It would be a huge mistake and make us more of the laughing stock of the US of A!
This could be a breath of fresh air in a state that seems to be hopelessly misgoverned.
Having gay marriage legalized in NYS would place it on the side of justice in one of the most embarassing civil rights injustices of our time . . denying gay persons "equal justice under law" & their Constitutional rights to "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness".
I now live in the 2nd most gay-friendly US city (Mpls) & enjoy watching the benefits of full inclusion of an often-talented minority. And I attend a Unitarian Church where many gay families enrich the social & spiritual fabric of the congregation.
Gay marriage could also assist the faltering economies of The "Queen City" & Niagara Falls. Bflo could become the 'most gay-friendly city in the North East' & Niagara Falls could become 'gay marriage capital'.
I hope NYS (finally!) will "do the right thing".
Buffalo News Editorial:
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/e...ry/863013.html
Approve gay marriage
State Senate should take up issue that extends rights without costs
Updated: November 15, 2009, 10:16 PM /
What the New York Legislature giveth, it is loathe to take away. Even when the state is in a $3.2 billion budget hole, and the tax-the-rich well has gone dry, lawmakers apparently cannot bring themselves to cut back on any of the annual entitlements they give to everything from public employees unions to local pork projects.
But there is a gift that members of the New York Senate could bestow upon many of their fellow citizens, one that has the rare political benefit of not costing their taxpayers, their interest groups — even their long-suffering constituents — a single thing.
The Senate should approve the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. The Assembly already has passed it. Gov. David A. Paterson is primed to sign it. Justice demands it. And no single person in the state of New York will, despite what many fervently believe, be any the worse for it.
When the state performs any function of civil authority, it must do so in a way that plays no favorites. Clearly, for the state to officially recognize an opposite-sex marriage between two consenting adults while refusing that same recognition to two same-sex partners is an act of discrimination that serves no legitimate state purpose.
The government's proper role in marriage is to register and, if necessary, enforce the contract entered into by two self-aware adults. If the couple lives happily ever after, the state's role is limited to that of dutiful file clerk. If not, the state may be required to step in to settle disputes involving property, support and custody of minor children.
The role of the state in settling such problems, though far from perfect in practice, does help non-working spouses or dependent children survive a dissolution, financially if not emotionally. Sexuality has no bearing on that function.
Opponents of same-sex marriage make much of the fact that, when the question was put to voters in liberal California and libertarian Maine, both states rejected it. But those votes, driven in no small part by scare tactics, are not good examples for an elected Legislature to follow.
In California, opponents falsely argued that churches would be forced to give their support to same-sex marriage if the state did. In Maine, the largely out-of-state campaign focused on the shibboleth, futilely refuted by the state's attorney general, that schools would be forced to "teach" same-sex marriage if such a thing existed in the Pine Tree State.
A state law recognizing gay marriage would govern only the actions of the state. No church would be required to sanctify a union it objected to. No school would be forced to sing its praises by that law.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in several nations, including Canada and the United Kingdom, and in five U.S. states, from New England to Iowa. Harm to opposite-sex couples, their children and their households, there or anywhere: Non-existent.
A gift that costs the giver nothing. Sounds tailor-made for New York politics.
It would be a huge mistake and make us more of the laughing stock of the US of A!
The above is opinion & commentary, I am exercising my 1st Amendment rights as a US citizen. Posts are NOT made with any malicious intent.
I don’t like framing this issue as “gay marriage” because that masks the real issues and allows people to make nonsensical arguments against recognizing same-sex marriages:
1. The existing law does not prevent gay people from getting married. The marriage license application does not contain questions about either person's sexual orientation. In fact, an openly gay man could marry an openly gay woman under existing law.
2. Marriage is not presently limited to people who intend to procreate or who can procreate. No such criteria exist in law. In fact, two people can get married even though they never intend to have sex with each other.
Our existing laws simply do not prevent homosexuals from betting married. All that the do is prevent same-gender marriage, whether one or both of the parties is homosexual or heterosexual.
Neither do our existing laws concern themselves with the sexual relationship between parties getting married.
Those two facts pretty much eliminate all the reasons given for objection to same-gender marriages other than purely religious ones which have no place in the discussion of our secular laws.
It all cones down to whether we want to continue the prohibition on same-gender marriages, and if so, why?
Simply because "it has always been that way" is not good enough because we have changed many things that used to "always be that way" as we became more enlightened. For example, outlawing slavery and giving women the right to vote changed what had "always been that way."
So we need something better to justify denying a secular right to a group of people simply because of their sexual orientation.
Either that or we should change our existing marriage laws to limit marriage to opposite-gender heterosexual couples who agree to have only missionary style sex only with each other and solely for the purpose of procreation.
Kern with another thread about gays.
Kern, are you in or out of the closet?
Weren't you the busy-body prattling on about obsession's with other posters?
You were told you lacked the context to the comments. That's all you needed to know.
Oh wait, I get it. I rubbed your nose in your diaper in some other thread, and this is your attempt to try and get even. Good luck.
Destructive (& bigoted) trolling aborts so many serious SUWNY threads.
Here is the original issue.
Please stay on topic!
COPY:
I hope NYS (finally!) will "do the right thing".
Buffalo News Editorial:
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/e...ry/863013.html
Approve gay marriage
State Senate should take up issue that extends rights without costs
Updated: November 15, 2009, 10:16 PM
What the New York Legislature giveth, it is loathe to take away. Even when the state is in a $3.2 billion budget hole, and the tax-the-rich well has gone dry, lawmakers apparently cannot bring themselves to cut back on any of the annual entitlements they give to everything from public employees unions to local pork projects.
But there is a gift that members of the New York Senate could bestow upon many of their fellow citizens, one that has the rare political benefit of not costing their taxpayers, their interest groups — even their long-suffering constituents — a single thing.
The Senate should approve the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. The Assembly already has passed it. Gov. David A. Paterson is primed to sign it. Justice demands it. And no single person in the state of New York will, despite what many fervently believe, be any the worse for it.
When the state performs any function of civil authority, it must do so in a way that plays no favorites. Clearly, for the state to officially recognize an opposite-sex marriage between two consenting adults while refusing that same recognition to two same-sex partners is an act of discrimination that serves no legitimate state purpose.
The government's proper role in marriage is to register and, if necessary, enforce the contract entered into by two self-aware adults. If the couple lives happily ever after, the state's role is limited to that of dutiful file clerk. If not, the state may be required to step in to settle disputes involving property, support and custody of minor children.
The role of the state in settling such problems, though far from perfect in practice, does help non-working spouses or dependent children survive a dissolution, financially if not emotionally. Sexuality has no bearing on that function.
Opponents of same-sex marriage make much of the fact that, when the question was put to voters in liberal California and libertarian Maine, both states rejected it. But those votes, driven in no small part by scare tactics, are not good examples for an elected Legislature to follow.
In California, opponents falsely argued that churches would be forced to give their support to same-sex marriage if the state did. In Maine, the largely out-of-state campaign focused on the shibboleth, futilely refuted by the state's attorney general, that schools would be forced to "teach" same-sex marriage if such a thing existed in the Pine Tree State.
A state law recognizing gay marriage would govern only the actions of the state. No church would be required to sanctify a union it objected to. No school would be forced to sing its praises by that law.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in several nations, including Canada and the United Kingdom, and in five U.S. states, from New England to Iowa. Harm to opposite-sex couples, their children and their households, there or anywhere: Non-existent.
A gift that costs the giver nothing. Sounds tailor-made for New York politics.
to which i repeat:
I don’t like framing this issue as “gay marriage” because that masks the real issues and allows people to make nonsensical arguments against recognizing same-sex marriages:
1. The existing law does not prevent gay people from getting married. The marriage license application does not contain questions about either person's sexual orientation. In fact, an openly gay man could marry an openly gay woman under existing law.
2. Marriage is not presently limited to people who intend to procreate or who can procreate. No such criteria exist in law. In fact, two people can get married even though they never intend to have sex with each other.
Our existing laws simply do not prevent homosexuals from betting married. All that the do is prevent same-gender marriage, whether one or both of the parties is homosexual or heterosexual.
Neither do our existing laws concern themselves with the sexual relationship between parties getting married.
Those two facts pretty much eliminate all the reasons given for objection to same-gender marriages other than purely religious ones which have no place in the discussion of our secular laws.
It all cones down to whether we want to continue the prohibition on same-gender marriages, and if so, why?
Simply because "it has always been that way" is not good enough because we have changed many things that used to "always be that way" as we became more enlightened. For example, outlawing slavery and giving women the right to vote changed what had "always been that way."
So we need something better to justify denying a secular right to a group of people simply because of their sexual orientation.
Either that or we should change our existing marriage laws to limit marriage to opposite-gender heterosexual couples who agree to have only missionary style sex only with each other and solely for the purpose of procreation.
Kern does seem to have a fixation on homosexual rights. While I don't disagree with him, he pushes it to the point where he has more of a "homosexual agenda" than most homosexuals I know. He tries to make completely unrelated things into gay issues the same way a few people around here try to make unrelated things into racial issues.
That being said, I have no patience for institutionalized discrimination. Allow gay marriage, and allow it now! Too many people think we can have the same laws but not call it marriage and it will be the same, but please let me know when "separate but equal" has ever worked in the past.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
Stepping aside from the main debate about gay marriage, I'm not really sure allowing marriage in NYS would necessarily make cities like Buffalo into super "gay friendly" places overnight. Although maybe it would change in the long run. For now Buffalo would still be Buffalo, a mildly gay-tolerant city.
Economically I think most of the benefit would go to NYC, and possibly Niagara Falls if they can promote the Falls/Honeymoon angle without seeing all the business just go to the Canadian side in the process... something they have never been very adept at handling anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)