Skip to comments.New York Same-Sex Marriage Law Gets Crucial Vote, Giving The Bill Enough To Pass
Posted on 06/24/2011 7:45:04 PM PDT by Steelfish
WSJ (Headline only) New York same-sex marriage law gets crucial vote, giving the bill enough to pass
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Another nail in the coffin.
Memo to NY: since you’ve decided to officially become a degenerate fag state, don’t expect any help or sympathy from me the next time you have a 9/11. Burn in hell, New York.
Is the Assembly all on board with the exemptions added?
All I can say to New Yorkers, is if you believe the Bible is the word of god, and if you believe god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality and more importantly societies acceptance of homosexuality, and you believe God is the same today as he was back then, You might want to consider a move south in the not to distant future. If not...feel free to carry on....
It was only a matter of time until enough votes were bought.
“Is the Assembly all on board with the exemptions added?”
Doesn’t matter. At a later date a liberal judge will throw the exemptions out after a lawsuit by the gay mafia.
Supposedly there is an inseverability clause
So I suppose our only hope is that a single conservative judge will throw this out, like that rump-ranger in California did?
I agree. They`ll get no sympathy from me... nor any business.. ever.
Sadly, I don’t think any judge will throw this out as being passed by the legislature is VERY different than the State Sup Court ruling for it 9gay marriage). no court in the nation will overturn this.
The last best option is a Constitutional amendment in NY.
That's a given. There is a specified "no severability" clause in the amendment, so if one specific exemption gets struck down, the whole thing is gone. And the traitorous "R's" completely ignored this fact for a mess of pottage.
I did want to know if the Assembly is completely on board, though. That is the only chance of this not going through. Of course, the pathetic "exemptions" language was so nebulous and weak, it is virtually useless anyway.
Nothing like a bunch of good ol’ GOP bags to bend over and take one for the other team. Jackasses, all.
“consider a move south”...
...but keep your faggedy blue-state asses and attitudes out of Virginia. We don`t want your kind here.
Assembly already passed it, so is a done deal.
NY GOP just locked itself into a permanent minority status.
Nice move, guys. Makes my decision about the repeated invitations for me to join the local Republican committee a whole lot easier...
We just don’t elect the best and the brightest do we?
If I read the exemptions amendment right, it specifically exempts “religious corporations.” I suppose this includes Christian adoption agencies. Since a core target of the sodomites is the ability to obtain children, and many, if not most, adoption agencies are Christian-based, I can see that this would cause a lot of consternation with the Gaystapo. That is the reason I thought it would cause more than a little contention in the Assembly. Of course, a sodomite judge can just waive his little fair wand and make this go away, and maybe that’s what the homos in the Assembly are eventually counting on.
The real reasons sex pervert pushers want same sex marriage, and it’s not about lifelong monogamy and happy “families”.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
More articles about this horrible vote: