New York State joins the modern world
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188614
Printed Date: 02 March 2026 at 2:48pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: New York State joins the modern world
Posted By: brihard
Subject: New York State joins the modern world
Date Posted: 24 June 2011 at 11:45pm
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/06/24/new-york-gay-marriage-senate.html - 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date 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:
|
Philip Spooner wrote:Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date 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! ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date 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. |
Posted By: brihard
Date 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. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 25 June 2011 at 1:10pm
|
I think I'm just annoyed at how NY reaches conclusions, not the results themselves.
------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date 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. |
Posted By: GroupB
Date 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!" ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dune
Date 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.
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date 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. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date 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. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 25 June 2011 at 2:27pm
|
God damn it if Scotchy isn't a modern day word smith. ------------- |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 26 June 2011 at 4:10am
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date 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. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date 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. ------------- ? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date 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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date 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. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 26 June 2011 at 12:33pm
| Ever see that show sister wives? Freakin weird. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date 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 |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date 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. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 26 June 2011 at 6:49pm
You've been punished. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 27 June 2011 at 2:39pm
A statement so obviously true, yet somehow beyond the comprehension of so many. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 June 2011 at 2:54pm
|
Yay! My Niece and her girlfriend can get married! (for real and seriously) Now, I want open carry in NY state so that I can make sure I will not be killed in a robbery at my local drug store. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 27 June 2011 at 4:30pm
|
http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-would-back-federal-amendment-to-overturn-ny-gay-marriage-51592/ - http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-would-back-federal-amendment-to-overturn-ny-gay-marriage-51592/
------------- 
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 27 June 2011 at 8:07pm
How is open carry relevant? I'm sure their are enough threads on that. Unless you plan on shooting up a gay marriage then by all means i suppose your (number)amendment rights should be protected. After all i'm British and we are actually coming to get you. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 27 June 2011 at 9:24pm
|
Actually, the gun thing raises a question. How long before there's a push (if it hasn't happened already) to extend the recognition of the civil rights granted by the passing of the gay marriage bill to states that haven't legalized it yet? Perhaps they've not legalized it, but when will there be an out cry for them to at least RECOGNIZE it on a interstate basis. (Is there a difference? From a political standpoint, I think so) If and when this happens, by extension of the same logic, will I be able to carry a firearm across state lines without anything more than a license from my home state? And no, its not different. If gay marriage proponents are championing this as a civil rights victory, the exact same logic needs to be applied to other civil rights as well. Right? Matters of the heart and matters of the holster non withstanding, both are pretty basic rights. If the gun thing is upheld as a 'states right to decide that' what will be the implications of the recognition or passage of interstate gay marriage laws? Something I heard about today, and I wish I could find a citation on it (haven't looked too deeply) is that this passed bill has a severance clause build into it. Which means, that although there are provisions within the bill that allow for religious organizations to deny services to gay couples based upon the beliefs that they're guaranteed by the exact same constitution as which protects the rights of gay citizens- should there ever be a lawsuit against one of these organizations on behalf of the gay community, and they LOSE, the entire bill gets scrapped and they're back to square one. I'm going to see if I can find where that was sourced. ------------- ? |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 27 June 2011 at 10:18pm
False. One of them could lead to increased violent crimes against children, and the other would allow people to protect themselves with a firearm if they get attacked. Very different. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 27 June 2011 at 10:25pm
Well played sir. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 28 June 2011 at 12:14am
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/new_york_approv.html - Here ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 28 June 2011 at 12:17am
Don't like the gun laws in the east coast? Move. 
|