Posted on 06/24/2011 9:44:47 PM PDT by Steelfish
CNN Ticker Tag only NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs State's Marriage Equality Bill. Same-sex couples will now be able to marry within 30 days.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Does NY have an Initiative System like California to override this Sodomite perversion?
That was fast. Must have signed it in his boxer shorts.
Garbage politicians throw the entire electorate overboard for less than 2% of the population for this ridiculous insanity.
Nope. It’s a done deal.
Burn in hell NY.
LLS
But the public (thanks to Big Media) thinks the gay population is around 25%. No kidding. Look at the polls.
Can we kick NY out of the Union? If we can’t, we need to pass a constitutional amendment so that we can.
So I have a question. If I wanted to marry a male friend ( I’m a male) with no sex involved, I could do it in NY and the other states that have passed similar laws. You don’t have to prove a sexual relationship. There are several reasons why this might make sense to do. Citizenship rights is just one of them. Of course it would be a sham deal, but so what. This is going to lead to a lot of complications.
Yep, you have your Repubic Senators to thank, call them over the weekend at home or on Monday, don’t give these scumbags anything, protest them all the time and make their life hell for destroying your State.
I’m anxious for “married” gays to start taking on the responsibilities of married regular people....especially the TAXES that they’ve skirted all these years...
The fiend doesn’t waste any time, does he.
Just to make sure everyone knows the real reasons the homosexual agenda pushers want same sex “marriage” and it has nothing to do with “love”, monogamy or pretend family life.
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.]
“So I have a question. If I wanted to marry a male friend ( I’m a male) with no sex involved, I could do it in NY and the other states that have passed similar laws. You don’t have to prove a sexual relationship. There are several reasons why this might make sense to do. Citizenship rights is just one of them. Of course it would be a sham deal, but so what. This is going to lead to a lot of complications.”
You are on to something there. Especially as it relates the immigration.
Hypothetically speaking, just say 3 people fall in love, or even 4 people, or 5 people, why can’t they get married? the fact that they’re not allowed to is discriminatory isn’t it? see the slippery slope this creates.
Nope. This is law of the land in NY now. The NYS courts are even more liberal than the legislature (state and federal) so don’t expect judicial relief. Gay marriage is a done deal.
So, why couldn’t they put this crap up for a popular vote? Were they afraid the little people would not support this? Aren’t there enough welfare cases in NY to pimp this out? What a pathetic state, roads suck, NYC seems like a third-world country in most parts, too expensive.
See post 13.
This is NY we are talking about. I’m not so sure it wouldn’t have passed a popular vote on NYC residents alone.
I remember how the bishop of Albany cheered Cuomo from the pulpit and announced that Cuomo would be implementing policies in harmony with the Church.
I’ve always said that a good portion of American bishops are knowingly or unknowingly working for the enemy.
I have no doubt that the Most Reverend Mr. Hubbard is quietly celebrating this development with a nice drink and maybe a cigar.
And from the Wall St. J. just see who gave us this legalized sodomy:
“The Republican-led Senate in New York voted to legalize same-sex marriage, delivering to gay-rights advocates a hard-fought victory that they hope will tip the balance in the country toward their cause.”
A New York Initiative and Referendum Amendment may appear on the November 5, 2013 state ballot in New York as an legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The proposed amendment would allow for voters to enact and amend laws through initiative and referendum.
If it passes, they could then petition for repeal of gay marriage to be put on the next state ballot. 5% of the previous gubernatorial electorate is needed ...
If the repeal is passed in the election - then the current gay marriage law is null and void ...
This just happened recently in Maine ... pro-gay marriage legislation was passed and signed into law. 6 months later it was rejected by referendum in the next election.
Hypothetical:
So Mr.Gay, you feel “normal” now like a male and female in matrimony?
“If I wanted to marry a male friend ( I’m a male) with no sex involved, I could do it in NY and the other states that have passed similar laws.”
Of course, gay people have done this for centuries. Now you have equal rights.
Next up: Polygamy. Guaranteed within 10 years the islamists will have forced the dems and RINOS to legalize polygamy.
Gay marriage is not, at present, a pathway to citizenship unlike for heterosexuals. There are several deportation and immigration cases underway even with the Holder DOJ. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time particularly if SCOTUS upholds the lower court ruling against traditional marriage in CA and if DOMA is ended.
Time for Cuomo to be excommunicated...
UFA!!!!
ABSOLUTELY YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does the ‘marriage’ have to be recognized in other States?
It never passes popular vote, it even loses in Calif.
Never happen.
It’s the slippery slope. Soon the gays will be demanding polygamy. They will say that the prohibition against polygamy and polyandry is for heterosexuals where children are involved.
While it is not illegal, how common is it for a NY governor to legislate a bill? Don’t law makers usually do that?
“Governor Cuomo Proposes Marriage Equality Act”
http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06142011MarriageEqualityAct
Hardly the end of the world.
Mostly they just bought in to large divorce fees a year or two hence. Cgrts.
Well the NY Republicans have did it now. Kick the ones that voted for this out. Not only does it show that they are not very intelligent to buy into the “Marriage Equality” crap. I had thought there was a good chance that this would be put off instead two critical votes caved to the liberals. The good news is this can be changed but the bad news it will take even more work than in Iowa where I’m certain that we are going to succeed in reversing it there. I’m glad that groups like NOM are getting better and better at going on the offensive the problem is the core of the gay rights fiction and its big govt orwellian goals has to be hit over and over again. Also the idea that someone can be “born gay” has to be destoryed in much the same way the idea of AGW has been destoryed in the minds of everyone but those in the political, media, and academic classes.
The problem with these big fictions under the guise of liberty is granted by govt rather than a function of the absence of govt. Homosexual marriage was not banned in NY. It simply was not licensed in NY by the state govt. There is just so much wrong with the juvenile unreasoned ideas and propaganda that has led to this type of thing.
People think they can hide from or ignore these social issues because it makes them uncomfortable or they want to be hip but it is exactly these issues that will allow the govt to eventually censor even the free exercise of your conscience.
That was just four Republicans and all the Democrats.
The NY Senate is narrowly majority Republican but most of the Republicans voted No.
You are buying the “Republicans did it” and “bipartisan” spin. This is meant to demoralize potential Republican voters.
The 4 GOPers could easily have stood their ground on “let the citizens vote”. There wasn’t any overriding thing that said this issue had to be decided now. Instead these 4 Republicans bailed much like the we had in the US Senate on DADT. We don’t need to punish all Republicans but those 4 need to find out the meaning of what they have done. What this does is sets up another tier for which big govt promotion of homosexuality to grow and the supression of anyone who disagrees to become even bolder. The irony is they cast this as liberty when it is the furthest thing from it. It is the legistlation of idiocy.
Senator Diaz (D) from the Bronx voted against the bill, and was by far the most passionate speaker on the floor tonight. (He’s a bit hard to understand, though...his accent’s a doozy.)
Regards,
Actually married people receive the tax breaks. Gay people would tell you, and they’re correct, that they have been subsidizing married peoples reduced taxes.
Citizenship is a federal issue, not a state issue. Nothing changes.
You need to do a bit more research. How does it become an initiative and referendum? That’s where you hit a wall.
“Gay people would tell you, and they’re correct, that they have been subsidizing married peoples reduced taxes.”
Did you sign on yesterday just to support the gay AGENDA?
Never mind. I know.
So now they get to “play house” under the official state recognition. Their legislative and judicial victories amount to nothing in God`s eyes. To Him, they`re just “playing house.”
Those pro-homo “marriage” senators and legislators will have some `splainin` to do someday.
I hate NY , too . Even though my mother , 4 sisters , + cousins , nephews and nieces live on Long Island , I haven’t been back ( from Japan ) in 7 years , and have no plans to visit . I did arrange to see my Mom and youngest sister in Hawaii ( Big Island ) 4 years ago , though . NY , CT , MA , VT , ME , NJ....the whole place sucks a big one . Couldn’t pay me to live there again .
There is a far better argument from history and religion for polygamy than for homosexuality.
The idea that guys butt-plugging each other needs recognition by society as the equivalent of marriage is stupid. The idea that God will not notice or respond is even more amazing, but then, I tend to think Obama is part of God’s judgment on an increasingly evil America.
If you have a friend and a good pension, you can marry that friend have no sex with him, but he would be entitled to your pension when you die.
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.