|
New York State joins the modern world |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | ||||
brihard 
Platinum Member 
Strike 1 - Making stuff up Joined: 05 September 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 10155 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: New York State joins the modern worldPosted: 24 June 2011 at 11:45pm |
|||
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/06/24/new-york-gay-marriage-senate.html
TL;DR, Adam and Steve no longer oppressed in New York State.
|
||||
|
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
||||
 |
||||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group 
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 12:54am |
|||
 From the Fark headline, New York has now caught up to the equality level of Iowa. By the way, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, Philip Spooner's, a WW2 veteran and father of a gay son, speech in Maine about equality:
|
||||
|
||||
|
Reb Cpl
Moderator Group
Has to say "yes" to "are you a cop?" Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 14210 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 9:17am |
|||
|
With the provisions in place for religious organizations being fully allowed to deny services as they see fit depending on their beliefs.
Since the institution of Gay marriage will effect me not even in the least- I don't care too much about that. What I'm concerned with is NY government having another steroid shot. They've now figured out that they can redefine a primarily religious based institution. I agree with the 'slippery slope' argument- Not so much in the FE sense where I'm afraid that people will clamor for the right to marry pets, children and houseplants- but more along the lines of State governments being able to exhibit all kinds of powers over things that they might not have any say in- until someone plays the equality card. NY will take that and run with it. Albany is that arrogant. I swear to you, that they're not looking at this as a victory for the homosexual community, but a victory for the NYS Government, a stepping stone to....well, who knows what next! |
||||
|
?
|
||||
|
||||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 10:30am |
|||
|
I typed a bunch of this out on your FB, sorry about the duplication 
The only exception is churches that take Federal funding. Those churches will have to abide by discrimination laws and rent to qualified gay couples wishing to rent. But, I'd suspect those churches already know this, as they've already been notified of discrimination laws.
While marriage sort of seems like a religious based institution, it's a result of casual colloquiums in the language. Marriage, in the U.S., is a completely government-based and government-controlled legally binding institution. It is, completely, a legally binding contract between two people, recognized by the state. Example: I go and marry my ol' lady, and to do so we go down to the courthouse, get the papers, sign the papers, and have them notarized at the bank, and turn them back in. We never go to a church, we never have a pastor or priest read us vows. We never make a toast or eat a cake. I am, in the eyes of the state, just as "married" as someone who has a large ceremony in a church and follows strict religious guidelines. Now, in the inverse, if someone was to have the large ceremony in a church, overseen by a pastor, following all of the religious rules in place - BUT - they never go and get a marriage license form and complete it. They are, in the eyes of the state, not married. What the HRC, and other gay rights movements, are working for is legal recognition of homosexual marriage. The religious frankly doesn't matter. Which leads to. . .
With "marriage" being nothing more than a state-recognized legally binding contract, the state is well within its right to mandate equality of distribution of the contract. In fact, they are really the only ones who should have any say in it - not religions and churches - as the state is the one with the power to actually grant legal marriage and the benefits that come with it: Things like tax benefits, power of attorney rights, hospital visitation, purposes of insurance, etc. The church doesn't have the ability to tell anyone that they now have added tax benefits because they are married.
This part I can see for sure. There is no point, to me at least, to sit back and pat themselves on the back for doing something they should have been doing to start with. They even got beat to this level of civil right by Iowa. Edited by agentwhale007 - 25 June 2011 at 10:31am |
||||
|
||||
|
brihard
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Making stuff up Joined: 05 September 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 10155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 10:43am |
|||
|
Ridiculous premise, Whale. Who the hell would get married without cake?
|
||||
|
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
||||
|
||||
|
Reb Cpl
Moderator Group
Has to say "yes" to "are you a cop?" Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 14210 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 1:10pm |
|||
|
I think I'm just annoyed at how NY reaches conclusions, not the results themselves.
|
||||
|
?
|
||||
|
||||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 1:28pm |
|||
I can understand this, but I'm pleased with NY's move on this, to make it legislative instead of court-based like Iowa. It's a more-sound political approach to an issue like this. Also, I looked over at FreeRepublic's reaction to the ruling, and most every post is honestly so grotesque I cannot find one to even post on this forum. Everything from threats of violence and derogatorily slurs, to calls for the apocalypse and insinuations of child rape. Good Lord. |
||||
|
||||
|
GroupB
Gold Member 
Joined: 05 September 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1255 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 1:40pm |
|||
|
"The idiots didn’t legalize homosexual marriage, they’re laying the groundwork to persecute those that don’t support it!"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dune
Platinum Member
<placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 1:46pm |
|||
I read the article on yahoo and looked at the comments below. I don't know why I do it, I always end up getting mad at how ignorant people can be when they can type out their true feelings. Apparently I like to read all controversial articles on major news sites then read the comments to make myself angry. Anyways, I called a good friend of mine last night because she is gay and lives in NY. She is very serious with her girlfriend and now this gives them the same opportunity that my wife and I had. Not just perpetual dating.
|
||||
|
||||
|
scotchyscotch
Moderator Group
Truly a shining example to you all. Joined: 09 October 2006 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 1989 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 2:03pm |
|||
It annoys me that the most common response is the religious halfwit one. Like whale has said the real change is strictly legal and beaureucratic. I do think that churches and the like should be able to refuse to marry same sex couples as religion in practise is living your life accordinng to the core beliefs of the religion. If gay is not ok in the religion then fair play, tell the evil **edited**s to sling their hook. If however the couple are not religious and they take the civil ceremony with no jiggery pokery then the religous have nothing to say on the matter. If a catholic told me i couldn't eat mah friday night steak i'd tell him to piss off. The same goes for the poofs wanting to get hitched. |
||||
|
||||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 2:21pm |
|||
|
I think, given the vote last night, that it's now more acceptable in New York to be gay than a Mets fan.
Edited by agentwhale007 - 25 June 2011 at 2:24pm |
||||
|
||||
|
*Stealth*
Platinum Member
Watermarked Joined: 31 October 2002 Location: Ethiopia Status: Offline Points: 10717 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 June 2011 at 2:27pm |
|||
|
God damn it if Scotchy isn't a modern day word smith.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
impulse418
Moderator Group
off the hook four days early <3 <3 <3 Joined: 25 November 2010 Location: Phx, AZ Status: Offline Points: 3364 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 4:10am |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
rednekk98
Moderator Group
Dead man... Joined: 02 July 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 4:39am |
|||
|
Whale covered it very well IMO. If marriage is a religious institution only the state has no business issuing licenses or tax breaks, or setting age guidelines or limits against polygamy or bigamy. Also, athiests should not be allowed to marry because it's religious only. Then again, people who take that view tend to think Christianity (specifically their sect or interpretation) is the only legitimate religion, and therefore any non-Christian marriages are invalid. Last I knew this country is not a Protestant religious theocracy. Those people would gladly deny these and other rights to other religions or atheists, like being able to testify in court, and probably to vote.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Reb Cpl
Moderator Group
Has to say "yes" to "are you a cop?" Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 14210 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 8:26am |
|||
|
I see the point that Whale's made, and I've conceded it. The idea that marriage is a religious institution is a bit dated isn't it?
I still have an issue with NY itself, NOT their recent decision. |
||||
|
?
|
||||
|
||||
|
oldsoldier
Moderator Group
Crazy old guy Joined: 10 June 2002 Status: Offline Points: 6725 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 10:13am |
|||
|
OK, when does Utah and the rest of the Nation pass legal poligamy statutes for multiple partner marriage, since that group of consenting adults seem to have had thier Civil Rights oppressed by backward laws.
Seems the Mormans are oppressed by the same type of obsolete pre 21st Century marriage laws that oppressed the gay community. Oh, and we can not exclude the Muslim tradition of multiple wives, its legal in some of thier home countries, we can not discriminate based again on old pre 21st Century American Law can we. Pandora's Box once opened tends to reign out of control, nature of the beast. I kinda like the multiple wife thing, marrying and then divorcing, and repeating, tends to get old. Modern concept of marriage, all should be fair, and if it feels good ...DO IT....Legally, the he** with any old traditions and laws. Edited by oldsoldier - 26 June 2011 at 10:20am |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
agentwhale007
Moderator Group
Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 12:17pm |
|||
This, too. I totally agree with you. (And I don't want it to seem like I was attacking you or anything). I'm not a New Yorker, but like I said, I'd be frustrated to see legislators in one of the bluest states in the country pat themselves on the back and celebrate for passing a basic civil right that should have been done years ago. Meanwhile there are piles of budget issues, taxation issues, etc.
It's like someone celebrating making a child support payment when the other bills are piled up. Cool, dude. You did what you should have done to start with. Now get to work.
I tend to agree. I don't see the reason for outlawing it other than remaining anti-Mormon bias from the 1800s. Well, that and the LDS church has sort of abandoned the whole polygamy thing in the mid 1900s after they realized others look down on them for it. As long as all involved are consenting and of legal age, polygamy should be legal. Edited by agentwhale007 - 26 June 2011 at 12:18pm |
||||
|
||||
|
Rofl_Mao
Platinum Member
request denied Joined: 27 October 2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3210 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 12:33pm |
|||
|
Ever see that show sister wives? Freakin weird.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Kayback
Moderator Group
Ask me about my Kokido Joined: 25 July 2002 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 4183 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 2:40pm |
|||
I think you just outed yourself as someone who has never actually been married. KBK |
||||
|
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
||||
|
||||
|
oldsoldier
Moderator Group
Crazy old guy Joined: 10 June 2002 Status: Offline Points: 6725 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 June 2011 at 5:07pm |
|||
|
Never married?....3 ex-wifes, 2 ex-rent to own live in girlfriends, and a current wife (with one step kid left at home). Oh I've been married, believe me.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Philip Spooner wrote: