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:
It's not a matter of "brilliance" or of not being the "best" - it's about being evil.
Pretty much by the sound of it, my understanding of NY politics is that the Republican candidate usually gets both the "Conservative" and "Republican" endorsements (conservative is a party in NY). The conservatives have said from the beginning they WILL NOT endorse any Republican that votes for this and they may very well run a third party against any that do. This of course will split the Republican vote down the middle, giving the Republican candidate no chance of winning. But quite frankly, I think its times these RINO's pay with their political careers regardless of the consequences.
What they have done, the GOP in NY, is to completely take any moral issues off of the table, and give very little reason to not simply vote in ones’ own economic interests
Wait till gays enjoy the bliss of divorce court in NYS.
No? Maybe we do but we fail to realize how much power corrupts. History repeats itself...
Kinda gives a new meaning to a “Shotgun Wedding” don’t it?
We lost another fight in NY tonight, just because of a few RINOs, but it will probably hurt the entire Republican Party in NY. Maybe the NY Conservative Party will end up being the 2nd major party instead. I even left the NYS Conservative Party, because they are not as conservative as I am, but they are better than the NY Republican Party.
Yes, what’s the sense of having a Republican win, if he or she acts like a Democrat.
With animals and children on leashes not far behind.
That's exactly the case. Just as with abortion this perversion will cover every state in no time.
Remarkable that few see these two as simply sexual decisions people are making...they are not rights issues as they are deceptively presented as.
They are choices/decisions people make concerning when, and with whom, and how they conduct themselves sexually.....nothing more.
But the homosexuals, and woman who want to be sexually promiscuous, would have us all focus on the "consequences" or 'results' of their choices. Blaming the majority, blaming our laws rather than taking responsibility for their actions and behaviors. Thus the society in general, we the public, becomes their problem rather than they themselves.
“Makes my decision about the repeated invitations for me to join the local Republican committee a whole lot easier...”
I can see why, and tell them that we conservatives just aren’t seeing much difference between the Republican Party, and the Dem Party, in NYS.
Part of the reason we don’t see a difference is because the Republicans just don’t fight hard enough, as well as there are too many RINOs.
Can we try the secession thing again?
It’s worth a try.
With all the problems facing our country, this is the issue that our politicians decide to tackle. Same here in Illinois. Where are the pitchforks?!
Imagine all those old chicken hawks marrying young butt boys to lower their taxes. Watch it happen on the federal level before the election.
The thing is —We the People or the legislature can never deny the inalienable rights of people. It is not possible (if the Constitution stands).
Constitution is based on Natural Law and God’s Law. It makes this unconstitutional on several points....particularly, it denies children the right to be raised by their biological parents—an inalienable right. Of course, we allow government to kill babies, so I guess these marxists don’t give a cr*p about inalienable rights, huh???
JusticeThomas is the only one on the Supreme Court who thoroughly understands how unconstitutional this is on several points of law....this forcing a paradigm that ignores natural law and God’s law....the foundation of our legal system—and since our rights come from God, we have to go by His standards of right and wrong....not the whim and insane feelings of abused people. Arbitrary laws are political laws that pass to give power of some over others (pay offs, bribes or nepotism)—it is not based on reason and logic (natural law) and therefore, are unjust law because they give special rights to some.
We are no longer a nation under the Rule of Just Law.....we are ruled by fascists who are forcing unnatural ideas into the heads of the future generation. It is an abomination to deny God’s design of man and woman....which is understood in our Constitution. Of course, Marxists want to destroy that concept of God, so they can destroy all our rights and order us around like slaves.
There will be such a moral vacum within the next generation in this country that islamists won’t have to fire any shots to take over this country. We are making it so easy for them.
I would not be the least bit surprised if some of those members of the NY GOP have gay kids, are gay themselves or have gay siblings. I find it hard to believe that it would pass otherwise.
This is disappointing, but not surprising. “Gay rights” is a litmus test issue with little or no room in the middle. If you don’t have a clear sense of what is right and wrong, You are usually going to cave in to the most emotional appeal. With an issue like this, when you get down to just few “undecided” legislators, you have already lost. That’s why I’m scared about this issue getting to the US Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy has about as much of a moral compass as the four RINOS in the New York Senate. If the California case, or a Defense of Marriage Act challenge comes be the USSC, he’ll cave on this and we will have “gay marriage” imposed nationally.
I hope you don't watch TV, broadcast or cable (including Fox).
If you have or do any of these you are giving business to New York.
The only “right” that is being pushed is the right to destroy religion.
I wonder, how many of these ‘legislators’ endorsing the degeneracy would demand to be called ‘christian’ or a faithful Catholic/Presbyterian/Methodist/Episcopalian ... well, not the piscopals, they’re already mired in degeneracvy so they don’t count. The dead-soul legislators would no doubt insist that they are standing for human rights ... and yes, the Wieners and Franks of the political class are the norm now. So we may conclude that degeneracy is a protect human right for these sick political operatives.
Yes it appears so...who would have imagined the depravity of man could stoop so low within the highest offices of our land. I still can hardly get over that Senator claiming, "Light has entered this chamber tonight" as he gave his yes vote for the bill to pass. But then God did say there would come the time when evil would be called good and good evil.
Of course there are transactions that flow through NY`s commercial system that I can`t avoid. However, I don`t have to set foot in that state, or support its tourism, restaurant and hotel industries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.