The Gay Empire State

[Brittain33]

Many of the most vocal gay rights activists truly aren't interested in religious freedom, but forcing their secular humanist pseudo-religion down the throats of the rest of us, though.

Do you mean this ridiculous statement, or is this one of those times where someone accused one your allies of acting dishonestly so you have to throw out a mirror accusation whether or not it makes any sense? I don't want to waste your time if this is just a ritual thing.

[The Professor]

Why doesn't this Cuomo guy promise the Republicans a good map in exchange for gay marriage. Then, after gay marriage passes and when the Republicans draw a map, Cuomo vetoes it sending it to the courts and screwing the Republicans over?

[Holmes]

Well, Cuomo still has at least another year and a half with a Republican majority in the state senate, so I don't think he'd shoot himself in the foot by doing that.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Does it also violate religious freedom to require adoption services to place infants with couples that consist of a widow and her new husband who is not her dead first husband's brother, in violation of Deuteronomy 25:5?

There are tons of public legal arrangements that are inconsistent with Biblical descriptions of how those legal arrangements ought to be. The Old Testament contains extensive prescriptions for inheritance, repayment of debts, and criminal justice that are different from the contemporary laws of the United States. It's not a violation of religious freedom to require public officials - or private agencies voluntarily performing a regulated public function - to abide by those laws. That's totally ridiculous, and it's never been the standard understanding of religious freedom even long before the rise of post-1960's social liberalism.

[Paul Kemp]

Why doesn't this Cuomo guy promise the Republicans a good map in exchange for gay marriage. Then, after gay marriage passes and when the Republicans draw a map, Cuomo vetoes it sending it to the courts and screwing the Republicans over?

Yea that would really allow him to get things done in the future . . .

[Marokai Backbeat]

You've opened a can of worms with that argument, Cinyc, basically allowing anyone to use that excuse for literally anything.

I have a question, and this isn't meant as an argument or a response, just a question on whether or not this jives with you as well. Presume any sort of religious adoption service is owned by individuals who have a deeply held moral conviction that black parents are unable to provide a stable and nurturing home life. Do you think it's perfectly acceptable for that adoption service to be able to refuse their services to couples who are black, specifically for that reason? Or for a dressmaker to refuse to make a dress for a black woman who intends to marry a white man, purely because that dressmaker has a deeply held belief that two races shouldn't be able to mix in marriage?

Again, this isn't an argument, this is a question posed to know where you stand. I'm genuinely curious.

[Brittain33]

Catholic charities was require not to discriminated because they took tax money.

My tax money.

Do I need to spell out the issues there and how it relates to religious freedom?

What if I'm a Baptist? Should I be required to subsidize another faith and its beliefs, as you argue?

[Brittain33]

You're presuming the point about the K of C and dressmaker. I state that they would not be required to accept same-sex marrieds as clients, and this law wouldn't change that. You're making assumptions that aren't borne out by law.

I've planned a gay marriage in Massachusetts and had vendors refuse us. They did it by quoting ridiculous prices or just being rude. It's absurd to think anyone who wants to get married, wants to force a vendor who doesn't like them and won't provide good service to work for them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is this new pseudo-religion of why cinyc speaks? Most of the atheism-with-added-megaphones brigade don't especially like multiculturalism (however defined) and more than just a few have made arguments on the subject that are somewhat noisome (and ones that you might approve of, naturally). If you're going to throw a tantrum, then maybe try to get your facts straight (pun intended!) first?

Sneering aside, debates like this are so depressing. I'm sure that it must be possible to articulate the case against this sort of thing without heading off the deep end. If right-wingers can discuss social policy or the economy every bit as rationally as liberals or left-wingers, then why not on issues of this sort? In this case I would disagree with the conclusion, but...

[Brittain33]

Sounds like you have a serious problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Heart of Atlanta.

New Mexico does not have legal same-sex marriage, so that undercuts your argument that this law changes things, no?

[Smash255]

cinyc, a thought experiment. Does a law permitting women to walk on public streets with their lower arms or legs uncovered infringe on the religious liberty of orthodox Jews who feel that this is immodest?

I want you to keep that in mind when you think about how same-sex marriage affects other people's religious freedom. It's one thing to talk about not requiring a Catholic church to marry a same-sex couple, which, as I always point out when this comes up, is equivalent to the right Catholic priests enjoy now not to be compelled to marry people who aren't Catholic. It's another if your affinity for conservatism means you define religious freedom on this issue as the right for some people to wish I didn't exist and didn't have equal rights to function in the U.S., and as a compromise they have a right to never see me or deal with me and pretend that this is central element of their religion and I have to bend my life to respect that. Sorry, no deal. That's not religious freedom. Religious freedom governs religion and how it intersects with the government, and no extreme case mentioned has anything to do with gay marriage.

Sorry.  No deal.  People have an absolute right to believe that homosexuality is immoral and ought not exist.  Once you talk about forcing people to accept homosexual behavior by accommodating homosexuals in any way whatsoever without regard to their deeply held religious beliefs, you are effectively stating that the new pseudo-religion of secular humanist multiculturalism - i.e. all cultures and beliefs are equal, as long as you're not a white heterosexual Christian male, then you and your beliefs are worth nothing - trumps all others in the public sphere.   

Why should those with deeply held religious beliefs have to bend THEIR lives to accommodate you?  What makes you so special to deserve special treatment, forcing other people to do things for you against their will?

Massachusetts is dead wrong to force Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay parents.  Any state that requires the Knights of Columbus to rent a hall to a gay wedding reception or a dressmaker to make a lesbian's wedding dress is essentially enforcing involuntary servitude against those who deeply believe homosexuality is immoral.  But since, as you've implied here, the belief that your lifestyle is immoral simply shouldn't be allowed, so we should all bend over backwards to accommodate you, right?

First of all no one is talking about "Special Treatment", its about EQUAL Treatment.

No one is being forced to bend their lives to accomidate others.  the only ones who are having to do that are those who are currently getting discriminated against because some people want their own personal religious views to be the law.   The bill presented btw by Cuomo already gives the Knights of Columbus and other such groups the right not to rent out their hall.

[Lunar]

Re: Knights of Columbus, are they currently required under state law (I know they aren't under federal law) to rent out for a gay commitment ceremony? If not, how would legalizing gay marriage change that.

It certainly appears that the demands by conservatives are either vacuous or intending to roll back gay rights in areas unrelated to marriage. In no case are they mitigating a change enacted by this law.

I have it on good authority that the opinion of the NYS LGBT community on this issue specifically is: What kind of self-respecting gay man would want to get married in the Knights of Columbus hall?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I should know better than to post anything other than supporting gay rights on this website.

Get off the cross, the wood is needed.

[Smash255]

What is this new pseudo-religion of why cinyc speaks? Most of the atheism-with-added-megaphones brigade don't especially like multiculturalism (however defined) and more than just a few have made arguments on the subject that are somewhat noisome (and ones that you might approve of, naturally). If you're going to throw a tantrum, then maybe try to get your facts straight (pun intended!) first?

Sneering aside, debates like this are so depressing. I'm sure that it must be possible to articulate the case against this sort of thing without heading off the deep end. If right-wingers can discuss social policy or the economy every bit as rationally as liberals or left-wingers, then why not on issues of this sort? In this case I would disagree with the conclusion, but...

I give up.  I have deleted all of my recent posts in this thread and will not be commenting further, as I am clearly wrong and gay rights activists are always right.

I should know better than to post anything other than supporting gay rights on this website.

When you go on a rant about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, well you are going to have issues.....

[Marokai Backbeat]

Have I missed Cinyc's posts? I was eagerly looking to see his response to me, too. I guess this is my reward for stepping away from the computer for a short while.

[Holmes]

Have I missed Cinyc's posts? I was eagerly looking to see his response to me, too. I guess this is my reward for stepping away from the computer for a short while.

Just the typical victimization, wasn't worth much of a read.

[patrick1]

Re: Knights of Columbus, are they currently required under state law (I know they aren't under federal law) to rent out for a gay commitment ceremony? If not, how would legalizing gay marriage change that.

It certainly appears that the demands by conservatives are either vacuous or intending to roll back gay rights in areas unrelated to marriage. In no case are they mitigating a change enacted by this law.

I have it on good authority that the opinion of the NYS LGBT community on this issue specifically is: What kind of self-respecting gay man would want to get married in the Knights of Columbus hall?

Seriously, how gauche....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bizarre. I explicitly stated that it ought to be possible to make a coherent argument against gay marriage (rather than angry rants that make no particular sense and which rail against non-existent forces) and that it's a shame that they aren't made; even if I would disagree. Not that only arguments in favour are acceptable.

Guess that some people like being the victim.

[Linus Van Pelt]

By the way, Brittain33: irrespective of marriage law, it's already illegal in both NY (link) and MA (link) for a business to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation.

[afleitch]

I've always found it curious that in debates on gay right or gay marriage, opponents tend to veer off into tangeants or are more concerned about the rights of others over the rights of gays in an attempt to make the issue about everything but gays. It's always interesting to watch.

[Badger]

What is this new pseudo-religion of why cinyc speaks? Most of the atheism-with-added-megaphones brigade don't especially like multiculturalism (however defined) and more than just a few have made arguments on the subject that are somewhat noisome (and ones that you might approve of, naturally). If you're going to throw a tantrum, then maybe try to get your facts straight (pun intended!) first?

Sneering aside, debates like this are so depressing. I'm sure that it must be possible to articulate the case against this sort of thing without heading off the deep end. If right-wingers can discuss social policy or the economy every bit as rationally as liberals or left-wingers, then why not on issues of this sort? In this case I would disagree with the conclusion, but...

I give up.  I have deleted all of my recent posts in this thread and will not be commenting further, as I am clearly wrong and gay rights activists are always right.

I should know better than to post anything other than supporting gay rights on this website.

When you go on a rant about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, well you are going to have issues.....

LOL @ Cinyc's arguments being chased from the thread for being so utterly unsupportable and ludicrous.

Y'know, when even a somewhat reasonable guy like him can't come up with a coherent argument against gay marriage, that speaks volumes about how little one can justify opposition to extending civil rights. It literally involves either adopting Levitican law as state statute, or relying on out and out mistruths like "Churches will be forced to marry gay couples or rent their facilities for gay weddings" to give just enough of a fig leaf for people to justify a homophobic vote like 2009 Maine.

[Eraserhead]

I'm starting to feel a little better about actually voting for Cuomo.

[Mopsus]

What is this new pseudo-religion of why cinyc speaks? Most of the atheism-with-added-megaphones brigade don't especially like multiculturalism (however defined) and more than just a few have made arguments on the subject that are somewhat noisome (and ones that you might approve of, naturally). If you're going to throw a tantrum, then maybe try to get your facts straight (pun intended!) first?

Sneering aside, debates like this are so depressing. I'm sure that it must be possible to articulate the case against this sort of thing without heading off the deep end. If right-wingers can discuss social policy or the economy every bit as rationally as liberals or left-wingers, then why not on issues of this sort? In this case I would disagree with the conclusion, but...

I give up.  I have deleted all of my recent posts in this thread and will not be commenting further, as I am clearly wrong and gay rights activists are always right.

I should know better than to post anything other than supporting gay rights on this website.

When you go on a rant about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, well you are going to have issues.....

LOL @ Cinyc's arguments being chased from the thread for being so utterly unsupportable and ludicrous.

Y'know, when even a somewhat reasonable guy like him can't come up with a coherent argument against gay marriage, that speaks volumes about how little one can justify opposition to extending civil rights. It literally involves either adopting Levitican law as state statute, or relying on out and out mistruths like "Churches will be forced to marry gay couples or rent their facilities for gay weddings" to give just enough of a fig leaf for people to justify a homophobic vote like 2009 Maine.

My parents tend to use the slippery slope argument, that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry today, polygamy will be legal tomorrow, and then bestiality will be legal the day after that. They also use the argument that homosexuality is a degenerate lifestyle which caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, and as such should not be tolerated (in fact, they believe homosexuality should be criminalized).

[Holmes]

How lovely. They're quite ridiculous though, as anything can be used as a "slippery slope" argument. If a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry two? What about three? Where does it end?

[Cincinnatus]

Is this new? Grisanti is now undecided. Sounds more like a "no, but if I think about it without religion it's yes". I guess it'll depend on how he feels during the vote.

Buffalo News thinks he'll vote in favor, and they're a fairly liberal paper.

He did say this earlier this year though;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's up with that guy in Buffalo who is as doomed next election as Cao was? If he's going to try he could make an appeal to Moderate Hero-esque Democrats. If he votes against it he'll just be seen as a typical Republican.

There appear to be a lot of blacks in that district. Doubt he's looking for the white latte liberal vote.

There are a few, yes.  They're not exactly a huge factor in the polls because of turnout though.  In fact, turnout is fairly low for just about everything in the area lately