New York Republicans are responsible for passing gay marriage. The party will pay a grave price.
Here is what we know. In state after state, Democrats who control a chamber in support of their base have prevented votes favorable to marriage: Iowa, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania.
When Democrats are in the minority, they’ve demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to their base — in Wisconsin and Indiana fleeing the state to prevent a vote.
N.Y, Republicans did not have to bring gay marriage up for a vote: What does it mean that they passed gay marriage in N.Y.?
Michael Long, the Conservative-party chairman, has vowed to withhold his endorsement. The National Organization for Marriage has committed $2 million to persuading Republicans: Voting for gay marriage has consequences.
Sad that the N.Y. GOP has caved. Consequences to be continued.
Straight and married male here. I'm happy for the gays in New York. If you guys are so concerned with your children having views of homosexuality as bigoted as you do, you're going to have to do so without force of law in New York State.
I'd say I'm sorry but frankly I'm not. You cannot construct a logically coherent argument for your position that doesn't involve giving your own religious views force of law, to the exclusion of the beliefs of others. I have no sympathy. You will probably live long enough to have your children or grandchildren either ask you why you wrote these things, or they'll be too embarrassed to ask, just as I cannot as my grandparents why they were okay with how blacks were treated.
You.
Will.
Look.
Back.
In.
Shame.
It'll just take time, and the realization that gays marrying the person they love will have as adverse an effect as letting gays serve in the military has/will, just as adverse an effect as letting blacks serve in mixed units in the Army, or marry whites, or anything else.
I doubt this will get past moderation, which is unfortunate. You seem like a genuinely nice man, Mr. Potemra. I wonder if you realize what your views really mean. You're trying to save a world that is built, on this question at least, on the majority trying like hell to make a minority feel like they are hated and hellbound. That's not very Christian. If homosexuality really offends God, he'll handle it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobody is going to look back in shame, because this is not like interracial marriage, it's more like the Murphy Brown flap.
Someday, it will be the SSM advocates who are embarrassed - that they wanted something so thoughtless and so destructive. As if kids were things you own or something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You.
Will.
Look.
Back.
In.
Shame."
No. We will not. Not that you'd ever understand that, as shame seems an alien concept to you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI doubt it. I am not sure why this particular gay marriage law is bad (I have not reviewed it because I do not live in NY)--but I suspect this issue is probably more popular than not in NY. And if it is not, then Dems should pay the price too.
There are a lot of conservatives like me who do not care too much about same sex marriage. Whether someone is married or not depends more on behavior over time than any civil ceremony. Churches will not be forced to administer it. I do not consider it a threat to my marriage. I do not have time for this issue, I am much more focused on reigning in spending and making sure taxes do not rise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's very sensible. As an ex-conservative and a transwoman (the oft- forgotten T in the LGBT movement), I was driven off by the party's staunch dedication to social conservatism.
What people do in the privacy of their own homes, or with the blessings of their churches... Well that's their business. It's not a threat to your marriage or anyone else's.
There's a lot bigger things to lobby for, like fixing this country's economy, not dictating what sort of relationships are ok.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr, Joe "Churches will not be forced to administer it"
Your naiveté is stunning. Absolutely.
I bet you actually think the purpose of gay "marriage" is for gays to marry, huh?
Let talk in a couple of years (probably less) about what the Church (and Christians in general) will have to do under this new definition.
To quote Mark Shea - Tolerance is not enough. You. Must. Approve!
(and now the law is on their side...)
Just amazing....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure when fundamentalist Christians started viewing themselves as a persecuted group. The fact is, they want to bully everyone else into following the rules they themselves *choose* to follow. But they're strange bullies, because when they don't get their way, they cry about it and paint themselves as victims.
As for churches, nobody can make any clergy marry anyone if they do not wish to do so. End of story. .I doubt that any gay people are going to want to be married in a church that is not generally welcoming. Westboro Baptist & Co. don't have much to worry about.
The day all you people start baying about how divorce should be illegal will be the day any of your arguments hold water. Until then, save it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't think of many more issues more important to true conservatism than marriage and the family. These are the means by which a culture shapes the continuation itself and the species. The New York legislature just abandoned that goal.
As an unmarried person, fortunately not in New York, I think if my state devalues marriage in this way, I will simply choose to shack up when it comes to it, rather than participate in an ersatz institution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut what about wedding photographers or caterers who refuse to accept the business of same-sex couples due to religious objections?
The exemption language does not appear to cover them. This is, in short, a deprivation of liberty just as it appears to grant another liberty with the other hand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat about wedding photographers or caterers who refuse to accept the business of mixed-race couples, or Satanist couples, or Muslim couples, or right-wing dominionist Christian couples, because of religious objections?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat about them? They're bad businessmen, that's what about them. You really believe someone who is running such a business is going to turn away paying customers?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIm right there with you on the spending issues
But, You dont care because it doesn't affect you. All my life I haven't been as free in this wonderful country as you. Shouldn't we all be equal and free?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you really don't believe you are "equal and free," you have been sold a bill of goods.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm incapable of caring about two things at the same time".
Sure, that's it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously, the (R)s there don't care about the price to be paid. Not sure what anyone's ire toward them will do at this point. The left won a big one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDiogenes is right. We have a much bigger issue to face.
I will say this, at least it went through the legislature and was not judicially imposed. The later would have been wrong. The legislative way is the way change like this should happen. If you disagree, vote otherwise.
Maybe New Yorkers can pull their collective heads out of where ever they were so you can reverse draconian gun laws and insane taxes there too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere will not be an opportunity to "vote otherwise." There should have been a referendum on an issue as important as this.
And if, as you say, it isn't an important issue to you, why do you keep posting about how unimportant it is? You have every right to post, of course -- but I have the right to wonder, as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes New York allow referendums? I do not think it does. I like referendums. I think they are great. But if you live in a state that does not allow them you have two options: Change the state constitution to allow them or change the law through the legislature that you disagree with.
But to claim gay marriage should have been done by referendum when there is no referendum process available is rather silly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew York moves one step closer to implementing the initiative and referendum process
June 8, 2011
ALBANY, New York: New York may become state number twenty-seven to implement some form of the initiative and referendum process. Earlier this week, the New York State Senate voted 47-15 in favor of referring a proposed initiative and referendum amendment to the ballot.
The proposed question would ask voters if they should be allowed to enact and amend laws through initiative and referendum. According to reports, the amendment would require that proposed initiative sponsors collect signatures from at least five percent of the total voters statewide in the last gubernatorial election.
Additionally, the signatures would have to include at least 5,000 signatures from at least three-fifths of the state’s congressional districts.
The measure is sponsored and supported by Senator Joseph Robach.
“This proposal to establish a process of initiative and referendum in New York State is simply good government. It is the type of reform that my Senate colleagues and I have consistently fought for and will continue to support so that voters statewide can be given a more direct and effective voice with which to further New York’s democratic process,” said Robach.
According to the New York Constitution a majority vote is required in two successive sessions of the New York State Legislature in order to qualify a measure for the statewide ballot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse