any criticism of homosexual behavior will be punished…..
Christians have been arrested recently at “gay” festivals for nothing more than having a protest sign that is “wider than their torso,” but now police have gone even further, targeting Bible-carrying ministers for praying on public property and for standing on a public sidewalk near a “gay” festival.
One of the new cases comes from Elmira, N.Y., where police arrested seven Christians who went into a public park where a “gay” fest was beginning and started to pray, faces down, while holding their Bibles.
They were cited for “disturbing the peace,” and Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND that the seven are accused of a “combination” of allegations under that statute, which includes the “intent” to cause a public inconvenience, any “disturbance” of a meeting of persons, obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or taking part in “any act that serves no legitimate purpose.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=42442
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 11:47 AM
It seems likely that lesbians are less into anal than straight women. The percentage of straight women, age 20-40, who have engaged in anal sex has risen significantly over the past couple of decades.
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM
You’re missing the point (and inferring homophobia where none exists). “Desires” — whether hetero or homo — have nothing to do with it. The bottom line is gay marriage erodes the rights of natural mothers (when male gays want custody) and natural fathers (when lesbians want custody). That’s why this is such an uncomfortable topic for the godless because there’s no way to take God out of the equation (since He made the reproduction rules).
Again, it’s not simply about two people loving each other and demanding the right to make a legal commitment. It also involves an inconvenient third person who those two need in order to make babies. To totally disregard that person’s rights is pretty narcisistic and callous.
miles on May 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM
With the dem’s advocating gays and abortion, they keep down the population of the democrat party.
Wade on May 30, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Only about 5% of the population can’t keep their minds off the same sex.
Why do the rest of us 95%, who are not perverts, put up with this crap?
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:01 PM
The polygamist cult is possibly hurting the Children. 12, 13, etc year old girls should not be given up to an older man/high priest of a cult.
I don’t see that having anything to do with two adults having a relationship.
How is it detrimental to society to have gay couples living among us? And how does it hurt society further by letting them use the word ‘marriage’ when they form their bonds?
I don’t know why you said it’s ‘fun to call people bigots and homophobes’. That’s just crazy talk.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Speak for yourself!
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
What truth? All you’re doing is stating an opinion.
Of course you view the rights as “special” when you deem their relationships as deviant.
And, yes, you figured it out, homosexuals just want to molest kids without interference. Even the lesbians!
Did you even read the link?
Good job on that scientific source i.e. your presumption.
You really didn’t read the link.
Ooh, burn.
Yes, and they used to institutionalize the mentally retarded as well.
SouthernDem on May 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I really don’t care how the state defines marriage anymore. I know what it means to me and what it means to my faith and that’s more than enough. I don’t see why I should agitate for the state to adopt my faith’s stance on the matter.
So long as the tax/entitlement situation doesn’t get too nuts, I say let ‘em go for it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 30, 2008 at 12:06 PM
The day we respond by insisting on a “Marriage Penalty” for gay couples earning two incomes is the day they won’t want to be married anymore…or the day we’ll finally get rid of the Marriage Penalty for married couples with two incomes!
Miss_Anthrope on May 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I wasn’t inferring homophobia, rather thinking that there might be an underestimation of how strong sexual attraction is for straight people. My experience has been that guys dig girls. Guys especially dig hot girls a lot, to the point of wasting a big percentage of their lives persuing and obsessing about them. It seems unlikely to me that a guy would just choose to then marry someone of the same gender.
With regard to gay marriage and children, I see your point. I’m not as comfortable with gay adoption. However, most of the issues with children’s lives being disrupted by narcisistic parents and changing family structure have been experienced by kids going through parents divorcing and remarrying.
dedalus on May 30, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I am starting to have feelings for my pet goat.
Can I get married?
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I think the people of California, Massachusetts and now New York have just had their right to vote taken away. When the courts say ” what the people want doesn’t matter, here’s what we’re going to do”, and the “King” issues a proclamation to the same effect, they have just effectively had their rights taken away in violation of the Constitution. They should be up in arms because it’s not likely to stop there.
eclark1849 on May 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Unfortunately, the government will soon be agitating that ‘our’ faith adopt the states stance on the matter.
AverageJoe on May 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM
We will need insurance and some tax breaks.
My goat will need a job as well. I hope noone discriminates in the hiring process. What about college?
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Gay Marriage doesn’t destroy the “Sanctity of Marriage”. The people who are part of the 40% divorce rate saw to that. The people claiming that God will “send fags to hell” haven’t read what the good Lord said about divorce in the Bible…Cherry Pickin’ if I’ve ever seen it….I don’t care if gays marry or not. Marriage is a business contract that can be dissolved. How much “sanctity” is involved in that?
adamsmith on May 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Señor Juan ‘Federalista’ McCain’s position on this subject will inevitably lead to gay marriage and, eventually, polygamy (to keep the Muslims happy) and, perhaps, other polyamorous arrangements. For the gay marriage issue it would suffice to have 14 states supporting that position and then no real possibility would exist for passing a constitutional amendment, (The first step for getting an amendment on the table is inconceivable with massive Dhimmi majorities in congress for the foreseeable future. The only obstacle to universal gay marriage is the Supreme court but if Obama wins then the next appointees will have to pass all the well-known litmus tests so the issue will be decided by a test of the Defense of Marriage Act.
I really don’t care about gay marriage one way or the other but I do believe that government should not be in the marriage business at all. Government does have a responsibility to protect the children but marriage is something best left to the cults and private contractual arrangements. Since so many think of marriage as some form of “holy sacrament” the best position for government to take would be to separate themselves from it.
Annar on May 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM
This is correct. Divorce destroyed the “until death do us part” aspect of marriage. So why not destroy the “husband and wife” part. Makes total sense.
Who says the slippery slope argument is not valid.
AverageJoe on May 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Who else gets to marry after gays do?
blatantblue on May 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
The reason that there’s a 40% divorce rate is state interference in marriage in the form of no-fault divorce. The expansion of “civil rights” is the camel’s nose, the state is the rest of the beast. It doesn’t want into your tent to help anyone but itself. Your cavalier attitude towards marriage is a part of the social disease from which we now suffer.
Akzed on May 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Just to let you know. We are talking about Human beings here. Not animals.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM
And the cycle of Marriage-Divorce-ReMarriage-Divorce-Etc is just a form of serial poligamy, so why not destroy the “One man to one woman” part of marriage as well, and let there be multiple marriages at the same time?
The slope gets ever more slippery.
AverageJoe on May 30, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I’m confused as to why you think that my support of federalism means that I have to go along with the left in nationalizing gay marriage. That seems a bit contradictory.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Stanley Kurtz at NRO argues against gay marriage.
He also says gay divorce rates are much higher than hetero. Apparently the same is true for dissolution of civil unions.
He also says so few people choose gay marriage, that statistics are difficult to come by.
Maybe there aren’t really so many “gay” people after all.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 12:34 PM
And yours is precisely why we’ll see ENDA passed in the next year or so.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM
I don’t think that you understand what “federalism’ means. It does not mean that each state can make laws which are binding on other states, for instance. It also does not mean that each state can define a “person” as it chooses.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I’ve been silent and disinterested lately, until I tried to put myself on my fiance’s health insurance plan. The premium would have been more then double that of a married couple. Since my state does not recognize same-sex unions, a gay couple in my situation would have to pay a prohibitive cost for coverage of the employee’s partner. In my opinion, that is discrimination. What gives America? We didn’t encounter this problem combining our auto insurance policies before marriage?
I just can’t believe some of the comments on here. Despicable. Inhuman. Un-American. How can a true conservative who believes in keeping the government out of our personal lives, simultaneously argue that legalizing gay marriage is legalizing sodomy?
Social conservatives are certainly entitled to their beliefs, but not for the expressed purpose of denying the rights of another group. Are your beliefs so significant that you have to deny the happiness and fiscal fairness of another?
Nowadays, I feel like I’m sitting around waiting for liberals to learn economics and social conservatives to become more open minded.
budorob on May 30, 2008 at 12:36 PM
What a biggoted statement. Are you claiming that human are somehow more qualified to be married than animals.
With the advent of “animal rights” (and “plant rights” like in Sweden), the restrictions to “humans” will be the next to go.
AverageJoe on May 30, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »