New York's state Legislature seems close to passage of a bill that would permit same-sex marriage. Gov. Cuomo introduced the bill Tuesday in both houses of the Legislature and a vote could come as early as Thursday.
What do you think? Should New York become the sixth state in the country to allow gay people to marry?
As of now, the NY Senate is only one vote shy of the majority needed to pass this landmark legislation for equality before the senate adjourns for the summer. If you agree that all New Yorkers should be treated equally, please call Jack Martins at his Albany office TODAY ((518) 455-3265), and ask him to join his Republican colleagues who have courageously put aside politics to do the right thing.
I think that Kelly's point is that certain sects choose to follow parts of the Bible that in their interpretation say that homosexuality is bad (though, oddly, they ignore the surrounding text), and it is entirely within their right to do so. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the people have to follow them.
The economy is much more difficult. For example, there is a movement to cap property taxes. Property taxes help to pay for our schools. If we reduce property taxes we will have to get more money from Albany, and so it seems to me that we have to raise income taxes. It's so complex. So, IMO we should focus on the civil rights issue first, and think about the complicated issue of how we are to fund public services after that.
Extending civil rights to gays would be a boost to businesses here. If you are gay and want to get married, you have to go out of state right now, or out of the country (I know of a few couples who went to Vancouver.) I am sure that many people would have preferred to have their weddings on Long Island. My point is that gay marriage is easy to do. Just make it legal and stop horsing around. As the saying goes, "Against gay marriage? Don't marry one." Live and let live. Fixing the economy is much harder. It's not a New York issue as much as a national one. We are doing pretty well, comparatively speaking. But we share the problem of unemployment with the rest of the country. Companies laid off lots of people, and now they are doing well because they make the remaining people work twice as hard. No one wants to complain because they don't want to lose their jobs. Overtime (usually unpaid) is the norm. But is that the whole problem? Of course not. It's way more complicated than that.
The problem you have, I think, is that you want to reserve the term "marriage" to heterosexual couples. Why don't you use another word? "Holy Matrimony" springs to mind. The majority of New Yorkers are in favor of gay marriage. You may have to adapt to that and find another word to use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
An alternative is to make all benefits accruing to the spouse apply to a "life partner." We can change the word for the people in the marriage. Rather than husband or wife we can just say spouse. In some countries it is the civil ceremony that matters, not the religious one. You can get married twice (once legally and once in the church) if you want. If we do the same thing then Bob could have his special status by marrying in the church after he gets married for real (though not all churches -- there are many that will marry same sex couples).
Now, of reason, or the rational grasp of a set of like situations catagorised by ones own reality and with time and observation, understanding our own condition response reactions to that set of conditions, and reacting not from that conditioned response but from a mature, human mind; it seems to me that to be incongruent to reason is to react without thought, however I am not sure I understand "incongruent with reason", regardless, it seems to me that their is alot of thought from everyone on this topic. Be that as it may, I do agree that some thing can not be other than what it is, and that is absolute. However as a culture it is up to us to define the boundries by which we deliniate the things that are not absolut truths. Its not as if we are talking about the earth right now, which of coarse, is flat. D- "the live and let live crowd"
I want to live in a world where the strength of the family creates the sanctity of a institution. It is a sad thing when we feel a word is the essence of the union, where in fact it is the essence of the union that creates the word. Either way, the strait world hasn't been keeping the "Holy Institution of Marriage" all that sacred, I say we open it up to everyone. Perhaps, if one has the strength to "come out" than that individual might actually know themselves pretty well, and maybe the national divorce rate will go down? Maybe not, but I say lets wake up to 2011 and act like a cultured society.
Same sex couples do not share the same rights as married couples. Only a woman can benefit from her male partner's social security, and only a man can benefit from his female partner's. A man's wife is covered by his medical insurance, but a male partner is not covered. There are many other examples. We have many laws that are written in terms of "marriage." It is the right and just thing to extend the rights provided by those laws to all couples. If we need to use the word "marriage" then you will have to put up with that. If it means so much to you then work to replace the language in the laws so you are happy. But please recognize that you are in the minority. According to the polls, most New Yorkers are in favor of gay marriage. You will have to also work to get support for you new word.
The issue of religious organizations wanting specific wording in the Marriage Equality Act is for their own protection of being sued for denying same sex couples the right to marry in a particular church, having a reception in a specific catering hall, etc. The problem is that many organizations call themselves religious for tax purposes, but are not a church (i.e. the Knights of Columbus). The wording of the document to be brought to the senate voting floor could actually contain exceptions to allow discrimination. Or senators must be very careful what they accept. By the way, please contact your senator to encourage him/her to vote yes on marriage equality. It is not too late.