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. 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

  2. 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

  3. “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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. “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

  10. […] 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

  11. “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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. “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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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.