Archive for Thursday, December 3, 2009

State lawmakers reject gay marriage bill

December 3, 2009

Advertisement

— New York lawmakers on Wednesday rejected a bill that would have made their state the sixth to allow gay marriage, stunning advocates who suffered a similar decision by Maine voters just last month.

The New York measure needed 32 votes to pass and failed by a wider-than-expected margin, falling eight votes short in a 24-38 decision by the state Senate. The Assembly had earlier approved the bill, and Gov. David Paterson, perhaps the bill’s strongest advocate, had pledged to sign it.

After the vote, Paterson called Wednesday one of his saddest days in 20 years of public service and he criticized senators who he said support gay marriage but “didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to vote for it.”

Comments

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 8 months ago

Congratulations to New York. One-man-one-woman wins again!

Satirical 5 years, 8 months ago

As a consolation prize, at least same-sex marriage passed in the District of Columbia by the city council. That's like being rejected by the Yale and instead being accepted by MU.

jafs 5 years, 8 months ago

STRS,

Yippee!

Heterosexual marriages are so wildly successful!

(Please note sarcastic attitude of above comments, for those who can't figure that out)

jafs 5 years, 8 months ago

And, seriously:

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, I and my wife spent some time with a gay male friend of my family.

He is a wonderful, intelligent, caring man who would make an excellent spouse/parent. My sister's family call him "uncle Carl" - he has helped them with their garden, cooked at Thanksgiving, and is very good with their kids.

I think the anti-gay marriage folks should get to know some actual gay people before deciding to condemn the idea of gay marriage.

Satirical 5 years, 8 months ago

jafs... "I think the anti-gay marriage folks should get to know some actual gay people before deciding to condemn the idea of gay marriage"

I think the pro same-sex marriage folks should get to know some actual arguments of pro traditional marriage folks before deciding that their position is based solely on animus towards gays and lesbians. Oh wait, if they did that, and learned most pro traditional marriage advocates don't hate gays and lesbians, then they couldn't use the tactic of claiming moral superiority.

lctchr1 5 years, 8 months ago

Again, this makes me love the CA petition to ban divorce. Brilliant!

jonas_opines 5 years, 8 months ago

Still assuming that you have a lock on the "main" argument against this, Satirical? From my perspective, you have no more right to say that than others have to say that it's all about bigotry. Just because you assume it to be true doesn't make it true. Goes, as you might say, both ways.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 8 months ago

What makes people so confident that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others, when the outcome has no effect on them whatsoever?

Satirical 5 years, 8 months ago

Jonas_opines… “Still assuming that you have a lock on the “main” argument against this, Satirical? From my perspective, you have no more right to say that than others have to say that it's all about bigotry. Just because you assume it to be true doesn't make it true. Goes, as you might say, both ways.”

When did I say I have “a lock on the ‘main’ arguments?” Simply because I know there are argument against same-sex marriage that are no motivated by bigotry or animus doesn’t mean I know everything. I am sure there are some great arguments of which I have never considered, going both ways. However, that doesn’t mean I still don’t have a good grasp on the topic and know many arguments from both positions.

Jafts repeats a common theme among pro same-sex marriage advocates…opposition to their position is all about bigotry and hate. This simply isn’t true. I don’t need to assume anything to make jafs statements false, because there are clearly many argument which are not based on animus and bigotry.

lctchr1 5 years, 8 months ago

"What makes people so confident that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others, when the outcome has no effect on them whatsoever?"

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner, folks!

leedavid 5 years, 8 months ago

I don't care who is gay and who is not. It has nothing to do with me. I don't oppose same sex legal ceremonies, what does that have to do with me? I do oppose gay marriage. Why? It is against my christian beliefs. Its against the law. Its against the very definition of the word in dictionaries, bible, and in law. Everytime it comes up for a vote I am voting against it. You can not change my beliefs nor can I change yours. So we go on from here.

mom_of_three 5 years, 8 months ago

"It is against my christian beliefs. Its against the law. Its against the very definition of the word in dictionaries, bible, and in law."

So don't have a gay marriage. then call it a civil union, if the dictionary definition is holding you back.

once upon a time, it was against the law for women to vote and to teach blacks to read and write and slavery was legal (with a biblical view to support it). But those laws were wrong and were changed and hopefully, this one will too

gccs14r 5 years, 8 months ago

That a bunch of lawmakers can be gutless wonders is no surprise. That a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers agree with them is no surprise, either. The SCOTUS will weigh in on this eventually, but it may take another hundred years. The 14th Amendment does apply.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 8 months ago

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

“What makes people so confident that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others, when the outcome has no effect on them whatsoever?”

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner, folks!

Do you two feel the same way about taxes? Demand my money for the healthcare, food, housing,….lifeforce.

So, Barry, you are saying that tax laws that effect you have no effect on anyone except you?

Left_handed 5 years, 8 months ago

"mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers"? That could only have been written by a prancing, lisping, limp-wristed girly man.

See, we can throw out ignorant ad hominem attacks from our side, too.

mr_right_wing 5 years, 8 months ago

In the mind of many gays: "so what?" Now it's time for them to get busy figuring out how to get around majority opinion. Many of us were not happy to see that empty busses continue to aimlessly roll along the streets of our city. We don't like it, but we accepted it...the majority spoke and we lost.

thebigspoon 5 years, 8 months ago

Great headline, doofus. You wanted to grab attention and you did it. In journalism school (if you ever attended) did they teach you to headline vague, half-true drivel, or did they tell you that the headline should presage the actual data in the story? So New York did something: say so. Kansas didn't (yet, or ever, I hope.) Don't pander to the people you know will immediately come to the support of whatever bigotry you are pushing at any one time. Those people will have their say, but at least headline what is really in the story.

jafs 5 years, 8 months ago

Given the statistical realities of heterosexual marriage (eg. adultery/divorce/abuse rates) there are no rational reasons for holding it up as some sort of ideal.

We are not a Christian theocracy, so religious beliefs should not dictate legislation.

I submit that most anti gay-marriage advocates do not know any gay people very well, and hold a large set of stereotypical views about them.

Any arguments against gay marriage based on possible infidelity/divorce would apply to heterosexual marriage as well.

Should we ban heterosexual marriage because so many are doing a poor job of living up to the commitments they make?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.