Skip to comments.NY Legislature legalizes gay marriage
Posted on 06/24/2011 8:06:12 PM PDT by PROCON
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Gay marriage will become legal in New York state after the Republican-led state Senate voted to approve it. Advocates are calling it a historic step as New York stands to become the sixth but by far the largest state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo lobbied hard for the bill and has promised to sign it.
The Senate vote is viewed as a major gain in an effort to allow gay marriage nationally.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
According to a study—see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.htm—fully 50 percent of gay couples in committed relationships cheat with their partner’s knowledge and approval.
So let’s say some gay guy gets married and later wants to divorce and cites the infidelity of his partner. The cheating partner hires some hotshot gay attorney to say that promiscuity in gay marriage is “cultural.” Some radical judge agrees. Soon, straights demand the same “rights” as gays to cheat on their partner.
Where will that leave us? With women raising kids on their own and many men fooling around without any legal consequences. The gays celebrate “the new openness.” Sure, the kids get screwed, but that’s what gays want, both figuratively and literally.
And that really makes us look bad...what can we do except vote 'em out!
Worked in 1980!
But we don't have a Ronald Reagan...:=(
Churches EVERYWHERE need to get the word out immediately, it is somewhat late now, but better late than never. “We perform Holy Matrimony Ceremonies Only”.
Any Christian businesses should do the same. It is more than just advisable, it is warranted!
Wait a minute, there are Republicans in Illinois?
I guess if you are a Republican in Illinois then you do have considerable backbone. BTW who is he/she? . . . really. . not kidding!
So hey - I bet they will move to New York in droves. That’s not such a bad thing from my perspective.
Yup, believe it.
I have no clue why these white liberals are so obsessed with FAGGOTRY, and I don’t want to know.
There have been a lot of suits filed, and cases where protests have been done, in Christian Churches though.
Doesn’t mean I have to respect such a “marriage” one iota. They can pretend all they want to that they’re married, but that don’t make it so. If NYS decided that humans could marry chimpanzees (too late for Jocko, I’m afraid), would that really make a human-chimp “marriage” real? I don’t think so.
Another objection from the Church, is they are forced by law to allow gays to work at the churches and interfere with Catholic adoption services. It goes far beyond marriage. Just as we have seen in MA.
Is that the Diedrich Bader Batman?
Well, if you don’t appreciate my little imaginary musing ‘as is,’ then perhaps I’ll add a little imaginary grace period for all the remaining decent folks to safely evacuate. Does that make it any more palatable?
Because, truthfully, after this vote, I don’t give one single, solitary iota of concern for the survival of New York. It can burn in blazes, and I will react by grinning from ear to ear. It’s no longer a state, but a damned cancer.
...does this mean gay New Yorkers are going to start voting Republican?
Perversion has always been legal. This sanctions it as being the same as a traditional marriage.
In essence it is not the making of a perversion legal so much as it is the destruction of the foundation of our Republic.
I am sad that I am giving my grandchildren a different country than the one I grew up in.
May God have mercy on our nation. God knows we need it.
I suppose it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some people would call a situation that is definitely non-monogamous “monogamy” when many of these same people insist a practice is normal, natural and healthy even though it violates the obvious function and use of body parts, takes place in only 2.9% of the population, and involves higher risks of health threats like AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.
It also shouldn’t be a surprise that people who would redefine marriage—something obviously between a man and a woman—to encompass two men or two women, would also define monogamy as including relationships with third, fourth, fifth or whatever parties.
This article is obviously not a good standard for reinforcing the obvious immorality and unhealthiness of homosexual relationships, since it takes a decidedly nonjudgmental tone throughout, but the momentary glimpses of the reality of homosexual relationships is enlightening.
Mention is made also of another source pointing to the low rate of monogamy in homosexual relationships:
No sarcasm tag needed!
Whats the saying, if you don't use it you lose it.
I don't think government can force anyone to do anything against their conscience when it comes to morality and practicing religion. Individual religious conviction is only as strong and as serious as the individual having it makes it.