GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

NY Senate Rejects state recognition of same-sex marriages
Empire State still doesn’t recognize same-sex civil unions

by

According to Wikipedia, while the Empire State recognizes same-sex marriages performed in a different state, it, like most Northeastern states, does not have a domestic partnership program.

Gay marriage advocates ever eager to have states recognize same-sex marriage without making a case to the people why gay marriage is a good thing, have been trying to push the New York State legislature to enact legislation providing for such recognition.  Well, today, “the Democrat-controlled New York State Senate resoundingly killed a bill to legalize it that Governor Paterson would have signed.”  They might have had better luck had they, in the wake of last month’s election returns in the Evergreen and Pine Street states, considered a bill recognizing same-sex civil unions.

They wouldn’t get the name they wanted, but they would have provided benefits to same-sex couples, currently unavailable.  Let’s hope that in the wake of this defeat, they consider that option.

Comments

  1. They wouldn’t get the name they wanted, but they would have provided benefits to same-sex couples, currently unavailable. Let’s hope that in the wake of this defeat, they consider that option.

    Hear, hear!

  2. Wait, ILC youre quoting people again! I thought quoting sources made your argument weaker ILC! Not exactly scare quotes, but somehow like scare quotes. Thats what you said!…

    Note that Loving puts the word “rights” in quotes, there. In context, it’s not scare quotes exactly, but showing that Loving is quoting someone else’s voice

    Or is citing sources and precedent only bad when Courts do it? I was always taught that courts used precedent when they wanted to make their STRONGEST arguments. Please educate us all with more of your unsourced honesty!

    And since you claim you already answered this question, if you dont want to re-write it, you can just quote the part where you answered this question. I looked through all the comments you referred to, and dont see it answered anywhere.

    Then maybe you can quote the part where you explain how you agree with Loving v. Virginia that there IS a right to marriage, even though you say many times there is NOT, and explain how you say people can have a RIGHT to government marriage but not a government marriage LICENSE.

    We await your deeply honest answers to these incompatible contradictions.

    ORRRR you could just agree to stop bringing the subject up again long after I have dropped the subject to make more snide false statements about me. And promise not to do so again, and I will drop the subject, yet again.

    until then, please enlighten us with more of your thoroughly consistent and deeply honest unsourced opinions.

  5. Once again the American people have chosen not to honor the perversions and delusions of the gay lobby. Maybe instead of “considering civil unions” yuo should be considering the eternal consequences of your actions?

  6. Normally I would be more pragmatic about this myself, Dan, but as you said NYS recognizes SSM performed out-of-state. Vermont, Connecticut & Canada are close by, so why not keep going for SSM? New Hampshire ain’t that much farther away. It’s not like anyone who really wants to get married is being denied, they just have to drive a couple of hours to do it. As for “making the case”, they have and are continuing to do so. The vote in the Assembly was overwhelmingly for SSM and if polls are to be believed about 60% of the voters support the move.

    So it lost in the Senate this time. So what? Work harder and go for it again later.

    Btw, I noticed that you didn’t mention that not only no Republicans at all voted for the bill NONE of them submitted anything on civil unions.

  8. AE, I don’t answer to you. But I shall give you one anyway. It’s true: you have indeed been dishonest (or lacking in integrity) at many points in our past “discussions”. I’ve documented many such instances, fair and square. I can certainly avoid – as I have always avoided – your manner of screeching, name-calling rage and hate. But do not expect to be able to intimidate me, or make me stop acknowledging the essential facts of your disgraceful behavior, when pressed. As for the rest, I’ve already told you in the other thread:

    I am not responsible for your misinterpretations of my words. Just because you imagine or fantasize that the meaning of my words or arguments was X, does not make it so.

    With each new comment, you disgrace yourself further. And you know it. That is why you screech at each new individual on this blog whom you cannot intimidate.

    The people of rationality and goodwill on this blog, AE, know that I explained my views at #19, #20, #21, #23, #24, #25, #28, #32, #37 [in the linked thread]. And that I’ll be pleased to answer any further questions they have. You, on the other hand, don’t know it.

    As for this:

    I apologize DEEPLY for being such a jerk about this

    Indeed, not deeply enough. Not by a long shot.

  9. It’s not that gays don’t want to make a case why gay marriage is a good thing, it is that the majority of gays don’t want to live in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships. And everyone knows that. The voters know that. Until gays start changing the default position of multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy (and stop saying “Well, straights are just the same! Those hypocrites!), nothing will change. I wouldn’t vote for gay marriage in a state where the most visible Pride parade still has floats shaped like penises.

  11. Ash, I don’t agree with every last bit of what you just said, but I can’t find huge faults with it either. “Why??” you ask with shock 😉 Because you at least said “the majority of gays” (though I would go with “the most visible gays’) rather than “gays” (i.e., all gays). Thank you.

  12. I am not responsible for your misinterpretations of my words.

    But see ILC, THIS is your problem. You are lying again, because I am NOT “misrepresenting your words”

    I am quoting you verbatim, in context.

    So once again your false claim of my dishonesty falls flat on its face, as have ALL your other dishonest attempts to paint ME as the dishonest one.

    SO, again, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, VERBATIM, IN CONTEXT, here you are saying that we should DISCOUNT legal opinion that is backed up with precedent because it is “in quotes…not escare quotes exactly” but apparently similar to scare quotes…

    in favor of legal opinion that IS NOT backed up by legal precedent because the judge is using their “own voice”

    Note that Loving puts the word “rights” in quotes, there. In context, it’s not scare quotes exactly, but showing that Loving is quoting someone else’s voice

    Please, for the love of God, explain why you would suggest that judicial opinion citing legal precedent should be overlooked in favor of legal opinion that cites no precedent, when every honest person on this blog knows that courts cite legal precedent to STRENGTHEN their opinions!

    ORRRR, again, you could just agree to stop bringing the subject up again long after I have dropped the subject to make more snide false statements about me. And promise not to do so again, and I will drop the subject, yet again.

    until then, I am going to continue to hound you with your own dishonesty. Because I know from many past experiences that if *I* drop the subject, as I always have been the one to do, then you will bring it up over and over again with more snide and false comments about “some people” on this blog. Which is of course a very unfair, and uneven playing field that I refuse to play on any longer.

    Which is naturally why you do it, and why you lack the courage and the manhood to even call me by name when you do it.

  13. I am quoting you verbatim, in context.

    Hardly. Here’s a couple of simple examples that you never dealt with. In one recent discussion on the issue of gay marriage, AE, you tried sleazy out-of-context quotation to misrepresent/falsify my views… not only once, but twice. The two links are to places where I pointed out your behavior for the sake of the record. But they only quote your own words – and in a correct context (unlike you with me). There you are. Two sources. Face up to those with some modicum of integrity and maturity.

  15. “the Democrat-controlled New York State Senate resoundingly killed a bill to legalize it that Governor Paterson would have signed.”

    Hmmm. Technically true. The Dems have a one seat majority. And the bill lost because a handful of Dems voted no – AND ALL REPUBLICANS.
    You weren’t trying to gloss over that fact, were you?

  16. “To everyone else, I apologize DEEPLY for being such a jerk…”

    What BS. If there were any sincerity to your apology, then you wouldn’t keep being a jerk. Either own your jerkiness, or stop it.

  17. For the record: Tano’s views are his own. As a rule, I reject Tano’s help. I gladly take the help of good-willed, rational people. I’m afraid I just can’t put Tano in that category, even if his words sound good very occasionally.

  18. AE: I am quoting you verbatim, in context.

    ILC: Hardly

    Ok, that implies that you know the quote makes you look bad. Good, everyone else knew it a long time ago.

    Now, please state how this quote is taken out of context:

    Note that Loving puts the word “rights” in quotes, there. In context, it’s not scare quotes exactly, but showing that Loving is quoting someone else’s voice

    and how you really aren’t trying to suggest that judicial opinion citing precedent is somehow similar to using “scare quotes” although “not exactly” and as such should be overlooked in favor of judicial opinion that does NOT cite precedent. Because to everyone else, that looks like EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

    and how you AGREE that Loving clearly states that there is a right to marriage, even though you had said many times there is NO right to marriage, but that what it is trying to establish is that there is no right to a marriage license.

    How is it exactly people can have a right to government marriage but be denied a marriage license???

    I will be MORE than happy to address your dishonest distractions AFTER you have cleared up these incompatible contradictions, but NO, I will not allow you to once again try to distract the debate away from you being caught red-handed trying to lie your ass out of admitting youre wrong.

  19. Tano, I have stopped many, many times. In fact, I have ALWAYS been the one to drop the subject. If you want proof of this look at ANY thread where ILC and I have argued and you will see that in every single one I allow him to have the last word.

    Then look at all the times we have started arguing again, and you will see that ILC has always been the one to bring the subject back up again with his snide, snotty little comments about “some people on this blog”.

    NO, ILC wants to play by unfair rules and I wont let him anymore.

    He either has to show how his incompatible contradictions are somehow compatible, or he has to agree to stop bringing the subject up.

    I will if he will, but I wont play by his unfair rules anymore.

  20. AE: I am quoting you verbatim, in context.

    ILC: Hardly

    Ok, that implies that you know the quote makes you look bad. Good, everyone else knew it a long time ago.

    Now, please state how this quote is taken out of context:

    Note that Loving puts the word “rights” in quotes, there. In context, it’s not scare quotes exactly, but showing that Loving is quoting someone else’s voice

    and how you really aren’t trying to suggest that judicial opinion citing precedent is somehow similar to using “scare quotes” although “not exactly” and as such should be overlooked in favor of judicial opinion that does NOT cite precedent. Because to everyone else, that looks like EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

    and how you AGREE that Loving clearly states that there is a right to marriage, even though you had said many times there is NO right to marriage, but that what it is trying to establish is that there is no right to a marriage license.

    How is it exactly people can have a right to government marriage but be denied a marriage license???

    I will be MORE than happy to address your dishonest distractions AFTER you have cleared up these incompatible contradictions, but NO, I will not allow you to once again try to distract the debate away from you being caught red-handed trying to lie your ass out of admitting youre wrong.

  24. Now for the 400th time, please quit trying to distract and please explain why your quote doesn’t mean exactly what it says:

    AE: I am quoting you verbatim, in context.

    ILC: Hardly

    Ok, that implies that you know the quote makes you look bad. Good, everyone else knew it a long time ago.

    Now, please state how this quote is taken out of context:

    Note that Loving puts the word “rights” in quotes, there. In context, it’s not scare quotes exactly, but showing that Loving is quoting someone else’s voice

    and how you really aren’t trying to suggest that judicial opinion citing precedent is somehow similar to using “scare quotes” although “not exactly” and as such should be overlooked in favor of judicial opinion that does NOT cite precedent. Because to everyone else, that looks like EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

    and how you AGREE that Loving clearly states that there is a right to marriage, even though you had said many times there is NO right to marriage, but that what it is trying to establish is that there is no right to a marriage license.

    How is it exactly people can have a right to government marriage but be denied a marriage license???

    I will be MORE than happy to address your dishonest distractions AFTER you have cleared up these incompatible contradictions, but NO, I will not allow you to once again try to distract the debate away from you being caught red-handed trying to lie your ass out of admitting youre wrong.

  28. But you do grasp at straws.

    SO, for the 401st time, please stop trying to distract and please explain why your quote doesn’t mean exactly what it says:

    AE: I am quoting you verbatim, in context.

    ILC: Hardly

    Ok, that implies that you know the quote makes you look bad. Good, everyone else knew it a long time ago.

    Now, please state how this quote is taken out of context:

    Note that Loving puts the word “rights” in quotes, there. In context, it’s not scare quotes exactly, but showing that Loving is quoting someone else’s voice

    and how you really aren’t trying to suggest that judicial opinion citing precedent is somehow similar to using “scare quotes” although “not exactly” and as such should be overlooked in favor of judicial opinion that does NOT cite precedent. Because to everyone else, that looks like EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

    and how you AGREE that Loving clearly states that there is a right to marriage, even though you had said many times there is NO right to marriage, but that what it is trying to establish is that there is no right to a marriage license.

    How is it exactly people can have a right to government marriage but be denied a marriage license???

    I will be MORE than happy to address your dishonest distractions AFTER you have cleared up these incompatible contradictions, but NO, I will not allow you to once again try to distract the debate away from you being caught red-handed trying to lie your ass out of admitting you’re wrong.

  30. No need for a room. ILC can end this ANY time. I have made an offer to drop it hours ago, as I have dropped it many, many times before, but only if he agrees to actually DROP IT and stop bringing it back up again with his nasty little snide remarks and snotty cowardly lies.

    But he cant do that. Because it requires him to admit hes been the one bringing it up again. And as we’ve seen, he isnt even man enough to own up to that:

    But why would you ever take it as “about you”, AE? LOL 🙂 If it doesn’t name you, it isn’t your concern.

    Talk to ILC.

  32. Wow, now you are going back BEFORE our argument even began NINE MONTHS AGO to find when I last had the last word.

    thats called BEFORE.

    If I ever implied that we have always argued, I readily concede that that is false. Our argument had a beginning and it has had many many endings, all of which were ME walking away from it

    I would LOVE to walk away from it again, which I will probably have to do, yet again, because even Andrew Sullivan now has more credibility and integrity than you.

    And look how youve successfully distracted from answering how your own words dont mean exactly what they say, yet again!

  33. SO, for the 402nd time, please stop trying to distract and please explain why your quote doesn’t mean exactly what it says:

    AE: I am quoting you verbatim, in context

    ILC: Hardly

    Ok, that implies that you know the quote makes you look bad. Good, everyone else knew it a long time ago.

    Now, please state how this quote is taken out of context;

    Note that Loving puts the word “rights” in quotes, there. In context, it’s not scare quotes exactly, but showing that Loving is quoting someone else’s voice

    and how you really aren’t trying to suggest that judicial opinion citing precedent is somehow similar to using “scare quotes” although “not exactly” and as such should be overlooked in favor of judicial opinion that does NOT cite precedent. Because to everyone else, that looks like EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

    and how you AGREE that Loving clearly states that there is a right to marriage, even though you had said many times there is NO right to marriage, but that what it is trying to establish is that there is no right to a marriage license.

    How is it exactly people can have a right to government marriage but be denied a marriage license???

    I will be MORE than happy to address your dishonest distractions AFTER you have cleared up these incompatible contradictions, but NO, I will not allow you to once again try to distract the debate away from you being caught red-handed trying to lie your ass out of admitting you’re wrong.

  34. Just to sum up – It was this:

    look at ANY thread where ILC and I have argued and you will see that in every single one I allow him to have the last word.

    (Emphasis in the original) And now, after -three- contrary demonstrations which were -easy- (because many are possible), it is this:

    thats called BEFORE.

    Good work, AE. Now give everyone a break and take the last word. You can have it. Shift some more.

  35. Are you ready to promise to stop bringing the subject up? And stop with your snide little dishonest comments about “some people on the blog” and all your similar tactics?

    I proposed that hours ago, and many times since, and am still waiting for you to agree to it.

    Thats the sticking point. ILC. Either that or explaining your insupportable contradictions. YOU. YOU having some integrity and character is the sticking point.

    Can you agree to stop bringing it up again?

  37. (Sorry, maybe I should have said “strong-ish” minority of Democrats. How can a minority be strong? But I meant that, while a minority, it wasn’t exactly a tiny one.)

  38. SORRY ILC

    Not going to let you get away with that.

    I have promised to drop it yet again, but ONLY if you promise to stop bringing it up again, and stop making your dishonest snie little remarks about some people on this blog.

    Either than or I will insist you exlpain your unexplainable self-contradictions.

    But if Im going to promise to drop it again, you have to promise to stop bringing it up. and stop your snide little attacks.

    Are you ready to promise to stop bringing the subject up? And stop with your snide little dishonest comments about “some people on the blog” and all your similar tactics?

    I proposed that hours ago, and many times since, and am still waiting for you to agree to it.

    Thats the sticking point. ILC. Either that or explaining your insupportable contradictions. YOU. YOU having some integrity and character is the sticking point.

    Can you agree to stop bringing it up again?

  39. I love this site. It’s such a hilarious parody. I mean, self-hating Jews are a cliche, but who would have thought of being a self-hating gay? Genius.

    I love the line about gay marriage advocates never explaining why gay marriage is a good thing. Well, it’s a bit like wearing a seatbelt, son. Not much use to anyone else but good for the person in question. Keep up the good work!

  41. I believe he was calling ME self hating Bruce because I dared suggest that the case has not yet been made that gay marriage is good for society.

    it’s a bit like wearing a seatbelt, son. Not much use to anyone else but good for the person in question

    yeah that’s the problem Dr. Zen. Its not much good for anyone else, only another entitlement for the person in question!

    The thing about marriage is it is demonstrably good for SOCIETY. And children being born out of wedlock is demonstrably very, VERY bad for society. Thats why government is in the marriage business to begin with. The states have said so and the courts have upheld their reasoning as valid — including the courts in New York, which I didn’t previously know.

    The very best arguments Ive heard for gay marriage have been the ones that address why it would be good for society.

    But its very difficult to justify marriage if the institution itself doesn’t exist for the sake of kids. Adults being adults can not only take care of themselves, but most conservatives EXPECT them to take care of themselves as long as they are able to. (no, im not saying we dont support helping people who need help) And not only that but conservatives believe adults can do a BETTER job looking out for their own interests than any government institution.

    Indeed, that’s a core belief of conservatism. Its why we oppose social security, its why we oppose medicare, and its why we oppose marriage as anything other than an institution that exists for the sake of children because children CANT take care of themselves, and while adults are naturally given to looking after their own self interest, adults will often put their self interests ahead of childrens.

    Want to convince people that gay marriage is a good idea? Convince them that adults need government to tell them what to do. And convince them that if not for the sake of children, there would be any reason whatsoever for government to be involved in the marriage business. Then convince them that mothers and fathers dont both matter to children.

    That is what is required to justify gay marriage. Because I hate to sound cliche, but it really is about what is best for children.

  45. 24 Democrats voted to allow gay people to get married in New York. ZERO Republicans voted to allow gay people to get married in New York. I repeat, ZERO of your Republican homies want to allow gay marriage in “liberal” New York. But you guys keep fuckin’ that chicken. El-Oh-El!

  47. Even if gay marriage is good for society, most gays don’t want it. And I think I can say “most gays” with some certainty. Make a list of the gays you know, and count how many are in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship. You don’t get to include those in open relationships. (“But straights do that! Those hypocrites!”) OK, what’s the percentage?

    Women who fought for the right to vote actually wanted to vote. They didn’t say, “We don’t plan to vote, voting goes against our lifestyle, and in fact, we think that participating in the patriarchal, oppressive government is evil, but we’re marching so that if there’s some woman out there who actually does want to vote, we want her to be able to.” They didn’t spend most of their time planning parades and rallies which mocked voting.

    When a majority of gays start living in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships, they’ll get the right to marry. But not until then.

  50. Well, after the Empire State debacle we should take another look at civil unions. But after years of conditioning ourselves by saying”civil unions? oh yuk, ptui, phooey, worthless, marriage or nothing” it’s not going to be easy. We are losing sight of the trees through the forest. We’re all caught up about the name & not the rights. Talk to SSM opponents (whose ranks were far bigger 20 years ago) about the possibility of civil unions. You’d be astonished about how they are willing to give gay couples rights without the “M” word involved.

  51. Jim, by way of agreeing with you… I remember when civil unions were a revolutionary step. They weren’t identical to marriage; putting any kind of teeth in them was a big leap forward. How times change!

    You’d be astonished about how they are willing to give gay couples rights without the “M” word

    The American people are “anti-anti-gay”. I’ll take it. The American people are not “pro-gay” in the sense of pro-Gay Left Agenda… but no loss there; neither am I.

  55. “We don’t plan to vote, voting goes against our lifestyle, and in fact, we think that participating in the patriarchal, oppressive government is evil, but we’re marching so that if there’s some woman out there who actually does want to vote, we want her to be able to.”

    Ashpenaz, you make a good point here. The thing is, when it comes to voting, you barely get 50% eligible to vote. I hope that means we don’t become a dictatorship. It’s already a big shame that we let money corrupt voting.

    Besides, I support ending DADT and allowing both straight and gay persons serving openly. A good majority of people these days don’t enter the military, but I believe we should let those who can and are willing to serve, to serve openly and honestly.

    With regard to marriage, divorce rates have skyrocketed the past 50 years or so, yet we still believe that marriage is a good thing. I happen to believe that it is good to encourage same sex couples to marry. This would be beneficial to society, including ALL children who can grow up knowing they have a chance of the same American dream as others, as opposed of being shamed for being gay. I understand there are going to be plenty of people, gay or straight, who want to continue with promiscuity, multiple partners, and/or serial monogamy. That’s fine. I don’t want marriage forced on those who don’t want it.