So when do we start prosecuting clergy for declining to officiate--oh, like they'd do that?

Nevermind.

rick I have but one word for you. RACIST.

Actually, the complete quote is this.

Matthew 19:3-8 Some Pharisees wanted to test Jesus. They came up to him and asked, "Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" Jesus answered, "Don't you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? That's why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together." The Pharisees asked Jesus, "Why did Moses say that a man could write out divorce papers and send his wife away?" Jesus replied, "You are so heartless! That's why Moses allowed you to divorce your wife. But from the beginning God did not intend it to be that way.

It's not an anti-gay marriage passage in the Bible. It's an anti-divorce passage in the Bible. Jesus is telling the Pharisees that the act of divorce by his creations is against the will and desires of God. So not only are you using it wrong (and thus showing your ignorance of what you claim you believe in and know,) but you're also showing your hypocrisy and selective outrage about the "cultural decay" if you're not going to use this passage to declare that you want an immediate ban on divorce in this country and that the people who flaunt God's will so blatantly as to be divorced, and even worse to be divorced more than once (which is what most of the modern conservative/Republican Icons have been,) are destroying this country.

"So when do we start prosecuting clergy for declining to officiate--oh, like they'd do that?"

Stop drinking the paranoia propaganda juice already. You only make yourselves look stupid when you do that.

Oh, wait... This is Wizbang... You lot enjoy looking stupid.

Carry on then.

gary, they passed a religious protection amendment, despite the gays assuring everyone that they were completely unnecessary, because they'd never sue over this. At least the republicans that sold out their constituents forced that through first.

Couple hundred years...we had a good run. Maybe France has saved us a chaise near the pool and the early bird starts soon at the diner.

I'm not worried. Now that marriage is available to these people companies will insist that they get married in order to access benefits. If they don't demand that then they will have to offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples and they aren't going to increase their benefit costs.

Gays will be forced to marry and they will have all the fun of dealing with divorce laws when they decide to split up. And they will get divorced. Already data shows that they get divorced just as often as heterosexual couples.

Welcome to the party. Fools.

Couple points:

1) This went through the right way. Through the legislature, where it could be debated and the people's representatives (for better or for worse) voted on it. In my eyes, at least, that gives this law a certain stature.

2) I woudl think that the First Amendment would adequately protect religious organizations that do not want to deal with same-sex marriage. However, if religious organizations think they need the language, it's fine.

3) Jim M's speculation reminds me of a quote I heard from a caller on talk radio once. "Gays should be able to get married. They should be as miserable as the rest of us!"

One more point for freedom, equality, and the fundamental promise of America.

U-S-A! U-S-A!

I used to be against gay marriage. Frankly, I still am. But as I have become more and more libertarian in my thinking I have reached the position that government should get out of the marriage business.

Gay marriage has been from the start a quest for special privileges for the gay community. Now they will have to go through the same BS that everyone else does to get those privileges. By their success they have in the long term made it tougher on themselves.

And given the state of respect that the left has for the constitution I do not think that the First Amendment would provide any protection for clergy who refused to marry a gay couple. Not in the long run. Gays will now press to force all churches to recognize their lifestyle as normal. Sorry guys. It isn't and the rest of us aren't changing our minds anytime soon.

Religious people can define marriage any way they want according to their doctrine, but what business does the state have in defining it?

Marriage as seen by the state is a contract. It isn't much different than the contractual relationship of business partners. In both cases, you make a contract and if you split, the court orders the division of assets, liabilities and obligations. In fact, there are business partnership splits with more emotion than divorces.

It seems to me that the freedom of contract ought to allow gay marriage, and polygamy or polyandry for that matter. Let people have the freedom to make their own contractual arrangements.

The problem is that too many people want to be dictators of others' lives.

Chico - If Marriage "...isn't that much different that the contractual relationship of business partners" then why don't homosexuals simply write up contracts memorializing their relationship, like business partners do? I don't know of anyone who is against that. Why do they need to term "marriage"?

Why do they need to term "marriage"?

Because the state, through other laws, gives marriages a privileged place among other contractual arrangements in conferring health and survivor benefits, immigration, visitation in hospitals, and taxes. Right?

And why do you give a shit what gay people do? It's no skin off your ass, as they say.

The problem is that too many people want to be dictators of others' lives.

Yeah. Kind of like how the left wants the government to dictate what kind of health insurance people should have, or what kind of light bulbs they should use, or how their children should be educated, or where they can build factories for their business...

The problem, Chica, is that you only want the left to be able to decide what people do. You don't really believe in letting people run their own lives.

The problem is that too many people want to be dictators of others' lives.

Mind if I save that quote, Chico? I want to throw it in your face the next time you're here supporting the latest Democrat plan to control some aspect of people's lives.

So can we marry a 12 year old in NY too???

So can we marry 23 different women in NY too???

or where they can build factories for their business...

I agree with your other examples, but that last one's a poor example.

Gay people getting married, or me using incandescent light bulbs, has very little or no effect on other lives.

Building a factory too near a residential neighborhood can have a lot of effect on others.

I'm thinking of the NLRB telling Boeing that they cannot open their factory in S Carolina. That factory wasn't taking away union jobs. It did not replace any production capacity. It was expansion of their production capability. It was all new jobs. But the obama stacked NLRB decided that it would take FUTURE union jobs away and therefore it could not open.

The left in supporting that decision is saying that the government should be able to say where you open a factory. I agree that local zoning laws should still be able to influence that decision, but that is a separate issue and since it is a local issue it is more like the people who live there are deciding not some bureaucrat in DC.

Boeing and the unions? That's another contract issue. Without delving into the contract between Boeing and the unions, it's hard to say what the NLRB did was wrong or right.

Well, at least they got the timing right! Sodomy was found unconstitutional in 2000. Can't have the chicken before the egg.

Chico - I don't give a shit what homosexuals do. But a homosexual couple [or threesome or foursome, in your world] is not the same as a heterosexual couple, and society has every right to recognize the difference.

I live in Iowa, where we got same-sex marriage by judicial fiat - followed by the voters bouncing 3 of 7 Supreme Court justices out of office because of that usurpation.

As for New York, if the elected representatives of that state want to allow gays to marriage, it's none of my business. Nor is it any business of New Yorkers to have a say about California's taking the opposite approach (now overruled by a gay federal judge).

Defining marriage is the kind of decision that a federal system should leave up to the citizens of each state in the absence of a Constitutional provision expressly outlawing or mandating it.

But a homosexual couple [or threesome or foursome, in your world] is not the same as a heterosexual couple, and society has every right to recognize the difference.

Society?

Evidently the "society" of New York has exercised its right through the democratic process to see those couples as equal for the purpose of marriages enforced by the courts of New York.

Chico, why don't you stick your head back up your ass and propose to your colon.

They are not equal. One can 'procreate' the other cannot.

As much as I disagree with Chica in general, I have to say that he is correct in #22.

Regardless of anyone's view of the outcome this went through the legislative process as it ought to. This is the right way to do it and not through judicial fiat as has been done elsewhere or as SCOTUS did with Roe v Wade. Let the citizens of NY vote for new representatives if they dislike the law.

The legislature is the correct venue to decide issues such as these in a republic. If nothing else it was at least decided in the correct manner.

But it is also correct to point out that in doing this the legislature puts itself in a precarious position. With no reason other than the good favor of public opinion to govern the legality of heterosexual or homosexual marriage, there is little legal standing to refuse polygamy or other more perverted forms of marriage.

A couple points following on from what Jim said.

The legislatures are a great place to build consensus. Get enough people to sign onto an idea, and they'll all be interested in seeing that idea succeed. And if you look at some of the civil rights efforts of the 20th century, this value becomes obvious.

Heart of Atlanta, for example, was decided not by judicial fiat, but by a judicial opinion interpreting legislation that had passed Congress. That said, it is notable that litigation was the venue of choice after legislatures had reached consensus on an issue, or in cases involving government discrimination, as in Loving v. Virginia.

Jim M's point about the abortion debates is well taken. From a political standpoint, I dislike Roe v. Wade intensely. As I understand it, at the time state legislatures were grappling with the abortion issue and were slowly working their way toward a political consensus. Roe short-circuited that process.

For what it's worth, federal law still defines marriage as being between a man and a woman only. So, the only "tax" issue that a same-gender marriage in New York resolves is one pertaining to New York.

As for other "benefits" that married people have, those benefits can be acquired without marriage being involved.

One adult can grant another adult "power of attorney" (including "health care power of attorney"), and as a result the other person would have the rights of one who is "immediate next of kin".

An adult can write a will that results in another adult inheriting everything.

The question that needs to be answered is this:

Is marriage a religious institution or a civil institution?

Marriage is between man and woman. Same sex unions are an aberration.

If need be, let the protections afforded in common-law marriage or civil unions apply.

But in any case, sit back and watch the inevitable shitstorm erupt down the road.

They are not equal. One can 'procreate' the other cannot.

Interesting.

So, by that rule, if a gay couple has a child via artificial insemination they are automatically deserving of more rights than a straight couple where the husband or wife is sterile.

I'm guessing you're against applying the rule that way?

Same sex unions are an aberration.

You know some other aberrations that never existed before?

Television. Vaccinations. The Internet. Jazz. Cars. Ice cream.

Some times new things happen and are useful to society because they make sense. If you don't like them, then don't use them. But you don't have the moral right to stop people from getting married just because you don't like them getting married. There is no logical reason why it's bad for society for gay people to get married - so, you lose.

Just like I don't have a moral right to make you stop doing something you like to do, even if I find it distasteful. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, you can do any number of things that bother me - like listening to country music, eating Brussell sprouts, or voting Republican.

Gays in NY just invited the government into their lives. Good luck with that! They should check out the effects of divorce, financial and emotional, on the American family before jumping into the legal machinery that will strip them of privacy, dignity, money, home, and freedom before dumping them broke on the streets or in jail. They are about to become profit centers for lawyers, judges, court reporters, and the rest of the legal parasites who prey on the married, whether under the guise of responding to "domestic violence" or enforcing court ordered payments, restraints, and settlements in divorces. The NY gays must love misery to bet on this relationship arrangement in this country.

'So, by that rule, if a gay couple has a child via artificial insemination they are automatically deserving of more rights than a straight couple where the husband or wife is sterile.'

Wasn't a rule. Just an absolute fact.

The reason for the insistence upon re-defining marriage is more than support for a straightforward way to protect the civil rights of monogamous gays/lesbians, by using an existing legal mechanism ... as gay-marriage advocates would imply.

As I see it, the insistence on "marriage" is about establishing the GLBT lifestyle choices as a "new normal", where they can tell critics to just "shut up" when confronted with even principled, non-coercive criticism, because "it's LEGAL, after all" ... that is, if they aren't allowed to use/change the law to suppress such criticism as "hate speech" that infringes upon this new "fundamental right".

The state I live in has now just trifled with an institution that has stabilized human society for thousands of years, crossing religious and cultural lines ... just so a few people won't have their mellow harshed because of principled criticism of their lifestyle choices.

And yet many of these same people are panicked enough to upend our economic system on the basis of inconclusive ... if not fraudulent ... evidence regarding human-induced climate change?

Romans 1:22 keeps coming to mind ...

Wasn't a rule. Just an absolute fact.

But it's not a fact, Sept14. Gay couples *can* procreate through artificial insemination. Therefore they can procreate.

Are you denying this has happened?

Ritchie ... the entire passage of Romans 1:22-32 is exactly where I come from in this discussion, with Romans 1:32 being the key. Not only is it a sin to commit such behaviors, but it is also a sin to condone others in doing so. Further, not only is homosexual sex a sin, but the desire for such is the consequence of idolatry. See Romans 1: 24, 26 and 28.

I also agree that this whole push for gay "rights" is but a step forward in the agenda to force us all to accept their lifestyle as normal. Next up will be hate speech legislation that will make it a crime to publicly state one's objections to homosexual sex.

Maybe we should push for Christian rights. It should be a crime to state one's objections to the Scriptures and those who abide by them. And entering into the covenant of marriage should confer immediate and automatic legal and financial benefits, without having to fill out the paperwork for the marriage license or having the marriage recorded by the state.

It's a legal document, not a religious document. Lots of people don't get married in a church, so this should remove any religious connection for the contract of marriage.
It is a Civil contract to be married and DIVORCE is performed by a Civil court to dissolve that contract. (Epadore can refute or support that, as he is a legal genius).
This is the first state to have a "divorce provision" in the gay marriage law; other states failed to provide that exit strategy.
If someone really wants to "protect the sanctity of marriage", then a law should be passed to ban divorce.

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

While many cite cultural and religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, one doesn't need to resort to pathos and ethos-based arguments when formulating our public policy on marriage in general. A simple limited government philosophy offers the appropriate perspective.

The human condition is analog not digital. As in the non-human animal world, human sexuality is found along a spectrum of relationships. From a biological perspective and without scientific intervention, procreation in humans requires an individual male and an individual female.

Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all? In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition; as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct.

Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’. They may counter that some gay couples have children and that their care benefits the community. But these children are not, and can not be, the natural offspring of a gay marriage. They are the shared responsibility of the biological parents and the state. The existing legal constructs are sufficient to address the children’s and community’s interests.

The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.

.... Jesus answered, "Do you not know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and made a woman? That is why a man leaves his father and mother and marries, he becomes as one with his wife. They are then no longer two people but are become one ....

And so are societal standards lowered once again, so is advanced the inevitable degeneration of our beloved fraternal republic into the maws of the islamanazi dark ages waiting just down the road and is cultural decay advanced in America. This time by the co-treasonous, co-receidivist, lying looting thieving co-serial-rapist RICO-racketeering organized criminal gangster HUD thief, Cuomo.

God save us from his like, for, as Cicero once noted:

QUOTE: A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. END QUOTE.

Neither our nation nor the very Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization we vanguard has ever known a deadlier enemy than that incarnate in the modern "Democrat."

So when do we start prosecuting clergy for declining to officiate--oh, like they'd do that?

I have a Jewish friend who married a non-Jew, and they had a helluva time finding a rabbi who would agree to officiate. Are you suggesting that they have grounds to sue all the rabbis who turned them down?

Gays will be forced to marry and they will have all the fun of dealing with divorce laws

Welcome to the party. Fools.

They should be as miserable as the rest of us!

they will have to go through the same BS that everyone else does to get those privileges. By their success they have in the long term made it tougher on themselves.

Gays in NY just invited the government into their lives. Good luck with that! They should check out the effects of divorce, financial and emotional, on the American family before jumping into the legal machinery that will strip them of privacy, dignity, money, home, and freedom before dumping them broke on the streets or in jail. ... The NY gays must love misery to bet on this relationship arrangement in this country.

I find it interesting to read all these opinions of how horrible marriage is. When you're fighting to prevent gays from marrying, then marriage is sacred. When you lose, then suddenly marriage is abysmal, and you switch to Schadenfreude over what the gays are in for. I presume you are all rapidly filing for divorce to extract yourselves from your misery.

To paraphrase a position often stated on here, I'll believe that marriage is terrible when those who claim that it's terrible start acting like it's terrible.

Actually, no I won't. My marriage is a joy. For the rest of you, I suggest counseling.

"But it's not a fact, Sept14. Gay couples *can* procreate through artificial insemination. Therefore they can procreate.

Are you denying this has happened?"

That's not pro-creation you hermaph, that is using a donor as spunker or a female as half incubator. Whatever that is, it's not natural.

No, it's not natural. It's science. I'd be interested in hearing which rights you think should be denied couples who conceive that way, or children who are conceived that way. Not to mention whether marriage should be denied to couples who are too old or choose not to procreate.

I can't believe anyone is still using the "procreation" argument. Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage.

That's not pro-creation you hermaph, that is using a donor as spunker or a female as half incubator. Whatever that is, it's not natural.

Look up procreation in the dictionary, you hermaph homophobe.

And hey, let's say that was "unnatural". Are you saying that straight couples who use the same methods are also "unnatural"?

Or you could just admit that you were wrong, and the definitions don't apply like you thought they did. Just a notion.