Same-sex marriage approved by the state of New York.

From another Republican legislator that had previously voted against Gay Marriage:

[rquoter]Sen. Stephen Saland, 67, voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement. On Friday night, gay marriage supporters wept in the Senate gallery as Saland explained how his strong, traditionally family upbringing led him to embrace legalizing gay marriage.

"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality." [/rquoter]

 

It's good this was done democratically rather than by judicial decree.

The sanctimony of gay marriage proponents is insufferable, it's even worse than hybrid owners. There are all kinds of restrictions on marriage. You can marry an 18 year old but not a 17 year old, you can marry 2nd cousins but not 1st cousins, you can marry one person but not two.

Matrimony should not entitle anyone, gay or straight, to special benefits or classification. The state needs to get out of the marriage business entirely.

 

If you think that the state needs to get out of the marriage business then you should be for Gay marriage as that is removing one of the classifications that the state has put in the marriage business.

 

I'm advocating that matrimony be eliminated as a privileged state classification, not that the definition be expanded.

 

And personally I agree with you but this is a process and in terms of removing a legal impediment to prevent consenting adults from marrying this is a good step.

Watch the first half of this video to understand why this is an important issue not just for gays but for us as a society. It is a first term Republican state legislator and wounded Iraq War veteran explaining why he will not vote for the Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage. That it isn't the America that he fought for.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Kc4CTsws24o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Also if you are going to think criticize sanctimony what about those who are against Gay marriage invoking "God" to justify their position?

 

That's just it, there is no legal impediment preventing gays from marrying. Gays can get married by any church that wants to recognize them, that's not illegal.

This is all about state recognition.

State recognition of marriage is discriminatory by definition. The fact that one person's definition is slightly less discriminatory doesn't justify their moral superiority.

 

Not my body = not my business.

Good for NY.

 

Next up . . . .Polygamy!
I should be able to marry as many folx as I want too!!


Master P . . told ya. . . NO LIMIT, BABY!!


Rocket River

 

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mZaCiP2_2RM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mZaCiP2_2RM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

It's interesting how one segment of our population looks at marriage as being so very important, while another segment of our population views marriage as nothing more than a piece of paper. And yes, I do realize that the right for gays to get married is about more than just the institution of marriage.

 

Great news.

Equal right for all. Hard to believe it's taken some people this long to realize how simple this concept really is.

And for those against it -- hug your Bible (that you haven't read thoroughly anyway) and get used to it.

 

cool.

 

Don't front. We all know you're disgusted.

 

I know I am ,but really couldn't care less either way.

 

i agree with your first point; as to the last, here's a well reasoned argument from a conservative lesbian as to why it's a federal issue. i need to think about it a bit before i'm sure i agree, but it's thought-provoking:

The reason that government must define marriage in a religiously pluralistic society is that secular legal marriage protects the individual’s liberty to change religions or be free of religion and still marry–and divorce. (I think I’m the first person to point out the value of government-defined secular marriage in preserving individual liberty and religious freedom.) Governments, which are the realm of coercion, can only provide for individual liberty when they restrict religions to the realm of persuasion. All the arguments against equality for gays are founded in religion and religions must not be allowed to appropriate the coercive powers of government to impose their rules on an entire population.​

 

Sure and to the point that the state is recognizing a wider range of marriage is a movement towards greater individual freedom. My own opinion is that everyone should have civil unions as far as the state is concerned but since both sides are so adamant on state recognition of "marriage" then this is a positive.

And yet you ignore the sanctimony of the side that says that God is the moral justification for their position.

 

Agreed.
Government should stay out of the Marriage business. . . PERIOD

Rocket River

I am kind of missing it.
If the government is completely out of the marriage business .
I don't see how it is infringing on the religious rights of anyone.

If homosexual gets married in Church A
Decides to goto Church B . . . but Church B does not recognize homosexual marriage.
Then . .you want the government to force Church B to recognize the homosexual marriage though it does not abide by their tenants?
So . . the Religious freedom of every one in Church B is subordinate to the Homosexual couple that wants to join the church . . . knowing that the church does not recognize homosexual marriage.

Am I following this right?

Rocket River

 

Put considerably more simply, as Al Sharpton did in a Democratic party primary debate, it's a federal rights issue because civil rights issues ought never to be left up to the states; if they had we might still not have meaningful protections for women and blacks in every state in the union. Whether particular civil rights are popular or not (especially regionally), the federal government has not just the right but the responsibility to ensure protections and equality; in fact they have this responsibility especially when those protections are unpopular.

Although Obama has accomplished far more for gay rights than any president in history (not hard to do since every prior prez has been god-awful on gay rights) he gets an F- from me on the marriage/equality issue. It won't affect my vote in any way since the opposition party is the official party of homophobes (check the official platform), but it is disheartening none the less.

I hope he will amend his position to the good in time for the 2012 election.

 

I support gay marriage.

I don't support the follow-up ADVOCACY and AWARENESS programs that we KNOW is gonna happen to get everyone "on board" and the constant shoving it down people's throats.

I don't support having the restructure all of society to appease the fringe. Solidify the culture we do have, then implement INTO that.

Get married and leave me the hell alone already, is how I see it.

Thats the other thing.

Liberty For All is being defined as Lack of Restraint For All. Mutually Agreed Upon Apathy For All.

Then when you "break down a barrier", its promoted as PROGRESS into a New World!