NY State Legalizes Gay Marriage !!!

[hockeymom]

My local talk radio is just a buzz with this as I live in a suburb of Albany. Frakly I'm astounded at how many people are upset. Who cares unless it directly effects someone? I think we should worry about how much dept our country is in and how the next generation will ever support itself. I'm concerned about my grocery bill. Why would I care if 2 people decide to get married?

 

[Nova]

My local talk radio is just a buzz with this as I live in a suburb of Albany. Frakly I'm astounded at how many people are upset. Who cares unless it directly effects someone? I think we should worry about how much dept our country is in and how the next generation will ever support itself. I'm concerned about my grocery bill. Why would I care if 2 people decide to get married?

Exactly, hm! There are any number of heterosexual marriages I thought ill-advised at the time they happened. Some turned out okay; some still seem like bad ideas.

But I really don't think the world needs me to be the arbiter of who should marry whom.

 

[legalmania]

Exactly, hm! There are any number of heterosexual marriages I thought ill-advised at the time they happened. Some turned out okay; some still seem like bad ideas.

But I really don't think the world needs me to be the arbiter of who should marry whom.

From my experience with gays is that they are hard working people, who pay taxes and their paychecks have deductions from SS on them just like everyone else. They want and deserve the same rights. They want the American dream just like all Americans. These people do nothing wrong, and just find the same sex more attractive than the opposite sex. I have found them to be highly intelligent people who go through a lot of unnecessary badgering. If we want real change in America then give everyone ( who legally deserves it) the same rights.

 

[hockeymom]

I chuckle when I think when I was growing up in a typical middle class suburb during the 60's we had a couple in our neighborhood who everyone called ,"the bachelors". I had no idea about sex,hetero or homo,so it never occurred to me that they were anything more than 2 men living together. It makes me proud that my parents and I assume, most of our other neighbors never made a big deal of it. I think they both have probably passed on by now, and I bet they are smiling down on us. Even though they were commited to one another in every other way,I'm sure they would have liked it to be legal.

 

[Nova]

I chuckle when I think when I was growing up in a typical middle class suburb during the 60's we had a couple in our neighborhood who everyone called ,"the bachelors". I had no idea about sex,hetero or homo,so it never occurred to me that they were anything more than 2 men living together. It makes me proud that my parents and I assume, most of our other neighbors never made a big deal of it. I think they both have probably passed on by now, and I bet they are smiling down on us. Even though they were commited to one another in every other way,I'm sure they would have liked it to be legal.

I've heard more horror stories than I can count of "bachelor" couples such as you describe. When one of them dies, his biological relatives (who disowned him decades earlier) sweep in, confiscate the house and its contents, and throw the partner out. It used to be that even in the name of "family values," judges threw out wills that such couples had made to protect one another.

So in terms of the talk radio callers you heard earlier, I have to ask, "And this affects you how?" I know how it affects gay partners.

 

[Emma Peel]

Spitzer had a Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of the Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, on as a guest tonight. Spitzer was basically trying to ask Dr. Garlow "and this affects you how"?

Now, I am paraphrasing here, so please watch the interview for the accurate wording of Spitzer and his guest Dr. Garlow.

The Dr. is quite certain that the Constitution is a document of God, as is the Bible. Chicken/Egg thing there. And it wasn't up to him to judge, it was up to God. But God's will clearly states in the Constitution and in the Bible his intentions with regard to marriage between man and woman. So it's the Bible that does the judging, not him. And as the Constitution is another of God's instruments, he was certain it was not meant to go against the Bible or God's will.

And so that's how NY's law affects him and every Christian and Religious leader/scholar that vehemently objects to the civil right of same-sex marriage / law. Because the law is against God's will.

Spitzer tried to argue state marriage law vs. church marriage law, but Dr. Garlow would not understand nor agree how one could be separate from the other. Of course Dr. Garlow understood that would be Spitzer's question & reasoning, but he just would not go there, being a man of God and all - he does not accept the idea of separation of Church & State.

Dr. Garlow explains that homosexuals are his friends and are in his church and his church offered programs for their homosexual members - whom all church members love dearly. Spitzer asked what sort of programs and Garlow said the programs that help these homosexuals understand that they weren't born that way, so they could make change in their lives and see through the power of prayer and the Holy Spirit and knowing God that they were born to be heterosexual and put a stop to their wrong thinking and the homosexual thinking and sinning.

Long story short, Dr. Garlow from San Diego cares about the NY law because the Constitution is from God and therefore it could never be used to legalize or condone homosexuality or permit homosexual marriage - a sin which is clearly against the will of God and the Bible.

Anyway, that's one possible answers to the talk-show question "why do you care" about something that doesn't directly affect you.

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/27/gop-leaders-sold-out-on-gay-marriage/

IMO, we can file that reasoning under "God is against homosexuality so the Constitution is too."

 

[Nova]

...IMO, we can file that reasoning under "God is against homosexuality so the Constitution is too."

On the basis of that statement, I hereby propose that fundamentalist Christians be disenfranchised and not allowed to vote.

Anyone who conceives of God as an absolute monarch engaged in the day-to-day governance of the United States is so anti-democratic, s/he should be prevented by law from participating in democratic processes.

This does not describe all Christians, of course, and I recognize the difficulty in distinguishing between those Christians who are able to participate in democratic functions and those who cannot. When in doubt, I think we have to err on the side of representative democracy.

So we'll start by disenfranchising all Mormons and Biblical literalists. Then we'll appoint a committee to consider Roman Catholics on a case by case basis. (Angelmom keeps her right to vote, obviously, as do most of the Catholics I know personally.)

What a bother! How much easier it would be if we all actually READ the Constitution and embraced its values, including separation of church and state.

 

[Emma Peel]

On the basis of that statement, I hereby propose that fundamentalist Christians be disenfranchised and not allowed to vote.

Anyone who conceives of God as an absolute monarch engaged in the day-to-day governance of the United States is so anti-democratic, s/he should be prevented by law from participating in democratic processes.

This does not describe all Christians, of course, and I recognize the difficulty in distinguishing between those Christians who are able to participate in democratic functions and those who cannot. When in doubt, I think we have to err on the side of representative democracy.

So we'll start by disenfranchising all Mormons and Biblical literalists. Then we'll appoint a committee to consider Roman Catholics on a case by case basis. (Angelmom keeps her right to vote, obviously, as do most of the Catholics I know personally.)

What a bother! How much easier it would be if we all actually READ the Constitution and embraced its values, including separation of church and state.

:dunno:
Well, Not so much easier. Technically and legally speaking.

Given certain bible interpretations, it seems some have a faith-based corrective lens prescription of their very own design - where there is no possible separation of church & state b/c of said faith. :dunno:

Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment ensures a vote for every American, regardless of expressed religious beliefs...

And the right to disagree with those who seek to merge church & state.

 

[Nova]

:dunno:
Well, Not so much easier. Technically and legally speaking.

Given certain bible interpretations, it seems some have a faith-based corrective lens prescription of their very own design - where there is no possible separation of church & state b/c of said faith. :dunno:

Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment ensures a vote for every American, regardless of expressed religious beliefs...

And the right to disagree with those who seek to merge church & state.

African-Americans didn't get to vote until Amendment 15 (and then often only in theory), women not until Amendment 19.

But I guess your point is that the First Amendment deals with religious freedom. Well, surely we can amend that, too!

I'm being facetious, of course. But I do wonder sometimes with people whose religious faith is so autocratic there really is no concern for equality of civil rights. Of course they are entitled to their beliefs, but logically, their honest and honorable course would be to abstain from the democratic process.

 

[Steely Dan]

Spitzer had a Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of the Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, on as a guest tonight. Spitzer was basically trying to ask Dr. Garlow "and this affects you how"?

Now, I am paraphrasing here, so please watch the interview for the accurate wording of Spitzer and his guest Dr. Garlow.

The Dr. is quite certain that the Constitution is a document of God, as is the Bible. Chicken/Egg thing there. And it wasn't up to him to judge, it was up to God. But God's will clearly states in the Constitution and in the Bible his intentions with regard to marriage between man and woman. So it's the Bible that does the judging, not him. And as the Constitution is another of God's instruments, he was certain it was not meant to go against the Bible or God's will.

And so that's how NY's law affects him and every Christian and Religious leader/scholar that vehemently objects to the civil right of same-sex marriage / law. Because the law is against God's will.

Spitzer tried to argue state marriage law vs. church marriage law, but Dr. Garlow would not understand nor agree how one could be separate from the other. Of course Dr. Garlow understood that would be Spitzer's question & reasoning, but he just would not go there, being a man of God and all - he does not accept the idea of separation of Church & State.

Dr. Garlow explains that homosexuals are his friends and are in his church and his church offered programs for their homosexual members - whom all church members love dearly. Spitzer asked what sort of programs and Garlow said the programs that help these homosexuals understand that they weren't born that way, so they could make change in their lives and see through the power of prayer and the Holy Spirit and knowing God that they were born to be heterosexual and put a stop to their wrong thinking and the homosexual thinking and sinning.

Long story short, Dr. Garlow from San Diego cares about the NY law because the Constitution is from God and therefore it could never be used to legalize or condone homosexuality or permit homosexual marriage - a sin which is clearly against the will of God and the Bible.

Anyway, that's one possible answers to the talk-show question "why do you care" about something that doesn't directly affect you.

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/27/gop-leaders-sold-out-on-gay-marriage/

IMO, we can file that reasoning under "God is against homosexuality so the Constitution is too."

BBM

So the document that originally allowed slavery, kept women from voting, etc. was God's document? Boy, that's gonna be a tough statement to explain to St. Peter.

 

[Snick1946]

And, I'm so embarrassed to be a Minnesotan. Our conservative Republican legislature knew they would never get a marriage amendment as between a man and a woman by Democrat Governor Mark Dayton, so they opted to have it put on the ballot for November. Can you believe this?

And, further, Minnesota's govenment may shut down on Jul 1 because the legislature thought up items like this instead of working on a state budget.

I am reminded of something Lincoln said about 1858 when Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska act, leaving it up to states to decide by popular vote if slavery should be permitted. I don't have the exact quote but it was something to the effect that there are some basic human issues thaty ought NOT be thrown to the public to decide by the ballot. They are either right or wrong, and if right then they ought not be the subject of a vote. Legislatures are pulling this stunt a lot these days, it's a great way to kick the can down the road and avoid going on record with a yes or no vote. I would imagine that in Minnesota this has a chance of prevailing.

 

[Nova]

I am reminded of something Lincoln said about 1858 when Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska act, leaving it up to states to decide by popular vote if slavery should be permitted. I don't have the exact quote but it was something to the effect that there are some basic human issues thaty ought NOT be thrown to the public to decide by the ballot. They are either right or wrong, and if right then they ought not be the subject of a vote. Legislatures are pulling this stunt a lot these days, it's a great way to kick the can down the road and avoid going on record with a yes or no vote. I would imagine that in Minnesota this has a chance of prevailing.

I'm afraid you are right, Snick. Historically, the record of majorities voting equal rights for minorities isn't good.

Of course, I'd rather see gay marriage legalized by public referendum or legislative action; but in the end the courts may by our only hope in many states.

(At least in the near future. The younger generation almost everywhere seems to see no reason to discriminate, so time is on our side.)

 

[Emma Peel]

African-Americans didn't get to vote until Amendment 15 (and then often only in theory), women not until Amendment 19.

But I guess your point is that the First Amendment deals with religious freedom. Well, surely we can amend that, too!

I'm being facetious, of course. But I do wonder sometimes with people whose religious faith is so autocratic there really is no concern for equality of civil rights. Of course they are entitled to their beliefs, but logically, their honest and honorable course would be to abstain from the democratic process.

We're not talking about a logical decision process, but an ideological one. IMO, I agree it gets in the way of civil debate.

I have to assume that many with such religious beliefs sincerely feel they are being honest and honorable with regard to their commitment to living their faith even in their political life.

They walk the walk, talk the talk, acquiesce to religious guidance on what is right or wrong, and vote their beliefs.

Nothing but personal exposure and personal evidence will move them off their dogmatic positions on this point. For example, their son needs to come home from college and decide to risk it all and live openly gay amongst all who've known and loved him all his life. Even then, such evidence can mean they must experience a crisis of faith. They go through stages of grief. Some never will reconcile. It can't be easy. It takes time.

And I know I'm preachin' to the choir - please forgive - I am sure many here know more what they are up against than I know.

Social/cultural evolutions require broad common positive experience across several generations and ... obviously ... time. IMO, we're getting there. Just ask anyone under 30. :thumb:

 

[Emma Peel]

LOL-ing Nova at the post time of our similar thoughts.

Great minds?

Why of course! :great:

 

[southcitymom]

Someday, it'll be legal down here in the South. I doubt it will be soon, since a lot of the religionists still preach to me about the sins of my interracial dating. lol.

BBM

We're always late to the party, but we do get there eventually!

 

[Silkprint]

Reminded me of a couple great quotes that I had to go find

You could move. ~Abigail Van Buren, "Dear Abby," in response to a reader who complained that a gay couple was moving in across the street and wanted to know what he could do to improve the quality of the neighborhood

 

[Silkprint]

If gay and lesbian people are given civil rights, then everyone will want them! ~Author unknown, as seen on a button at evolvefish.com

I really hope that when people read that bumper sticker that they 'get it' and don't say 'darn right ' . LOL

 

[Trino]

I am reminded of something Lincoln said about 1858 when Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska act, leaving it up to states to decide by popular vote if slavery should be permitted. I don't have the exact quote but it was something to the effect that there are some basic human issues thaty ought NOT be thrown to the public to decide by the ballot. They are either right or wrong, and if right then they ought not be the subject of a vote. Legislatures are pulling this stunt a lot these days, it's a great way to kick the can down the road and avoid going on record with a yes or no vote. I would imagine that in Minnesota this has a chance of prevailing.

I would hope Minnesotans are smarter than this.

 

[Silkprint]

Ok sorry but one more ...This one really gets me every time

War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting? ~The Value of Families

 

[reportertype]

Ok sorry but one more ...This one really gets me every time

War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting? ~The Value of Families

THIS! :banghead: