1 The New York senate is the first Republican-controlled legislative body to pass a marriage equality bill.

And almost certainly the last.  The Conservative Party of New York has already laid down its marker.  This doesn't end well.

2 "the NY marriage law will contain religious conscience exemptions"...right up until the first lawsuit hits and lefty judge decides those exemptions are unconstitutional.

3 the NY marriage law will contain religious conscience exemptions.

Well isn't that special. What about the caterers, photographers, tailors, dress makers. etc. etc.? Because if those people don't want to provide services to some gay couple they're getting sued. But hey as long as the Church is exempt.
You know for liberals who worship on the alter of anti-discrimination they sure like to elevate some people over others.
It's fuck'n bullshit.

4 The NY GOP continues to prove itself to be no-talent assclowns. And the state wonders why it loses population & representatives every census.

5 We are all homophobes now.

6 You're a sanctimonious prick, Gabe.

7 Well, that's the GOP for you.

8 Another benefit of doing this legislatively, not judicially, is that it doesn't raise the problem noted by Justice White and infamously repeated by Rick Santorum, then caricatured as the 'man-on-dog' argument. Courts can only do this thing by the expression of broad 'sweet mystery of life' principles which are hard to cabin (why not polygamy, e.g.?). Legislatures (and ratifying governors) can just do it, without having to justify why they're not tearing down any other ick-barriers.

9

My "For Sale" sign goes up tomorrow.

Fuck the Empire State.

10 Yup, the first thing to happen will be the removal of the religious exemption. 'Cause it isn't and never has been about marriage.

11

Hmmm ... I come to realize that I just don't care about this issue. 

12 Aw, come on, everybody, don't we have to pass a law everytime somebody needs psychological validation?

13 Once again, color me embarrassed to live in the Empire State.

14 In a related piece of legislation, NY men now legally required to have monthly menstrual periods

15 Lawsuits to be sure but also an immediate full court propaganda press through K-12 schooling and of course a ruthlessly enforced prohibition everywhere on 'heterosexism.' One hell of a rubicon. A hell of a rubicon.

16 Nope - not gonna let Gabe get away with it.

The correct term is same-sex pseudo-marriage.

17 RINO scum.

18 I was reading come comments that the separate civil unions approach is like segregation, and thus evil.  Seriously?

This is becoming a gay supremacy movement.  They don't want to be equal, they want special rights and treatments that puts them above the rest of the population.

19 http://tinyurl.com/6fef564

I love this NYT op ed.  Basically, the author wants gay marriage, but also doesn't want domestic partnerships to go away either.  You see, we're now homophobes to expect gay partners to get married.

20

Now they can start teaching kindergarten children about gay marriage and indoctrinate fresh young minds into their twisted world.

And no one has yet to explain what the NEED for gay marriage is.

Fuck New York.

21 These vagabond shoes
Are longing to stray
And step around the heart of it
New York, New York.

22
Text of the bill [A8520-2011]:

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011

23 These fucktards voting for gay "marriage" don't give a fuck's ass about the status of gays, they are lawyers salivating over a newly spawned industry of  gay divorce cases that will make them rich. 

24 You see, we're now homophobes to expect gay partners to get married.

Yeah, every heterosexual male in America has to be laughing right now.

"Hope y'all get what you wanted (dumbasses)."

25 The NY state Senate just voted that way to pick up chicks...

26 Don't even think about moving to my state.  You made your bed.

27 Mission accomplished! Next target: Mandatory anal fisting education for first graders in all public schools.

28 What about my right to marry my sister? These ancient prejudices must fall.

29 Come to think of it, can two brothers get married now? Or would that just be sick?

30 If you believe in federalism then all you can really say is if that's what NY wants then they got it.

31 VICTORY!

32
@24

You know, that might just be the text for the religious exemption.

33 Next Target: Throw anyone who uses the word "fag" into federal prison on felony hate-crime charges.

34 Sherman, see my comment above. That's the advantage of doing this by legislative vote rather than court decision. Courts have to frame their rulings in broader principles, so from that angle it's hard to justify doing this for gays but not polygamists, etc. Legislatures don't, so it's not.

35 I'd be disgusted, but its NY.

36 [I'm a little psycho.]

37 Wait, did you breeders actually think we'd be satisfied with redefining your silly little tradition of "marriage" and would go away? HELL NO! WE'RE HERE. WE'RE QUEER. WE LIKE IT IN THE REAR. AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT WE'LL THROW YOU OFF A PIER!

38 So does this mean we get more or less appearances of the Westboro Baptist Cult?

39 How long before they criminalize dissent?

40 Putin: "I never had any idea this Marxism stuff would work"

41 Next Target: Criminalize reading Leviticus in public.

42 Socialized medicine, ugly pictures on cigarettes and gay marriage. I thought I left Canada.

43 Sherman, progress, others: A majority of New Yorkers want this, or at least, aren't going to revolt against it by throwing the bums (as it were) out. Incest, polygamy, etc., not so much.

44 "the NY marriage law will contain religious conscience exemptions"...right up until the first lawsuit hits and lefty judge decides those exemptions are unconstitutional.

Posted by: Paul



Smart money says so, but the bill does appear to have a severability clause of a sort:

S 5-A. THIS ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE, AND ALL PARTS OF IT ARE  TO BE READ AND CONSTRUED TOGETHER.  IF ANY PART OF  THIS  ACT  SHALL  BE  ADJUDGED  BY  ANY  COURT  OF  COMPETENT  JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, THE  REMAINDER OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALIDATED.   NOTHING  HEREIN  SHALL  BE  CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE PARTIES' RIGHT TO APPEAL THE MATTER.

45

the NY marriage law will contain religious conscience exemptions.

I put the under at 2020 before they start pushing to remove the religious exemption portions of these laws.  They'll argue First Amendment grounds that for you to be able to perform marriages you cannot discriminate.

46 I think many people are like me - for legal partnership rights for gays which confer same rights as marriage.

I am not sold on re-defining a term that has always meant one thing.  So for me it is a semantics argument, and also the fact that I am told it is a civil rights issue that equates with Jim Crow and I am filled with "H8" if I don't think we should change the dictionary to make one group feel better about themselves.

47 they are lawyers salivating over a newly spawned industry of  gay divorce cases that will make them rich.

And the discrimination lawsuits.  But after the initial rush of
(1) photo ops at the clerk's office
(2) celebrity same-sex weddings
(3) rather quick subsequent divorces
(4) stunt discrimination lawsuits
(5) lawsuits attempting to legalize same-sex incest (after all, what rational reason is there to prevent two brothers from marrying)
(6) lawsuits attempting to legalize group marriage (after all, homosexuality is not by its nature binary)

the actual marriages will be what they are in European countries and other places that have same-sex marriage.  Almost none.  Just sentimental elderly couples who have the extra money to blow on a ceremony (which is perfectly legal in all 50 states) and then get a license for their own self-validation.

48 Socialized medicine, ugly pictures on cigarettes and gay marriage. I thought I left Canada.

I wonder what kind of graphic pics will be on a gay marriage license?

49 The more people that can tamp turds within the sanctity of marriage can only strengthen this fabulous nation!!!

It's  time to bust a Balloon Knot for Liberty!!!! 

50 Next Target: Affirmative Action for homosexuals. If you are a small business owner and your place of employment isn't comprised of at least 20% persons of the LGBTQ persuasion, YOU ARE A HOMPHOBIC BIGOT unless you prove yourself innocent. And the best way to prove yourself innocent is to make a large donation to GLAAD. WE MUST FIGHT THE HETERONORMATIVE POWER STRUCTURE!

51 Well, at least they did it through the legislature and not the judiciary.

52 Will I have to wear a yellow star on my jacket if I am a heterosexist?

53 Severability Clause meet the Equal Protection Clause: nail meet hammer.

54

Will I have to wear a yellow star on my jacket if I am a heterosexist?

Actually, it's called heteronormativity.  I learned that in college.

55

Up until about 10-15 years ago, marriage was much denigrated by gays a laughable straight conceit. Then -- flip/flop.

That't the sort of thing that makes people think this is not really about marriage. And the idea that it's not really about mariage is where the anger comes from.

Civil unions were not enough. Had to co-opt the name of "marriage." Because, perhaps, marriage is still much denigrated. By Leftists. The Progressive politics always trump any other consideration.

Think marriage is for dorks? Think its unique status tends to unduly squeeze the state out of the household? Well hey, here's a new way to stick it to the dorks.

And the anticipation of a whole new class of divorce cases is absolutely part of what's driving this.

I don't really care that strongly about 2-3% of the population having the right to have the trappings of marriage. (Partly because marriage is not always what it's cracked up to be. Knock yourselves out, you doomed, play-acting knobs.)  What actually irritates me, and a lot of other people, is the perception that this is the tip of the spear for entirely different goals. And particularly, that they think we're such stupid assholes that they can lie to us through their teeth aboutit and we won't know any better.

56 Under Federal power via the Commerce Clause,gay marriage is now mandated for all Americans.

And you thought our healthcare plan was screwing you!

57 Archbishop Dolan's position, for those of you who call yourselves Catholic. 

58 IF YOU OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES WHO MET AT A REST STOP MEN'S ROOM GLORY HOLE FROM ADOPTING SMALL CHILDREN, YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT AND WILL BE SENT TO MANDATORY REEDUCATION CAMP!

59 Geez, even we in California got this right, at least before the courts stomped on the will of the people.

60

Another state where I will never spend another penny.

Enjoy paying for all your own social services and bankrupting yourselves as religious organizations are now screwed and will no longer be providing these services. 

Hooray!  We redefined marriage.  We are sooooooo cool.  Broke, but hey we are denigrating an instuition thousands of years old just to show how cool we are.

Not bailing out these liberal lands that waste resources on making 1.5% of the population feel better about their lifestyle choices because they have daddy issues.....

61 Brilliant plan republicans.  Piss off your base. 
Brilliant!

62 I welcome my new gay overlords

63 Another liberal action that puts the feelings of a special class over the good of society.  Has been done countless other times for liberal causes that come back to totally bite society on the ass ( welfare begetting fatherless families, Dept  of Education begetting a continuous downhill slide in education quality, etc)

The arrogance of liberals who think they are smarter  than every religion and thinker of the past 3,000 years.  Moses, Jesus, Buddha, are all morons in the eyes of liberals.  The narcissism and arrogance is mind blowing.

64 9

My "For Sale" sign goes up tomorrow.

Fuck the Empire State.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at June 24, 2011 10:41 PM (HIXUa)

*golf clap* *golf clap* *golf clap*

65 IF YOU DO NOT TEACH YOUR FIVE-YEAR OLD ABOUT HOW THE PROSTATE GLAND IS A SEX ORGAN, DON'T WORRY, YOUR KID'S TEACHERS WILL!

66 Up until about 10-15 years ago, marriage was much denigrated by gays a laughable straight conceit. Then -- flip/flop.

Yeah, for people who've been paying attention to politics for a while this one is stunning.

We've gone from *everyone* arguing that gay marriage would be a joke, to almost every liberal now claiming opposition to gay marriage is a crime against humanity,

67

"a marriage equality bill."

With slanted language like this, who needs Firedoglake or other lefty blogs?

68

I'm quite happy with the result.  It does make me proud that we'll have gay marriage legalized in my lifetime.

69 I'm guessing divorce lawyers in New York are salivating, they've just doubled their clientele

70

Smart money says so, but the bill does appear to have a severability clause of a sort:

So they write a new law that nullifies the religious exemption portion.  Notice that it only nullifies the law if they go through the courts.  They will use their other methods.  Hell they'd probably try for a simultaneous overturn of this law and court legalized gay marriage position if they could.

71 And the state's assault on my way of life continues, unabated.

72

"I wonder what kind of graphic pics will be on a gay marriage license?"

If there was any honesty:

--anal genital warts

--emaciated AIDS bodies

--Karposi's sarcoma blisters

--infected with pus "uncut" penises

73 HEY BIG BUSINESS! WE DEMAND THAT FULLY 20% OF THE COMMERCIALS YOU RUN ON TELEVISION THAT INVOLVE MARRIED COUPLES INCLUDE SAME-SEX COUPLES. OR ELSE WE WILL THROW GLITTER AT YOU!!!

74 Hooray! This legally enforced normalization of insanity will insure that those with fatal diseases contracted by practicing this filthy lifestyle will overload an already overburdened and expensive medical system and send insurance rates even higher!

Thanks New York!

75 Check to see how many marriages actually go forward after leg. passes. If it's anything like the numbers in CA, before it was stopped, it's all much about nothing. Of course, that is easy for me to say as I'm married. Not so easy for my gay daughter... who, by the way, doesn't feel compelled to whine about not being able to be married. I support the rights for gay folk to marry; can't figure out a reason for them not to be... and, as the old joke goes, everyone should be allowed to... If we find ourselves mired in this shit we're gonna get Barry until 2016. Think about that.

76 Next on the agenda is to receive federal recognition in order to receive the tax and social security benefit of marriage. I also anticipate problems in family courts and other legal exemptions regarding spouses. Oh joy.

77 Up until about 10-15 years ago, marriage was much denigrated by gays a laughable straight conceit. Then -- flip/flop.

Yeah ... that was back when gays used to call us "breeders" and scoff at the outdated and primitive notion of marriage. 

Then they figured out that it was best to kill marriage from the inside.  Marriage in NY now rates a solid, Ivy League B+.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 24, 2011 11:13 PM (G/MYk)

Fuck the homos; I took the cocksuckers at their word when they said they wanted no part of breeder's institutions.  Fuck that "we didn't really mean it" shit.

Oh and way to fucking go, Repukes; maybe Rove can marry Mike Castle now.

78 Is it time to post the Communist goals from the congressional record yet?

79 #61.  I think you're right on all points.

80 HEY FOX NEWS! EVERY JUNE DURING GAY PRIDE MONTH YOU MUST HAVE SHEPARD SMITH ON FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE HOURS A DAY! OR ELSE WE WILL THROW SEQUINS AT SEAN HANNITY!

81 Ace, your words and those of your fellow bloggers I find of great value. After reading the troglodytian response to NY leg. in these here comments I find myself confused, and reaching for my hazmat suit. I think it best I limit myself to posts and avoid comments thingy, as it's rather embarrassing to read the hate speech from our side of aisle. As if we have as little character as those on Rive Gauche.

82 Zelda doesn't like.

83

"I think it best I limit myself to posts and avoid comments thingy, as it's rather embarrassing to read the hate speech from our side of aisle."

Gee, is that because any examination of the agenda at work here must be ipso facto "hate speech"? Yah, I thought so. 

84 Brilliant plan republicans.  Piss off your base. 
Brilliant!

Posted by: You can call a turd a muffin it doesn't make it so at June 24, 2011 11:10 PM (VxqUc)

Hey it worked so well in 2008 - why not try again?

85 85 Is it time to post the Communist goals from the congressional record yet?

Posted by: not the droid you seek at June 24, 2011 11:21 PM (xc/va)

Curiously, the Soviets were not all that fond of teh gheys.  Homosexual activities were actually illegal-illegal.

86 @88 Shove your "hate speech" libel up your ass. I hate it when liberal Obama-scum pull that crap and I hate it concern trolls do, too. People can disagree with you with it being hate speech. They can even believe something you support is immoral, perverted, or even evil.

I don't give a damn about gay marriage, but I loathe fucktards who try and pull the "hate speech" card. FU buddy.

87 Shivas, (A) troglodytic (B) Get over yourself. I'm pleased with this vote, and have explained why I think it's way better to do it this way than through the courts, but how did you think people would respond? Some will get it out of their system sooner, some will come to a grudging acceptance, some will go to their grave grumbling. Just be happy, ignore the truly hateful, and don't be a drama queen.

88 "Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 24, 2011 11:14 PM (w7K7d)" Isn't Malor one of "them"? What did you really expect him to say?

89 "Gee, is that because any examination of the agenda at work here must be ipso facto "hate speech"? Yah, I thought so. " Is this "examination" from your best of collection? And hate speech a silly phrase, sorry. You're simply an ignorant piece of shit. Nice typesetting, though: Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 24, 2011 11:25 "I wonder what kind of graphic pics will be on a gay marriage license?" If there was any honesty: --anal genital warts --emaciated AIDS bodies --Karposi's sarcoma blisters --infected with pus "uncut" penises

90 NEXT TARGET: WHAT'S SO WRONG ABOUT ADULT MEN HAVING GROUP SEX WITH TEENAGE BOYS? IT'S NOT RAPE-RAPE OR ANYTHING!

91 Great. Another extremely pressing issue while Obama steers the country off a cliff. Say how is that Anthony Weiner trial going?  Or was it Casey Anthony?

92 WHAT'S SO WRONG ABOUT ADULT MEN HAVING GROUP SEX WITH TEENAGE BOYS? IT'S NOT RAPE-RAPE OR ANYTHING!

Posted by: Homosexual Lobby at June 24, 2011 11:31 PM (QjrRF)

Finally an issue I can get behind.

93 at the risk of pissing people off...I would have voted aye

94 @88

you seem a bit butt-hurt

perhaps you should READ what is said in post 61.

Years of counter culture protest of the straights and suddenly the Homosexual lobby gets "conservative religion" and suddenly , just has to get all hitched like us breeders?

Not. Buying.

The agenda of corruption of everything right and decent goes forward.

BAMN. 

95 #88 I bet you suck at golf.

96 Heh, now my hash is "jackass." It's a fair cop.

97

I don't give a damn about gay marriage, but I loathe fucktards who try and pull the "hate speech" card. FU buddy.

yeah I agree, I don't give a crap if a gay wants to marry but equating it to civil rights and demanding others don't see it as immoral (which I believe it is myself) is BS and only hurts their own cause when they pull that card. I also love the fact that these laws have allowed religious instituitions that disagree w/ the gay lifestyle to ignore such.

98 I had never considered the "slew of new divorce cases" angle.

99 NEXT TARGET: HEY TELEVISION EXECUTIVES! ALL NEW SITCOMS AND DRAMAS MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL MAIN CHARACTER, AND HE MUST BE SHOWN ENGAGING IN AT LEAST ONE HEALTHY AND POSITIVE ROMANTIC AND/OR SEXUAL ENCOUNTER EVERY EPISODE! OR ELSE WE WILL CALL YOU NAMES AND BITCH A LOT!

100 Posted by: Knemon at June 24, 2011 11:27 PM It's just hard to read. I guess I expect more from those I vote with. I guess the ugliness reflects on the writer; and their fears. Oh well. ps. Regarding your comment about not being a Drama Queen. As soon as I read "hate speech" in my comment I bitch slapped myself. Too stupid on my part; lazy like a lib. ;-)

101 107, didn't that ship sail a while ago?

102 YRM would you also vote aye on legalizing polygamy? If not, why?

103 That series of "next targets" is turning my stomach, if only because I can't tell myself any of it is implausible.

104 OH YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!

105 @ 107 dude even "religious shows" like that secret life crap on abc family pull that crap now

106

From:

"Is this "examination" from your best of collection? And hate speech a silly phrase, sorry. You're simply an ignorant piece of shit."

To:

"ps. Regarding your comment about not being a Drama Queen. As soon as I read "hate speech" in my comment I bitch slapped myself. Too stupid on my part; lazy like a lib. ;-)"

You can't have it both ways. So fuck off.

107 No means Yes, and Yes means ANAL! Tra lala la la lala

108

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 24, 2011 11:37 PM (xECRb)

I would vote aye on that also, I would also vote aye on some freak wanting to do beastiality, their life is their life

109 Fuck Loving v. Virginia.  Bring back anti-miscegenation laws!  Outlaw divorce!  If heterosexual marriage is soooo sacred, make adultery a capital crime.  Yeah, right.  Ya'll talk, but you don't walk.  Besides, now there'll be more people suffering the marriage penalty and all that.

110 I also love the fact that these laws have allowed religious instituitions that disagree w/ the gay lifestyle to ignore such.

Frankly, I think they should have made it blanket to refuse to perform a marriage or accommodate it in any way, same-sex or not, religion or not.  Nobody should be forced by public accommodation to participate in any wedding ceremony or reception or associated event if they don't wish and they shouldn't have to appeal to religion to do so.

111 Remember, guys, Gabe isn't one of "them" he's one of us. He's a conservative like the rest of us. We obviously disagree with him on this issue, but we all can agree on everything else 95% of the time. No need to grab the pitchforks everyone.

112

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:38 PM (/heM

this asshole is back

113

Posted by: AmishDude at June 24, 2011 11:39 PM (73tyQ)

yeah I'd agree w/ that, if you feel uncomfortable then you have a right not to participate in any way

114

Just think of the hit "wedding" themed reality shows Bravo will come up with...

Double Groomzillas!

Say yes to the double dresses.

Butt fcuking idiots.  (yes, pun intended)

115 When is the "evil" corporate NFL finally going to allow gay cheerleaders!  I bet the San Frisco 49's want one now.  The other teams should follow.

116 Shivas: (A) why expect more from 'those you vote with?' The only common thread on this board, and the right generally, is opposition to the growth of the state. It's very divided on social stuff. (B) the talk of Karposi's Sarcoma, etc., is dickish but it's not like there's no basis in fact. Gay dudes, esp but not only younger ones, *tend* to fuck like rabbits. That plus certain physical realities = considerable health issues. Them's the facts, and there's no use getting all fainty about it. The longest-running joke on this site concerns the *serial murder of homeless people.* again, what did you expect?

117 NEXT TARGET: MANDATE THAT OBAMACARE COVER GENDER REASSIGNMENT SURGERY FOR TEENAGERS WITHOUT REQUIRING PARENTAL CONSENT!

118 shivas "Lefty" irony: Keep your eye on the ball. This stuff is so unimportant in scheme of things. I've spent hours considering issue and listening to people I respect, like Hewitt and Medved, try to explain all the bad in gay marriage. Do you have an argument that is compelling? They didn't, on that subject, anyway. I agree, civil unions handle issue. Letting the kids win one once and awhile sometimes good for everyone. I hope you learn to agree that it's a non issue and is only used to put a wedge into our chance to get rid of Barry. And Alabaster Jones, I shot a smooth 76 yesterday. Took low gross and the $15 that came with it... ;-)

119 120

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:38 PM (/heM

this asshole is back

Posted by: YRM at June 24, 2011 11:39 PM (UzBwz)

///

Wow, you can't get more clever than that!  I'm going to pour myself a slug of this new rye I picked up tonight while you figure out even more devastating retorts.

120

"Fuck Loving v. Virginia. Bring back anti-miscegenation laws!"

Sorry, but to equate treating marriage as it always has been treated to racial discrimination is appallingly dishonest and frankly insulting to African Americans and other ethnics.

Contrary to what the Left will claim (Waah! Hater!) I do not oppose some kind of legal code for same sex relationships. So if someone would say, "for homosexual relationships, we need to inventory aspects that marriage touches -- not testifying against registered sexual partner in court, innocent spouse provisions in tax code, survivors' benefits, joint tax filing, community property, domestic violence laws, child custodianship issues, intestate inheritance, hospital visits, etc., etc., etc.....and figure out what makes sense for government to be involved with, and figure out what the sensible arrangement should be, and figure out reasonable changes in the law to get to that point from where we're at" -- well, I might object on the details maybe, but I certainly could support such a legislative procedure.

In fact, the Legislature in California had already done this, with the Governor signing it into law.

However, four judicial tyrants in black robes, acting on the demand for some undefined notion of "equal protection", decided to butt into the legislative process.

121

one woman + one man = marriage

one woman + one woman = 2 women

122 PoP at 122, so, what, all the Defenders of True Marriage are going to revolt? Never happen.

123

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:42 PM (/heM

It wasn't meant as a retort dumbass

Posted by: You can call a turd a muffin it doesn't make it so at June 24, 2011 11:43 PM (VxqUc)

and you base this definiton on?

124

If I am not personally affected by what gays do in that part of their lives where we differ, I don't really care about it; especially if they do their jobs with that famous attention to detail. They live the way that they live, it's not going to change, and I have other things to worry about, like the possibility of ending up divorced, unemployed and alone, living under a bridge drinking inexpensive fortified wine and worrying that the other derelicts may discover my secret treasure trove of aluminum cans buried in the dry streambed. But I digress.

The hostility comes from this:

(1) The perception that this matter is being utterly misrepresented by Progressive dickheads.

(2) The perception that there's more to come, and this furthers that.

125 We're making a comeback! 

126 Why does the state recognize marriage anyway?  To the state, if the legal significance is the same, why are there civil unions v. marriage?  To the state, all marriages should be "civil" unions.  I agree that religious institutions should not be forced to marry two of anybody, but that's a completely separate matter from state recognition.

Oh, and as for Loving v. Virginia, well, seems that anti-miscegenation laws were a pretty hot states' rights issue until an unelected federal body of 9 men said otherwise.

127

Speech of the censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus [16] about the law requiring men to marry in order to produce children. According to Livy (Per. 59), in 17 B.C. Augustus read out this speech, which seemed "written for the hour", in the Senate in support of his own legislation encouraging marriage and childbearing (see no. 121). "If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, [17] we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.

128 Do I even have to say it?

129 NEXT TARGET: ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF GENDER AFFAIRS! No, seriously. If the injuns have their own department, why can't we? WE'RE HERE! WE'RE QUEER! WE DIDN'T KILL GENERAL CUSTER!

130 So it is legal in New York State.  So I have to ask:  "How do you determine who the "man" is (the pitcher) and who the "woman" is (the receiver).  Or do they have to switch jobs, sides, routines, what ever you call it.  Inquiring minds want to know!

131 Those of you screaming about the GOP folding and going full-out RINO do realize that only 4 out 33 of them voted "yes" on this, right?

Yeah, that makes sense.

I guess we ought to shitcan DeMint and Rubio and Paul and Coburn every time Scott Brown and the two Maine 'tards screw the us, right?

132

#130 kind of has it. We are being told we must call a cat a dog because it happens to have four legs and a tail. Sorry. It's still a cat.

And the same people pushing this demand insist graphic images of smoking harms be put on cigarette packs.

Well, how about graphic images of anal sex put on gay marriage licenses?

Was that "dickish"? I am sorry. 

I just thought I would poke a bit at the selectively nanny state Left.

They can't expect to open Pandora's box and only have what they want to pop out.

133

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 24, 2011 11:44 PM (G/MYk)

you know what thinking about it beastiality could involve animal torture/cruelty and frankly I don't ever see that being accepted in our lifetime, my point is I would vote aye on gay marriage and other crazy things humans want to do as long as it doesn't force anyone or any group to accept it if it's against their beliefs.

134 So, will same-sex couples be covered under "common law" marriage?

135 Its not about equality under the law.  Its not about the "gay agenda."  Its about attacking the traditional institutions of this country.  Its about the liberal agenda being wrapped up in a rainbow to push it through.

136 133

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:42 PM (/heM

It wasn't meant as a retort dumbass

Posted by: YRM at June 24, 2011 11:45 PM (UzBwz)

///

Take a Midol and chill.  You're cramping again.

137 "The longest-running joke on this site concerns the *serial murder of homeless people.* again, what did you expect?" Having matriculated at Berkeley, and needing to dodge the stench of the "street people" on way to school and work, I'm all in favor of that policy. I used to imagine filling a large Uhaul truck with beer in back and trolling Telegraph for street people. My ultimate objective to take them to Palo Alto and leave them there. Life is So Grand ps. spent career in health insurance. Understand risks of AIDS. Wouldn't gay marriage, ideally, help quell some of the activity you mention. Although, my first comment I stand by, if it's anything like CA it's a bunch of nothing. If memory holds only 16,000 got married. Considering the hue and cry, and that we're talking CA, I'd have predicted 100k.

138

"I agree, civil unions handle issue."

You know what ? You are absolutely right, they are! And in California we had that.

But was that good enough for the tyrant Left? Noooooooo. They had to ram it down our throats, despite what the legislature here had worked out.

139

Well, how about graphic images of anal sex put on gay marriage licenses?

you could put them on hetero marriage licenses too

140

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:48 PM (/heM

fuck off, i'm done w/ you

141

(2) The perception that there's more to come, and this furthers that.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 24, 2011 11:45 PM (C0Z3w)

Oh that's not perception, that's reality.  Anyone who says otherwise has a vested interest in maintaining the illusion or is self-deluded.

142 Is there any hope of reversing this law with a state constitutional amendment?

143

Posted by: buzzion at June 24, 2011 11:48 PM (oVQFe)

so the gay agenda hurts us debt wise and freedom wise exactly how?

144 "And the same people pushing this demand insist graphic images of smoking harms be put on cigarette packs."

While simultaneously campaigning for the legalization of marijuana.

145 How do you determine who the "man" is (the pitcher) and who the "woman" is (the receiver).

This is actually very important in determining which party gets screwed over in family court.

Women aren't going to like the whole same-sex marriage thing because it's going to require the legislature and courts to equalize how the sexes are treated vis-a-vis child support and alimony. I.e., bye-bye to both.

146

Posted by: VillageIdiot at June 24, 2011 11:51 PM (utXSy)

they could have voters vote on it, but then the fucking courts will overturn it and fuck that up. I'm for gay marriage but not for courts passing around laws to advocate for.

147 147 "The longest-running joke on this site concerns the *serial murder of homeless people.* again, what did you expect?"

Having matriculated at Berkeley, and needing to dodge the stench of the "street people" on way to school and work, I'm all in favor of that policy.

I used to imagine filling a large Uhaul truck with beer in back and trolling Telegraph for street people. My ultimate objective to take them to Palo Alto and leave them there.

Life is So Grand


ps. spent career in health insurance. Understand risks of AIDS. Wouldn't gay marriage, ideally, help quell some of the activity you mention. Although, my first comment I stand by, if it's anything like CA it's a bunch of nothing. If memory holds only 16,000 got married. Considering the hue and cry, and that we're talking CA, I'd have predicted 100k.

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 24, 2011 11:48 PM (qu2SW)

You attended Berkley and came out on the other end a conservative???  Sweet creeping jeezus!  I have to know how you avoided all the hippie liberal commie socialist greeny shitbags without being arrested for killing one (or more) of them?

148 NEXT TARGET: WE ARE COMING TO YOUR HOUSE TO FUCK YOU IN THE ASS, AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! IF YOU COMPLAIN, YOU'RE "RACIST" OR SOMETHING!

149

"and you base this definiton on?"

what marriage has been for over 4000 years.

why redefine it for people with daddy issues that they won't resolve like the rest of us - lead a happy life

it's a choice of a lifestyle not a marriage

150

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:48 PM (/heM

fuck off, i'm done w/ you

Posted by: YRM at June 24, 2011 11:50 PM (UzBwz)

Given that you started the whole kerfuffle with a 4th grade "this asshole is back", you sure threw in the towel awfully quick.  I'll go back and look at my postings, but I don't recall ever tossing an ad-hom at anyone here, even if I disagree with what they say.  Then again, you *are* PMS'ing so I'll cut you some slack.

151

Women aren't going to like the whole same-sex marriage thing because it's going to require the legislature and courts to equalize how the sexes are treated vis-a-vis child support and alimony. I.e., bye-bye to both.

that's a +1 on the pro gay marriage side if you ask me, the less bs bias towards women in the courts the better

152 Shivas: (A) I spent four years in Berkeley for grad school, so I agree with you there. (B) yeah, maybe gay marriage will change the game for gays and reduce the rampant freakiness and consequent health issues. *Maybe.* I wouldn't hold my breath. Curmudgeon: Of course it was dickish, but so? This is the Wild West of the internets. Rant on about Karposi's if it amuses you. Cancer, AIDS, dementia- there's a funny side to all these horrible things, and tweaking sacred cows is always good.

153 YRM so you would have no problem with an apartment landlord refusing to rent to a homosexual couple?

154

"Having matriculated at Berkeley, and needing to dodge the stench of the "street people" on way to school and work, I'm all in favor of that policy."

I did my tour of duty in Berkeley from 1986-1991. Of all people, I thought you would understand. But I guess I am "simply an ignorant piece of shit" when I point out the agenda of the Commiecrat Left.

 

155 154

Posted by: buzzion at June 24, 2011 11:48 PM (oVQFe)

so the gay agenda hurts us debt wise and freedom wise exactly how?

Posted by: YRM at June 24, 2011 11:51 PM (UzBwz)

Liberal agenda.  Learn to read.  And gee its not like the breakdown of traditional structures has ever had any sort of negative effects right.  Why just look at the inner cities.

156

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:52 PM (/heM

*sighs* i'm trying to ignore you and you keep wanting to turn this into a fun little back and forth b/w you and me and in someways you have succeded. but again since evry comment you have made on this site does nothing but reek of douchebagness and just insults the other commenters I'll leave you alone and ignore you. it's not about throwing the towel in, ask commeters like Vic and bebe about me throwing the towel. I just don;t give enough of a fuck about you to keep going.

157 So now what, we rewrite thousands of laws in all the states and territories, the education curriculum, the military charters, and quota requirements for a fraction of an already small percentage of the population that segregates by behavior?  When civil unions/domestic partnerships were already legal in numerous places?  Just for the sake of a title?  Thanks so much.

158 Wouldn't gay marriage, ideally, help quell some of the activity you mention.

It won't have any effect at all.  There's no social pressure for gays to actually be monogamous nor any assumption that a married gay couple will be so.  Some will, some won't.  It's just a state license. Most of the marriages will either be for some legal advantage (e.g. immigration, if it goes that far) or will be of older couples.

159

Posted by: buzzion at June 24, 2011 11:54 PM (oVQFe)

I read it, you refered to it as the "gay agenda". the inner cities have been destroyed by welfare and "the war on drugs" and "war on poverty" that only creates more pverty and crime. I don't see how gay marriage would be the cause of such.

160 Although, my first comment I stand by, if it's anything like CA it's a bunch of nothing. If memory holds only 16,000 got married. Considering the hue and cry, and that we're talking CA, I'd have predicted 100k.

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 24, 2011 11:48 PM (qu2SW)

So then it's not really that important an issue to gays in general and really just pushing the left's agenda of destabilizing western institutions.  Thanks for clearing that up.

161 Actually in response to #118: I WOULD like to see adultery made a crime again.

162 153 Is there any hope of reversing this law with a state constitutional amendment?

Posted by: VillageIdiot at June 24, 2011 11:51 PM (utXSy)

Not with the demographics of New York.  In a way, this was inevitable.

163 I mean #117, Sorry to 118 for the mixup.

164

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 24, 2011 11:53 PM (xECRb)

I would not. neither would I if they only wanted gays in their apartments. or just blacks. if people don't like what that institution/land lord is doing, the free market will say so. and I wouldn't want to do my bussiness w/ someone who didn't want me around in the first place.

165 Wait, so gay marriage is legal in NY but the legislature voted against making the UFC a legal sport there? Makes sense to me.

166

Posted by: SFGoth at June 24, 2011 11:52 PM (/heM

*sighs* i'm trying to ignore you and you keep wanting to turn this into a fun little back and forth b/w you and me and in someways you have succeded. but again since evry comment you have made on this site does nothing but reek of douchebagness and just insults the other commenters I'll leave you alone and ignore you. it's not about throwing the towel in, ask commeters like Vic and bebe about me throwing the towel. I just don;t give enough of a fuck about you to keep going.

Posted by: YRM at June 24, 2011 11:55 PM (UzBwz)

Wait, you get to throw in an a-hole and then run off with your hands over your ears?  C'mon.  Why don't you just say you disagree with me, hate me even, but you regret your initial comment?  That would be a conservative thing to do.

167 168 - this is just New York. For now. But yeah, a lot of that's probably coming. Unless and until Progressoverpeace's Nohomo Revolution comes, it's where we're headed. I don't dread it like most here, but I also don't welcome it eagerly like some. Just lie back and think of Frisco.

168 "(2) The perception that there's more to come, and this furthers that." Obviously fear a great motivator, and I've never read so much irrational fear on this subject. What, exactly, do you fear mongers think is next? Seriously. Gay what? Do you really believe the next step is animal marriage? Really? Don't just live with the fear; think about why? If it can't be quantified it ain't worth alienating the middle with...and winning in 2012 too important to fuck up over silly social issues like this. An issue that each year becomes less important to more people.

169 175 - for the dude who got killed by horse-sex, google "Mr. Hands." Ideally not on a full stomach.

170 Women aren't going to like the whole same-sex marriage thing because it's going to require the legislature and courts to equalize how the sexes are treated vis-a-vis child support and alimony. I.e., bye-bye to both.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 24, 2011 11:52 PM (73tyQ)

This is what I can't wait to see. 

A standard leftist attack on a traditional institution (seriously, who the fuck doesn't know this is from page one or two of their playbook?) is going to run headlong into all the "progress" made by their standard lefty feminist attacks of the last four decades.  The spin, double standards, hypocrisy, and bullshit will be legendary.

171 170

Posted by: buzzion at June 24, 2011 11:54 PM (oVQFe)

I read it, you refered to it as the "gay agenda". the inner cities have been destroyed by welfare and "the war on drugs" and "war on poverty" that only creates more pverty and crime. I don't see how gay marriage would be the cause of such.

Posted by: YRM at June 24, 2011 11:56 PM (UzBwz)

Yeah, I said its not about that.  I said its about the liberal agenda wrapped up in a rainbow.  And its because gay marriage is not the endgame.  Because equality under the law is not the goal.

172

173 When I was in law school, we had a discussion in class about assuming it was legal not to take on a roommate based on their race, should it be lawful to advertise that fact?  Most folks were against it but this one really big black guy said, essentially, "look, if they don't have to rent to me, I'd rather know up front so I don't waste my time looking into it."  He had a point which the white folk were hard-pressed to deny.

174 @127

Siding with anarchists who take advantage of a free and democratic undermine a civilization stabilizing , thousand year old bastion of society and procreation in order to publicly "stick it to square America" and display their  immoral choice  is not "letting the kids win one."


As far as "keeping the eye on the ball" , I have no idea what ball you are watching. If you think watering down principles and compromising with those who selfishly and narcissisticly attempt to force the faux public acceptance of their insulting mockery is the best roadmap to evicting Obama in 2012, perhaps an Obama/Biden 2016 bumpersticker is in your future.

175 40 years ago, the consensus was the homosexuality was a mental disorder (literally). 20 years ago, the idea of homosexual marriage was laughable to about 90% of Americans. Today, if you say you believe homosexuality is a mental disorder YOU will be accused of the mental disorder of "homophobia." Today, if you don't support homosexual marriage, you are demonized as a bigot. What does the next 20 years hold for us? Any predictions?

176 "but marriage is a public issue that defines the core of Western civilization." Abject idiocy with no back up whatsoever. And, frankly, i thought Western Civ a little stronger than you give it credit for. So, if my gay cousin gets married to her gf who has been her partner in life, and business, for 20+ years the Magna Carta will burn? And, cause I may as well exit on a bit o'irony, never forget that "all men are created equal".

177

so the gay agenda hurts us debt wise and freedom wise exactly how?

Posted by: YRM at June 24, 2011 11:51 PM (UzBwz)

You're assuming it's "this far and no further".  But it never is.  You can't put a lid on this stuff.

You make the mistake that a lot of people do in assuming that the purpose of this is about psychological validation for homosexual people.  Well, that's the intention for most supporters, but in fact it's about tearing down institutions. The Left doesn't care about marriage at all. Hetero or otherwise.

178 "What, exactly, do you fear mongers think is next? Seriously. Gay what? Do you really believe the next step is animal marriage? Really?"

Are you actually going to read any of several comments that fucking spell it out for you, or do you just feel better acting like a sanctimonious prick or lefty (BIRM) and tossing off meaningless generalizations like "fear mongers"? 

179 Shivas, I think the biggest and most legit fear is the extension of laws, regulations and policies prohibiting discrimination in, for example, housing. Also stuff like the abolition (or a serious attempt at abolishing or at least chipping away at) terms like husband and wife, and the underlying concept of gender polarity and sexual complementarity (neither of which *necessarily* need a religious basis for you to care about them.) are you saying these aren't likely to happen, or that they are/might be, but so what?

180

"Curmudgeon:

Of course it was dickish, but so? This is the Wild West of the internets. Rant on about Karposi's if it amuses you. Cancer, AIDS, dementia- there's a funny side to all these horrible things, and tweaking sacred cows is always good."

Honestly, I didn't intend to be. But for these left assholes to demand warning labels from one sort of behavior, based upon a negative health correlation, while making another sort of behavior almost sacrosanct, when it has an even more empirically negative health correlation, well...sometimes the truth is dickish.

181 Ironically, YRM, I'm rather impressed with some of your posts, such as #170.

My position is that gay marriage should be legislatively enacted (or at the ballot if the state has that), not judicially enforced; I believe religious institutions should not be forced to participate; and frankly, anything that fosters monogamy is a better thing than the alternative.  So why the hate?  My position may not be the norm here, but I'm not the only one.

182 188 "but marriage is a public issue that defines the core of Western civilization."

Abject idiocy with no back up whatsoever. And, frankly, i thought Western Civ a little stronger than you give it credit for.

So, if my gay cousin gets married to her gf who has been her partner in life, and business, for 20+ years the Magna Carta will burn?

And, cause I may as well exit on a bit o'irony, never forget that "all men are created equal".

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 12:06 AM (qu2SW)

Why does your gay cousin need a piece of paper from the state to legitimize her love?

183 and winning in 2012 too important to fuck up over silly social issues like this. An issue that each year becomes less important to more people.

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 12:00 AM (qu2SW)

Yeah, if it's so silly, then why all the push polls?  Why all the lawsuits?  Oh, and by the way, calling people on your side "fear-mongers"... makes me doubt we're on the same team.

184 http://tinyurl.com/3ys3v9j The Enumclaw horse sex case was a 2005 incident in which Kenneth Pinyan (June 22, 1960 – July 2, 2005), an American Boeing engineer residing in Gig Harbor,[1] died from receiving anal sex with a stallion at a farm in an unincorporated area in King County, Washington, near the city of Enumclaw. He had videotaped previous sex acts with the horses and distributed them informally under the name Mr. Hands. During a July 2005 sex act, videotaped by a friend, he suffered a perforated colon and later died of his injuries. The story was reported in The Seattle Times and was one of that paper's most read stories of 2005.

185 I'm going to try to get them to change the definition of who is considered Jewish. They have the most holidays.

186 177 Wait, so gay marriage is legal in NY but the legislature voted against making the UFC a legal sport there? Makes sense to me.

Posted by: Half naked dudes in "the guard" at June 24, 2011 11:59 PM (zXkiJ)

A good point for those who think that freedom is on the march.

187

"And, frankly, i thought Western Civ a little stronger than you give it credit for."

If you think that, you didn't learn much from Berkeley after all. Western Civ is in a tenuous position all around the world, from the Euros going passively into dhimmitude to our once pleasant California cities which have decayed into constant potential riot zones.

188 Burn the Witch Your words beyond embarrassing. To yourself and those not hanging onto their fear by their fingernails. Basically, you are what is commonly known as "scroll meat". I hope this helps.

189 This benefits grab by leftists and their enablers on the right is go to strech my cornhole to the size of Algore's stupidity.

190 197 I'm going to try to get them to change the definition of who is considered Jewish. They have the most holidays.

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 25, 2011 12:09 AM (xECRb)

And all except one emphasize, if not command, the consumption of food and alcohol.  It's good to be Jewish.  Shabbat Shalom!

191 Curmodgeon at 192 - I totally agree. I'm pretty libertarian, and I see the left as totally schizo on health issues. The different approach to sex-stuff from everything else baffles me. I want Lochner, Loving, Griswold and Lawrence. Roe is different b/c there's a victim. But liberals want to draw a line around sex (and abortion) and separate it from "just money," then telll me what to eat and where to smoke. Eff that in the proverbial ay.

192 What, exactly, do you fear mongers think is next? Seriously. Gay what? Do you really believe the next step is animal marriage? Really?

Well, the next step will be to force someone to accommodate.  There'll be a lawsuit for sure, forcing someone to do what they don't want to do.

The following step will be polygamy.  The plaintiff will not be a weirdo from the mountains of Utah, but a Muslim immigrant with two wives back home who wants to bring them both to the US (I'm sure there will be a sob story that will justify bringing them both) and needs to have his marriages recognized.

After all, why not?

193

"Your words beyond embarrassing."

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 12:10 AM (qu2SW)

This is what academics refer to as:  FAIL

Hope that helped. 

194 Lochner!!!  <3  We're more likely to go back to the gold standard though.

195 One of our esteemed commentators, who I incidentally have never before encountered here, is exhibiting troll-like symptoms.

196 The incident occurred at a 40-acre (16 ha) farm,[9] located in an unincorporated area in King County, Washington,[10] northwest of the city of Enumclaw.[9] Pinyan, and a man named James Michael Tait (who lived in a trailer next to the farm), plus another unidentified man, often visited the farm to engage in sexual intercourse with the horses inside.[11] Prosecutors later determined that the horse, an Arabian stallion nicknamed "Big Dick" by the participants,[10][12] had not been injured by being allowed to engage in sex in this manner.[10] According to the Medical Examiner's Office, Pinyan "died of acute peritonitis due to perforation of the colon",[9] and the death was ruled accidental.[13] Other factors surrounding the death were apparently that the deceased, concerned about appearing in a hospital with an unusual internal injury and the effect on his security clearance as an engineer for aerospace company Boeing, had apparently refused his friends' urging to go to the hospital for several hours after being aware he was internally injured.[citation needed] He was anonymously dropped off the Enumclaw Community Hospital.[9][14] On July 2, 2005, a man asked hospital staff for medical assistance for his companion. Pinyan was found dead in the emergency room. The man who brought Pinyan into the hospital had disappeared by the time hospital staff came to contact him. http://tinyurl.com/3ys3v9j

197

we will get our way too

how dare you deny us our love - and benefits

198 "I'm going to try to get them to change the definition of who is considered Jewish. They have the most holidays.

Posted by: Alabaster Jones at June 25, 2011 12:09 AM (xECRb) "

We are outlawing Judiasm.  We heart foreskin.

199 If you live in NY and are pissed about this, too bad.  If it really meant something to you, perhaps you would have done a better job of calling your Senator or organizing.  If you don't live in NY, shut the fuck up.  Really. And to those of you taking this to the absolute extremes, with caps lock in full on mode, you are part of the reason we conservatives are painted as wingnuts.   And that pisses me off to no end when it comes to dealing with important fiscal and nat'l security issues.  That said, I will still unapologetically call things "gay" when I see fit.  Fuck you, word police. 

200 "are you saying these aren't likely to happen, or that they are/might be, but so what?" Let's take your points one at a time: 1) Did you just type that you think discriminating in housing market ok based on sexual preferences? If so, I'm losing faith in your actually being about equal opportunity for every individual... the bell call of why I vote Republican every damn time. 2) Your other point one I think wholly overwrought. I can say the Confetior in Latin to this day, but can't figure out how two of same sex getting their marriage recognized by State changes my Saturday. Will my son decide he wants to marry a guy cause he can? Don't we always agree that men and women different? Well, gays and straights way different. Trust the individual the make right decision for himself. Or, can you imagine yourself getting married to someone of your own sex just because the State recognized it?

201 "a marriage equality bill"

That phrase reveals the bias of the speaker/writer.
The whole point that is at issue is whether gay relationships can even be marriage. The view of all cultures through all of human history -- including those such as ancient Rome and Greece that approved of homosexual relationships -- has been that marriage, by definition, is a complementary coupling. The word "complementary," in turn, always refers to two things that are different/distinct but can go together in some way, not to two things that are of the same kind.

Orwell said -- and every tyrant knows -- that language is the key to getting one's way in politics:
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
and
"f thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

By using the phrase "marriage equality," you're revealing your assumption that a homosexual relationship could ever even be "marriage."

202 A standard leftist attack on a traditional institution (seriously, who the fuck doesn't know this is from page one or two of their playbook?) is going to run headlong into all the "progress" made by their standard lefty feminist attacks of the last four decades.  The spin, double standards, hypocrisy, and bullshit will be legendary.

Marriage exists to protect women.  Women get pregnant, in which they are in a vulnerable position for 9 months, and men, if left to their own devices would simply dump a woman when the first wrinkle shows.

Many of our laws are based on the assumption that women do not work (or will work sporadically for low wages) because they will have babies.  This is why alimony exists and children go to the mother if she wants them and cannot be proven to be incompetent.

Same-sex divorce settlements will be used as precedent for opposite-sex divorce cases and women will certainly lose out.

203 " A Balrog of Morgoth at June 25, 2011 12:16 AM" Read Alinsky much. I hope this helps.

204 Shivas, I support the right of a property owner to rent or not rent to whomever they want, yes. I'm a libertarian. You're apparently not that, but you're also not a social conservative? (You also contradict yourself- do you trust individuals to make choices, or do you want to regulate their choices by statute e.g. in housing?)

205 180   What, exactly, do you fear mongers think is next? Seriously. Gay what? Do you really believe the next step is animal marriage? Really?

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 12:00 AM (qu2SW)

 

You missed the point completely. Gay nothing is next. I think completion of the gay marriage thing constitutes an endpoint for a fairly thorough strip-mining of gay issues and gay culture by the Left, in service of a larger and unquestioned goals of turning everything upside down.

I am not interested in the particulars of gay people's existences or whatever their particular issues may be. Like I hope that nobody is interested in me. Sexuality is one part of their lives.There are many other parts of their lives. I don't care about any of it provided it does not affect me. I don't care what they do in the bedroom, or how high they set the clearance on their lawnmowers, or what car they drive. None of that affects me.

No - the "next thing" will use this and other similar things as mere stepping stones. The over-arching process is the de-legitimization of everything that has comprised the framework of our society, for the ake of de-legitimizing it. Look at the coordinated effort to make the Constitution irrelevant. Look at the push for open borders. Look at the corruption of the school curricula. Operation Fast and Furious. Etc., etc., etc.

Do you understand? Legitimate gay issues, and gay people who have done me no harm, are pawns in this much larger game.

206 Your other point one I think wholly overwrought. I can say the Confetior in Latin to this day, but can't figure out how two of same sex getting their marriage recognized by State changes my Saturday. Will my son decide he wants to marry a guy cause he can? Don't we always agree that men and women different? Well, gays and straights way different.

Have you got something personal against the verb "to be"?

207 And to those of you taking this to the absolute extremes, with caps lock in full on mode, you are part of the reason we conservatives are painted as wingnuts.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at June 25, 2011 12:20 AM (bEAIm)

No, that's way down the list of reasons and you should know that; there's nothing here that should be offensive to anybody except concern trolls and that one recurring idiot.

208

"And to those of you taking this to the absolute extremes, with caps lock in full on mode, you are part of the reason we conservatives are painted as wingnuts."

Don't like us expressing our opinions?  Cool then you don't need our votes either.

lades.

209 But that's beside the point. Note that I was *describing* what the fears are, not necessarily *endorsing* them. Those warning that there's a larger agenda here on the part of some are right. But I want my gay friends to be able to marry. It's a bit contradictory, sure.

210 That said, I will still unapologetically call things "gay" when I see fit.  Fuck you, word police. 

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at June 25, 2011 12:20 AM (bEAIm)

"Ghey" is the new "gay".  And yeah, I grew up in teh 70's using "gay" to mean "lame", with no homosexual reference at all, and I will not stop (though I may say "ghey" instead since some battles aren't worth fighting).

211 "Same-sex divorce settlements will be used as precedent for opposite-sex divorce cases and women will certainly lose out." I guess you've never been divorced. It's all about money and math. I know guys who draw checks off their ex's; and I pay some each month, and for the kids. That I have kids half the time ameliorates the cost. Your history lesson skipped modern times. And actual reality. Your fear of polygamy from earlier comment just too silly to respond to ... but don't ever let it go. I'm sure it defines you. And the man you are.

212 I can say the Confetior in Latin to this day, but can't figure out how two of same sex getting their marriage recognized by State changes my Saturday.

Non-sequitur.  The first involves memorization, the second, reason and logic.  You may be capable of both, but the second does not follow from the first.

Will my son decide he wants to marry a guy cause he can?

Maybe he won't be able to because the other guy won't want to.  Marriage isn't an individual right that can be exercised by a sovereign person.  It is a contract recognized by the state.

213 I'm into freedom of association.....

214 222 This "as long as it doesn't affect me" and "it's their lives, let them do what they want" crap is the last feeble death rattle of a doomed society. 

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 25, 2011 12:28 AM (vbh31)

If I want to drink myself to death, or smoke cigarettes, or play with high explosives, it's none of your concern. As long as it does not affect you.

215 "(You also contradict yourself- do you trust individuals to make choices, or do you want to regulate their choices by statute e.g. in housing?)" I believe Housing, and equality of opportunity for same, part of the American dream. I hate when I am not consistent in a perfect sense; and appreciate you asking your question. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils along the same plain. I consider myself a LIbertarian... but, in many way I also consider Libertarians as the "buggy whips of 2011". In other words, Libertarians too pure sometimes... which leaves me defining myself quite often as a JFK Liberal. Nothing pisses those on the left that I argue with more than that... cause, for those capable of thought, it forces them to wonder what the hell has happened to the Dem Party since 1960.

216

"Your fear of polygamy from earlier comment just too silly to respond to ... but don't ever let it go. I'm sure it defines you.

And the man you are."

Wow, speaking of dickishness....but the fact remains that there is utterly no way to redefine the gender of participants, without followup challenges to changing the number of participants. There were polygamous societies even before there were ones with prevalent homosexuality.

What's wrong with polygamous societies? We need only look at the whole Muslim world for that answer.

217 "Have you got something personal against the verb "to be"?" My second bong hit creates an aversion to anything "Hamlet". Jeez, this treehouse has a grammar cop?

218 Unless you are in an isolated cabin off the grid everything you mentioned Wm Sherman effects society economically and with a high possibility, also it's safety.

219 @212 Trust the individual the make right decision for himself.

Once more for the road.

The individual can do what he damn well pleases for himself.
He could before and after this ridiculous joke of a law.

What happened in New York was not about individuals, it was an assault by an anarchic minority on a societal institution. It could only have happened during an all out assault on the institutions of our country, such as that being implemented by the current administration, who support their elitism by fomenting mob-rule and chaos.

The cost is to society and has nothing to do with what your Berkeley-addled narcissistic mind can or can't conjure up as affecting "you" and "your Saturday".

220 I guess you've never been divorced.

Actually, I've never been married and never will.  If anyone's rights are being eroded, they are mine.  Also, I would appear to have absolute moral authority on this issue because of that.

It's all about money and math. I know guys who draw checks off their ex's;

Sure you do.  Your "friends," I assume?  We're learning a lot about your friends and family in an awfully short amount of time.  "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote". The bias toward women in divorce proceedings is simply a bias of the court, and well-documented, your personal experience notwithstanding.

Your history lesson skipped modern times. And actual reality.

Ah, yes, modern times.  We of the current generation are simply too good, too superior, too wise to have the same problems as our forebears.

Your fear of polygamy from earlier comment just too silly to respond to ... but don't ever let it go. I'm sure it defines you.

That's Internet Troll-speak for "I don't have a response to your argument, so I will not address it."

From January 2006: "A new study commissioned by the federal government recommends Canada legalize polygamy and change legislation to help women and children living in plural relationships."

And the man you are.

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 12:30 AM (qu2SW)

This is Internet Troll-speak for "I fear that you will be able to tear me apart, so let me hurl an ad hominem insult hoping that you either return in kind so that I can justify extracting myself from this conversation or that you will ignore me."

I admit, it looks a little funny when dubbed.  Kind of like a kung fu movie.

221 Fact facts.   Republicans will never win the big battles.  Social Conservatives should stay home in 2012 and let the GOP (really the Democrat-lite party) get thrashed.

And if you read the comments from the traitor in the NY state senate, he sounds just like  a Democrat.  There is no party for Conservatives.

222
My second bong hit creates an aversion to anything "Hamlet".

Jeez, this treehouse has a grammar cop?

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 12:41 AM (qu2SW)

Ah, a marijuana smoking "libertarian" who likes to insult conservatives of various stripes.  Ladies and gentlemen, Bill Maher.

223 I've heard that the next law to be voted on in the NY legislature is to force all Home Depot and Lowes stores to relabel all hose fittings, and change them from "Male" and "Female", to "Male" and "The Other Guy's Anus"

224 Shivas, Curmudgeon's on to something: it's hard to come up with a principled argument for why Adam & Steve are ok, but Adam & Steve & Seth aren't, once you've chucked tradition (cue Zero Mostel) out the window. Unless you want to say- and people do- that polygamy is inherently coercive. But that only makes sense when you're talking about hetero-polygamy, and even there it's a "false consciousness" argument which is anathema to a libertarian. Saying the polygamy thing is dumb isn't an argument, it's a dodge.

225

"Fact facts. Republicans will never win the big battles. Social Conservatives should stay home in 2012 and let the GOP (really the Democrat-lite party) get thrashed."

How about trying to take back the GOP rather than petulantly non-sending a non-message?

You don't change a party by leaving it. You change a party by getting down in the trenches and fighting.

For too long too many social conservatives sat in the pews and did nothing but pray as the world went to hell in a handbasket. Time to do something. God helps those who help themselves and all that.

226 Posted by: SFGoth at June 25, 2011 12:29 AM (/heM Say "gay" however you want, to my knowledge people don't discern between ghey and gay in speech. I've been called on the carpet for it. That said, I still will call gay when I see it. Posted by: who you call wingnuts at June 25, 2011 12:26 AM (VxqUc) Don't remember asking for your vote and I still think Ace owns this site.

227 Shivas, if you're really a JFK dem, then you're part of the current right coalition, but a smaller part than the social rightists (though probably bigger than the libertarians). If you're on the right mostly because you're creeped out by the left, it's negative self-definition. This bus is driven by the Nohomo Brigades, and neither JFK dems nor libertarians can afford to forget that.

228 You know, I never grew up with "gay" being a general pejorative.  First time I heard it in that context was on South Park.

The irony is that "gay" is very much an appropriated word to begin with.

229 "Maybe he won't be able to because the other guy won't want to." Short story that I hope illustrates your point, while giving ammo to those who live in fear of the, booga booga, gay agenda. My first real job after graduation with MassMutual in San Francisco. I was a management trainee chump, just happy to have a job in 1980. After a few weeks the area I worked in was way behind so I offered to work the weekend. My boss, a guy who had been an officer in Army, came into work that day also. Asked me out to lunch. After lunch, on stairs to building, he made his move. Told me he "liked me in a special way." I listened to his flattery, which considering my very average looks, I wasn't used to. I then explained that I had a girlfriend of many years and that I was straight. Now to your point, and the "ammo" I mentioned earlier, he then slapped me on the butt and said, "I'll be patient." Chills of the wierdness overwhelmed me. I went into office and left for East Bay bus terminal asap. I didn't go back to work on Monday. Don't want to hang with "them"; ok with them punishing each other in marriage. And, for the grammar police: to be dooby dooby do.

230 "The irony is that "gay" is very much an appropriated word to begin with." They appropriated the word gay, and changed it's meaning to the point that it now is considered by some to be a pejorative. Tonight in NY, they appropriated the word "marriage" and changed its meaning.

231

"it's hard to come up with a principled argument for why Adam & Steve are ok, but Adam & Steve & Seth aren't, once you've chucked tradition (cue Zero Mostel) out the window."

Exactly. The fundamental structure of marriage is and always has been in part defined by the fact that the people involved in one are of different genders. They gay activists are taking one requirement of the contract (the most important one by far, I would argue, children born and all that) and declaring it invalid simply because it's inconvenient to their personal belief system. You can't take the gender restrictions out of play and then pretend that the numerical ones are sacrosanct. Not convincingly, at least.

And this is where the hilarity and quite frankly disingenuousness of gay activists come in. They are willing to divorce marriage of a component, actually the key component...the one part that has never in the history of the institution changed, the sexes of the participants. And then they have the audacity to claim it's unfairly hurting gays? Even when there are domestic partnership laws? Can they say this with a straight (sorry, couldn't think of another expression) face?

232 Don't want to hang with "them"; ok with them punishing each other in marriage.

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 12:56 AM (qu2SW)

So you're saying that you're a bigot, but because you feel guilty about it, your noblesse oblige and paternalistic condescension requires that society change in order for you to overcome your guilt.

233 The suggestion has been made that "gay marriage" will encourage monogamy... My question is... what evidence is there to suggest that it WILL encourage monogamy? Lesbians, studies show, are a bit more monogamous naturally... whereas gay men ...or even men in general are not. So what is about a peice of paper that will encourage men to be monogamous in a gay union?

234 No, that's the same troll who claimed a gay daughter and a gay cousin.

235 Good times, everyone. And don't forget: RINOs For Palin: Maximize the Contradictions 2012! Pleasant dreams.

236 "Saying the polygamy thing is dumb isn't an argument, it's a dodge." Saying outlawing AK-47's will take away my hunting rifle the same kind of silly slippery slope argument that hurts our actual causes ( I don't own a rife, but for the sake of my weak analogy/parallel go with me .. ;-). Actually, my point above of some value, but I also should add that Polygamy something that our culture has dealt with, there is little to no desire for it... and, most importantly, it's not part of anyone's agenda. I agree wholly with the commentary about the left's desire to hurt our Constitution - the greatest document ever written creating the greatest experiment in history of world. [See Time mag]. I just don't think Gay marriage in a Blue State rates that high; and takes our eyes of Obamacare and getting rid of the most obvious example of Peter Principle ever foisted upon this nation. Can we just call it a State's Right's issue and folk can vote with their feet?

237

"Actually, my point above of some value, but I also should add that Polygamy something that our culture has dealt with, there is little to no desire for it... and, most importantly, it's not part of anyone's agenda."

Ahem.

238

"Saying outlawing AK-47's will take away my hunting rifle the same kind of silly slippery slope argument that hurts our actual causes ( I don't own a rife, but for the sake of my weak analogy/parallel go with me .. ;-)."

The gun grabber Left, both in other countries and here in the USA, have operated in just this fashion for decades. I'm not surprised you don't own a gun and don't know that.

"Can we just call it a State's Right's issue and folk can vote with their feet?"

We tried that in California, now didn't we? And the gay activists took it to Federal Courts.

239

"I agree wholly with the commentary about the left's desire to hurt our Constitution - the greatest document ever written creating the greatest experiment in history of world. [See Time mag]."

And you really don't see the same forces at work, that both institutions are just archaic inventions of old white men? (well, old Semitic men for monogamy, but anyway....)

240 My real problem with this comes from the religious freedom angle. I am a Catholic. Now, sure, as things stand this doesn't effect me anymore than, for instance, Protestantism being legal. But over the decade or so I have been politically aware I have learned one important, overriding lesson: liberals lie. They are never happy with small victories over their opponents. They don't want their enemies merely set back on their heels, they want them annihilated and proscribed. The Church is their enemy. They want the Church and its influence either destroyed, or transformed into something resembling Unitarianism. The very first chance they get they will challenge the religious exemption. Severance clause be damned, liberals will pluck some obscure and arcane legal formulation from the dust of obscurity and get around it by hook or by crook. All it takes is one black-robed liberal to strip this protection away. And it's not protection from gays that I speak of here, it's protection from the state, specifically the radicals that infest it. Once the judge strips that protection and proclaims that the Church must perform gay weddings or be guilty of discrimination, the precedent will be set: the state can dictate to the Church how to run its affairs. Of course Catholicism won't change on their terms, but its public influence in support of the conservative cause will be near-fatally undermined.

241 "This bus is driven by the Nohomo Brigades..." I tend to believe that Ace, Gabriel and the wonderful woman from KC who I can't think of name as I type might disagree with your comment; unless they aren't driving. Yes, I do get your point. I trust you recognize it's why I have to vote "against" the Dems; as in, who could vote for a party that gives mouth service to the crap being spewed here by social cons with keyboard. I guess if folk knew my dream, as a Pol Sci student, would be to run a tough, Pro Choice, Republican and neutralize the abortion issue. I have two theories that form that view: 1) I believe that women more conservative than men, inherantly; and, 2) So many girls/women define "Woman's Rights" as only abortion. I'd love to gut the stupid Oppression Studies curriculum at today's colleges; and I think taking this cudgel away would do it. Hell, let's go with a third: 3) Have any of you ever heard an elected social con Republican or conservative ever posit legislation, and them promote it, outlawing first term abortion? Me either. It's all a Kabuki.

242 "Posted by: Council On American Islamic Relations at June 25, 2011" Damn, you've found my weak underbelly. I fucking hate Muslims. Take away their right to marry at all. Hated algebra... and ignorant fundie splodeydopes. Big Time.

243 There is nothing, nothing 'conservative' about fake gay marriage. Those of you pushing same sex marriage as a conservative position are delusional. Next up: polygamy. Seriously, you same-sex marriage proponents, how much hate do you have in your hearts for certain Mormons and many Muslims about wanting to be happy with multiple wives? How much HATE can you same sex marriage supporters have in YOUR hearts for those that want plural marriages? What is magical about 2 people? How out of touch and how archaic is your bigoted ideology for only 2 men or 2 women in a 'marriage'. Bigots, all of you.

244 Why o why, am I always out having a real life when the homocentric topics come up on this blog. Late to the party as usual! For the record, don't give a damn about gay marriage. Not even a little bit. Been in a monogamous relationship for 22 years and never been tempted. But hey, I'm conservative so I guess I'm just a self loathing gay.

245 Shivas irons = H8R

246 "So you're saying that you're a bigot, but because you feel guilty about it, your noblesse oblige and paternalistic condescension requires that society change in order for you to overcome your guilt." I'm sure I'd rather hang with gay folk, as my daughter gay and her friends a blast, thnt Crummudgeon, et al. I'm prejudiced; I believe the ability to discriminate why I've been successful in business and life. Hell, I spent my career in ins. biz making decisions on a discriminatory, yet legal, basis. Choices need to be make and I only hang with those I enjoy. I don't go down to certain bars in Laguna to get a drink; and I don't join clubs or religions. ps Mice lefty PC card trick. Blow me.

247

For the record, don't give a damn about gay marriage. Not even a little bit. Been in a monogamous relationship for 22 years and never been tempted. But hey, I'm conservative so I guess I'm just a self loathing gay.

Posted by: Log Cabin at June 25, 2011 01:25 AM (j+q60)

But how can you do that?!  You need a piece of paper from the state to legitimize your love!

248 "Ladies and gentlemen, Bill Maher." Ladies and Gentlemen, Saul Alinsky. I hope this helps.

249 @266. At least you are honest that you are a bigot and a hater. Most of you on the left won't admit as much. Oh, and there is nothing conservative about you. Just a bigot who hates Obama. You are very transparent. I would suggest firedoglake or dailykos. They would suit your bigotry, hate, and anti-religious zeal better than here.

250 Wow. So much venom. Anyway, congrats to the NY legislature on making the right decision! And to all the happy couples... cheers!

251 And Ann Coulter said only the left "Demonic". Ace, how do you deal with such crap? Gabriel? I assume the thickness on your hazmat suits of certain protection. I'll continue to pimp the site, cause I love the posts by the contributors. I will also continue to not include the link to "comments thingy" as it, apparently, has become the outhouse where the rabid of right and left hang out behind to shake hands and agree. Not that my prose so important, but those here pretending to hide their fear behind weak argument embarrassing to the only club I belong to - not golf related - the Republican Party. [rightwingva: is your soul as ugly as your words might allow? That's a rhetorical question.]

252 Someone posted earlier in thread that this just another move to destabilize traditional institutions. That is exactly correct. Here in California, I'd guess 10 percent or less of the gay couples I know have bothered to marry. Most people couldn't give a damn. At gay establishments and in social gatherings, it is always the people you would expect agitating for this stuff: obnoxious liberal activists. Every one else just nods and goes along with the crowd.

253 "At gay establishments and in social gatherings, it is always the people you would expect agitating for this stuff: obnoxious liberal activists. Every one else just nods and goes along with the crowd." Ya know... I've noticed that the more earnest agitators for it tend to be people that "came to the party" later in life... and women that think it's "cute". (usually the same ones that find slash lit "hawt".)

254 272 Someone posted earlier in thread that this just another move to destabilize traditional institutions. That is exactly correct. Here in California, I'd guess 10 percent or less of the gay couples I know have bothered to marry. Most people couldn't give a damn.

At gay establishments and in social gatherings, it is always the people you would expect agitating for this stuff: obnoxious liberal activists. Every one else just nods and goes along with the crowd.

Posted by: Log Cabin at June 25, 2011 01:57 AM (j+q60)

You're just a hateful bigot against gays for saying that Log Cabin.  Just ask Shivas.

255

Heh, it's gonna be fun to watch the Left try to square the circle on "We <3 Sharia" and "We <3 Gay Marriage". 

Large wager on the Sharia wing to win that one in sudden death.

256

An incomprehensible vote. Unless you realize the GOP is particularly adept at cutting its own throat. This may be the literal end of the New York GOP, such as it was.

The people of New York weren't clamoring for this. If it had been a popular vote, I bet it would have been rejected.

And as for those "conscience exceptions," which don't apply to photographers, caterers, etc., those will last until the very first judge to hear them challenged decides they violate the New York constitution.

 

257

@149: "you could put them on hetero marriage licenses too"

Not really, no.

258 HOW DOES MY DICK TASTE, RIGHTWINGERS? A LITTLE BIT LIKE YOUR ASS, AMIRIGHT?

259 I'm not a particularly religious person, but...aren't we as a society kinda sorta doing precisely what the good folks in Sodom and Gomorrah were doing shortly before being incinerated in a rain of brimstone and fire?

260 Next it becomes mandatory?

261

The issue has never been about gay marriage for the agitators. Gay marriage is just another stepping stone to the destruction of Western norms.

262
This is normal? --

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2mk894

Utterly NSFW. And, res ipsa loquitur.

BTW, the "religious conscience exemptions" haven't prevented gays from strong-arming the Catholic adoption agencies to the point where they closed rather than give babies to homosexual couples. Nor has it prevented various gay or lesbian couples from suing churches that won't perform their marriages.

This is just the beginning. They said they'd be satisfied with coming out of the closet. Then they said they'd be happy with civil unions. Then they said they'd be happy with marriage rights. But the real object is to crush any objectors -- in New York, the gay marriage referendums have been defeated by the citizens every time, but that doesn't matter, because New York isn't a democracy.

263

271 And Ann Coulter said only the left "Demonic"... I will also continue to not include the link to "comments thingy" ... Not that my prose so important, but those here pretending to hide their fear behind weak argument embarrassing to the only club I belong to - not golf related - the Republican Party.

Posted by: shivas Irons at June 25, 2011 01:57 AM (qu2SW)

 

We have feelings, you know.

264 For gay conservatives, being gay comes before being conservative first and always.  Gabe will forever defend every attempt to ram gay marriage down the country's throat, no matter how it's done (for a real laugh go back and look at his defenses of the attempt to throw out Prop 8 via the courts), and it will always be with the same kind of smug "fuck you" attitude he's displayed tonight.  Gays must always have political validation for their own mental issues.

The main thing gays are accomplishing with their culture-wrecking bullshit is to turn millions of people like me, who heretofore never gave a second thought to them, against them.  Ghey marriage will be the new abortion, something that will never be accepted by at least half the country, no matter how much the libs think they can engineer "tolerance" into us; it will roil the electorate forever and will further split American society in two.

When "marriage" has to be so farcically redefined as to include couples for whom it isn't possible, then marriage means nothing at all.  With the stroke of Andrew Cuomo's pen, every existing marriage in the state of New York will be devalued to the point of meaninglessness, just as every marriage in states that have already rammed ghey marriage through against the will of their respective populaces is currently meaningless.

But as people further up have been pointing out, this isn't really about marriage at all.  There won't be a flood of New York faggots exchanging vows after this, because the vast majority of them aren't interested in doing so.  This is about personal validation through the police power of government -- since gheys are easily the whiniest bunch of selfish look-at-me malcontents in the American population -- and about the broader leftist goal of wrecking the underpinnings of Western civilization.

265 Oh, and just in case this wasn't linked already.

266 The folks who said that this is just another wedge for the leftists to to whack into the facade of our civilization are exactly right. That, and sticking it to the Christians. Just look at the Proposition 8 protests on Zombietime.com. The anti-Christian hatred is positively venomous. And they're the ones who are touting this -- the hardcore radical Left.

And polygamy? "Big Love" on HBO, anyone? (now, isn't that special). As a comedy, no less!

Next up, white slavery. What a laff riot.

267 everything involving gay marriage should have the phrase "gay" preceding it. Much like the movie Deuce Bigelo: "He-ho," "He-bitch slap" etc... " I need to buy a gay wedding ring." "heres's your gay wedding program. What side are you on, groom or groom?" "hey everyone! time to throw the gay bouquet.. both of them!"

268 The Indiana legislature once set the value of pi to 3. That didn't make it so. A sacrament requires valid matter and a valid performer. I can have the matter with dinner at Olive Garden, but it's not the Precious Blood. The priest can whammy Coca-cola, but that's not the Precious Blood either. 2 men aren't valid matter and (since marriage is performed by the couple themselves) not valid performers . I don't much care what kind of domestic contracts gay couples set up, but they aren't married.

269
"God, not Albany, settled the definition of marriage a long time ago," said Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., a Pentecostal minister and the only Democrat to vote against the measure.




First one on the bus to the re-education camp...

270 I can really appreciate Log Cabin's take on it.  I know a couple of committed couples who are teh ghey and they oppose "gay marriage" for the simple reason that this push for it is bringing heat down on them socially.  "We don't need this shit" is their basic opinion.

Your cat can give birth in the oven, but that doesn't mean I have to call the kittens "muffins".  I get damn sick of the Left's attacks on rationalism.

271 Not saying there isn't some underlying true belief by some advocates of gay marriage and the passage of laws allowing it but this succeeded in large part due to the advocacy of the legal community who stand to monetarily benefit from the sure to come 100% increase in the divorce rate.

The law "industry" funneled millions to the gay marriage advocay groups for their propaganda campaigns which unfortunately were effective on the sheep

Just like the housing crisis that was caused by the mortgage and finance industry who made hundreds of billions under the guise of "equal homeownership for all"

Fannie and Freddie and Wall St spent hundreds of millions on lobbying Congress and on their propaganda campaigns to the general public

272 I find it hilarious that people here think we have Republicans in New York. And that the NY Conservative Party is actually conservative. Here's a free clue: We have Marxists and Marxist-lites in New York. The terms "Republican" and "Conservative" has no real meaning in New York other than "Not Democrat". Political example: Rudy Giuliani. Anyone who thinks he's a Republican (Or a Conservative given the past endorsement by the NY Conservative Party) needs serious psychiatric help. That man is an asshole, and you need to be an asshole to run NYC effectively. But to think Rudy was ever a Republican in any sense needs to stop drinking the methanol and take a look at his Marxist-lite ideology. Do something useful: talk up the 4 "Republicans" who voted for the bill. Make sure their names, and their soon-to-be-redrawn districts are known far and wide. And then watch and see what they get out of the legislature in the near future. Those 4 votes were cover. Just wait and watch what quietly slides through over the next 12 months....

273 Understand risks of AIDS. Wouldn't gay marriage, ideally, help quell some of the activity you mention

No.

See were notoriously, empirically promiscuous. A piece of paper isn't going to change that.

274 The funny part is that our legal system pulls out the "animal cruelty" crap when a guy is banging a sheep or a cow.  They even tried to say that about that guy who died being screwed by the horse, I think. (I don't recall all the details of this case, but someone must remember it - I just remember it being really funny.)

The guy died from a perforated colon when he had the horse fuck him up the ass. He was an engineer with Boeing in the Seattle area IIRC..

...and I do remember some leftard idiot bloggers who actually blamed Bush because the horse fucker felt some sort of guilt pangs for having participated in Bush's machine's illegal racist wars for oil.

Me?? I'da channled any guilt a little differently...say drinking or something.


...and I'm sure all the horsefuckerphobes here think this is funny!!!!

275 OK...I've been forced to bring out the nukes. SERIOUS CONTENT WARNING!!!!!!

I know the infamous Zombie Folsom Street Fair pics have been linked before. I don't have the stomach to scroll through them again, but there are pics of a few booths where anal penetration toys modeled from Christian icononography are being sold.

....so if you don't think a large part of the gay agenda isn't about tearing down traditional institutions...you're nothing but full of shit

276 From NRO, re passage.  As usual, the gay activists and their enablers cheated.  If their position is so right, why do they always have to resort to these sort of tactics? 

"One of the facts about tonightÂ’s debate over same-sex marriage that will be neglected in the adulatory coverage is the really extraordinary process that brought this innovation to the Empire State. New York law, for instance, requires bills to be published 72 hours before a vote. The public, however, did not see the full language of the bill voted on tonight for more than a few hours (and only if they were exceedingly diligent in looking for it). Normal rules of debate were waived, the session was extended, etc. These kinds of exceptions are allowed for, but only in instances of emergency. Governor Cuomo had no qualms about claiming, and many legislators were complicit in accepting, the argument that redefining marriage in New York was so pressing a priority that the publicÂ’s ability to weigh the proposals (not to mention the senatorsÂ’ ability to do so) should have been short-circuited.

When Sen. Ruben Diaz tried to ask the Republican senator who had announced the new exemption language questions about that language, he refused even to yield for a question. (Perhaps he didn’t want to have to explain that wedding photographers, bed-and-breakfast owners, and the like with religious beliefs about marriage will be liable to discrimination complaints.) “By any means necessary” seems to be the preferred operating procedure for the marriage-equality movement. What remains to be seen now is whether the people of New York will look kindly on the legislators who ignored them, listening instead to the Hollywood stars and other glitterati who became lobbyists for this fashionable cause."

277 #213 (Kathy) has something all too rare, that I would have hoped most conservatives would have picked up by now: an ability to articulate just what is absurd about the notion of "gay marriage." 50 years of suckling at the teat of a jaded media has left us without the mental tools to defend the notion of a transcendent moral order, which is one of the cornerstones of conservatism. Most of us simply intuit that there's something hinky about "gay marriage" but can't quite pin it down, aside from pointing out the health issues raised by the abuse of the poop chute, which is all well and good but not in itself a fully convincing argument.

278 Just what are the conscience protections in this one?  Not being forced to marry people is a "How Very White Of You" concession, frankly.  The First Amendment guarantees that.  I'm more interested in making sure marriages performed by religions that object are recognized into perpetuity, and I'm more than a little tired of seeing religious operations being cudgeled out of existence (Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts and California) in the name of equality.

Increasingly it's looking like "Gay Marriage.  Religious Freedom.  Pick one."

279 What what is you people's problem?

280 "Smart money says so, but the bill does appear to have a severability clause of a sort:"

"S 5-A. THIS ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE, AND ALL PARTS OF IT ARE  TO BE READ AND CONSTRUED TOGETHER.  IF ANY PART OF  THIS  ACT  SHALL  BE  ADJUDGED  BY  ANY  COURT  OF  COMPETENT  JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, THE  REMAINDER OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALIDATED.   NOTHING  HEREIN  SHALL  BE  CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE PARTIES' RIGHT TO APPEAL THE MATTER.""

Uh, that's not a severability clause but the opposite: it's an express NON-SEVERABILITY clause.  Curious what the results of that might be.

281 Here's my issue with this.  It's the people claiming that the end of America is near because 2 guys can get married.

Personally, I don't see an issue with it unless they shove it in my face. (Which, yes, I'm well aware that some of them will)

282 primary the bastards, all RINOS need to go

283 This resembles the definition of "marriage" like post-surgery Michael Jackson resembled "white."
Slice it, dice it, bastardize it, and 2+2=5.

284 Chaz Bono's gender assignment might be a better comparison.

285 Here's a state that's going in the toilet financially, and these idiots "emergency" is for Adam & Steve to get married? Really? They need to go and this travesty needs to be repealed.

286 I hereby nominate Governor Cuomo as the first recipient of the Gaetan Dugas Award for Unintended Consequences.

There has to be a first time for everything.

287 This isn't about the 2% of gays.  It's about the 98% who aren't. 

288 The legal privileges attendant on marriage are not rights; they could be repealed at any time.  Were this truly about equality, the homosexual lobby would have taken aim at the privileges, not the definition of marriage.

No law can prohibit de facto homosexual marriage.  All the happy couple has to do is live monogamously for life.  If it's all about love, they should be indifferent to the monetary advantages of the legal state of marriage.

I suspect the real purpose is to use the government to force those who oppose homosexuality to pretend to respect it to avoid punishment for their unacceptable thoughts. That is a tyrannous motivation.

289 It's days like today that make me embarrassed to be a "conservative". The comments here and on many sites are right out of a Moveon mockumentary about how the right really thinks. Nobody seems to be asking where the government gets off on telling adult citizens their business. In bed!

290 Incestuous marriage now! Ignore the H8ers! Shout down the Christian bigots! How does a marriage between two brothers who really love each other and want to be butt buddies for life weaken the institution of marriage? Answer: It doesn't! It strengthens it! Hey you knuckle-dragging rightwingers: Just because incestuous marriages are legal doesn't mean you *have* to marry a family member. Duh! Thank you Senator Meghan McCain for your support on this issue! Fight the incestophobes! Tolerance for all diverse lifestyle choices! WE'RE HERE! WE'RE INCESTUOUS! WE LIKE TO SCREW OUR SIBLINGS!

291 "Nobody seems to be asking where the government gets off on telling adult citizens their business. In bed!" Pro-Tip: That's not what this issue is about, you fucking idiot.

292 If your homo cousins want the sweet sweet taste of government sanctioned monogamy they ought to have it.

Other than that, it is about tyrannizing breeders and reaping low hanging fruit of fag divorce fees.

293 @ Obvious: I got your pro-tip right here, but that's for the fascinating and insightful bullshit.

294 why do they even CARE to stamp the label of "marriage" on their relationship? i never understood that one. and why do they feel the need to legally legitimize it? what's all the hoopla about?

295

@34 re: polygamy

Muslims practice polygamy openly down here in Casey Anthony Country.   Saw two wives in bags and their daughters (around four sons and four daughters) wearing  soaking sacks at the pool.  A lot like wearing heavy ankle weights while running.  Never heard of the burquini? 

And of course the 100% rule on "swim attire only" was immediately waived for Islam, our one true established religion.      

296 For gay conservatives, being gay comes before being conservative first and always.  Gabe will forever defend every attempt to ram gay marriage down the country's throat, no matter how it's done (for a real laugh go back and look at his defenses of the attempt to throw out Prop 8 via the courts), and it will always be with the same kind of smug "fuck you" attitude he's displayed tonight.

Actually, War Between the Undead States, I criticized the Prop 8 decision when it issued. Right here on this very blog. You're the one with a smug "fuck you" attitude. At least have the decency to tell the truth about what I've done and not done.

297 Big shock, hard left state passes homosexual "marriage" law. New York state has Republicans like Oregon does: they're the Democrats with an "R" by their name.

298 For gay conservatives, being gay comes before being conservative first and always.

Sure, because they are "gay" conservatives instead of just conservatives. Their primary defining and qualifying factor is the first part; conservative comes after and is subordinate to the first (and abandoned if they conflict).

299 "...

If I want to drink myself to death, or smoke cigarettes, or play with high explosives, it's none of your concern. As long as it does not affect you.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 25, 2011 12:33 AM  "

=================================

And you don't see that the State may have a VALID INTEREST in keeping you sober and working?  You don't see that Society may have a VALID INTEREST in keeping your self-destructive behavior from contaminating young or vulnerable minds?  You don't think that "doing whatever I feel like doing whenever I feel like doing it" may ACTUALLY  and IN FACT affect other people, even though you can't see it from your narcissistic viewpoint?

Society evolves rules for real reasons.  Some of those reasons may not be attractive to freedom-loving libertines, BUT.  STILL.  Social norms --the "rules of society"-- have a function in creating and maintaining a healthy and cohesive culture, even if your brief surface scan from a "B-b-but why NOT???" point of view leads you to believe otherwise.

300 yay now time to nuke all sanity and traditional morals straight to hell because thats what this queer marriage is doing. once i graduate from college im moving out of ny. i dont want my kids to grow up thinking this homo nastiness is good for society. bunch of nasty queers are gonna spread their aids and shit.