Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs State's Marriage Equality Bill
CNN ^ | June 24, 2011

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: cino; cuomo; gayisgreat; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; improud; marriage; marriageoflove; moralabsolutes; ny; yay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2011 9:44:49 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Does NY have an Initiative System like California to override this Sodomite perversion?


2 posted on 06/24/2011 9:46:46 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


3 posted on 06/24/2011 9:48:14 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (We live two lives, the life we learn and the life we live with after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Nope. It’s a done deal.


4 posted on 06/24/2011 9:48:51 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (We live two lives, the life we learn and the life we live with after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Burn in hell NY.

LLS


5 posted on 06/24/2011 9:48:51 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"! I choose LIBERTY and PALIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: headstamp 2

But the public (thanks to Big Media) thinks the gay population is around 25%. No kidding. Look at the polls.


7 posted on 06/24/2011 9:53:07 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Can we kick NY out of the Union? If we can’t, we need to pass a constitutional amendment so that we can.


8 posted on 06/24/2011 9:59:22 PM PDT by RecoveringPaulisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Steelfish

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.


10 posted on 06/24/2011 10:01:23 PM PDT by JeanLM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: preamble

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.


11 posted on 06/24/2011 10:02:08 PM PDT by Steelers6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM

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...


12 posted on 06/24/2011 10:05:34 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.]


13 posted on 06/24/2011 10:05:49 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM

“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.


14 posted on 06/24/2011 10:06:03 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (We live two lives, the life we learn and the life we live with after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


15 posted on 06/24/2011 10:06:32 PM PDT by Ballygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


16 posted on 06/24/2011 10:09:13 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


17 posted on 06/24/2011 10:09:24 PM PDT by ABQHispConservative (There are still some rinos left for 2012. Let's get them and the fake tea partiers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: preamble
"I don’t think any other state had its legislature pass it."

Sad to say, "gay marriage" was instituted legislatively in New Hampshire, Vermont, DC, and now New York. That's three out of six states (the other three were mandated by state courts) plus the DC city council. I certainly don't like the outcome, but there's something that makes me feel a little less bad when it comes from the elected branches rather than when it's mandated by the courts.
18 posted on 06/24/2011 10:09:37 PM PDT by LonelyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ballygrl

See post 13.


19 posted on 06/24/2011 10:11:13 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (We live two lives, the life we learn and the life we live with after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ABQHispConservative

This is NY we are talking about. I’m not so sure it wouldn’t have passed a popular vote on NYC residents alone.


20 posted on 06/24/2011 10:11:25 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


21 posted on 06/24/2011 10:13:28 PM PDT by jtal (Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ABQHispConservative
So, why couldn’t they put this crap up for a popular vote?

Because the New York state constitution does not provide for votes of the people. That idea became popular later in American history, after the NY constitution was written. It's why mostly just the western and other younger states have initiatives and referendums allowed by their constitutions.
22 posted on 06/24/2011 10:13:42 PM PDT by LonelyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: preamble

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.”


23 posted on 06/24/2011 10:19:21 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Because the New York state constitution does not provide for votes of the people.

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.

24 posted on 06/24/2011 10:25:06 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cherry

Hypothetical:

So Mr.Gay, you feel “normal” now like a male and female in matrimony?


25 posted on 06/24/2011 10:26:11 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

“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.


26 posted on 06/24/2011 10:33:06 PM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Next up: Polygamy. Guaranteed within 10 years the islamists will have forced the dems and RINOS to legalize polygamy.


27 posted on 06/24/2011 10:44:17 PM PDT by Adams (Fight on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM

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.


28 posted on 06/24/2011 10:52:03 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Time for Cuomo to be excommunicated...


29 posted on 06/24/2011 11:03:05 PM PDT by Fred (The only job Obama is trying to save is his own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred

UFA!!!!


30 posted on 06/24/2011 11:04:47 PM PDT by Jan Hus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Fred

ABSOLUTELY YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


31 posted on 06/24/2011 11:09:53 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Does the ‘marriage’ have to be recognized in other States?


32 posted on 06/24/2011 11:42:36 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

It never passes popular vote, it even loses in Calif.


33 posted on 06/24/2011 11:43:34 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Never happen.


34 posted on 06/24/2011 11:44:46 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


35 posted on 06/24/2011 11:49:03 PM PDT by jonrick46 (2012 can't come soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

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


36 posted on 06/24/2011 11:52:26 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Hardly the end of the world.

Mostly they just bought in to large divorce fees a year or two hence. Cgrts.


37 posted on 06/24/2011 11:53:07 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


38 posted on 06/25/2011 12:09:50 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM
I hate my state. On to your commnet - Of freaking course ! This ain't no I now pronounce you chuck and larry scenario. Imagine if my brother is unemployed now and needs a life saving operation and such. why can't I marry him and get him on my insurance plan ? Or better yet, my beautiful St. Bernard Sasha is gonna need an amputation and a lifetime of therapy and drug products. How bout I make her my better half to get her on my plan. This is totally AFU for so many reasons. Not the LEAST of which is the fact that it's just wrong. and here is Sasha. Sasha
39 posted on 06/25/2011 12:09:50 AM PDT by onona (I stand with SARAH !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

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.


40 posted on 06/25/2011 12:31:12 AM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

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.


41 posted on 06/25/2011 12:44:03 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

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,


42 posted on 06/25/2011 12:53:01 AM PDT by VermiciousKnid (Sic narro nos totus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cherry

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.


43 posted on 06/25/2011 1:56:41 AM PDT by kasius (Right Down the Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Citizenship is a federal issue, not a state issue. Nothing changes.


44 posted on 06/25/2011 1:56:47 AM PDT by kasius (Right Down the Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

You need to do a bit more research. How does it become an initiative and referendum? That’s where you hit a wall.


45 posted on 06/25/2011 1:56:53 AM PDT by kasius (Right Down the Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kasius

“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.


46 posted on 06/25/2011 2:01:26 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


47 posted on 06/25/2011 2:24:38 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Imagine.... a world without islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onona

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 .


48 posted on 06/25/2011 2:31:04 AM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ballygrl

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.


49 posted on 06/25/2011 2:35:12 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JeanLM

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.


50 posted on 06/25/2011 4:28:29 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson