We had a Gay Marriage thread but it was locked so...


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/ ... marriage/index.html?hpt=h


Albany, New York (CNN) -- New York's Republican-controlled legislature cleared the way Friday to legalize same-sex marriage with a 33-to-29 vote, sending the bill to the governor's desk for his approval.

The vote came after days of delays that saw last-minute lobbying on all sides, passing by a slim margin with Republican support -- the first time a state legislature with a Republican majority has approved such a bill.

Once Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who proposed the bill, signs it, same-sex couples will be able to marry within 30 days.

"New York has finally torn down the barrier that has prevented same-sex couples from exercising the freedom to marry and from receiving the fundamental protections that so many couples and families take for granted," Cuomo, a Democrat, said in a written statement shortly after the vote.

REACTION

Well, finally some good news. Hope these "opposition" people burn in hell or somewhere. They got no right to tell people how to live.

This happened awhile ago. Republicans are finally wising up and trying to cater to the gay community. Until now, they've lost the majority of the gay communities support along with the support of allies because of this one issue, I think if this trend continues it'll be a game changer for American politics.

I don't know why America insists on playing this game, one state at a time. It's unfortunate that states "rights" have trumped the federal court, when the right answer is so glaringly obvious. For now.

It is my belief that this law should be completely removed. Now before you all hop on the "kill the evil homophobic republican" bandwagon, you need to know the context of my belief in regards to this law.

Marriage is a religious, and a personal issue. It is my belief that it should not be the right of any governing body to dictate who can or cannot be married, how the end of a marriage should be handled, or anything else in regards to marriage.

If certain churches, mosques, temples, etc. cannot have homosexual marriages, that is also their right, but conversely, it is the right of homosexual people to form their own religious or other groups from which to gain marriage.


I simply believe that the state or federal government has no right in marriage or union of this kind. It is not like they've done a good job of it anyways up to this point. *points to the divorce rates at 50% after 5 years*
*points to failing economy*

@ FishSantiago: but the fact of the matter is, and you can't deny this, is that marriage now transcends being simply a religious practice. If it were just some religious ritual, like communion, it wouldn't be a big deal.

@hence I said "religious or other groups" lets not forget, marriage is still a religious ceremony. If nonreligious people want to have some type of ceremony and call it marriage then that is there right to do so, but that does not give the government rights to a marriage started in religion.

@fish: I don't get what you're saying. So your saying that marriage of any kind, be it hetero or homo, should be done away with?

Civil unions aren't religious rituals and are they the same as marriage.

Also I'm not seeing how the government should be blamed for how its people are getting married/divorced. The US is not forcing these couples to get married and/or divorced. If anything, more marriage is good from an economic standpoint as people generally spend a buttload of money on their weddings and even more if they divorce. I also do not see what does a failing economy have to do with marriage/divorce rates. Marrying/divorcing rates doesn't really say much about the health of a nation.

as for NY's legalizing gay marriage: kudos

slightly off note on marriages vs civil unions and another idea:

I can't remember who mentioned an interesting solution to gay marriage. I think he said states should just get rid of marriage for both gays and straights and any rights they gained. Instead, people (gay and straight), if they wanted to be recognized officially, should simply get a civil union which is non religious and then they would get bonuses with the union. Churches can be as prejudiced as they want with their unofficial-no bonuses-marriages but under the state eyes, everyone's equal with civil unions.

Wait... you're basically saying atheists can't marry?

The point is to let the other "half" of lovers, that whom can't get typically married cause "eww guy on guy is ewww burn them" arguments, get married, basically covering any possible couple.

Also, there's no real link between marriage and economy. Or if there is one, send it over.

Your opinion is therefore void and might possibly just hide a certain hint of "we don't want to see this in our garden" attitude..which is just shameful and should be banished.

Was a reply to FishSantiago but the quote seemed to have been nommed up.

You are both misreading my point. If gays want to have marriage ceremonies I don't see it as my right to tell them no, but I also don't see it as the right of the government to say yes or no.

Do not tell somebody their "opinion is void" before giving them a chance to explain. Doing so is closed minded. Wow this is a hostile group.

Also, it is not Marriage and the economy that are linked; it's divorce and the economy. There is nothing worse for an economy than the modern US divorce system.

begin list:
to start, kids involved have to have 2 of everything
houses, bedrooms, computers, even down to toothbrushes
kids are never placed with the better parent, 70% of custody cases are decided towards the mother
there is no oversight of parenting evaluator, counselors, or divorce cases in general

None of this makes for a good environment for children to grow up and become successful people. It is technological advancement, after all, that truly drives an economy like the US'.

That aside, in a divorce, the person leaving is often instructed to:
•destroy their credit (which is still connected to their ex's credit, thus destroying both)
•delay the procedings as long as possible, leading to most of the family's money being taken by the courts
•take out lots of credit cards (still forcibly in joint ownership)
•"endulge" or "splurge", meaning spend what money the lawyers don't take
•get the children declared retarded, including all forms of OCD, ADD, ADHD, and Hand ticks.
--all it takes is a counselor to diagnose these things
--medications are expensive
--this ruins the child's career early on
--suppressants such as these actually disrupt thought processes
***key: diagnosing a child as special needs of any kind (including the made up kind) = support money until the child is 23 instead of 18

note also that all businesses are shared half, and thus destructible.


okay, now that all of our people who aren't lawyers (and even some who are) are bankrupt, suicidal, losing their homes, families, businesses, and lives, and their children are drugged up and going nowhere in life in the name of taking their money; we have:
less development, thus
less jobs, and
less new technology, thus
less money and a lower standard of living


this is why I don't think obama, bushes, or clinton have been good administrations. That, however, is mostly congress' fault.

Also, this is why many men my age will not date american women.

Marriage gives government benefits. If the government is not involved, how do they give the benefits?

Quote:California's economy boomed while they legalized gay marriage. If you can't take my word for it, I can indeed send you links.

@fish: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, nor did I misread your post. I just think marriage has become more than a religious ritual, it's become a status within law, with legal benefits.

I think even more than the chance to have the religious ceremony, marriage and civil unions can have a major change on things like taxes, applications for benefits, legal rights in regards to medical care and other issues. In a state like NY with higher taxes and a complex legal structure it would take much more paperwork to apply for some of these benefits and others would not be available at all.