The Gay Empire State

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good for New York state.

If there was a referendum to overturn this, would it succeed?  

It's safe. New York will have no Prop. 8.
California will probably repeal Prop. 8 next year.

New York will have it own prop 8 and Cali's will stand. When its voted on by the people directly, gay marriage loses. So no it's far from safe.

Dude...I think you think everybody thinks like you think.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He also doesn't know the process of getting a referendum on the ballot in New York. Thus, ignore.

Sorry, I'm new-ish. Is he always like this or are there issues he's more sensible on?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I actually am sensible on some issues. I'm anti-war, anti-bailouts, I'm a modrate-ish on immigration, and on some environmental issues. BTRD just has this problem with my questioning Obama's eligibility to be president.

I'll freely admit that I have a problem with your position on this, because this is a major issue for me (particularly considering that one of my best friends in the whole world is a gay girl who lives in New York--Roy McDonald's district, actually), but all right, that sounds like a fairly non-insane subvariety of conservatism there. It seems a bit Old Right, which is very far from where I stand but at least doesn't completely make me want to throw up. All things considered it's just a shame that we're living in a political climate where things like the President's eligibility to be President (which, I'll be totally honest with you, I do think your alleged position on is at least somewhat crankish) are actually 'issues' at all, at least in the public mind.

Um, stop trolling.

Do gay people not have families or something? I'm sure that'll be rather disappointing news to several people I'm very close to.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am mostly of the Old Right. The fact that government got involved in marriage at all back in the 1800's was ludicrous. Most of those laws denied marriage rights to inter-racial coulples and I would've opposed the denial of the right of inter-racial couples to marry. If it were a case of gays being denied access to certain jobs (religious and military excluded ) I'd be with you guys on that. But to give marital rights to gays goes against everything I believe as both an Old Right conservative and as a Christian.

Eh, makes sense. I'm a Christian as well, but I'd wager of a vastly different type. Agreed with you that government involvement in marriage has major flaws, but I'm far from sure that completely abolishing such involvement and (re?)privatising the institution is the best solution to that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hence placing that role back to the states and keep the federal government out of it. As legislation that Ron Paul has proposed would do. Keep it to the states. If I may ask of the type of Christianity you proport yourself as part of?

That's a fair enough position, though if I'm thinking of the same Ron Paul legislation that you are, I'm a bit leery of jurisdiction-stripping in general.

I'm Episcopalian. I'm in a fairly liberal parish in a fairly liberal diocese, and by the standards of my parish I'm actually on the staid and conservative side of things. I like it a lot, though.

It's the ones that ordain gay ministers that sadly must be thrown under that bus. Not the fundies. Can the left just admit that the fundies are right on this one.

...No, because you're not?