New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages

[BushKenya]

In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.

I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this.  I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage.

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

[bullmoose88]

In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.

I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this.  I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage.

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

What did same sex marriage ever do to you?

But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone.

[BushKenya]

In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.

I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this.  I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage.

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

What did same sex marriage ever do to you?

But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone.

It just goes against everything I believe.

Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean?  To be honest, I take it as an insult.

[Meeker]

You can't live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage? Seems a little extreme. And bigoted.

[Meeker]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places. And if that's the type of place that you can't live in, then there's a whole lot more than just those three places you can cross off the list.

[memphis]

I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion given the full faith and credit clause. I get the feelings that the pro equal marriage people don't  want to press this point b/c it would certainly increase support for an amendment to the US constitution. Still, it seems inevitable that sooner or later somebody is going to challenge this.

[Snowguy716]

In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.

I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this.  I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage.

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

What did same sex marriage ever do to you?

But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone.

It just goes against everything I believe.

Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean?

It's okay.  I think evangelical Christians are less human than the rest of us.  They're just weakminded sheep looking for a shepherd.  They just go against everything I believe.  In fact, I think the government should discourage evangelical Christianity through passive discrimination... no Evangelicals in the military.. they might offend the other "normal" people and try to spread their undesirable religion.. and two Evangelical Christians should not be able to get married... it's just wrong.  I mean, I have no good reason other than I just believe it is unnatural.

Of course everything I just said is ludicrous... but I see it as no different than opposing gay marriage.  

Like Ellen said.. gay marriage is like womens' and civil rights.  It's the same fight every time.  And the conservatives opposed to gay marriage will say "it's not at all like civil rights or womens' rights"... just like the conservatives opposed to civil rights said "it's nothing like womens' rights"... and the process goes on and on and on.


You know what goes against everything I believe in?

Watching people suffer from the totally unnecessary hate rooted in the "beliefs" of people like you.

[Sam Spade]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

[Boris]

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

So what country would you move to if every state were to legalize gay marriage?

[Smash255]

Good job Patterson

[Sam Spade]

I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion given the full faith and credit clause. I get the feelings that the pro equal marriage people don't  want to press this point b/c it would certainly increase support for an amendment to the US constitution. Still, it seems inevitable that sooner or later somebody is going to challenge this.

I suspect the full faith and credit clause argument is a dead argument based on precedent.  Equal protection always struck me as the stronger route - through sex discrimination.

[Meeker]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp

I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though

[A18]

I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion given the full faith and credit clause. I get the feelings that the pro equal marriage people don't  want to press this point b/c it would certainly increase support for an amendment to the US constitution. Still, it seems inevitable that sooner or later somebody is going to challenge this.

It isn't clear what form of recognition you have in mind. It is utterly clear, however, that neither the original meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, nor modern Supreme Court precedent, provides any basis for thinking that a traditional-marriage state would have to generally recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

[Sam Spade]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp

I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though

Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage.  As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman.  And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge.

I personally don't think its the smart move.  Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all.  This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters.

[BushKenya]

In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.

I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this.  I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage.

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

What did same sex marriage ever do to you?

But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone.

It just goes against everything I believe.

Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean?

It's okay.  I think evangelical Christians are less human than the rest of us.  They're just weakminded sheep looking for a shepherd.  They just go against everything I believe.  In fact, I think the government should discourage evangelical Christianity through passive discrimination... no Evangelicals in the military.. they might offend the other "normal" people and try to spread their undesirable religion.. and two Evangelical Christians should not be able to get married... it's just wrong.  I mean, I have no good reason other than I just believe it is unnatural.

Of course everything I just said is ludicrous... but I see it as no different than opposing gay marriage.  

Like Ellen said.. gay marriage is like womens' and civil rights.  It's the same fight every time.  And the conservatives opposed to gay marriage will say "it's not at all like civil rights or womens' rights"... just like the conservatives opposed to civil rights said "it's nothing like womens' rights"... and the process goes on and on and on.


You know what goes against everything I believe in?

Watching people suffer from the totally unnecessary hate rooted in the "beliefs" of people like you.

I have never expressed "hatred" for gays and lesbians.  I've got two friends who are gay.  I just won't throw the Bible out the window and support gay marriage.  I believe so strongly in the Bible that I cannot support gay marriage.  Marriage is an institution designed by God for a man and a woman.  I cannot in good conscience support a measure that goes against that.  I totally understand there are people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in that part of the Bible.  That's fine.  If my gay friends wanted to marry someone of their own gender, then I would walk to the civil union table with them, but I cannot and will not walk with them to the marriage ceremony.  It doesn't mean I don't love them, I just love my God more.

By the way, the remark about not being able to live in those three states was a sarcastic statement.  I apologize for it being taken the wrong way.

I'm sorry if you think all Southern Baptist Christians are "bigoted".  To be honest, I'd rather be called a "bigot" then to be called a "Bible compromiser".

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

BO, it's no different here than it was a week ago. Except it's not as hot. California really isn't a bad place.

On a more serious note, I understand where you're coming from. But I don''t agree. If you don't believe it's consistent with the Bible, don't marry gays. But other people should be allowed to do what they want. They can be acountable for it after they die.

That's how I feel.

[Meeker]

In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.

I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this.  I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage.

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

What did same sex marriage ever do to you?

But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone.

It just goes against everything I believe.

Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean?

It's okay.  I think evangelical Christians are less human than the rest of us.  They're just weakminded sheep looking for a shepherd.  They just go against everything I believe.  In fact, I think the government should discourage evangelical Christianity through passive discrimination... no Evangelicals in the military.. they might offend the other "normal" people and try to spread their undesirable religion.. and two Evangelical Christians should not be able to get married... it's just wrong.  I mean, I have no good reason other than I just believe it is unnatural.

Of course everything I just said is ludicrous... but I see it as no different than opposing gay marriage. 

Like Ellen said.. gay marriage is like womens' and civil rights.  It's the same fight every time.  And the conservatives opposed to gay marriage will say "it's not at all like civil rights or womens' rights"... just like the conservatives opposed to civil rights said "it's nothing like womens' rights"... and the process goes on and on and on.


You know what goes against everything I believe in?

Watching people suffer from the totally unnecessary hate rooted in the "beliefs" of people like you.

I have never expressed "hatred" for gays and lesbians.  I've got two friends who are gay.  I just won't throw the Bible out the window and support gay marriage.  I believe so strongly in the Bible that I cannot support gay marriage.  Marriage is an institution designed by God for a man and a woman.  I cannot in good conscience support a measure that goes against that.  I totally understand there are people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in that part of the Bible.  That's fine.  If my gay friends wanted to marry someone of their own gender, then I would walk to the civil union table with them, but I cannot and will not walk with them to the marriage ceremony.  It doesn't mean I don't love them, I just love my God more.

By the way, the remark about not being able to live in those three states was a sarcastic statement.  I apologize for it being taken the wrong way.

I'm sorry if you think all Southern Baptist Christians are "bigoted".  To be honest, I'd rather be called a "bigot" then to be called a "Bible compromiser".

Do you also condone selling daughters into slavery? The Bible says it's A-ok in Exodus 21:7.

[Verily]

In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.

I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this.  I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage.

This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York).

You can't ever live in Rhode Island or New Mexico as well

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I don't understand the vitriol.  If you don't consider them marriages, consider them badly-named tax breaks.  Do you normally get this offended when terminology is mis-applied because of religious disagreements?  If you were Jewish, would you oppose any government subsidy of those who raise pork commercially, because that would be government recognition of a religious sin?

That was the crappy analogy, but still, seriously.  The objection here is really just over the government calling something something, when your religion says that something isn't something?  Maybe the institution of marriage is sacred; is the word "marriage" that sacred?

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

I don't understand the vitriol.  If you don't consider them marriages, consider them badly-named tax breaks.  Do you normally get this offended when terminology is mis-applied because of religious disagreements?  If you were Jewish, would you oppose any government subsidy of those who raise pork commercially, because that would be government recognition of a religious sin?

It's banned in Israel, IIRC.

[Smash255]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp

I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though

Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage.  As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman.  And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge.

I personally don't think its the smart move.  Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all.  This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters.

The problem is in the State Sneate.  It clearly has enough votes in the assembly and passed last year 85-61.  Since then it has been stalled in the Senate where Majority leader Joe Bruno has refused to bring the bill up for a vote.

[Sam Spade]

And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places.

They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). 

And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well.

I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp

I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though

Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage.  As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman.  And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge.

I personally don't think its the smart move.  Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all.  This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters.

The problem is in the State Sneate.  It clearly has enough votes in the assembly and passed last year 85-61.  Since then it has been stalled in the Senate where Majority leader Joe Bruno has refused to bring the bill up for a vote.

85-61 passage in the assembly means that its going to need more than the Senate changing parties to pass, which is kind of my point, although Bruno is definitely holding it up.

[King]

BO, it's no different here than it was a week ago. Except it's not as hot. California really isn't a bad place.

On a more serious note, I understand where you're coming from. But I don''t agree. If you don't believe it's consistent with the Bible, don't marry gays. But other people should be allowed to do what they want. They can be acountable for it after they die.

That's how I feel.

EVERYTHING IS FINE???

Haven't you noticed all the homosexuals abducting and brutally sodomizing innocent children and livestock throughout the state in PUBLIC PARKS... AND LIBRARIES?  The Church was right! This is terrible! TERRIBLE!

[Aizen]

oh my good golly god

this madness has got to stop

the moral fiber of this country is breaking apart

[dead0man]

What did same sex marriage ever do to you?

But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone.

It just goes against everything I believe.

Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean?  To be honest, I take it as an insult.

I have never expressed "hatred" for gays and lesbians.  I've got two friends who are gay.  I just won't throw the Bible out the window and support gay marriage.  I believe so strongly in the Bible that I cannot support gay marriage.  Marriage is an institution designed by God for a man and a woman.  I cannot in good conscience support a measure that goes against that.  I totally understand there are people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in that part of the Bible.  That's fine.  If my gay friends wanted to marry someone of their own gender, then I would walk to the civil union table with them, but I cannot and will not walk with them to the marriage ceremony.  It doesn't mean I don't love them, I just love my God more.

I'm sorry if you think all Southern Baptist Christians are "bigoted".  To be honest, I'd rather be called a "bigot" then to be called a "Bible compromiser".

It's sh**t like this why I'm not a So.Baptist anymore.  One of the biggest problem the world faces and has always faced is people sticking their religion into their government.  It ain't chocolate and peanut butter it's oil and water.  It's fine if your against gay marriage, just get a better reason than "my bible tells me it's wrong" especially when even that is easily debatable.

I don't even care if gay people can get married or not, personally, I think they should be working towards civil unions.  What would be wrong with gay people having a civil union being recognized by the state and then having a ceremony where they get "married".  I don't understand why the govt is in the business of "marriage" in the first place, why should two married people have different tax obligations compared to two other random people?

But bottom line, the right in this country is way off base on this one.