As a New York state resident, I'm disgusted but not surprised. Upstate NY tends to be more conservative, so I'm not surprised state senators from that district voted against it. Then representatives from Queens and other NYC burroughs with larger Black and Hispanic bases voted it down because those demographics tend to vote along religious lines. Exactly how Prop 8 was passed in California.
Self-interested politicians more interested in re-election than equitable governance. Shameful, in my opinion.
Crud. I had a nice, well thought out post written here, and the update happened. Two good posts losts for two different reasons over the past two days. Not everything happens in threes...
Ah well.
A lot of people are going to be just as shocked as you are David, but I'd like to remind them all(as my dear friend who lives upstate reminds me) that NYS is GIGANTIC and overall quite conservative, especially where this issue is concerned. I'm not surprised it was defeated, but I am heartned by the amount of people who voted for it. Despite what a lot of people may think and the spin that the news reports put on it last night, I don't think it was open and shut.
|
Until this past election cycle, conservative Republicans actually had a majority in the New York State Senate. Our best hopes were that the bill was going to squeak by with a 1 or 2 vote margin. There are a couple of senators on there who had previously indicated they might support the bill, so I suspect some changed their votes to "no" once it was apparent the bill was headed for defeat, to save face or curry favor with caucus leaderships.
Every time I see something like this voted down, or banned or whatever I get a bit sicker and feed up with the hypocritical b!#*#**! to be honest.
Sad but not unexpected, which is even more sad
As a New York state resident, I'm disgusted but not surprised. Upstate NY tends to be more conservative, so I'm not surprised state senators from that district voted against it.
As a rule, people from outside of NY don't understand that it's a state. They think midtown Manhattan (which I'd personally consider a part of Jersey) is "New York."
P.S. Then again, I'm from Troy, but I certainly have no desire to tell other people who can or cannot get married to whom, so what do I know.
Hey, at least a vote was had on the issue!
No such look in my home country!
Hey, at least a vote was had on the issue!
No such look in my home country!
Well said.
In my home state lawmakers are trying to reinstate some sodomy laws which would make homosexual activity illegal everywhere except in a home you own.
In my home state lawmakers are trying to reinstate some sodomy laws which would make homosexual activity illegal everywhere except in a home you own.
And, sadly, there are countries in Africa pushing for it to be a capital offense.
|
In my home state lawmakers are trying to reinstate some sodomy laws which would make homosexual activity illegal everywhere except in a home you own.And, sadly, there are countries in Africa pushing for it to be a capital offense.
And, sadly, there are countries elsewhere (won't mention which ones, wouldn't want to be "culturally insensitive", after all) where it IS a capital offense.
|
|
As a New York state resident, I'm disgusted but not surprised. Upstate NY tends to be more conservative, so I'm not surprised state senators from that district voted against it.As a rule, people from outside of NY don't understand that it's a state. They think midtown Manhattan (which I'd personally consider a part of Jersey) is "New York."
P.S. Then again, I'm from Troy, but I certainly have no desire to tell other people who can or cannot get married to whom, so what do I know.
Yes, Manhattan and Long Island are part of Greater New Jersey. I've done too much Jersey time (it was worse than prison) and Manhattan time (ditto) to think differently. (I grew up bouncing between Jersey, NYC and upstate NY).
Yes, there is a whole state north and west of the Tappan Zee bridge.
Yes, there are more rednecks north and west of the Tappan Zee bridge than most yankees would like to admit. (Of course, dirty little secret about the Northeast and New England states: They're just as homophobic and racist - outside of the hipper urban areas - as anything in the rural/suburban South, they're just better at hiding it. And in the urban areas, there is quite a bit as well - South Boston and Bensonhurst immediately spring to mind).
So, pretty much doesn't surprise me at all.
I take comfort in the belief that civil liberties are only gaining momentum and that this issue has become too big to simply go away.
Now if we could just talk to the FCC.
Here in Washington State our so-called "everything but marriage" law passed. Supporters are pleased, and I admit it seems a step forward, but I see a problem with the legislation.
Same sex couples can go in and get domestic partnership status, which gives all the rights normally given to a spouse to each person, provided they meet certain qualifications. However, heterosexual couples cannot do the same thing unless one partner is at least 62 years of age. This seems reminiscent of the old "separate but equal" laws for people of color prior to the civil rights movement.
May as well allow this for all couples, regardless of the gender of each, that meet the set requirements. Then if you want to be recognized as "married," just find yourself someone that can conduct the ceremony.
Here in Washington State our so-called "everything but marriage" law passed. Supporters are pleased, and I admit it seems a step forward, but I see a problem with the legislation.
Same sex couples can go in and get domestic partnership status, which gives all the rights normally given to a spouse to each person, provided they meet certain qualifications. However, heterosexual couples cannot do the same thing unless one partner is at least 62 years of age. This seems reminiscent of the old "separate but equal" laws for people of color prior to the civil rights movement.
May as well allow this for all couples, regardless of the gender of each, that meet the set requirements. Then if you want to be recognized as "married," just find yourself someone that can conduct the ceremony.
Why 62 years of age? Where did that figure come from?
I think Texas got it right by banning all marriages. Marriage is the leading cause of divorce after all.
F*cking homophobes.
Why 62 years of age? Where did that figure come from?
I'm not sure, but I think its the earliest age at which one can be considered a retiree.
As a New York state resident, I'm disgusted but not surprised. Upstate NY tends to be more conservative, so I'm not surprised state senators from that district voted against it. Then representatives from Queens and other NYC burroughs with larger Black and Hispanic bases voted it down because those demographics tend to vote along religious lines. Exactly how Prop 8 was passed in California.
Self-interested politicians more interested in re-election than equitable governance. Shameful, in my opinion.
Shameful they actually represented their constituents?(sp?) It may be shameful that the people they represent feel that way, but it is certainly not shameful for a representative politican to actual vote in a way that supports how the majority of the people they represent feel.
F*cking homophobes.
I'm from Texas.
I'm not sure, but I think its the earliest age at which one can be considered a retiree.
Why 62 years of age? Where did that figure come from?
So someone can sponge off their social security without being married to them? That makes no sense to me.
F*cking homophobes.I'm from Texas.
My condolences.
F*cking homophobes.I'm from Texas.
I didn't mean all of Texas. Just the ones that voted for the amendment (and those who lobbied for it). I apologize; I shoulda been more clear.
And I live in FL. I can't even adopt kids in this state.
I'm from Texas.
Just havin' some fun at your expense, dear.
I'm from Texas.Just havin' some fun at your expense, dear.
I was hoping that was the case. :)
If FL gets any more bass-ackward, will some supervillian please laser the AL/GA border from orbit? Just let the d*mn state float off into the Atlantic and sit back to watch the Lord of the Flies-apalooza.
On the bright side a marriage intiative looks to be going ahead in Washington D.C. provided Congress can resist it's fond habit of interfering in local government.
I'm not getting my hopes up, considering they tabled ENDA until February at the earliest. That means Congress-critters will be even more skittish to pass it, "afraid" it'll "hurt their chances at the 2010 re-election."
If they can't pass ENDA, there is no way DOMA or DADT will get repealed.
"Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."
Things like this should be decided by the people in referendum, not by politicians or judges.
Things like this should be decided by the people in referendum, not by politicians or judges.
Isn't that kind of what happened in California?
BTW, disagreeing with homosexuality on the basis of moral principle doesn't make a person a homophobe--unwillingness to associate with gays/lesbians or seeking to do them harm are expressions of homophobia.
I'm not sure, but I think its the earliest age at which one can be considered a retiree.
Why 62 years of age? Where did that figure come from?
The whole age thing is because one of the reasons the domestic partnership thing passed (or rather, was upheld) in Washington is that, at the moment, if two old folks on Social Security get married, their combined SS is way less than their individual payouts... in addition to granting gay folks most of (though unfortunately not all) the rights of married folks, the bill allows elderly folks to have nearly all the rights of being married without taking the financial hit.
Funny that it takes a financial incentive for the older (and frequently more conservative set) to throw their weight behind gay rights. Reminds me of Prop 8 The Musical (With Jack Black and Neil Patrick Harris!).
Democracy rocks on toast, in my opinion. I am not aware of a better system, yet, it is flawed. The minority still needs protection from the majority. You know…for certain unalienable rights.
|
|
Things like this should be decided by the people in referendum, not by politicians or judges.
Referendums are the antithesis of civil rights. The point of civil rights is to protect people whose views, background, lifestyles, etc are unpopular or in the minority.
Think of freedom of speech. If someone is proclaiming a very popular point of view, there is no credible threat to their freedom to say it. On the other hand, if they have a very unpopular thing to say, people are going to try to shut them up, but we give that person legal protections to say what they have to say.
The same thing is true for the rights of minorities, minority religions, and so on. The designers of the constitution wrote it in such a way that those people have a protected place and are free to be who they are and share their views without being subject to a referendum by a populace that doesn't care for them.
BTW, disagreeing with homosexuality on the basis of moral principle doesn't make a person a homophobe--unwillingness to associate with gays/lesbians or seeking to do them harm are expressions of homophobia.
What moral principle?
Things like this should be decided by the people in referendum, not by politicians or judges.
Riiiiiiight.
So the majority of the citizens of a country get to decide whether or not to acknowledge the basic human rights of the minority citizens? Really? So you are 100% happy with a country's population deciding to refuse to recognize the rights of minority religions, even Christianity?
BTW, disagreeing with homosexuality on the basis of moral principle doesn't make a person a homophobe.
What moral principle? Please clarify.
Edit: Darn ninja poodles!
BTW, disagreeing with homosexuality on the basis of moral principle doesn't make a person a homophobe--unwillingness to associate with gays/lesbians or seeking to do them harm are expressions of homophobia.
So then if I disagree with black people being able to marry on the basis of moral principle I'm not actually a racist, right?
As a New York state resident, I'm disgusted but not surprised. Upstate NY tends to be more conservative, so I'm not surprised state senators from that district voted against it.As a rule, people from outside of NY don't understand that it's a state. They think midtown Manhattan (which I'd personally consider a part of Jersey) is "New York."
P.S. Then again, I'm from Troy, but I certainly have no desire to tell other people who can or cannot get married to whom, so what do I know.
Yes, Manhattan and Long Island are part of Greater New Jersey. I've done too much Jersey time (it was worse than prison) and Manhattan time (ditto) to think differently. (I grew up bouncing between Jersey, NYC and upstate NY).
Yes, there is a whole state north and west of the Tappan Zee bridge.
Yes, there are more rednecks north and west of the Tappan Zee bridge than most yankees would like to admit. (Of course, dirty little secret about the Northeast and New England states: They're just as homophobic and racist - outside of the hipper urban areas - as anything in the rural/suburban South, they're just better at hiding it. And in the urban areas, there is quite a bit as well - South Boston and Bensonhurst immediately spring to mind).
So, pretty much doesn't surprise me at all.
Actually Southie has changed alot from the 70's busing times. No place is perfect, Boston and Southie got a bad rap rightly so for someone the happenings there but the town has changed and while not perfect by any stretch I would disagree that they they are just hiding it better. There have been major strides made which got the rest of the country thinking done in Massaschusetts. Vermont is not far behind and Conn. has had some very gay friendly laws on the books for a while. There is work to be done as always. Just defending my neck of woods a proud Bostonian here so no claim that I am unbias.
Democracy rocks on toast, in my opinion. I am not aware of a better system, yet, it is flawed. The minority still needs protection from the majority. You know…for certain unalienable rights.
But are the "rights", some are saying they should have, "unalienable"?
I can't say this surprises me. If California can't pass such a law, I wouldn't expect New York too.
Democracy rocks on toast, in my opinion. I am not aware of a better system, yet, it is flawed. The minority still needs protection from the majority. You know…for certain unalienable rights.But are the "rights", some are saying they should have, "unalienable"?
Equal protections under the law. I believe those rights are "unalienable" as far as the laws are for marriages. One may have a fair argument that the benefits one has to be married are unfair. But since that pandora's box has been opened already. I don't think it fair that one group have a certain set of laws and others don't have access to those laws, protections and considerations.
Democracy rocks on toast, in my opinion. I am not aware of a better system, yet, it is flawed. The minority still needs protection from the majority. You know…for certain unalienable rights.But are the "rights", some are saying they should have, "unalienable"?
Assume someone very much like you, Pres Man, is a happy successful productive worker that greatly adds to my company's profits. Assume you are a team player, and that you go above and beyond on the job. Assume you are everything a reasonable employer could hope for in an employee.
I fire you.
Why? Because I don't feel you present yourself in my idea of masculinity. It doesn't matter how heterosexual you are... you ain't male model 6'4" hunky masculine.
Or because of your masculine gender presentation, someone decides not to hire you for a new job. Or denies you a loan. Or denies your apartment application.
It's legal, so that makes it right? Why can't you choose to act like society's and my idea of manhood?
|
We already have laws that establish who can and can't get married. Not trying to start a fight here, but if the debate was whether we should legalize polygamy rather than gay marriage, would we be talking about the ebate in the same way?
|
|
Equal protections under the law. I believe those rights are "unalienable" as far as the laws are for marriages. One may have a fair argument that the benefits one has to be married are unfair. But since that pandora's box has been opened already. I don't think it fair that one group have a certain set of laws and others don't have access to those laws, protections and considerations.Democracy rocks on toast, in my opinion. I am not aware of a better system, yet, it is flawed. The minority still needs protection from the majority. You know…for certain unalienable rights.But are the "rights", some are saying they should have, "unalienable"?
This.
The "unalienable" right at stake is the right to operate under the same laws as everyone else.
Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.
I hate to agree with David, but he does have a point here. Why should it be any different if me and my girlfriend want to get married or if you and your wife want to add a third member to your marriage. Or if Christina and I found someone that we wanted to add as a spouse? How do we actually decide who is intitled to the "rights" of marriage and who isn't.
|
|
Equal protections under the law. I believe those rights are "unalienable" as far as the laws are for marriages. One may have a fair argument that the benefits one has to be married are unfair. But since that pandora's box has been opened already. I don't think it fair that one group have a certain set of laws and others don't have access to those laws, protections and considerations.Democracy rocks on toast, in my opinion. I am not aware of a better system, yet, it is flawed. The minority still needs protection from the majority. You know…for certain unalienable rights.But are the "rights", some are saying they should have, "unalienable"?This.
The "unalienable" right at stake is the right to operate under the same laws as everyone else.
Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.
Okay, but do we then extend those rights to couples who choose simply to cohabitate? If not then we are still establishing a protected class who are treated different than other members of society. We are simply expanding the number of people in that protected class.
Edit: Please do not think I'm being a troll or a jerck or something. I just want to present some of the questions that need to be discussed. If it were up to me, everyone who entered a "domestic partnership" would be entitled to the same rights, regardless of whether they were "married" or not. In fact if I had my way, the government would have nothing to do with marriage.
We already have laws that establish who can and can't get married. Not trying to start a fight here, but if the debate was whether we should legalize polygamy rather than gay marriage, would we be talking about the ebate in the same way?
To me, no.
I consider marriage (by the state, I don't care what a person's religious ideal of marriage is) is a consensual contract between two adults. Polygamy is between multiple people, and to me, different enough to be a separate argument/debate.
|
Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.
I may be opening a can of worms here, but I'm really curious -- What "rights" (especially at a State level) are same-sex couples missing out on that getting a piece of paper saying they are "married" would get them? It is an injustice -- I'm just not sure what that injustice includes.
BTW, disagreeing with homosexuality on the basis of moral principle doesn't make a person a homophobe--unwillingness to associate with gays/lesbians or seeking to do them harm are expressions of homophobia.
Ah, so if people disagree with Christianity on the basis of moral principle, then Christians certainly won't complain they're being unfairly discriminated against. Because dismantling the Ten Commandments isn't Christian-bashing. It's Christian-bashing only if you actually go around whacking priests with baseball bats, or refuse to associate with all Christians.
|
|
We already have laws that establish who can and can't get married. Not trying to start a fight here, but if the debate was whether we should legalize polygamy rather than gay marriage, would we be talking about the ebate in the same way?To me, no.
I consider marriage (by the state, I don't care what a person's religious ideal of marriage is) is a consensual contract between two adults. Polygamy is between multiple people, and to me, different enough to be a separate argument/debate.
But the question then is why is it different, so long as it is consenual. Is it the number of people involved? Explain why you see it as different if the issue is really the right to marry the person you love.
|
|
BTW, disagreeing with homosexuality on the basis of moral principle doesn't make a person a homophobe--unwillingness to associate with gays/lesbians or seeking to do them harm are expressions of homophobia.Ah, so if people disagree with Christianity on the basis of moral principle, then Christians certainly won't complain they're being unfairly discriminated against.
Not at all, only speaking for myself of course.
Marriage itself as a right is dubious, otherwise people who simply can't find a suitable spouse would be having their rights violated. But the fact that some couples get a set of legal benefits that accompany their union and others do not is an injustice.I may be opening a can of worms here, but I'm really curious -- What "rights" (especially at a State level) are same-sex couples missing out on that getting a piece of paper saying they are "married" would get them? It is an injustice -- I'm just not sure what that injustice includes.