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 5 ... 7 Next »
This is the end result of moral relativism (i.e. “divorced parents are already screwing kids up so where’s the harm in adding to the chaos?”). The difference is divorced parents didn’t set out to have broken families, whereas elevating gay parents to the same legal status as heterosexual parents institutionalizes broken families. There is just no way around that when you add a third parent into the equation. Again, it changes Family Law from being based on a mother & a father to parent A & parent C minus parent B (whose legal standing is not even being discussed in this debate).
miles on May 30, 2008 at 12:37 PM
As well it should. It’s good to have sensitive, feeling, compassionate people like you in this world, Average:)
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 12:38 PM
You’re exactly right.
It won’t stop there…the next thing they will do is legislate PCism and ban Christianity with hate crimes laws.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/hate-crimes.htm
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Sad, but true. Only as far the GOP goes it’s many, though not all, of the damned nutjob social cons. Religious faith isn’t the problem, it’s those who think this gives them Divine permission to impose it on others. As for the DNC, it’s more than just economics – they’re just nuts about a LOT of things, especially on national defense & foreign policy.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM
And the laws are made for those who can’t. It doesn’t matter if some can.
1. No one’s forcing married people to have sex, and isn’t that the joke anyway, that it kills your sex life to be married?
2. Considering how many men only out themselves after decades of marriages, obviously it’s not impossible for them to have sex with a woman.
So is the concept of slavery as a bad thing. I don’t see your point here.
And your point is? There’s no law that says you have to sexually please your spouse.
Marriage and sex are not necessarily directly correlated, nor are marriage and love. That too is a recent concept and the reason for the desire to change marriage from what it has traditionally been.
A gay man doesn’t want to marry a woman. Point taken, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t allowed to get married. He simply isn’t allowed to marry the person he wants, and there’s never been a law that says people must be allowed marry the person of their choice.
If we decide we want that to be a law, then my argument is why limit it just to two people or just between two unrelated people? How does the government then tell some people that they can’t marry the person they love if that’s now the requirement?
And before you respond, I’m still only talking about consenting adults, not inanimate objects, animals, or children.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Sorry, but they are. Until humans find a way to determine an animal’s consent, this will always be the case.
If sign language-learning apes become adapted to that form of communication enough that their testimony is counted in court rooms, then maybe the restriction will change, but we’re still a long way off on that.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I just found out that my employer wants me to pay more than a married couple to put my pet goat on my insurance.
This is just wrong.
My neighbor is also having trouble at his work. He says he has to pay double for his 2 wives. (At least its a little cheaper now that the state took away his 12 kids)
That’s just unAmerican.
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Esthier, my goat speaks to me in ways you can’t imagine.
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Good point. This is all King Henry’s fault. He shoulda kept beheading them.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I believe you.
Though a court of law might just find you crazy.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Why did you try to get onto the health insurance of someone you weren’t related to? Even if your state did have civil unions, it wouldn’t apply to you. Isn’t that restricted to homosexual couples?
Why wouldn’t the hypothetical gay couple in your example move to a state with civil unions or gay marriage? Conservatives like me in NY have to leave my home state to find a political environment that’s more to our liking. No diff. for the gay couple I would guess.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Esthier, you would have thought the courts would question a man’s sanity when he likes men more than women.
faraway on May 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Widespread homosexuality is the sign of a society in it’s last stages of decay.
The government promoting it(despite the voters will)is a far worse sign.
It’s time for the righteous disciples of Christ to move out of NYC and LA….judgment is coming soon!
I am literally moving out of Los Angeles within a few weeks.
It’s not a good time to be sitting on top of a major faultline…or in NYC’s case..the #1 target for terrorists.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I’m sure he thought of it but beheading Catherine of Aragon would have brought a war with Charles V. Pity he didn’t wait a couple of years since she died not long after he married Anne Boleyn. Of course his split was about more than just divorce, he wanted power and the money of the Church in England.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 12:54 PM
There’s a lot of confusion here as to what exactly a contract is. A legal contract is never simply between two entities, it is always between at least three. One partner in all legal contracts is the state, which assumes the role of arbiter and enforcer of the contract.
The state is acting as “society”, and it is not required to go along with any contract any two entities wish to make. It can, and should, only give its (implicit) approval to those contacts which serve societies best interests. For instance, you can’t hire sombody to commit a criminal act, then sue them for breach of contact if they don’t do it to your satisfaction.
The state has no obligation to throw its support behind any contract which any two entities feel like making. It’s free to pick and choose.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Why not just have Pat Robertson pray it all away? If he can move hurricans, earthquakes and terrorist attacks should be childs play! I’m sure Robert Tilton will do it too…if you sow a big enough $eed.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 12:57 PM
In my opinion, it’s also discrimination. But I think it’s good discrimination, while I take it that you think it’s bad. By definition, laws and rules discriminate between people. They’d be pointless otherwise.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM
While this does seem reasonable, reason does not always rule the day. I was being sarcastic, but we’ll see how long it takes before “determining” consent becomes “interpreting” consent.
AverageJoe on May 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM
The gay argument in a nutshell:”I want what I want, and I want it now!”
Which is not any different from the liberal argument, is it?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I suspect that you have no religious faith, but you seem to think that you have the right to impose your own views on people all the same. So perhaps the problem has nothing to do with religion.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:06 PM
There is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is innate/genetic. The “modern view”, as you call it is a bogus notion, based on fantasy.
sinsing on May 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Although I agree with you, I was merely trying to explain why some Republicans or otherwise socially conservative people may support “gay” rights. They believe it is a condition you are born with, like one’s race. I don’t. You don’t. But if you did, I suspect your opinion on this question would be different.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM
You think animals are qualified to get married? LoL. I sure hope you are just kidding around here.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 1:13 PM
sinsing on May 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM
LoL And where is the proof that it is some sort of a disorder, and not a natural act of your God or nature?
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Of course you do. It is axiomatic of your particular sect that those who do not share your beliefs couldn’t possibly have faith.
Nope, my religious views are my own. What I think is that the government and the law isn’t the plaything for your particular sect.
Nope. Just people who seek to impose their spin on others through force of law.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 1:16 PM
I don’t see the logic there. Can you explain?
We outlaw a great deal of human behavior which is inate.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I notice that you neither confirmed nor denied my suspicion. Why is that?
Yes, you think that it is the plaything for YOUR particular sect.
That would seem to be all people, very much including people like you.
You are rejecting the founding principles of America, which includes the right of the people to self-government. Or, as you put it, to impose their spin on others through the force of law.
Even by libertarian standards, this is pretty silly stuff.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:21 PM
glanced at it, the usual, heteros abuse, so its ok if gays do to..yawn.
and where are you’re ’scientific’ sources again? didn’t notice any. not that anything critical of homosexuality will get published in a ‘objective’ (snicker) ’scientific’ publication.
yeah its much better to leave them wandering homeless on the streets, without care. nice and ‘tolerant’
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Dishonest, gay joe. My words were “you seem to think that you have the right to impose your own views on people”. Again, you did not disagree with what I wrote. You simply put your own words into my mouth and disagreed with them.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I guess for him, all cats look grey in the dark, light, and gender
Kini on May 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM
ain’t it the truth.
I went with a friend of mine who was gay to lunch one day, and this drop-dead gorgeous lady waited on us…he was talking about converting…it was too funny!
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Yes it is an absolute lie that homosexuality is genetic.
It is just what homosexuals say to try to justify their sins.
You see homosexuality is a VERY SERIOUS SIN.
All sin is against God but homosexuality, like child rape,genocide etc. etc., are considered far more serious than some other sins.
And with it comes a far more serious punishment also.
Here is a good video explaining the issue in depth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pez2nv2BUZA
Yes, all who reject Jesus Christ will go to Hell and suffer for eternity…but God is Just..those who commit the far more serious sins(like homosexuality) will also go to Hell for eternity…but they will suffer a far more intense punishment in Hell.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Lemme guess: you’re trying to say we impose our views all the time through every law that’s passed, right?
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Great, let God punish them then and leave the government out of it.
JohnAGJ on May 30, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I seems to me the heated debate over whether gay marriage is a good idea or not has distracted us from the immediate question about the appropriateness of the governor’s action.
I repeat myself:
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 supporters 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.
Does anyone here have any specifics on New York law about the authority of the governor to issue such a decision?
Sackett on May 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Simple. Thirty-five years of endless comprehensive and not so comprehensive studies and “exacting” medical science, which have not revealed one shred of evidence that proves homosexuality is genetic.
Once again, even the champions of homosexual behavior, the American Psychological Association (APA), has just recently finally admitted that there is no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuality is genetic/innate and that it and other groups are still speculating… NO PROOF (This information can be found on its website.)
In 1973 Homosexual Behavior was wrongly removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) based on the notion that homosexuality was innate/genetic. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that Homosexuality be returned to the DSM along with the other formal mental illnesses listed there.
The APA’s recently revised statement on homosexuality:
“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…”
sinsing on May 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM
If so, even less reason to offer any special rights to “gay.”
btw, would you tell me one or two example?
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 1:41 PM
And? We’ll fight it. If we lose, we’ll endure some persecution. It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last – we were told to expect that after all.
I’m just not willing to insert faith into government where it does not belong in order to inoculate that government from doing something I don’t like later.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM
What a childish argument. If you cannot understand the concept of two consenting humans entering into a marriage contract, then you are not worth answering.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Oh, no. Here comes the caped, Christian crusader out to make the world safe for God-fearing, straight, white Christians.
I am mocking you, Olaf, because of this outrageous statement. There is zero chance that Christianity will be banned. Stop making these outlanding statements if you want to be taken seriously.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 1:50 PM
why only 2? how bigoted and intolerant you are!
notice you left out adults
no surprise.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 1:57 PM
There is zero chance that Christianity will be banned
once the gays impose their sharia on us, standing up for the truth of the bible will land you in jail. its happening already, as one of my previous links makes clear. and if christians won’t speak the truth of the bible, then what you have left is not christianity.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Eh, don’t even bother with him. I’ve read his posts and his rhetoric bears an eerie resemblance to Fred Phelps.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 30, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I hate to break it to you but that is NOT proof that it is a Disorder. That proves that they don’t have a scientific answer for it. ‘Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles’ Okay, so many people are thinking about it, but do not Know. That is not fact. That is not proof.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 2:02 PM
prove its not.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I am a Christian and I speak truth of the bible when I tell you that judging gay people as you do is not at all christian.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM
When one of us has proof either way, then I am willing to look into making laws around it. Until then, I do not see where it helps a society to try and ban it. I do not see where it hurts a society to live among gay people.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Is it just me, or does the governor look cross-eyed in the pic? I’m probably not the first to mention it, but I’m not slogging through this thread quite yet. Type first, read later.
Since nobody can agree on what marriage is, get rid of it. The government’s job is not to oversee our personal lives; marriage between whoever and whomever (or whatever) can go back to religious institutions, and if a company wants to recognize that union, so be it. If the voters of a state want civil unions, they can hash that out in state legislature, otherwise, no tax breaks (or other benefits) for any type of union. If I want to marry my cat, I’ll join the Friendly Feline Fellowship and get married there, and I’ll accept the fact that my job will not cover vet expenses for my furry friend.
/rant off
In all seriousness, I’m a lot more worried about gas prices, the housing market, and alien invaders from Uranus than I am about gay marriage. Especially because in this case, as far as I can tell, the governor is just treating all out-of-state marriages the same. I’m down with that, considering I was married in Florida (where I’ve never lived), and that our marriage has been valid where we have actually lived (California – hubby only, Maryland, and Virginia).
Anna on May 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Inductive reasoning does not provide for conclusive proof of negatives. All you can do is take the evidence and weight the likelihood of a conclusion.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 30, 2008 at 2:16 PM
To be fair, “consenting” applies adults, since only adults can legally consent.
I figured you were being sarcastic, but I wasn’t. If they actually do get chimps to testify in court there won’t really be a good reason to prevent bestiality with consent.
No doubt, the church was a powerful entity at the time, and wars just aren’t entertaining enough to be worth the bloodshed.
Then again, it’s also a pity monarchs were often so inbred. I often wonder how different history could have been if only…
You got me on that one. We’re certainly a catch.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 2:16 PM
really? now when have I judged a gay person? please post where I have, or admit you’re a liar.
this is another example of the gay agenda. merely speaking out against what they want is ‘judgemental’ ‘hateful’ ‘a hate crime’
thanks for illustrating what its all about.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Our governor is blind. But you obviously didn’t know, so no harm no foul. (It’s like when your kids innocently say words wrong. It’s cute.)
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I think that’s one of the principle aims of the gay marriage movement though, to force companies to treat all unions the same.
I could be wrong, but I doubt you’d make many happy by letting companies pick and chose which unions get recognized.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 2:19 PM
What is more evolutionarily natural?
100 men on an isolated/self-sustaining island
100 women on an isolated/self-sustaining island
50 men/50 women on an isolated/self-sustaining island
After 50 years which islands are increasing and which are decreasing in population?
After 100 years which two islands are deserted (extinct) and which one has increased? This is a natural, scientific, provable, Darwinian, and Biblical fact. Is there a debate?
It still takes a man and a woman to have a baby (test-tubes don’t really count, as the creating and raising of a baby continue beyond birth). It still takes a man and a woman for the whole process in its NATURAL state. All other manifestations are UNNATURAL. Although sometimes needed by necessity due to unnatural circumstances (death, divorce, abandonment) resulting in grandparents, single parents, adoptees raising children.
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I see that a number of posters are using the ‘S’ word (sin) and the debate is supposed to be about civil marriage! The government should not in any way be legally associated with religion. Those that insist that religion is some type of sacrament might want to propose that the word ‘marriage’ be only used in a non-legal religious context and that the concept of civil marriage be redefined as civil union. Of course, they should then not complain if the notion of civil union is enlarged to allow for multiple person unions. It’s a civil thing and those who find certain things ’sinful’ can gleefully rejoice in their dreams about looking down from on high at the sinners in the fire, but keep it to themselves.
Annar on May 30, 2008 at 2:20 PM
true. now you have a lifestyle that is profoundly unhealthy, yet the people engaged are unable to stop, like an addiction to drugs.
is drug abuse a disorder??
In the early 1950s, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders grouped alcohol and drug abuse under Sociopathic Personality Disturbances, which were thought to be symptoms of deeper psychological disorders or moral weakness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I wondered about that as well. I don’t any blind people personally and just always assumed their eyes both pointed the same way. Now I’m wondering if the blind ever move their eyes.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Corriection: replace ‘religion is some kind’ by ‘marriage is som kind”
Annar on May 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM
The larger concern is what happens when the State of New York requires a Christian church to provide benefits to the partner of a homosexual employee who was “married” somewhere? It’s coming. We’re already seeing litigation to force religious organizations to hire homosexual employees. The constitutional protections for freedom of religion and freedom of association are being trumped by gay interest groups’ pursuit of economic benefits.
secarr on May 30, 2008 at 2:23 PM
true, but that age differs by country..in britain its 16…and I would bet that there are gay groups active in a campaign to lower it.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I’m hanging my head in shame. I honestly didn’t know!! Gah!
Anna on May 30, 2008 at 2:25 PM
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, sometimes it is a duck. I have read some really vulgar, insensitive things on this thread written by (ostensibly) Christian people. Are you saying that Christians cannot also be bigots?
What is this “gay agenda” that you keep tossing around? Do you honestly believe that all gay people think 100% alike? Do you think they gather at meetings to write a platform?
Do all Christians think alike? What “Christian agenda” do you promote? Does it conflict with your straight agenda or is your straight agenda a little different? What about your male (or female) agenda? How does that work with your Christian agenda? Hmm…perhaps you have a blonde agenda or maybe a brunette agenda?
Stop with your silly notion that gays have a uniform agenda.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 2:26 PM
That’s true even in America. The average age of consent is 16. The youngest is 14, but that only applies if the 14-year-old is with someone who is no more than two years older.
I don’t know if anyone is trying to change that law, but changing it would be wrong for many reasons other than just gay marriage.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 2:27 PM
really? so you’re against rape laws for example?
just out of curiousity, is there a heterosexual group comparable to NAMBLA?
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:27 PM
just because you think it is doesn’t make it so.
surely you are not that ignorant, please, you know what its all about, as well as I do.
why don’t you direct me to the gay groups that are against the gay agenda? and we both know what its about.
forcing the acceptance of homosexuality upon everyone. and anyone who dares disagree ends up in jail, accused of a hate crime….silencing all dissent…so ‘tolerant’ of them.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:30 PM
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Who says that all people on this planet should have children? Who says that I ever have to have sex, ever in my life?
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I’m not in the business of making people happy. Just ask my very unhappy children. Businesses are in business to make money. I’m not about to tell them how to do things – I’m just saying it should be up to them. If they lose business, well, maybe they would change. A company run by liberals can choose to recognize all unions, and they’ll make money from their market. My company would recognize nothing, and maybe pick up money from everyone else. That sort of thing. My point was that government should get out of the benefit crap alltogether, and that companies should have the ability to give benefits to the employees as they see fit. It wouldn’t be discrimination to deny benefits to my feline partner, because my ‘marriage’ is not recognized by the legal authority.
It’ll never happen, but I can dream while I’m putting off changing a diaper, right?
Anna on May 30, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Rape is assault; don’t be so obtuse. The government has no business telling me I can’t give a bj to my husband (against the UCMJ too!). If it’s consentual, it’s personal. If it’s not (assault, rape, murder), then obviously it’s not personal business.
Anna on May 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I’m making a point…where does it stop? how about drug laws? drunk driving laws? where do you draw the line?
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:35 PM
The essence of this debate is the basis for a family. A man and a woman have children and raise them. At its core there is no formal religious or legal basis for this relationship. (Were Adam and Eve every married?) The relationship is based on respect, support, and love, to raise their children and remain together to complete the process when the children move out on their own. This is observed in the second chapter of the Bible but also in societies in religious and legal recognition as well. Most advanced or civilized societies have progressed beyond the caveman mentality even though the significance of this relationship was recognized in the bible even before children were born with the first ‘man and woman’. The religious, cultural, and legal aspects of marriage have developed over years to reinforce and strengthen the basic family unit.
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 2:35 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 2:35 PM
You draw the line when something is HARMING others.
How are you harmed if your neighbors are gay and married to one another?
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Exactly. This was what I was trying to say.
Anna on May 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM
How is this different from your trying to enforce your narrow, rigid interpretation of Christianity upon gay people who wish to wed in a civil (i.e. non-religious) marriage? Surely you do not believe that all Christians think like you do?
I am a practicing Catholic. True, I disagree with my Church on this issue, but I would imagine that my Church and your Church disagree about many things.
I do not care if you accept or reject homosexuality. What I care about is that my government treat all people in a fair manner.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 2:39 PM
No problem, that is your choice. The issue is the only way to create children is a man and a woman (sperm and egg). That is scientific, irrefutable fact. It is not a moral or even legal decision that we can make.
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM
In any case, I’m popping back out of this thread. I’ve got a wedding present to make. : )
Anna on May 30, 2008 at 2:41 PM
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM
So what? Who doesn’t know that?
How in the world is the fact that men and women make babies a reason to judge gay people ?
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I do.
Ah, the life…
I get where you’re going with it and see how it could work, but the problem is that homosexuality is being labeled as an identity, which would make it illegal for a workplace to discriminate against it when deciding what unions are legitimate or not.
Surely capitalism would play a rule, but I’m not sure there are enough homosexuals or proponents of homosexual unions that any business would actually lose much, which would eventually cause activists to make it so that no unions are treated differently. Then we’d be right back here.
Esthier on May 30, 2008 at 2:44 PM
In a way you do and you are espousing that agenda with every one of your intolerant comments. The homosexual agenda consists of cramming down the throats of society a deviant lifestyle choice that many find immoral. It demands that hundreds of years of societal norms be changed to accomodate the legitimization of preverted lifestyle arrangements- all of which can already occur without forcing society to deem homosexuals as “normal.”
And what do you offer in return? Nothing but the attitude that anybody who disagrees with your views of sodomy from the standpoint of moral choice is somehow intolerant. Throw in all the Christian-bashing that goes along with the homosexual agenda and the case becomes clear that the bigoted intolerant ones are actually the advocates for homosexuality. If you really wanted “civil unions” and all the other high-minded stuff you talk about- there wouldn’t be deviant gay pride parades where truly lewd acts are committed in public. That doesn’t help sell the cause that sodomites are loving couples in long-term relationships.
In closing, here in New Orleans the homosexuals hold the Southern Decadance Festival every Labor Day. Three days of lewd behavior to “celebrate” living a deviant and largely selfish existence. Outside of Bourbon Street, it is worse than Mardi Gras when it comes to overt lewd acts being commited in public. Legitimization of the homosexual agenda will never occur until there is proof that Gay Pride parades and the events like the Southern Decadance Festival are not the normal behavior because there is very little proof that anything else exists. In the meantime quit bashing Christians you inolerant arrogant prick!
highhopes on May 30, 2008 at 2:45 PM
How does that affect us?
When a nation’s government condones and promotes sin and promotes a false religion(secular humanism) as it’s official state religion..God will judge that nation, He will no longer protect that nation…and that nation will be destroyed.
You really think just because a tiny minority of people want unconstitutional special rights we should just give it to them?
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM
This is a logical fallacy known as “begging the question”. You seem to be buying into the silly libertarian definition of things – that everybody has the “right” to do whatever they like as long as it does not cause immediate physical harm to anyone else.
For people who don’t buy into that, which is most people, the argument falls flat.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Aren’t you really saying that everyone must accept your definition of fairness?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
You don’t actually have to guess. I expressed my thoughts pretty clearly. Why not respond to them instead of to your own fantasies?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Now we reach two clear points of demarcataion:
1. Gay couples doing what they want in private is fine and I believe very few (religious or secular) really disagree with this perspective today.
2. The real point is, when does harm become an issue? Teaching young kids about ‘fisting’ and encouraging gay behavior that can lead to harmful results (the same is true of heterosexual iducement for children as well), is harmful. Does gay adoption ‘harm’ the children adopted? These are the issues that formal legitimization of homosexuality now bring to the front but are swept under the rug or hidden by the those promoting the gay lifestyle. Remember, it was the gay community that supressed the primary cause of AIDS (anal intercourse) that led to the expansion of AIDS. It was preferable to teach safe sex (which really wasn’t) and promote the promiscuous and risky lifestyle. This was not limited to homosexuals, BTW, as the left promoted the same agenda (safe, promiscuous sex) for heterosexuals as well.
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Where to begin with your garbage? I can be called many things, but intolerant is not one of them. As I said earlier, I am a practicing Catholic. I have no problems whatsoever with Christians. What I cannot tolerate (perhaps I am intolerant after all?) are fundamentalist extremists who seek to impose their very narrow view of their faith on the rest of us.
If you are so against gay sex, then don’t engage in it. Simple as that. Homosexuality is not a disease that one catches. You cannot turn gay.
Who cares about Southern Decadance? Most gay people have not gone. Do you think that straight people do not engage in such lewd behavior? How ’bout your Mardi Gras? So it is OK for a straight couple to engage in sex acts on a balcony but not a gay couple? Personally I don’t think anybody should be so indecently lewd in public, but I do not differentiate between gay or straight.
I have a (straight) friend who goes to “Hedonism” in the Caribbean. He engages in all kinds of sex, drugs and immoral behaviour with women there. Some are even married. Should I use this example to conclude that all straight people ““celebrate” living a deviant and largely selfish existence.”
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 3:06 PM
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Just like heterosexual sex is a Private matter, so should that of homosexuals.
Heterosexual sexual practices can be just as “deviant and risky”.
It is no more harmful for a child to be brought up in a male/female household. If there is abuse in the home, there is abuse in the home. If there is love and respect in the home, then there is love and respect in a home, regardless of the parent’s sexual practices or lack thereof.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM
DCGamer,
If you are a homosexual..you are not a practicing catholic nor are you a Christian.
Don’t try to deceive people into thinking that catholicism promotes homosexuality.
Just get it out in the open and tell people what you’re real agenda is and what religion you really are.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Yes, unfortunately, someone professing to be “Christian” can also be a bigot. And truth be told, some probably are based on the modern meaning of bigot. (Intolerance to others of another creed, belief, or opinion.)
But standing up for your faith, which may have a message that some may consider offensive, does not make that person a bigot. Erery person is exactly the same in the eyes of God. The only difference is that Christians believe (or from my perspective — know) that we have a savior that has provided a means for reconciliation with God. As a result of that salvation, Christians should be striving to better live in accordance to Gods rules, not out of compulsion, but out of gratitude for what He has promised, everlasting life.
There are many things Christians should hold as a sin. Loosely defined, a sin is something that God has said is wrong. Lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, abusing others, etc are all “sins”. Are Christians therefore bigoted against liars, thieves, fornicators, abusers because we say they are sinning? (By the way, a sinner is not a sinner because he sins. Every human is a sinner, some sin more than others, and some have been forgiven of their sins and try to sin no more.)
You can say that my belief that homosexuality is a sin is wrong based on whatever criteria you want, but that still does not make me a “bigot”. Tolerance of another’s opinion does not mean full acceptance of that opinion, otherwise those who would call me bigoted because they believe me as “intolerant” are they themselves bigoted because they are not accepting of my views.
AverageJoe on May 30, 2008 at 3:15 PM
If everything you say is true, Olaf, then why the focus upon this particular sin? After all, Jesus did not even mention homosexuality in the Gospels. He did, however, menion divorce. We have a 50% divorce rate in this country, and yet here we are.
How ’bout usury? Our credit card companies are certainly charging usurious rates, and yet we still exist.
What about loving your neighbors as yourself? The comments from many of the self-professed Christians here seem anything but neighborly. Last time I checked we are still playing baseball and eating apple pie.
You seem very selective in your choice so nation-damning sins.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM
The main frustration that most Americans have with the gay lifesytle or gay agenda is not personal relationships and behavior in private. Where we might become intolerant is when the agenda moves out of the bedroom and onto the TV, into schools, music, and legislation. My objection is equally concerned about the general portrayal of sex (gay and heterosexual) and the fanatical effort by schools and media to introduce sex to children as early as possible. As an adult we can make decisions (good or bad) but children should not be imposed upon (often secretly, behind the parents backs). By saying something is OK for an adult DOES NOT IMPLY the introduction to children as OK.
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Who are you to determine one’s relationship with Jesus the Christ?
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM
because of the degredation of marriage. it becomes meaningless. and we’ve seen what happens in the black commnunity with out-of-wedlock marriages.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences….
There are undoubtedly other factors that have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
oh yes more crime, welfare, etc. wonderful.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM
uh a lot different. there are no christian plans to jail gay people for dissing christianity, now are there?
yeah…some pigs are treated more ‘fairly’ than others….
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 3:18 PM
You can remove all homosexual everything, and I STILL have a problem with Sex being thrown at me from commercials on TV, to movies, etc, etc, etc.
It is not a GAY problem. It is a People problem.
Anyone who has a child has to try and guide that child, either away from the media onslaught, or engage and try to TEACH children. Regardless if homosexuality exists or not.
It is NOT a GAY agenda. What you are talking about is a LIBERAL agenda.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:27 PM
So, Olaf, you have now appointed yourself God’s judge? Good luck with that. Jesus had quite a few words to say about those who so fervently judge others.
Do not put words into my mouth, Olaf. I very clearly said that I disagree with my Church on the issue of SSM. Whether I am right or wrong is between my God and myself.
Quite frankly, Olaf, extremists like you scare me. You seem very willing to impose your fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity upon others. How is that any different than the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran imposing their interpretation of Islam upon the people of Iran? People like you make me thank God frequently that our founding father’s enshrined in our Constitution the idea that the state shall enact no law imposing a state religion upon others.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 3:27 PM
DCGAMER,
Maybe you missed this post:
Yes rampant homosexuality condoned and promoted by the government is a “nation-damning” sin.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 3:27 PM
that is BS. children need a mother and father…and no just because someone is a ‘top’ doesn’t mean they are a father.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM
You are blaming the minority population of Gay people on the HETEROSEXUAL’s inability to hold marriage sacred?
That’s just pathetic. and very short-sighted.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM
but you’re not scared of the fascist totalitarian gay agend.
no surprise.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Hear, hear. And don’t expect an answer to your question.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 3:30 PM
sorry to disapoint you, but there were state religion after the constitution…it only applied to the federal government.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 Next »