Skip to main content

Today's Poll: How should Sen. Ranzenhofer vote on the 'marriage equality law'?

By Howard B. Owens
George Richardson

Shacking up always worked for me until the old lady started talking marriage. "Shack Up 2012" Everything is cyclical, it's shack up time again.

Jun 13, 2011, 3:52pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

As I've said before, I see no legal reason, constitutional or otherwise, not to grant two consenting adults of the same sex a contract formally combining their assets. We are talking about marriage licenses that the government provides, not marriages in a church. Under marriage equality legislation churches are not forced to do anything. Marriages of the spirit, i.e. Christian marriages, are not being discussed here. Marriages of this world should be open to people of the same sex, which is what this discussion is about. I also do not believe that Jesus would approve of the vitriol against gays that has been seen in our past nor would he approve of people twisting his words to suit a political agenda.

My kingdom is not of this world. - John 18:36

Jun 13, 2011, 5:21pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

"I also do not believe that Jesus would approve of the vitriol against gays that has been seen in our past nor would he approve of people twisting his words to suit a political agenda." I agree with that Daniel, but please explain how John 18:36 supports the statement or the topic at hand.

Jun 13, 2011, 6:36pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

I don't think that any of us should try to even guess what Jesus would or wouldn't approve in. Last time I checked we were all human beings and didn't possess His mind, that is unless someone is announcing that they are the Messiah returned. THAT would be a real story.

What I do think is the government needs to get out of the personal lives of its citizens. What I think is that those who morally disagree with this should continue to do so if they wish, but neither should have say on this matter.

I believe that every person has a right to make the choices they deem fit. It is not my place to judge and it is not the government's job to prevent what any couple wants to become.

Any Christian that sits upon high and pontificates otherwise is not acting in accords to the Bible I read.

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Jun 13, 2011, 6:56pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

There is no reason that two men or two women who want to share their lives in wedded bliss should be denied or as my mother used to say they should be allowed to be as happy or as miserable as the rest of us are.

Jun 13, 2011, 7:17pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Jeff, not this again...

We all understand what you believe. God hates gay people. They are all going to hell unless they get fixed. God wrote that everywhere in the bible and only a moron could miss it.

Thankfully, not many of us believe that crap or care who people choose to sleep with.

Idiotic hateful ideas like that are what drive people away from religion.

Jun 13, 2011, 9:03pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Phil, it's actually not. Matthew 7:1 is one quote out of a very long sermon that Jesus gave. By itself, one could conclude that Jesus is telling us not to judge others, but taken in context and applying scripture as a sum of it's parts, the Bible tells us that we are to judge. And Charlie, where do you get that God hates gay people? The Bible doesn't say it, I never said it. The Westboro Baptist says it, but then they are wrong. Why is it that people can throw scripture on here to support their assertions and when I ask them to clarify it, I am somehow idiotic and hateful? Seems to me you had a lot to say about what you believe God said or meant but have never been willing to back it up. Why do you get so angry when I pose a simple question?

Jun 13, 2011, 9:13pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

I think it is best to simply not quote any scripture at all; it serves no purpose and it doesn't belong in this discussion.

Save the verses for the debates inside your congregations when it comes time to decide whether or not you will allow gay couples to perform their ceremonies in your churches.

Jun 13, 2011, 9:23pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Where Jeff?

Do you want the whole chapter?

Jun 13, 2011, 9:23pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

I agree Brandon, but I take an issue with this. I take an issue when someone tells me what I have learned is false, especially when what they say is everything to the contrary.

If I really belong to a faith that tells me to sit of judgement of others, break them down and prevent them from using the freewill that God gave, then I need to know.
I need to know because I don't believe that and neither do a lot of others.

Jun 13, 2011, 9:27pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Jeff - Because Jesus is saying that what he speaks of applies not to this world, i.e. the material world, but to the spiritual world. My beliefs do not cause me to want to use the law to deny someone else the ability to enter into a contract regarding their assets. Again, we are not talking about church marriages, we are talking about governmental contracts. My faith influences some of my political decision making, but it does not influence my support for people to be able to make their own choices or enter into contracts with each other.

Jun 13, 2011, 9:32pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Phil, the problem lies in who Jesus is speaking to in the passage. In verse 5 he refers to the "hypocrite" as he does repeatedly in the chapters prior to 7. Now unless Jesus is asserting that every one of his followers is a hypocrite, then that command was not meant for Christians. If you go back to the start of Chapter 6, you find that he is addressing the Pharisees in the synagogues, a group he did not have a lot of good things to say about.
Now you said "If I really belong to a faith that tells me to sit of judgement of others, break them down and prevent them from using the freewill that God gave, then I need to know."
I can't speak for your faith, but the Bible actually does tell us to judge others, it does not tell us to break them down or prevent them from using freewill, but it does say that the exercise of that freewill has consequences.

Jun 13, 2011, 9:45pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Jeff, this idea of proof is just a very strange concept to me. You hold the bible up as proof, it isn't. It's just your interpretation of the words. As your debate with Phil proves, there are many interpretations.

Save your energy, there isn't a single passage that I will accept as proof for telling me that all people are not equal. You could show me a whole stack of religious books and it still wouldnt be enough. You could talk till you are blue in the face and never convience me that God didn't create gay people to be anything other than what they are. You can't fix them, there is nothing broke. They are gay because, God made them gay.

Your negetive interpretation of the bible is hateful and offensive.

Jun 13, 2011, 9:46pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Daniel, most of what Jesus said in scripture applies directly to this world and to the behaviors of man. In the passage you quoted however, Jesus was addressing Pilate during his trial. Since he was being accused of blasphemy by speaking of his kingdom, Pilate asked him if he was a king, specifically King of the Jews, his response was that his kingdom was not of this world. His response is specific to his defense to Pilate and have nothing to do with his teachings which are clearly meant for this world.

Jun 13, 2011, 9:56pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Charlie, the concept that is so strange to me is that you reject the Bible, tell me that I could show you a whole stack of religious books, and yet you seem so sure that you know what God did, wants, thinks, or intends. If you reject the Bible, how can anything I say about it be offensive?

Jun 13, 2011, 10:04pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Thank you for your time, Jeff. I can see that we will not agree on this, and that is fine.

All choices have consequences. Every one.

By that right, I believe that every person has a right to make their choices.

I also believe that our government has no right to prevent any consenting adults from being married. Regardless of who that may anger. Just as I would say that a government has no right to limit someone's speech.

At the end of the day that is what this is all about, and what it will always be about.

Jun 13, 2011, 10:04pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Jeff, I don't reject the bible. Just your interpretation of it. I am also positive that I understand what God expects of us. I don't need to prove it to you or anyone else. I'm not looking to convert you. I'm very comfortable with my beliefs.

All I ask is that you don't use your religious beliefs to justify intolerance. Our government needs to respect everyones rights equally.

Jun 13, 2011, 10:28pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Jeff, your explanation of "do not judge" is pretty much why I don't go around quoting scripture any more.

I wholly disagree with your interpretation and I say that as somebody who has read the entire Bible through three times and every passage of the NT multiple times (more than I can count).

I've studied the Bible and biblical history and theology in college.

I'm not literalist, but I think you take plenary interpretation too far. I'm normally a big fan of contextualizing facts, but this sort of interpretation puts too much emphasis on context and to the point of delegitimizing the simple meaning of the words.

If Jesus meant for the hypocrites not to judge, then to me the logical assumption is he meant for us all not to judge, because if we judge, because we all fall short of the glory of god, then we make ourselves into hypocrites. Which is the basis of his complaint against the Pharisees to begin with.

Jun 13, 2011, 10:28pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

This theological debate is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand; what Jesus meant when he said X to Y in Z has no bearing on whether or not the government should extend marriage license eligibility to same-sex couples.

Unfortunately, the substance of this debate still influences many people and hinders the extension of marriage license eligibility. As far as the government is concerned, though, this debate is literary and should not bog down the machinery. Should the State of New York mandate that sealed coffins be on all whaling ships captained by obsessed, one-legged tyrants with a grudge against a white whale?

Jun 13, 2011, 11:17pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Howard, one cannot put too much emphasis on context, that is the entire pretext of scripture. I am surprised that a critical thinker like yourself would discount the context. Jesus spoke to a wide variety of people. He spoke to his disciples, he spoke to sinners, he spoke to believers and unbelievers, and he spoke to the "religious" leaders of his day. He had very different things to say to each and that is why context is vital when reading scriptures. Jesus' command in Matthew 7 was clearly to a specific audience and is better clarified when read in light of the following verses:

1 Cor. 6:1-3 "If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

1 Cor. 2:14,15 " The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments

John 7:24 " Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." Here Jesus clarifies how we are to judge when he was condemned for healing a man on the Sabbath.

1 Cor. 10:15 "I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say." Paul admonishes believers to judge his own words.

1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test (or judge) the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

Matthew 7:15-20 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." This passage clearly indicates that we must use judgement or discernment.

All of these passages are not intended to set the Christian up as high and mighty, but to urge the believer to use Godly wisdom to judge between truth and error and why every scripture passage must be taken in it's proper context.

Jun 13, 2011, 11:17pm Permalink
Justin Burger

Being an ordained Dudeist Priest, I must say that all this Bible talk, that's like your opinion man. All the arguing...this aggression will not stand, man. If gay people want to enter the civil contract that some call marriage, well, the Dude abides. Hopefully some new shit will come to light, and this will pass into law. Because really, happier, married gay couples, they will really tie this state together.

Oh, and Dudeism does not discriminate, I would be more than happy to officiate a same-sex wedding.

Jun 13, 2011, 11:46pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

My idea of God and what he wants from us is right. Your idea of God and what he wants from us is wrong.

That's how the Crusades started folks, and the Inquisition, the Diaspora, the Holocaust and any number of genocides.

Enough. Practice your religion. Let others do the same.

Jun 14, 2011, 8:50am Permalink
Phil Ricci

Afraid so, Chris. As long as pompous, self righteous, all knowing windbags keep people from being treated fairly and equally under the law, and have the audacity to use God as their sheild, people like me will stand up.

Apparently those of the FAR right believe that this country was only created for what they view as acceptable. Everyone else will just have to sit in the back of the bus and be quiet, all the while thanking them for the opportunity to even be on the bus.

I find that sick, stupid and so pathetic it's not even funny.

I think that if people spent as much time trying to...I don't know...stop homelessness...combat hunger...or even looked for the cure to cancer, instead of sitting upon high pontificating why two people shouldn't be allowed to wed, this country would actually be a better place.

Jun 14, 2011, 8:52am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

All this amazes me to no end. In my opinion Jesus said it all when he said love the sinner and hate the sin.

I'm not well versed on Bible quotations, but I have a pretty good idea from a lifetime of sermons and Bible readings during services. Its very simple, this is the material world, we as Christians need to put this in its place, its temporary, when we die (and we all will) all of this falls away. Then we will be answering to the Lord for everything, and he knows what are actions in life were and more importantly what INTENT was behind them. People like Jeff who are hating gays because he claims its what is written, well if he truly believes that then thats how it will be treated, if he is misunderstanding the word then he really wasnt guilty of anything but trying to apply what he read to how he lived as he understands it.

My viewpoint though, is God and Jesus arent about hate. They dont want us judging and ostracising anyone. In fact it's my interpretation that these are the people that Jesus wants us to talk to and show the way to him. As much as I hate it in order to believe what I believe, I have to admit that even evil such as Hitler, or Osama or anyone is in God's eyes not beyond Grace, if they accept Jesus as we all have then even their sin can be absolved and they will be with us.

Many people dont like that or accept that but thats the way it is, Jesus and God made no exceptions to Jesus's sacrifice for ALL OF HUMANITY. So arguing nuances is as much a sticking point in the material and temporal world that Jesus preached against doing as collecting wealth or doing evil to others for your own comfort or satisfaction.

So Jeff I hope someday you see the light of what you are beginning to grasp in the Word, just try not to think so much with your head and try with your heart. Truly good things are obvious and almost a given, a beautiful sunset, a child watching puppies play, they all have a feel that just says this is truly a good and pure thing. Well the treatment of gays and their rights doesnt fit in with a truly Godlike way of being. Anything that gets them into a church and in a more personal contact with God and Jesus would be a good thing and just what Christ would want with us, then He can give them the insight. Because if we really took the Bible as literally as you do then anyone who has been married before should not be allowed to marry, and people who have broken their vows shouldn't be in a house of God. Where to we draw the line.

Its all in the intent, hate, hurting someone, ignoring need or exlcuding them from others all have no place in Christianity.

Jun 14, 2011, 9:36am Permalink
Jeff Allen

"My idea of God and what he wants from us is right. Your idea of God and what he wants from us is wrong." As long as you make definitive and inflammatory statements, I'm going to respectfully ask that you at least back them up.
If someone thinks 2+2=5 and angrily asserts it, then it is reasonable that those of us who know that 2+2=4 ask for evidence to the contrary.

Jun 14, 2011, 9:49am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Kyle, you obviously have not read my posts. NOWHERE have I said I hate gays, NOWHERE have I said God hates gays. Before you level accusations, please read all of what I have written. If you truly believe that, show me where I have shown hatred, anger, or disdain in any of my posts.

Jun 14, 2011, 9:55am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Back to the poll question, if I may. According to The Buffalo News, the bill may or may not have language in it forcing churches and any other organization who are allowed to perform marriages to marry people they don't want to marry. I'm not for that. It's too bad this has to rammed in at the last minute. Our state system of legislation sucks. This is why we wind up with laws that don't work so well.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/capital-connection/albany/article453924…

Jun 14, 2011, 10:10am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

God specifically tells us not to judge in very very clear and concise passages Jeff. Your quotes arent very specific or conclusive but since you requested backup lets see what you say about the quotes I am posting that contradict your "interpretation" that we are supposed to practice Godly wisdom to judge between truth and error.

Matthew 6:14-15 ESV
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

John 3:17 ESV
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:10am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Jeff, I think you failed to get the point of my statement.

See, I was channeling people such as yourself who think the law of the God they follow should be my law as well. I'm an unapologetic atheist. I'm not an agnostic, I'm not wandering in the desert waiting for revelation. I'm an atheist. Tell me why your interpretation of the bible or anyone else's for that matter, should concern me particularly with regard to governmental policy.

Practice your religion, I don't care, but keep it out of our government.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:11am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Dave, Senator Ball is raising objection to non-issues. It is illegal and unconstitutional to force a church to perform any rite that isn't a part of its own dogma.

The idea that the government could force say a Baptist church to perform a same-sex marriage is just as ridiculous as the idea that the government could force a Catholic priest to perform a Mormon sealing. It's the sort of issue that gets brought up when the opposition is out of realistic arguments, but the sentiment sure gets the base fired up.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:16am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Also a few others....

Galatians 6:1-6 ESV
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. For each will have to bear his own load. ...

Titus 3:2-7 ESV
To speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ...

2 Timothy 2:24-26 ESV
And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

All these seem very clear that we really arent qualified or expected to judge anyone, and that all (that means everyone, no exceptions) are loved of God and can be forgiven and given grace.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:18am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Kyle, very nicely put.

Jeff, you can not associate your personal religious beliefs to math without using variables. Your definition of the the value of 2 would be quit different than mine.

2X+2X doesn't necessarily mean 4. It your interpretation of the value of X that determines the answer. Life is not as clear cut as you would like to believe.

Referring to another human being as an abomination is hate.

Telling me that another human being isn't entitled to equal rights is called discrimination.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:18am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Jeff judging them isnt right either, forbiding them the right to have a ceremony in a church also doesnt jive with christian teachings either. There is no place in the Bible where Jesus or God forbids anyone who wants to from participating in the belief of God and Jesus. Even if they are sinners.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:22am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

LOL Charlie....
I like this argument for the math vs reality (but basically a version of your variables)

Put 2 creatures together and another to creatures together and you will have 6, if each gives birth to only one, or much much more. Whats that you say what if the couples are same gender, why then perhaps you are right but when same gender couples are put together instead of coming together on their own, you will usually end up with nothing :D

Jun 14, 2011, 10:26am Permalink
John Roach

Chris, one issue is protection for religious organizations. Should the Catholic Church be forced to provide family benefits to a gay couple when a one works for the church? That gay person could be an accountant, secretary, maintenance worker, etc.

The legal protections have to be very clear, or somebody will look for an opportunity to sue.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:30am Permalink
John Roach

Chris,
What about prison inmates? Should they then have the right to marry each other? Can they marry a member of the same sex and have conjugal visits?

Jun 14, 2011, 10:33am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Well heres a quote from Jeff....

Jeff-I can't speak for your faith, but the Bible actually does tell us to judge others, it does not tell us to break them down or prevent them from using freewill, but it does say that the exercise of that freewill has consequences.

The Bible does NOT tell us to judge others at all

My conclusion that you hate gays is the amount of energy you put into telling us that God tells us to judge leading me to the conclusion that you have a judgement you want to make. All this from my own interpretation. I am fallible and looking back I see that you did not specifically say you hate gays. But I sunk my teeth into the principal that God tells us to judge which is against the very concept of Christianity

Jun 14, 2011, 10:38am Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, are Catholic churches required to provide family benefits to married non-Catholics employees? I don't know, but the same standard of law would apply, I'm sure.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:42am Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, as far as prison inmates go, what are they doing in Massachusetts? I don't hear any screaming about prison marriages coming out of there so let's do what they're doing.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:49am Permalink
Phil Ricci

So John,

What you're telling me is that we should not allow law abiding homosexuals the ability to marry because we don't know how to deal with non-law abiding homosexuals having conjugal visits?

That's new.

Here's my answer to that. First off, Straight prisionors are allowed to marry while they are IN jail. Do we allow them conjugal visits? If no then the answer is no. You put them on different wards, or better yet, different jails. It's not like we don't have enough.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:55am Permalink
Phil Ricci

As far as the Catholic church goes.

You're first assuming that they will hire gays. If they do, then they are bound to EVERY New York and Federal labor law there is. Including a person's right to change sexes, which is apart of the federal disabilities act.

So yes, if the Catholic Church hires a Gay - American they would be bound to honor the law. They would not however have to perform the marriage. :-)

Jun 14, 2011, 10:58am Permalink
John Roach

Chris, you don't have to be Catholic to work for the Church. But should they be protected from providing benefits for what they see as "sin"? This is a bit of a religious issue.

Phil, we do allow inmates who get married after being sent to prison to have conjugal visits. As for putting them on different wards or jails, that has been ruled illegal.

Jun 14, 2011, 11:03am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Chris; No the state can't force a pastor or priest to do a marriage if they don't want to, they can remove their status as presiding or whatever it's called if they refuse a gay couple. At least that is my impression of what was in the 2009 bill. I'm for the ability of 2 consenting adults to marry each other regardless of gender, but I'm always, categorically against the state forcing anyone to do anything.

Jun 14, 2011, 11:05am Permalink
Phil Ricci

Then you have your answer to that one John.

Chris, you don't have to be Catholic to work for the Church. But should they be protected from providing benefits for what they see as "sin"? This is a bit of a religious issue.

No it's not John! It's a Labor issue. Every employer has the right to create a binding contract with their employees. GCASA states that you must be addiction free to work there. If they find you are not, they are still bound to help you, but they have the right to terminate employment because you violated your service agreement.

The Catholic Church can do the same things if they like. Much like the scandals with all of their priets, who they were still responsible to care for, but did not allow to continue to lead. No difference.

Jun 14, 2011, 11:08am Permalink
Phil Ricci

Dave,

Chris was not saying that church would have to marry them. What he was saying is that if they were married, the church would be bound to provide benefits the same as it did to straight couples.

Jun 14, 2011, 11:09am Permalink
John Roach

Phil, are you saying you can have a person sign a contract not to enter into a gay marriage if they work for a religious institution? And if they do, they can be fired for breach of contract?

Jun 14, 2011, 11:12am Permalink
Chris Charvella

John, the Catholic church doesn't technically recognize any marriage outside their own sacrament. So all those married Presbyterians are just shacking up. Married at the JP? Shacking up and living in sin. That's why I said that whatever they do now, would apply to same sex marriages as well.

Jun 14, 2011, 11:13am Permalink
Dave Olsen

"At a news conference, Cuomo was dismissive of special provisions for religious organizations beyond the basic provision that the state cannot force churches, temples and others to preside over a gay-marriage ceremony."

Went back and read the article again, I was distracted the first time, damn work stuff. Sorry.

I hope it passes, i just hate that it has be rammed through like this.

Jun 14, 2011, 11:27am Permalink
Phil Ricci

I don't think that you could word it like that, no.

Let me clarify,

A bank can choose not to hire someone that has had financial issues.

A trucking company can not hire someone that has had their license revoked.

Likewise, a church could not hire someone to lead their people if their beliefs don't concur with what they teach.

If a person misrepresented themselves, yes they can be fired. It has happened many times.

Jun 14, 2011, 11:38am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Jeff, I would be curious to understand why you suppose the Bible and secular law must be in conformance?

In essence, the laws of the United States disentangle the two (Biblical and secular law).

I suggest you get a copy of Arthur (thank you, Brandon) Miller's "The Crucible," or project yourself into a real-McCoy, theocratic experience; read the trial transcript detailing the banishment of, one, Anne Hutchinson.

Without the 18th C. partition of church and state, this country would not exist, being mired in the Middle Ages, ruled by male church officials, relying on trial by ordeal and suffering purges of every contrary idea. Virtually every practicality we take for granted (had at some point) to leap beyond charges of heresy.

Repression is repression, whether the oppressors carry Bibles, Korans or Tumi.

Jun 14, 2011, 12:07pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

C.M., I think you meant Arthur Miller, not Henry Miller. HUGE difference.

I would, though, like to read a version of "The Crucible" written by Henry Miller; how much bohemian 1930s Parisian sex and depravity could one fit into a story about the 1690s?

Jun 14, 2011, 12:00pm Permalink
terry paine

"Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulatto's, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license".--Wikipedia

The bigot's of today use this same law to control other humans they dislike.

Jun 14, 2011, 12:49pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

C.M., I would point you to the quotes of our founding fathers that I listed in today's poll. They are pretty clear.
Kyle, if after reading my posts and the scripture verses I have used on judging, then you reject the veracity of scripture. You also said this "There is no place in the Bible where Jesus or God forbids anyone who wants to from participating in the belief of God and Jesus. Even if they are sinners." Never said it, implied it, or quoted any scripture that says it because their isn't one. Your conclusion that I hate gay people is flat wrong and I have backed that up with personal stories in past posts that you must have missed. And last, the Bible does not contradict itself, the verses you quote do nothing to undermine the assertion that we have been instructed by God to exercise Godly judgement in all worldly affairs as well as judge those who we come in contact with. I think where we have gone off base is the difference between judgement and discernment. God is the only and ultimate judge in the sense of eternal consequence, but we are to judge others according to scripture and I have laid that out concisely
Charlie, I never referred to homosexuality as an abomination and deliberately left out that Old Testament reference since we are now under grace...you are putting words in my mouth.
As I look back at the posts and responses, I don't find any derogatory or hateful speech in my posts and yet I have been referred to as stupid, ignorant, small-minded, arrogant, wind-bag, hateful, intolerent, negative, offensive, and moron. I may have missed a few and I guess when it comes to faith debates, the no name calling policy does not apply. That's o.k., I've been called worse and will be again but it must be pointed out that if hate is a problem, it's not coming from my posts.

Jun 14, 2011, 2:30pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Jeff, You can't turn the table and attack another's rights and then claim you are the one under attack for discriminating. I know there is this popular idea that "Christianity is under attack" but, most of the people commenting in these posts are Christians, just of a different flavor than you.

I think you should take from this debate that open discrimination is no longer tolerated in our society. We no longer live in biblical times. If you chose to make comments that limit another human being's rights, your going to hear about it.

Jun 14, 2011, 3:00pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Jeff, unlike most of the others in this thread, I freely admit to doubting the veracity of scripture. Not just yours, but all of it from every religion that ever existed.

Starting with the lightning and fire worshiping cavemen and moving through the millennia all the way up to modern day Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons, religion has ever been humanity's denial of the abilities of man to reason and to achieve. Religion has also served as the easiest excuse to hate, fear and oppress people who are different or don't believe as the majority believes. Morality isn't derived from religion, it is distorted by religion.

You can have your religion, I don't want to take it away from you. But I won't accept your scripture as the basis for what my morality should be or as a research tool for what laws should and should not be enacted in a free country.

Jun 14, 2011, 3:01pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Chris, even though you frustrate me sometimes, your honesty is what I appreciate most. You doubt the veracity of scripture and say so. I respect that.
Charlie, did you look at the results of the poll?

Jun 14, 2011, 5:59pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Jeff, did you hear that a Long Island Republican (McDonald) just announced he's going to vote for the bill and go straight to hell afterwards?

Come on Jeff, an online poll? Would you like me to round up people to change the results? I would do it if you promised to give up and take my side. :-)

Jun 14, 2011, 6:13pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by C. M. Barons on June 14, 2011 - 12:07pm
Jeff,.......read the trial transcript detailing the banishment of, one, Anne Hutchinson.

I would suggest reading:
American Jezebel: The Uncommon Life of Anne Hutchinson, the Woman Who Defied the Puritans
Eve Laplante (Author)

Jun 14, 2011, 6:15pm Permalink
Angela Penkszyk

I agree with Chris Charvella, "Religion has also served as the easiest excuse to hate, fear and oppress people who are different or don't believe as the majority believes." Personally, I believe that religion was created by man, as a means of control, kinda like government.

As far as people being able to marry whoever-the-hell they want, let them! Keep your noses outta other people's business.

Jun 14, 2011, 7:04pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Sorry to hear about your car, Jeff.

My wife had her car broken into a few years back. That's a horrible feeling! I wouldn't wish it on anyone! I hope that you get all of your stuff back.

Jun 14, 2011, 9:12pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

I remember when my first new car was broken into. The person broke my window and bled all over the interior. The new car feeling just never returned.

Jun 14, 2011, 9:43pm Permalink
Michele Case

Several years back someone broke into my hunka junk car and stole an FM converter that cost $12 new and was pretty old. Wished I had left it unlocked! Cost me plenty to repair the window.

Jun 14, 2011, 10:31pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Sorry to hear about your car, Jeff. I had a brand new crock pot, still in the box, stolen from the car as we were lugging groceries from the store to the car. We left the car unlocked because we would only be walking from the car to the front of the store and back.
While our backs were turned the huge crockpot box grew legs and walked.

Jun 15, 2011, 12:43am Permalink
Jeff Allen

In an off post e-mail conversation with Howard I apologized for my inference to the no name calling policy. My frustration was an attempt to steer the conversation away from inflammatory comments and back to legitimate debate. I apologize to the participants of the thread as well for bringing in the name calling policy.

Jun 15, 2011, 6:18am Permalink
Phil Ricci

I called Razenhofer to ask him to reconsider his position. My name was logged in.

I don't know if it will help, but if enough people feel that he should then it's you right and obligation to tell him so. Phone: (716) 631-8695

Jun 15, 2011, 9:26am Permalink
Mark Potwora

I just call too ..and said i was against this act..was told Sen. Ranzenhofer will vote No..Which is what i wanted to hear....This what i personally believe ..Marriage is between a man and a woman...

Jun 15, 2011, 5:52pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Which is pathetic and sad. I find all of you "conservatives" to be nothing but hypocrites. The government has no right to take your property, but it can tell you who can or can't get married? Really?

You people use "morals" to justify what you hate. I hope this passes so bad. I hope it does and I hope that every Gay-American in Genesee County gets married in the streets so you see it as you drive by in disgust.

Jun 15, 2011, 7:49pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Many Conservatives vilified Clinton for what they saw as 'governing by the polls'. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and are saying that they should, in essence, govern by the polls.

To say that someone should vote one way or another simply because opinion polls tell them their constituents want them too is ridiculous. People are intelligent, if they do not like the decisions their elected official is making they will vote them out. In the mean time, elected officials should vote what they believe, because a majority of their constituents voted for them and can vote them out.

Edmund Burke, who is considered the father of conservatism, argued passionately that representatives should vote their conscience and let their record stand in an election.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

That's also not to say that legislators shouldn't listen to their constituents, they should, but it should be with the perception that they are no greater than their constituents and could have their minds changed by a set of passionate arguments. Saying that you did something because your polling told you that it's what your constituents wanted you to do is weaselly. Be a real man or woman and vote what you believe.

Jun 15, 2011, 8:03pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Bud, no disrespect intended, but it is disturbing to realize that the 'majority' of those in this district are so narrow minded.
I do have a question. If every Jane and Jane and every Steve and Steve, who cohabit in Genesee Co. today, were married tomorrow how would it effect your life?
I know both gay and lesbian couples here in the county who raised children to adulthood. They did a fine job.
In some cases a far better job than some straight, married couples.
One couple sent their children (yes, children)to private schools (ie: Catholic schools) and ultimately to good universities.
Another couple made room for an ailing parent who was lovingly embraced as part of an extended family.
These couples attended church, belong to organizations, donate their money and volunteer their time to a community that discriminates against them.
I hope, in my children's lifetime, that discrimination will finally be put to rest.

Jun 15, 2011, 8:03pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Phil said "I hope it does and I hope that every Gay-American in Genesee County gets married in the streets so you see it as you drive by in disgust."

Think of the impact on the local economy. What's good for business is good for America. Heck, the GCEDC could claim another dozen jobs created.

Jun 15, 2011, 8:06pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

GC has the hotels, Darian Lake Park, natural beauty and even a casino. With the right marketing, your sitting on a gold mine. GC could be the gay marriage capital of the state.

Jun 15, 2011, 8:32pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Phil, I am a conservative and I support this bill. I find your characterization of all "conservatives" as money-loving hypocrites and your use of the phrase "you people" to be insulting, ignorant and equally pathetic and sad.

Jun 15, 2011, 9:11pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

The reason why I put it in "" was because I know that there are conservatives who support personal freedoms. I find those who claim to be a conservative, but would deny someone the right to live out from under the government to be a hypocrite.

Sorry if I didn't make that context clear enough.

Jun 15, 2011, 9:30pm Permalink
bud prevost

Let me preface by saying, to each his own. I really don't care who you sleep with. And Bea, I also know gay couples with children. Some happy, one going through a nasty breakup.
That being said, the idea of marriage being a "legal" institution rather than a "spiritual" institution is what bothers me. Why should I receive benefits, or penalties, simply because I've devoted my life to a particular person? That is a case of the government sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. My marriage is a gift from God, not Andrew Cuomo. I was married in a church(thank you, Rev Jim Renfrew), not at city hall.

And Bea asked "I do have a question. If every Jane and Jane and every Steve and Steve, who cohabit in Genesee Co. today, were married tomorrow how would it effect your life?"
The population would take a drastic turn downward. Men can't procreate with men, and women can't procreate with women. I know that any woman can become pregnant with the assistance of a turkey baster, but that doesn't seem as natural as good old fashion man/woman sex.

Jun 16, 2011, 8:18am Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

"You people use "morals" to justify what you hate."

I love when people throw out the "H" word and make a comment like this in the same post.

"You people" ? sounds like that left sided tolerant of everyone view point shining through. When I say tolerant of everyone of course I mean the tolerant of everyone that shares your view point with out question, they just fall in lock step with what the party tells them is right with out question.

One thing to remember Phil is hate and discrimination are not bound by party lines nor race.

Jun 16, 2011, 8:47am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Bud, marriages (whether civil, religious or shipboard) bear legal rights and responsibilities. Most same-sex couples have the same expectations of the marriage bond as heterosexual couples: a benchmark ceremony and the legal rights and responsibilities associated with the marriage contract.

Turkey basters not-withstanding, only a turnip would presume that procreation is contingent on marriage. 41% of the births in the United States are to unwed women.

There are 104 million unmarried Americans over age 18, representing over 45% of the adult population. As of 2005, the majority of U. S. households are occupied by unmarried adults. In Rochester 33% of opposite-sex couples are unmarried; 26% is average for the northeast- compared to 12% for the nation (25% increase over last decade). These figures reflect on the current status of marriage and have nothing to do with the possibility of allowing same-sex marriage. More couples are cohabiting, while fewer couples (80,000 less in 2009 than a year before) are marrying. This trend is being driven by the economy more than any other factor.

Top Ten Reasons to Marry (From AskMen.com)

1. Marriage makes you a better man
2. Married people are happier
3. Marriage means better sex
4. Marriage means more sex
5. Marriage brings financial benefits
6. Marriage makes you more attractive
7. Marriage prevents you from dying alone
8. Marriage gives you a platform to build your bloodline on
9. Marriage increases your earning power
10. Marriage makes you live longer

Jun 16, 2011, 9:20am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Bud, Bea said “"I do have a question. If every Jane and Jane and every Steve and Steve, who cohabit in Genesee Co. today, were married tomorrow how would it effect your life?"”

The premise of Bea’s question was what if every “gay” couple living in GC got married today, how would that affect your life?

Most of us on the wacky left reject the idea that being gay is a choice. You’re born gay, its not a lifestyle choice. Bea's question didn't include everyone in GC waking up and deciding all of a sudden, they were gay. Gay isn't an illness, you can't catch it. All of us are safe, have no fear.

Jun 16, 2011, 9:29am Permalink
bud prevost

"marriages (whether civil, religious or shipboard) bear legal rights and responsibilities"

Why? That's all I'm asking.

"Gay isn't an illness, you can't catch it. All of us are safe, have no fear. "

I'm not afraid of any gay people(except Barney Frank), and what they do is their own business.

Jun 16, 2011, 9:32am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Bud; It's because the term Marriage carries with it a certain status or cachet. Some time long before my time, it was decided that a civil marriage (Judge, Clerk of the Court, ship captain etc) should carry the same status as a church marriage. Now some people want to say "Only for some people" . Well, that ain't fair, no matter how you cut it up. Had we, as a country honored the founders' wish and continued separation of Church and State and honored a Religious Marriage as a Civil Marriage instead of vice-versa, we wouldn't have this problem. It always goes back to following the Constitution. And we rarely do any more.

Jun 16, 2011, 9:55am Permalink
Bea McManis

Bud still hasn't answered my question.
Maybe Mark can answer it.
How will a gay or lesbian couple entering into a civil union effect your daily life?

Jun 16, 2011, 10:06am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Joanne - Phil's a liberal? Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing. Ever read some of the things that Phil has written?

Bud - We are not discussing spiritual marriages, we are talking about a government license. Religion cannot become intermingled in government policy. Of course public officials let their faith inform their decisions, but ultimately you cannot use a government contract that has a notary signature and not a religious one. The spiritual marriage to me is totally separate from a contract from the government.

Furthermore, why should you deny anyone the right to enter into a contract? Should straight people who are not in love be able to get married? What is the litmus test for love? If someone is lying about being in love, how do you prove that they perjured themselves?

Jun 16, 2011, 11:14am Permalink
C. M. Barons

Bud, although some of the responsibilities of married couples may translate as undesirable (due to circumstances such as divorce), for the most part the legal aspects of marriage are valuable in regard to any agreements binding on both parties: insurance coverage, debt, child custodial issues, beneficiary rights, medical privileges, inheritance, property ownership, taxes. etc.

Why?

...Because lawyers, judges and legislators have written and interpreted the application of law in that way. (Theocrats are welcome to sample the rights and responsibilities of married couples detailed in the Bible.)

In some cases employers and insurance companies have voluntarily created policy that recognizes less traditional households. The focus of advocates for 'gay marriage' rights is to establish equity. Changing marriage statutes is not about challenging the institution of marriage (although there may be some fringe proponents to that aim); the matter is fixing a situation that lends itself to legal ambiguity and establishing equal rights under law.

Anyone projecting that their marriage is somehow cheapened or spiritually diminished by the marriage of same-sex couples should find something else to blame for their crisis-of-faith.

Jun 16, 2011, 1:16pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

"Anyone projecting that their marriage is somehow cheapened or spiritually diminished by the marriage of same-sex couples should find something else to blame for their crisis-of-faith." Couldn't have been said any better C.M.

Marriage has been cheapened by the ease of which one can get a divorce or the half-ass attitude they take toward the vows. Terms like "Starter marriage" and "Me time" are bigger culprits than "Gay Marriage"

Also, referring to someone as "My Wife or My Husband" conjures a completely different impression and carries more authority than "My Domestic Partner"

It's about equality and fairness.

Jun 16, 2011, 1:22pm Permalink
bud prevost

As I stated earlier, I don't care one way or the other if gays can legally marry or not. The question was what our area's senator was going to do, and I stand by my statement that he is merely voting on behalf of his constituent's wishes.

Also, I find it mildly amusing that the proponents of this law tend to be liberals. A true liberal doesn't believe anyone should breathe, without guidance and assistance from the government.

C.M., thank you for your response. It IS all about the lawyers. This will open a whole new clientele for the divorce attorneys out there.

And , finally, Bea, it doesn't effect my day to day life. I am not arguing about gays getting married; rather, I am questioning the need for the government to sanction any marriage. After all, we are all individuals that enter the journey alone, and leave the journey alone.

Jun 16, 2011, 1:48pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Sorry, Bud, but if Katzenjammer votes against the 'gay marriage' bill, he will be doing so out of political expediency- NOT the will of his constituency. Katzenjammer hasn't a clue or care what his constituency desires. He's too busy sending out glossy diatribes TELLING us what we think.

Jun 16, 2011, 1:57pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Bud, i agree, the government should just stay out of it, but seeing as how it has already sanctioned marriage and seems likely to continue to do so, then it has to be non-discriminatory.

And Ranzenhofer is a go-along Republican and will never rock the boat.. Which is why I will never vote for him, has nothing to do with ideology or his beliefs.

Jun 16, 2011, 2:30pm Permalink

Authentically Local