Future generations will one day look back on these laws, the way we look back on the Jim Crow laws of the 20th Century. I hope gay marriage passes and passes soon, my husband and I don't want to sit at our generations whites only counter anymore.
Marriage is an institute of religion. Not of the state. Therefore the state should not be able to change its definition which is the life long union between a man and woman.
Divorce has already ruin the sanctity of marriage. We don't need it further corrupted.
And if Jim Crow laws (though not right) had been up held as equal but seperate and not unequal and seperate, we would probably still have them around.
In order for it to be legally recognized, don't you need a marriage license from the government? And can't people be married by a justice of the peace without sanctification by any religion?
Pete,
By your standard, then, only religiously sanctioned ceremonies should be recognized by the government as legal marriages. What if two people didn't want to join a church but wanted to get married?
We all have the right to believe what we want to believe, and the state has a responsibility to ensure noone is discriminated against for any reason. So whether you agree with same sex marriage or not, it's still unfair for it not to be recognized by the state.
I dont think you can stop people from being gay and wanting the same type of rights and recognition as people that are not gay. I believe the moral issue of calling it marriage is the biggest opsticle with this issue as well as non religious undertones of the idea of acceptance of allowing something means you support it and a great deal of stigma it may cause even though you are not gay. I guareentee the government looks at this oppurtunity as a new tax base.
"And if Jim Crow laws (though not right) had been up held as equal but seperate and not unequal and seperate, we would probably still have them around."
Are you actually arguing in support of Jim Crow??
We've already established that separate but equal is inherently unequal. There is no way to effectively do "separate but equal" because the rights given to the "lesser" minority group will always be perceived as of lesser value than those of the majority group.
Beside Jim Crow laws were not just about separate lunch counters and school rooms, they were also about marriage: ie anti-miscegenation laws.
Loving v Virginia corrected this and finally established that heterosexuals had the right to marry whomever they chose regardless of race, now its time for the laws to give that right to everyone.
If you truely have seperation of church and state then a new law can be submitted just like the school/church laws. Let the states vote on it seperately. The whole point is that this is the new movement and its not going away. If you are taxable you should have rights and entitlements in this country.
In another 18 months or so, everyone in Albany will be up for election and will have to run on how they voted. That and only that will tell what the people really think.
No by my standard the government should have no recognition of marriage at all. Then we would be having this stupid debate. Marriage would still be defined as a man and a woman by most churches and gays wouldn't be so adamant about changing things to suit a particular minority or society.
No I am not arguing in favor of them. But if they were actually equal there would never have been a civil rights movement.
So if marriage had never been recognized by the government this proposal wouldn't be on the table.
The only recognition of marriage by the government should be the allowance of a name change in the event of a religious marriage. Not a recognition of the marriage itself, just the desire to share a name with someone.
I don't give a ____ if gays want to be together for the rest of their lives but the correct way to fix this is to remove legal associations to marriage.
Once you do that and require people to use powers of attoney to share in legal situations instead of defaults to spouses, the need for the discussion goes away.
Oh and for the record, everyone has the same rights now. We are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Sorry if that's not your cup of tea but you do have that right.
I totally agree with what you are saying Peter. I believe that Government at the time defined marriage for the reasons of property,taxes, and voting priviledges.
The primary reason that gays want to legally marry has nothing to do with sanctity of the institution or any superficial aspects of sharing a name. It's all about inheritance, communal property, child custody and insurance benefits. Although some states, businesses and providers have modified regulations to accommodate non-traditional relationships, legal marriage provides instant, indisputable and universal parity.
John said something along the lines of people "not counting" because of their beliefs in a previous post.
My comment of "it's pretty black and white" was directed at what he said. Either people agree or disagree. It's not rocket science. It's also fact, Einstein.
Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind here and we all know it. No need to make fun of others religious believes. The “right” would call you a “looney left”. It doesn’t change anything.
Same sex marriage debate will be settled by the voters. If you like how your representative votes, you’ll reelect him/her, if not, he or she will be gone. This is a hot button issue and the Albany types know it. They like their jobs and will spend a lot of time finding out what people really think about this before they put their job on the line.
I'd like to think the issue will be settled by "the voters" and would be willing to abide by their decision if that indeed were the case. In all likelihood however the matter is going to be resolved via the the judicial system. As California shows, Progressives only like ballot results when it goes their way. As soon as that doesn't happen, it's time for Judicial Activism and a Constitution that "lives and breathes".
Thanks, Chris. He probably thought it was only a remote possibility that even one of us goobers read something from the last quarter century or without pictures.
Its simple the government should not be able to discriminate against any individual or couple or group of individuals and religious beliefs do not belong in politics.
Are you guys still talking about this?? What do you care anyway, its not you that faces this debate, its the gays and lesbians. Give them room to fight for their own rights. How does this affect you?? "To Each His Own". Lets find another topic, this is getting old.....
Just my opinion,
Peace
It's 2009 people. Get a grip
It's 2009 people. Get a grip and stop leaning so far to the right. You're going to tip over.
You know, it's a funny thing
You know, it's a funny thing about principles and values. If you truly believe in them, they don't change just to suit society around you.
Future generations will one
Future generations will one day look back on these laws, the way we look back on the Jim Crow laws of the 20th Century. I hope gay marriage passes and passes soon, my husband and I don't want to sit at our generations whites only counter anymore.
Very well put Emily. This is
Very well put Emily. This is long overdue.
Marriage is an institute of
Marriage is an institute of religion. Not of the state. Therefore the state should not be able to change its definition which is the life long union between a man and woman.
Divorce has already ruin the sanctity of marriage. We don't need it further corrupted.
And if Jim Crow laws (though not right) had been up held as equal but seperate and not unequal and seperate, we would probably still have them around.
In order for it to be legally
In order for it to be legally recognized, don't you need a marriage license from the government? And can't people be married by a justice of the peace without sanctification by any religion?
Which I believe is all wrong.
Which I believe is all wrong. The state should never have gotten involved
Pete, By your standard,
Pete,
By your standard, then, only religiously sanctioned ceremonies should be recognized by the government as legal marriages. What if two people didn't want to join a church but wanted to get married?
We all have the right to
We all have the right to believe what we want to believe, and the state has a responsibility to ensure noone is discriminated against for any reason. So whether you agree with same sex marriage or not, it's still unfair for it not to be recognized by the state.
I dont think you can stop
I dont think you can stop people from being gay and wanting the same type of rights and recognition as people that are not gay. I believe the moral issue of calling it marriage is the biggest opsticle with this issue as well as non religious undertones of the idea of acceptance of allowing something means you support it and a great deal of stigma it may cause even though you are not gay. I guareentee the government looks at this oppurtunity as a new tax base.
Gabe, please use spell
Gabe,
please use spell checker!!
I type freestyle and from the
I type freestyle and from the thought. u git da idea tho rite ?
"And if Jim Crow laws (though
"And if Jim Crow laws (though not right) had been up held as equal but seperate and not unequal and seperate, we would probably still have them around."
Are you actually arguing in support of Jim Crow??
We've already established that separate but equal is inherently unequal. There is no way to effectively do "separate but equal" because the rights given to the "lesser" minority group will always be perceived as of lesser value than those of the majority group.
Beside Jim Crow laws were not just about separate lunch counters and school rooms, they were also about marriage: ie anti-miscegenation laws.
Loving v Virginia corrected this and finally established that heterosexuals had the right to marry whomever they chose regardless of race, now its time for the laws to give that right to everyone.
If you truely have seperation
If you truely have seperation of church and state then a new law can be submitted just like the school/church laws. Let the states vote on it seperately. The whole point is that this is the new movement and its not going away. If you are taxable you should have rights and entitlements in this country.
In another 18 months or so,
In another 18 months or so, everyone in Albany will be up for election and will have to run on how they voted. That and only that will tell what the people really think.
No by my standard the
No by my standard the government should have no recognition of marriage at all. Then we would be having this stupid debate. Marriage would still be defined as a man and a woman by most churches and gays wouldn't be so adamant about changing things to suit a particular minority or society.
Emily Vick No I am not
Emily Vick
No I am not arguing in favor of them. But if they were actually equal there would never have been a civil rights movement.
So if marriage had never been recognized by the government this proposal wouldn't be on the table.
The only recognition of marriage by the government should be the allowance of a name change in the event of a religious marriage. Not a recognition of the marriage itself, just the desire to share a name with someone.
I don't give a ____ if gays want to be together for the rest of their lives but the correct way to fix this is to remove legal associations to marriage.
Once you do that and require people to use powers of attoney to share in legal situations instead of defaults to spouses, the need for the discussion goes away.
Oh and for the record,
Oh and for the record, everyone has the same rights now. We are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Sorry if that's not your cup of tea but you do have that right.
I totally agree with what you
I totally agree with what you are saying Peter. I believe that Government at the time defined marriage for the reasons of property,taxes, and voting priviledges.
The primary reason that gays
The primary reason that gays want to legally marry has nothing to do with sanctity of the institution or any superficial aspects of sharing a name. It's all about inheritance, communal property, child custody and insurance benefits. Although some states, businesses and providers have modified regulations to accommodate non-traditional relationships, legal marriage provides instant, indisputable and universal parity.
Using a 2,000+ year old
Using a 2,000+ year old religion to justify why same-sex couples shouldn't be wed is ridiculous and naive. Period.
How old or young does a
How old or young does a religion need to be for you to give it your ok?
Many people with the same 2,000+ religion agree with you, but did you just say they don't count?
It's ridiculous and pathetic
It's ridiculous and pathetic regardless of age, and nothing to do with my seal of approval.
Your second question is beyond me. I don't care who does and doesn't agree with me, regardless of what they believe. It's pretty black and white.
Religion is a belief. An opinion. Everyone is welcome to have their own belief/opinion. It's why we have dozens of religions around the world.
The problem here is justifying a belief, in this case a 2,000+ year old belief, behind why same-sex marriages shouldn't be legalized.
"It's pretty black and
"It's pretty black and white."
No it's not. That would be your opinion. Nothing more.
You're quite incorrect.
You're quite incorrect.
John said something along the lines of people "not counting" because of their beliefs in a previous post.
My comment of "it's pretty black and white" was directed at what he said. Either people agree or disagree. It's not rocket science. It's also fact, Einstein.
chuck, The first rule of
chuck,
The first rule of The Batavian is use real names.
The second rule of The Batavian is use real names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Palahniuk
Nobody is going to change
Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind here and we all know it. No need to make fun of others religious believes. The “right” would call you a “looney left”. It doesn’t change anything.
Same sex marriage debate will be settled by the voters. If you like how your representative votes, you’ll reelect him/her, if not, he or she will be gone. This is a hot button issue and the Albany types know it. They like their jobs and will spend a lot of time finding out what people really think about this before they put their job on the line.
I'd like to think the issue
I'd like to think the issue will be settled by "the voters" and would be willing to abide by their decision if that indeed were the case. In all likelihood however the matter is going to be resolved via the the judicial system. As California shows, Progressives only like ballot results when it goes their way. As soon as that doesn't happen, it's time for Judicial Activism and a Constitution that "lives and breathes".
Russ, that was perfect. Have
Russ, that was perfect. Have a gold star for that post.
Thanks, Chris. He probably
Thanks, Chris. He probably thought it was only a remote possibility that even one of us goobers read something from the last quarter century or without pictures.
My daughter walked in with
My daughter walked in with the book The Fight Club right after I read your post.
I have Choke three feet to my
I have Choke three feet to my left, sitting on my desk.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choke_(novel)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…;
Chuck bailed. The third
Chuck bailed.
The third rule of The Batavian is don't be a puss.
The fourth rule of The Batavian is no one reads the rules that far.
"Choke" gave me agida.
Really? I found it a good
Really? I found it a good read.
Oh, great read. Just
Oh, great read.
Just clenched my sphincter.
Haha, I understand
Haha, I understand completely.
ow
ow
Its simple the government
Its simple the government should not be able to discriminate against any individual or couple or group of individuals and religious beliefs do not belong in politics.
They aren't discriminating
They aren't discriminating against gays. The gays have the same rights as straights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Its not discriminatory.
Its like pot smokers wanting the law to be changed because its discriminatory to charge pot smokers for breaking the law.
Our nation whether you like it or not was founded on religious beliefs.
Peter = behind the times.
Peter = behind the times.
Are you guys still talking
Are you guys still talking about this?? What do you care anyway, its not you that faces this debate, its the gays and lesbians. Give them room to fight for their own rights. How does this affect you?? "To Each His Own". Lets find another topic, this is getting old.....
Just my opinion,
Peace
"To each his own" Why can't
"To each his own"
Why can't Patterson believe that when it comes to what I earn?