Governor Cuomo says gay marriage is one of his top three priorities. Mayor Bloomberg says it is his number one priority. Voters say “huh”? God help New York.
Meanwhile GOP Senate majority leader Dean Skelos is reconsidering whether or not to permit a vote. And even New York magazine says the votes for SSM “have not materialized.”
Ultimately it's not going to matter which states write discrimination against law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples into their constitutions, nor will it matter which states grant marriage equality to those same couples, because it is the FEDERAL government that bestows most of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married couples receive. This is an issue that the Supreme Court of the United States will eventually have to tackle, and I'm confident that, conservative majority notwithstanding, they will decide that there is no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA barely recognizable fraction of gays in Massachusetts have even bothered to marry.
"From 2007 to 2009, the number of gay marriages in Massachusetts jumped by 84 percent, from 1,524 to 2,814.
A hefty majority, 1,668, involved out-of-state residents, according to state records."
Boston Globe 2/24/2011
So in a decade an average of some 140 MA gay couples bothered to marry each year (and that surely is the maximum as much of that had to represent "pent up demand").
Why flog something that has little interest even among the designated "aggrieved"? Because you can make your opponent appear "mean" by denying a "right". A right which almost no one appears interested in exercising.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know how to put an end to this nonsense: curtly inform Cuomo and Bloomberg that if gays are permitted to marry then they'll just take advantage of married tax deductions, which will, in turn, reduce revenue flowing to state coffers.
"Less tax money for Leviathan? HORRORS!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what's the deal with Skelos? Is he for or against same-sex "marriage"? If the latter, why would he even consider letting it come to a vote?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just want to know when we will drop those archaic rules about not marrying close relatives. Genetic screening would eliminate most risk for the children.
Marry your son/daughter shortly before you pass on and avoid the tax man! As long as they are consenting adults, whats the problem?
And no I am not really advocating this. I just wonder if anyone thinks a line should be drawn anywhere.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat logic, jag! If our policies only affect a small number of people, it doesn't matter how much your abridge their rights, because there aren't that many of them!
Under that logic, we can just go in and confiscate all the wealth of all our multi-billionaires to pay our debts. Because there aren't that many of them, it doesn't matter!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat voters are saying "huh"? Not the 56% of NY voters who believe in marriage equality in NY state.
After all, it's not like Cuomo or Bloomberg campaigned on a platform of "jobs first" then abandoned that in order to pursue social issues using tax payer's money. That would be terribly hypocritical. Now who did that again? Oh right, Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReaders see yet another post by Maggie Gallagher, say 'Huh?' and go on to more worthwile things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe point, RiotLibrarian, is that while some tiny number of homosexuals actually do want to "marry" each other, the driving force behind SSM is to legitimize homosexuality for the vastly larger number who have no interest in "marriage" at all. Even "marriage" from sea to sea would not satisfy the activists, however, because they will never be satisfied.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOdd thing for you to say, capecodder. I don't believe you post on anyone's threads other than Maggie Gallagher's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHard...perhaps that's because you only read Maggie's 'articles'.? I post lotsa places ....McCarthy, Whelan, K-Lo.
Of course, it's easy to post something witty about Maggie, because you just have to replay her own words!
And, yes, if I do spend more time on Maggie, well, it's 'cuz she's trying her darndest to ruin the lives of me and my buddies. And that is NOT right!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The driving force behind SSM is to legitimize homosexuality for the vastly larger number who have no interest in "marriage" at all"
This ludicrous assertion of a call to "legitimize homosexuality" is laughable. Being gay isn't illegal so there's no "legitimacy" involved. it's already "legitimate" and actually accepted by the majority of Americans as well as humans. This point is beyond debate as proven by the facts. As for your personal dissatisfaction or uncomfortableness with gay people, who cares? This isn't about you and it's not your world, it's inhabited by everyone. You can resist but that's your problem, not one everyone else should fret about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChuck: It's also only a matter of time until the federal government recognizes what all fifty states have already recognized: that all children have the right to a relationship with their biological parents, and the only exception is when the child's best interest compels the state to sever the rights of parents who are unable to care for the child.
Child abuse and fraud are not basic rights. No child should be forced to pretend he's got "two mommies" - or that having a stepmother is just as good as having a relationship with his real father.
When children get THEIR civil rights, gays will get exactly what they're entitled to - the protections of marriage, minus the procreative benefits (which are for procreative couples only). That is - a civil union.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRiotLibrarian,
The point of noting virtually no gay's bother to marry is that this fact undermines the notion that this "right" is "critical" in any way.
If virtually no one exercises an option then the option can hardly be deemed something of vital, societal, interest in that it doesn't even have significant meaning to the "aggrieved". So why make the establishment of such a, very arguable, "right" a political priority? Its a nominal distinction, not a functional prohibition against any particular relationship.
You do recognize that last point don't you? Liberals used it in the 70's to argue that marriage was an unnecessary, artificial, "social construct" designed to enslave women. Funny how things change. Liberals considered marriage superfluous for couples in the 70's and now it is essential for gays (but for the fact that they don't bother to marry). Coherent. Right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"even New York magazine says the votes for SSM 'have not materialized.'" This sounds like a job for Judiciary Man! Righter of unseen wrongs, ingorer of democratic institutions, able to leap millions of voters in a single bound.
Yes, the Court of Appeals said no last time, but it was a close run thing, and we have a few new judges, and there will be more. Change the composition of the court, change the ruling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, the percentage of New Yorkers who favor same-sex marriage is even higher, around 58 percent, a very comfortable majority.
The only people saying "huh", are the ones wondering what's behind the fear?
And please, I beg all you potential flamers, don't throw up the old canard about marriage is about two straight people raising children, because then you are automatically insisting that a straight marriage with children is more valid than a straight marriage that is childless - i.e. Bob Dole, Pat Buchannan, Newt (actually, one COULD question that one), etc., etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“When children get THEIR civil rights, gays will get exactly what they're entitled to - the protections of marriage, minus the procreative benefits (which are for procreative couples only). That is - a civil union.”
And how do you figure homosexuals are “entitled” to civil unions, LinUSA? I say they are entitled to precisely what all other single people are entitled to (including the freedom to enter into contracts, write wills, have whatever ceremonies they want, etc.). This is not merely because civil unions are a way station toward “marriage”; it is because there is no justification for granting privileges or special status based on homos*xual relationships. Nonetheless, civil unions do in fact lead to “marriage,” as intended:
Marriage-equality fight shifts to R.I.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseby Dana Rudolph, Keen News Service
2011-05-11
"Nothing short of marriage is equality for Rhode Island's gay and lesbian citizens and their children," said Karen Loewy, a GLAD senior staff attorney. "More to the point, civil unions tell gay people and their kids that they are second class citizens and that their families matter less than other families. . . ."
“Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont all began with civil unions and have moved to full equality. . . .
“Wolfson said that, while civil unions are not the true goal, they may still ‘sometimes can be a stepping stone.’”