Gay Patriot Header Image

NY Legislature Votes to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

Just caught this via Instapundit:

CHANGE: Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29. I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Ditto what Glenn said about being passed by the elected legislature. And to note that it passed with Republican votes — and in a legislative chamber run by the GOP.

May have more to say on this tomorrow, but Glenn pretty much summed up what I had to say (though I may add something about the religious amendment added during the final debate).

Share

74 Comments

  1. Are you able to support this bill? It’s against your Right Wing Politics? or is it not?

    Comment by Jim — June 25, 2011 @ 3:57 am - June 25, 2011

  2. Happy Pride NYC! And fellow folk of New York.
    World Wide RECOGNITION, SF. SD, SEATTLE, NYC all have Pride weekends

    There has been a positive disturbance I’m the force!

    Comment by rusty — June 25, 2011 @ 3:59 am - June 25, 2011

  3. In the Force,, minor correction

    Comment by rusty — June 25, 2011 @ 4:02 am - June 25, 2011

  4. It’s against your Right Wing Politics?

    Would you mind explaining the logic underlying your conclusion, please?

    Comment by TGC — June 25, 2011 @ 4:39 am - June 25, 2011

  5. Gay Marriage Legalized In New York…

    Trackback by Rhymes With Right — June 25, 2011 @ 7:17 am - June 25, 2011

  6. Whether or not a person agrees with this (public opinion was basically split down the middle), now that it has passed, it may be helpful to our economy here in NY as florists, caterers, reception halls, ect., will be able to increase their wedding planning clientele, which will also add tax revenue to our nearly bankrupt state.
    I also agree with Insty and GP, it was passed through the proper channels and not by court fiat. That’s how things are supposed to work.

    Comment by Zilla — June 25, 2011 @ 7:28 am - June 25, 2011

  7. Excellent news. Bad news for Obama too as Cuomo clearly upstages him in the “fierce advocate” department. Oh wait, I forgot that The One is still “evolving”.

    As far as the religious exemptions go, I still don’t see what all the fuss is about. Nothing I read about the ones in this bill differ from what the US Constitution requires anyways. Yet, if folks need it spelled out than no matter how superfluous that’s okay by me.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — June 25, 2011 @ 8:17 am - June 25, 2011

  8. Its good the legislature passed this rather some court ruling granting it.

    The states that have same sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership are all liberal dominated and I think the rest of the non gay country will think “ho hum” or “what do you expect from those folks?” It would have more weight coming from Missouri, Texas, Wyoming or Georgia.

    I think it will happen just not in my lifetime.

    Comment by Church Mouse Republican — June 25, 2011 @ 9:19 am - June 25, 2011

  9. How will this affect domestic partnerships? Will gays who currently receive their partner’s employee benefits now have to marry in order to retain the benefits?

    Comment by Auntie Dogsh!t — June 25, 2011 @ 9:34 am - June 25, 2011

  10. #8. Most likely it will not change domestic partnership benefits. Most domestic partnership benefits are used by heterosexual couples who choose not to marry but qualify as domestic partners.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — June 25, 2011 @ 10:11 am - June 25, 2011

  11. Now that this is passed, how many gay people will start voting Republican?

    Comment by MV — June 25, 2011 @ 10:38 am - June 25, 2011

  12. Great points from Zilla & JohnAGJ!!!

    Totally agree with both. And congrats to NY gays & lesbians! Let the honeymoons on Staten Island begin!!

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 25, 2011 @ 10:41 am - June 25, 2011

  13. Done by a state legislature, not imposed by a court or the Feds, so its New York’s business, not mine.

    Comment by Ryan M. — June 25, 2011 @ 11:03 am - June 25, 2011

  14. glad it finally passed. Thanks to Cuomo and all the hard work put in by gay rights advocates! also special thanks to the 4 Republicans and 31 Democrats that voted for it. Now let’s dismantle DOMA and be done with the past discrimination

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 11:22 am - June 25, 2011

  15. So somehow a conceal carry law in Wisconsin, a place where very few if any of you are from, is a big win for gay rights, but same-sex marriage enacted through the legislation of one of the biggest states in the US gets “ho-hum?” That’s the best you can do? Wow.

    It was always the final point of debate with you all, that done by executive “fiat” was unacceptable and done through judicial review was “legislating from the bench” but now that it’s passed through the method that was always preferable, this is the reaction? “Well I suppose we’ll have to like it.” Gay blogs all over the country are falling all over themselves and you’re just somehow not able to go to the “we should have a referendum to really have the people’s voice in this?”

    Pathetic.

    Comment by Countervail — June 25, 2011 @ 12:05 pm - June 25, 2011

  16. Are you able to support this bill? It’s against your Right Wing Politics? or is it not?

    It’s always funny when a lefty assumes he knows your opinion and condemns you for it. Because YOU’RE the prejudiced bigot.

    Comment by Jim Treacher — June 25, 2011 @ 12:09 pm - June 25, 2011

  17. [...] As Gay Patriot notes: “It passed with Republican votes — and in a legislative chamber run by the [...]

    Pingback by You can marry a person of the same gender in New York City, but you can’t eat your own wedding cake without Bloomberg slapping it out of your hands | The Daily Caller — June 25, 2011 @ 12:13 pm - June 25, 2011

  18. lol I must admit @Countervail is hilariously correct. conceal gun carry did get an exclamation mark while this got a link and brief comment and not even a period ;-) Maybe Dan just isn’t that into heteronormative forms of social contracts and prefers his sex more random and dirty without any commitment.

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 12:13 pm - June 25, 2011

  19. Zella is right it will help the florists, caterers, reception hall, etc. And don’t forget the devorce lawyers.

    Comment by John W — June 25, 2011 @ 12:19 pm - June 25, 2011

  20. Countervail,

    There is a reason why this blog hailed the concealed-carry gun law in Wisconsin as a major “gay rights victory” but is only lukewarm towards the passage of same-sex marriage in NY state.

    Most gay conservatives view the concealed carry gun law as a way of protecting everyone, including gays. It’s also why this blog spends a lot of space discussing the economy and national security. It’s from the viewpoint that if the overall American society is benefited (most of whom are straight), then those benefits will trickle down to the gays as well.

    On the other hand, same-sex marriage in NY state — only benefits gays who live in NY or travel there to get married. The advantages & benefits of same-sex marriage to heterosexuals is less clear. In fact, many conservatives & conservative organizations (such as Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund, etc) would propose that same-sex marriage harms most Americans. The blogger “North Dallas Thirty” would probably agree.

    So that’s why gay conservatives are either lukewarm, don’t care, or even oppose same-sex marriage. Because it’s selfish to petition your government for privileges based on your minority status. Rather, it’s best to focus on things that will help straight Americans first — like the economy & national security & concealed carry laws.

    Comment by James — June 25, 2011 @ 12:23 pm - June 25, 2011

  21. @James um wisconsin conceal carry only applies to Wisconsin, and those gay that live or travel there. This blog is also called GAYPatriot which co-notates a slight interest in gay content.
    Also the reason some of us gheys do care about social issues is we’re not so ashamed or embarrassed about being gay that we think we should shut up and let the mighty straight man trickle down his shit to us. We are EQUAL citizens and if we have rights that are being stomped on I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit back and wait for someone to maybe get around to addressing that if they can ever be bothered to.

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 12:35 pm - June 25, 2011

  22. Jim in #16, have you been reading our comments?

    It is uncanny how many of our leftie readers just know our opinion, even when that knowledge is at odds with the content of the very post to which they attach their comments.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 25, 2011 @ 12:39 pm - June 25, 2011

  23. Actually, Tim, for example, it is perfectly legal to fire someone based on their heterosexuality. Thus, you are already “equal”.

    What you want is special treatment based on your minority status, not on your performance, character, or value to society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 12:39 pm - June 25, 2011

  24. @Nd30 of really gosh well that makes it ok than forget about fair treatment than I’ll just go back in the closet than because being treated fairly really is old hat. You think being gay is inherently evil so you’re not really important to adult conversations.

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - June 25, 2011

  25. And Tim, what you’re making clear is that you want public policy decisions based on your bigotry and animus toward heterosexuals.

    Isn’t that interesting? Timmeh screams about intolerance and hate, but regularly practices both. Makes his hypocrisy obvious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 12:44 pm - June 25, 2011

  26. Ah, but you see, Timmeh, I have never been fired or discriminated against based on my sexual orientation, nor have I ever done so.

    That’s fairness.

    You, on the other hand, support and endorse discrimination against heterosexuals, based on your clear bigotry and animus toward them.

    So to you, “fairness” means you being allowed to treat people unequally. You don’t want to be judged by the same standards; you want special treatment based solely on your minority status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 12:49 pm - June 25, 2011

  27. [...] NY Legislature Votes to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On the prejudiced assumptions of our liberal critics — June 25, 2011 @ 12:54 pm - June 25, 2011

  28. And actually, Countervail, no worries; gay-sex marriage will last as long in New York as you are able to suppress your antireligious bigotry, which I would imagine to be all of fifteen minutes.

    Wonder how Cuomo and the Obama Party will explain the lawsuits being filed to overturn the religious protections and punish churches and religious groups? Think those will win you more support?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 12:59 pm - June 25, 2011

  29. I’m perfectly content to call myself anti-theist and anti-deist. I’m also more than happy to see each of Nd30′s cherished bigotries fall in the march to equal treatment. I haven’t forgotten the lesson of the pink triangle or those many gays and lesbians that have been murdered through the ages for the sake of religion or morality. Nor am I content to let my rights be granted, that I hold inalienable.

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 1:12 pm - June 25, 2011

  30. Welp, it’s been a long hard fight. I don’t know about you “gay marriage” supporters but as one who was against changing the definition of marriage I’m exhausted. I think I’ve worn out my keyboard in these past two weeks. :)

    Congratulations on your hard fought victory. I hope you all meant the things you said before the vote and that the LGBT activist groups won’t go after the religious orgs as has been the case this week leading up to your victory. With your victory comes the responsibility to keep your word.

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 25, 2011 @ 1:14 pm - June 25, 2011

  31. ND30, I’ve never needed a church or anyone else to sanction my 10+ years relationship in some sort of vaguely , mumbo-jumbo spiritual way. However, I am glad I finally get the same undeniable access to hospital visitation, end of life decisions, tax considerations ad nauseum. If anything is to be faulted in this marriage debate, it’s the host of widely-varying religious BELIEFS that have stifled progress of civil recognitions of long-term relationships. I would be more than happy if your religion and every other religion in the world got out of the marriage business as it’s really a concern of the state, not of the church in the regulation, responsibilities and benefits of partnered couples. What the state of New York should have done is only recognize CIVIL partnership for all partners, gay and straight, and leave it to the churches to sanction whatever they want as a “marriage” so there was no intersection at all.

    It’s people like you that want to co-opt “marriage” to decide who is and who isn’t eligible for it in society and to influence and force the state to accept your view. I’m not anti-religious at all. You can BELIEVE whatever you want on your own property in your own time, but as soon as it intersects and affects my ability to live equally among my peers in society, yes I will have a problem with it. If your religion requires you to act on behalf of other people “for their own good” instead of only focusing on yourself and your own spirituality, I’m not sure you’re either a good Christian or a true conservative for liberty.

    Comment by Countervail — June 25, 2011 @ 1:27 pm - June 25, 2011

  32. Same gender marriage at the state level is nothing more than a feel good, do nothing law. It is just a piece in the puzzle to build the momentum to file a federal action. Backdoor legal maneuvering. This is a like Sally Field’s Oscar speech, “They like me, they really like me!” It is sad that the gay community has settled for something so meaningless. and are peeing their pants over. Is our self worth so low that we need the approval of others to value our relationships? You might be able to travel to NY to get married, but most of the the state sthat you live in will not recognize the marriage, nor will the federal government or a foreign country.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — June 25, 2011 @ 2:03 pm - June 25, 2011

  33. However, I am glad I finally get the same undeniable access to hospital visitation, end of life decisions, tax considerations ad nauseum.

    Oh, is that all? You know, that’s funny; you could have had those at any time by making simple changes in the tax codes, the rules around powers of attorney and wills, and that sort of thing.

    But in fact, you didn’t. Indeed, just as an example, gays like you, Countervail, hilariously whined and cried when Republicans proposed repealing the estate tax, which would have benefitted all gays and all straights, married or not — but then screamed that you needed marriage so that you could dodge the estate tax.

    This has nothing to do with benefits or privileges. Not a thing. If that were your concern and if it were necessary, it wouldn’t have taken forty-two years. It was all about you needing to carry out your revenge fantasies and your antireligious bigotries.

    And that’s what will make this funny, Countervail. You are an antireligious bigot, and you won’t be able to stop yourself from doing something of the sort. Gays like you who were desecrating the Mass in St. Patrick’s literally are not capable of stopping yourself from being bigots — and now, when you do it, you will have demonstrated the utter hypocrisy that lies at the core of your whining for “marriage”.

    It’s people like you that want to co-opt “marriage” to decide who is and who isn’t eligible for it in society and to influence and force the state to accept your view.

    Oh, I see. So when I lobby for laws against pedophilia and plural marriage, I’m “influencing and forcing the state to accept my view”, and it makes me a bad Christian?

    I mean, we already know that gays like you really want sibling, child, and plural “marriage”, Countervail; you and your fellow “advocates” have made that abundantly clear. It’s no surprise that you now start screaming about how anyone who wants to restrict your marrying children is anti-freedom.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 2:27 pm - June 25, 2011

  34. I haven’t forgotten the lesson of the pink triangle or those many gays and lesbians that have been murdered through the ages for the sake of religion or morality.

    Actually, I think you have.

    Between 1933–45, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of which some 50,000 were officially sentenced. Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps. It is unclear how many of the 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the camps, but leading scholar Ruediger Lautman believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%.

    Now compare and contrast.

    Since the beginning of the epidemic a total of 28,409 San Francisco residents have been diagnosed with AIDS, which comprises 18% of California AIDS cases and 3% of cases reported nationally.
    There have been 19,080 reported AIDS deaths in San Francisco as of Dec. 31, 2009 (the most recent statistics available).

    So the gay and lesbian community has managed to murder more of its own through irresponsibility and promiscuity in ONE CITY than the Nazis managed in the entirety of their activities.

    That’s why I don’t take you seriously, Timmeh. You scream about gay teenagers being driven to suicide even as you support and endorse gay and lesbian teachers helping them have bareback sex with strangers in bus station restrooms. You shriek about Christians preaching when you openly make excuses for and support people who lie about their HIV status and have bareback sex with teenagers.

    What seems pretty obvious is that you really don’t care about the welfare of gay and lesbian people; you only care about whether you can use their deaths to attack religious people and people with morals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2011 @ 2:39 pm - June 25, 2011

  35. “Just caught this via Instapundit:”

    Oh please you make this sound like the passage of gay marriage in NY it’s some esoteric bit of info… IT’S ON THE FRONT PAGE OF EVERY NEWS SITE IN AMERICA.

    Comment by David — June 25, 2011 @ 3:03 pm - June 25, 2011

  36. Shorter North Dallas Thirty… gay marrige = gay and lesbian people dying.

    LOL.

    Comment by David — June 25, 2011 @ 3:05 pm - June 25, 2011

  37. Part of the reason I haven’t been so vocal in my reaction is that the decision came down late Friday night, and like other folks with lives, I wasn’t even aware of it until I got up this morning.

    Since 30 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman (and Minnesota voting on this in 2012), the only way to force this down the throats of those who disagree is through Congress or the courts, which leaves regular folks with the feeling that such decisions are attempts to ram through something they don’t want.

    Look at Prop 8. People in California went through all the motions of getting it passed, and one judge decides to dump it in the circular file despite what the voters said. I think that kind of action is going to make it harder to win approval on a state level and make it even more intolerable on the national level.

    Comment by Dottie Laird — June 25, 2011 @ 3:07 pm - June 25, 2011

  38. David, thank you for completely understanding how I live my life and get my news. Guess I already blogged about you when I talked about the prejudices of some of our readers.

    Here, let me lay it out for you, not that you’d pay any attention anyway. Returned home last night to read some blogs while I ate my late-night snack. Instapundit (which automatically refreshes itself) was on my computer screen, having been the window on top when I had put it to sleep earlier in the day.

    Saw the news there, then blogged on it. But, then again, you act as if you know more about me than I do myself. Maybe I shouldn’t trust the actual record of my life and turn instead to my critics to figure it out!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 25, 2011 @ 3:08 pm - June 25, 2011

  39. “So to you, “fairness” means you being allowed to treat people unequally. You don’t want to be judged by the same standards; you want special treatment based solely on your minority status.”

    You continue with your tired old meme of “special treatment” which is BULLSHIT.

    Gay people want no special treatment just the same treatment everyone else gets but you’ll pretend that you don’t understand that because your afraid your Pajama Media sponsor will drop you.

    Comment by David — June 25, 2011 @ 3:10 pm - June 25, 2011

  40. Shorter North Dallas Thirty… gay marrige = gay and lesbian people dying.

    LOL.

    So you find that funny? I would imagine a dumbass who expends energy blaming Reagan for AIDS whilst perusing bareback porn would think so.

    Comment by TGC — June 25, 2011 @ 3:12 pm - June 25, 2011

  41. “So you find that funny?”

    You’re obviously presupposing that gay people marrying really equals gay gay people dying which is a joke.

    Do you REALLY believe that rubbish?

    What’s your source Newsbusters?

    Comment by David — June 25, 2011 @ 3:38 pm - June 25, 2011

  42. “I would imagine a dumbass who expends energy blaming Reagan for AIDS whilst perusing bareback porn would think so.”

    “Dumbass”… would you say that to a stranger? No because you’re a coward and you would get your face punched.

    But you people are not interested in civil conversation because you exist only to give your right-wing sponsors anti-gay read meat from a gay self-loathing perspective. and the ruder and nastier the better.

    Btw, I could not be more straight and Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic for as long as he could that’s a fact and it’s history.

    Comment by David — June 25, 2011 @ 4:06 pm - June 25, 2011

  43. You can marry a person of the same gender in New York City, but you can’t eat your own wedding cake without Bloomberg slapping it out of your hands | The Daily Caller

    Best pingback I’ve seen in a long time! :D

    Comment by JohnAGJ — June 25, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - June 25, 2011

  44. You can marry a person of the same gender in New York City, but you can’t eat your own wedding cake without Bloomberg slapping it out of your hands | The Daily Caller

    Best pingback I’ve seen in a long time! :D

    Comment by JohnAGJ — June 25, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - June 25, 2011

  45. Wonder how Cuomo and the Obama Party will explain the lawsuits being filed to overturn the religious protections and punish churches and religious groups? Think those will win you more support?

    Given that the bill contains an anti-severability clause as well as all of these protections are nothing more than basic guarantees already covered under the First Amendment, I doubt we’ll be seeing many from pro-SSM supporters. Now suing for alleged breaches under other laws? Possibly. Read the protection amendments for yourself. What’s not protected are religious groups accepting public money or contracting with NYS while discriminating as it pleases, nor should it be. They have every right to set their policies and doctrines, which includes expectations that their employees adhere to their set of beliefs. Those who have violated this and have tried to sue have rightly lost in court big time because the First Amendment is there for all of us.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — June 25, 2011 @ 4:20 pm - June 25, 2011

  46. You can marry a person of the same gender in New York City, but you can’t eat your own wedding cake without Bloomberg slapping it out of your hands | The Daily Caller

    More meanignles right-wing bullshit.

    Bloomberg want’s people getting foodstamps not to buy sugary soft-drinks big deal. Since when did the right-wing care about people getting food stamps anyway?

    The truth:

    NY Mayor Bloomberg Calls Marriage Vote “A Historic Triumph For Liberty And Freedom”

    Comment by David — June 25, 2011 @ 4:20 pm - June 25, 2011

  47. Bloomberg want’s people getting foodstamps not to buy sugary soft-drinks big deal.

    Bloomberg seems to believe he has the legal (and typically leftist moral) authority to micromanage the lives of Americans, “for their own good,” of course. If you cannot recognize the inherent “bullshit” of that, then you are beyond help.

    Since when did the right-wing care about people getting food stamps anyway?

    We care about everyone’s personal liberty. If you can’t acknowledge that, then kindly peddle your emotional outbursts elsewhere.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 25, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - June 25, 2011

  48. But you people are not interested in civil conversation because you exist only to give your right-wing sponsors anti-gay read meat from a gay self-loathing perspective. and the ruder and nastier the better.

    Seriously, enough of the ad hominem attacks. If you can’t control your emotions, maybe you should step away for a little while.

    Comment by Eric in Chicago — June 25, 2011 @ 4:46 pm - June 25, 2011

  49. David, I find it amusing that you say my defenders aren’t interested in civil conversation. To be sure, given their tone, sometimes it seems they’re not. But you’re hardly one to talk, given the assumptions you make about the Gipper and the blogger to whose posts you comment so readily.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 25, 2011 @ 4:51 pm - June 25, 2011

  50. When does Chuck Schumer get married to Anthony Weiner?

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — June 25, 2011 @ 4:57 pm - June 25, 2011

  51. Don’t have a clue about gay conservatives in Wisconsin, but this straight libertarian in Texas is thrilled that it passed, and can’t wait until it’s being taught in the history books along with that infographic showing the year various states allowed women to vote.

    Comment by Russ — June 25, 2011 @ 8:04 pm - June 25, 2011

  52. Just back from an atheist luncheon, guess whose straight friends are all going to be at the Pride parade with their kids?! Heh honestly they are some of the best people I’ve ever met and I couldn’t be happier having them as friends and allies.

    Comment by Tim — June 25, 2011 @ 10:00 pm - June 25, 2011

  53. “Done by a state legislature, not imposed by a court or the Feds, so its New York’s business, not mine.”

    Well, until someone tells me that TX must recognize (and pay benefits) based on it via the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.

    As long as NY and NYC have to recognize my TX Concealed Carry permit under the same clause, that’s actually OK. Until then, Hell No!

    Comment by SDN — June 25, 2011 @ 10:04 pm - June 25, 2011

  54. 51.Just back from an atheist luncheon, guess whose straight friends are all going to be at the Pride parade with their kids?!

    Tim’s happy to see more potential dates.

    While I prefer ‘fred’ I do applaud the legislature of New York resolving the issue through the correct method.

    Of course Counterfail, after a long period of lurking, gets on a subject he thinks he can speak competently, he still can’t do anything but make an ass of himself.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 25, 2011 @ 10:18 pm - June 25, 2011

  55. SDN: That’s actually not a bad argument, as far as concealed carry goes. I’d be interested to hear more about this from someone far more knowledgeable about constitutional law than I am.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — June 25, 2011 @ 10:32 pm - June 25, 2011

  56. And so morality, common sense, and tradition die. And for what? So two–how long will it be only two?–people of the same sex can “marry”?
    Let all of you who are popping your champagne corks over this “historic victory” for “liberty and freedom” answer these questions.

    1. If allowing gay marriage is now vital for the survival of liberty and freedom, how can you justify denying plural marriage for those straights who might want it? Isn’t that a denial of personal liberty and freedom? Isn’t that a violation of the people-must-be-free-to-marry-whomever-they-love argument gays have used ad infinitum?

    2. If gay marriage should be allowed because it won’t effect my relationship, then how can gay marriage make me more free if it won’t effect me?

    3. By demanding that society give legal approval to their relationships, aren’t gays the ones who are using the state to impose their view of marriage on everybody else?

    4. If allowing gay marriage will be good for florists, caterers, etc., wouldn’t legalizing plural marriage be even better for them, since allowing straight men to have multiple wives would surely result in far more weddings than allowing gays to marry?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 25, 2011 @ 10:37 pm - June 25, 2011

  57. Seane-Anna, if you are so concerned with the door being opened to the horrors of plural marriage, you should have been campaigning to abolish opposite-sex marriage long ago. It is opposite-sex marriage that opened that door, not same-sex marriage. If the op-sex crowd hadn’t already invented marriage for themselves, the same-sex crowd would not have been allowed to invent it for themselves exclusively – because then it would have been labeled “special rights.” And as we all know, “special rights” are reserved exclusively for privileged majorities.

    Comment by Richard R — June 25, 2011 @ 11:42 pm - June 25, 2011

  58. Polygamy is biblically ordained, how dare you speak against the word of god?? Also we’re bringing back slavery because the bible says it’s ok.

    Comment by Tim — June 26, 2011 @ 12:19 am - June 26, 2011

  59. “Seane-Anna, if you are so concerned with the door being opened to the horrors of plural marriage, you should have been campaigning to abolish opposite-sex marriage long ago. It is opposite-sex marriage that opened that door, not same-sex marriage.”

    No, Richard, abolishing opposite-sex marriage wouldn’t put an end to the plural marriage question because gays can have multiple partners, too. I was just using straight polygamy as an example.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 26, 2011 @ 1:14 am - June 26, 2011

  60. [...] that it couldn’t have happened without support from Republicans and [...]

    Pingback by Gay Marriage Passes In New York » American Glob — June 26, 2011 @ 2:08 am - June 26, 2011

  61. “Dumbass”… would you say that to a stranger?

    Yup.

    and you would get your face punched.

    Predisposed to violence, are you?

    But you people are not interested in civil conversation

    You people? What kind of “civil conversation” includes “you people”?

    your right-wing sponsors

    Who? What kind of “civil conversation” is this?

    anti-gay read meat

    Read meat?

    from a gay self-loathing perspective.

    Pardon me, but you seem to be the most miserable person here, save Levi & Tim. I’m pretty happy with myself, thanks.

    Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic for as long as he could that’s a fact and it’s history.”

    You’re not only a liar, but a moonbatshitcrazy one to boot. No matter how many times you repeat a damned lie, it’s still a lie (ie. not “fact” or “history).

    That was fun. Cheers, ass.

    Comment by TGC — June 26, 2011 @ 5:26 am - June 26, 2011

  62. Also we’re bringing back slavery because the bible says it’s ok.

    Why? Liberals already keep most blacks crushed under their heel now. They’re still controlled on the liberal plantation, what would be different?

    Comment by TGC — June 26, 2011 @ 5:28 am - June 26, 2011

  63. Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic for as long as he could that’s a fact and it’s history.”

    In fact, it would be more accurate to say that gays ignore the AIDS epidemic NOW unless they could profit from it.

    Comment by TGC — June 26, 2011 @ 5:39 am - June 26, 2011

  64. No, Timmeh, we’re bringing back slavery because Democrats support it, as always. You just substitute the word “collective” for “plantation”.

    Comment by SDN — June 26, 2011 @ 7:16 am - June 26, 2011

  65. Switching words around and pretending like you have made an argument is pretty ridiculous. But than again so is every post you’ve put up here. I’m done with this thread as it is, gay marriage passed, 4 republicans out of 31 voted for it, and I’m glad. Now let’s focus on dismantling DOMA and we’re getting some where. I don’t care if it’s in the courts or the congress, I personally see my government as three EQUAL parts. Since there are like 12 cases pending and working I’m pretty happy with our chances. Specially since Boehner’s got to pay for it out of his own budget and the costs are going to sky rocket even as they continue to preach about fiscal sanity.

    Comment by Tim — June 26, 2011 @ 10:07 am - June 26, 2011

  66. Poor Timmy fails his constitution… again.

    There is nothing in the constitution to support SSM. DOMA is constitutional, and when defended with actual arugments has stood up in court. That you don’t like it means absolutely nothing.

    Now I understand you aren’t used to talking with adults, since your preferred dating group is still in High School.

    If the congress wants to relax the restructions on which personal contracts they recognize, that is their authority.

    Who knows… Maybe you’ll even be able to marry your boyfriend before he graduates.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 26, 2011 @ 1:08 pm - June 26, 2011

  67. Congrats guys. I am happy for you. freedom means freedom for everyone, and I don’t need to like or accept your lifestyle to defend your right to live it as you see fit.

    Comment by john aita — June 26, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - June 26, 2011

  68. I’m running away because I can’t pop off with my absurdities unchallenged. Waaaah!

    Comment by Timmeh — June 26, 2011 @ 1:48 pm - June 26, 2011

  69. “Congrats guys. I am happy for you. freedom means freedom for everyone, and I don’t need to like or accept your lifestyle to defend your right to live it as you see fit.”

    So, John Aita, you support Kody Brown’s right to live his life as he sees fit, all in the name of “freedom for everyone”, right?

    Comment by Seana-Anna — June 27, 2011 @ 1:10 am - June 27, 2011

  70. Actually, Seana-Anna, reading the wikipedia* entry on Kody Brown, as long as his ‘wives’* aren’t taking welfare or medicaid***, I don’t see the issue. The government has recognized his one marriage, and he’s not claimed the others in a legal sense.

    Reading the legal section, in Ohio they’d not have a case, since Ohio doesn’t recognize common law marriages. I’d also add that they have suffered reprecussions of their actions, done by private citizens and organizations, as they should be allowed to.

    *Yes yes, relying on Wikipedia as a primary sourse is like asking tim for dating tips.
    **I put ‘wives’ in quotes since they aren’t legally wives. But then again, Donna and I weren’t married in the eyes of the law either.
    ***This is the libertarian part of me. If he can’t support the family he’s created, he shouldn’t turn to us to support him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 27, 2011 @ 9:21 am - June 27, 2011

  71. Seane-Anna, if you are so concerned with the door being opened to the horrors of plural marriage, you should have been campaigning to abolish opposite-sex marriage long ago.

    Oh hardly.

    You see, Richard R, before you and your fellow impatient little Obamabots came along, no one seriously believed that it was an imposition or unconstitutional to restrict marriage to just one adult male and female.

    Now, though, since you and your fellow perverts have demanded that you be allowed to marry to whatever you are sexually attracted, you’ve pretty much kicked away and destroyed the legal underpinnings for preventing plural, incestuous, bestial, child, and all these other forms of marriage.

    Again, no one is surprised; as the AIDS epidemic showed, gays like you aren’t capable of thinking through the consequences of your actions, and are more than willing to lie for your own pleasure, even if doing so results in another person getting sickened and infected.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2011 @ 3:44 pm - June 27, 2011

  72. Watching the “Pride” parade after the vote, with the men in the streets wearing nothing but tank tops and jockey straps, and a guy wearing a circus-large rubber dildo on his head, makes me think that these representatives of the gay community are the real reason conservatives find homosexuality distasteful.
    Are there any highly visible equality movements that DON’T have these asshats out making noise and being offensive?

    Comment by JCS — June 28, 2011 @ 5:49 am - June 28, 2011

  73. A lot of the push for same-sex marriage was the belief among gays that they require state approval to legitimize their relationships. This is, of course, wrong. Relationships are legitimized by commitment and fidelity, not by a bureaucrat’s signature on a form.

    Comment by V the K — June 28, 2011 @ 10:35 am - June 28, 2011

  74. A lot of the push for same-sex marriage was the belief among gays that they require state approval to legitimize their relationships. This is, of course, wrong. Relationships are legitimized by commitment and fidelity, not by a bureaucrat’s signature on a form.

    Bingo. Or to put it another way, “If you can’t be faithful, what makes you think a piece of paper will enforce it?”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2011 @ 11:31 am - June 28, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.