New York's same-sex marriage

You know, not for nuthin, but all through Obama's campain , ALL we heard about was "our standing" in the world.How Bush inflames the Muslim "street" and puts us in danger through his incite full actions.Id love to hear from the "Muslim Street" perspective on same sex marriage, and how 'tolerated" a practice is, under the "religion of peace"..Lets say, check in with Iran, and get their point of view, I know Obama is very concerned that they have a say.And I guess seeing that they just put the last screw into their shiny new missle silos, it might be not a great Idea to "incite" our enemies. But seeing as how we don't name our enemies, guess we have none, so why not just leave the southern border wide open.Plus there is also a situation were sharia law has already been tried to be infiltrated into our courts.So everyone, just PARTY ON!! great victory!!You all think the Catholics are PESTY!!LOL!! you aint seen NOTHIN YET!!!!!LMFAO!!

And under sharia law. kill kill kill all females on this board.

yeah like they don't have the same issues as the folks in relationships that have been able to be legally married..
um divorce rate just went up 50 percent more!!woooohoooo to being single!!!!! Originally Posted by anita germane

To me, this is some real common sense.If were being honest , people are moving away from marriage. Wait till a freash new couple files taxes jointly!!LOL!!! they ll be like..."HOLEY FUCK"!! this aint no BARGAIN!!!LOL!!.... and the polititians are HIGH FIVING! MO MONEY!!MO MONEY!! MO MONEY!!!!!!!! amongst all the other unintended consequences that will make this hilarious .Like this mornings newscast where they now have to figure out how to draw up forms at city hall, how to figure who is going to be "bride", "groom"? and how to make this all legal..They dont have a clue!!LOL!!! pretty sure it will involve hiring many attorneys.. and more city employees !!LOL!!! YAY!!!!!lets go borrow some more MONEY!!but heh...we managed to rip another cross of the church so it all good!!LOL!!!

Have there been any reports of an increased occurrence of the "Man on Dog" sex that Rick Santorum was so concerned about?

Well when in the county, city, town, village hall. The clerk asks the two guys who is the bottom boy "bride" "groom". And if its two gals, and they both want the same label, make them arm wrestle for it. Winner "groom" loser "bride". Cheaper than lawyers.

I really don't care one way or the other about gay rights as it doesn't affect me, but if the person I elected to office said one thing, got elected and then voted another way, I would be calling for his head. Originally Posted by GP

You don't pay very close attention to politics, do ya?

Just a couple examples:

In the 2000 campaign, George Bush said he was against nation building. Foreign interventions in general.

In Sept of 2000, Bush said "“We will require all power plants to meet clean-air standards in order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.” But in March of '01, after being elected, he said "“I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”

So......what said you in 2004?

thanks Cheney for sayin Jr. made a mistake. And they back out of that silly reduce emissions thing.

You don't pay very close attention to politics, do ya?

Just a couple examples:

In the 2000 campaign, George Bush said he was against nation building. Foreign interventions in general.

In Sept of 2000, Bush said "“We will require all power plants to meet clean-air standards in order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.” But in March of '01, after being elected, he said "“I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”

So......what said you in 2004? Originally Posted by Doove

I think the conclusion we can draw is; if a politicians lips are moving, he is lying. I don't care what side of the aisle you are on.

honestly, its not my choice, but if they put the issue in front of all the people for a vote, and it passed, I would be fine with it.Its the fact that ANYTHING can get legislated into law without the full consent of the people and that is a BAD president of things to come. Originally Posted by JONBALLS

Oh boo hoo. Jonballs doesn't like the American system of government. Boo hoo hoo.

So you're saying we should all vote on every law that gets proposed? Good luck.

And just why, exactly, should we leave something like this (in the case of gay marriage) up to people like you and GP, who claim outright that you really don't give a crap one way or the other?

No reason not to legalize polygamy. The courts will likely do it at some point.

If I were able to wave the wand and make it so, the government would be out of the marriage business and churches would step in.

However, the government would legally sanction civil contracts between any set of consenting adults that care to present themselves for joint property and other rights.

In polls, most people in New York say it's only fair, so if the legislature just voted the way the people feel it would have passed LAST year.

Regardless, we don't put minority rights up for a vote for obvious reasons. Some things are just rights: moral imperative, popular or not. Bottom line, they pay the same taxes as everybody else, so it should *anger* any of us to hear one of them went into a courthouse and couldn't get an administrative service (marriage license) everybody else gets who goes in there.

Not because the co-applicant is a relative, or incompetent, or a minor, or any reason that would apply to all of us. Under the old law it was illegal for them marry ANYBODY, because because of the way they were born. Doesn't get any more clear-cut than that.

No reason not to legalize polygamy. The courts will likely do it at some point.

If I were able to wave the wand and make it so, the government would be out of the marriage business and churches would step in.

However, the government would legally sanction civil contracts between any set of consenting adults that care to present themselves for joint property and other rights. Originally Posted by NormalBob

If one of the applicants were already married, the license would be denied for anybody, not just a disadvantaged minority. Therefore laws against polygamy don't raise any problem of equal treatment under the law. The problem with the old law was it singled out a portion of the population who could not get married at all, to anybody. That's unequal treatment, that's discrimination.

You threw a condition in there that changes my position.

If 3 unmarried, competent people beyond the age of majority present themselves for a civil union, it's none of the government's business what's going on in that relationship.

They should issue the civil union license.

NB, I have no opinion either way about polygamy. Historically it has been a form of almost-slavery that featured mistreatment of the women involved, but I'm not convinced those problems are inherent in that type of arrangement. My concern is simply that the law be the same for everybody.

I hear some people want to do away with government-sanctioned marriage altogether, rather than let gays partake of it. I guess that meets my standard for "fairness" in that it treats everyone the same; but it seems to me like stomping on a nice cake, rather than offer a slice to someone you don't like.

So OK, fairness restored, no cake for anybody. But was that the best way to handle the problem?

The only problem I have with gay marriage is if my gay girl buddy starts to marry them. It will take longer for her to share her stash, for me to pay cash.