[ohara]

this is surprising....

N.Y. ban on same-sex marriage struck down

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=472267

I hope it sticks - America's getting too Jesusy...

[InactionMan]

Well, that's good news. Hope it sticks.

I enjoyed this quote:

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said he was "disappointed" by the decision. "Redefinition of a law's terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She's an activist judge legislating from the bench."

Where have I heard that before?

[Moogs]

You know I tire of this shit quickly.

Does anyone really think there wouldn't be plenty of ways around this, even if it were passed by every state in the union? There would be ministers and justices aplenty who would defy the law and marry gay couples anyway.

Sodomy (with either sex) was and still is illegal in many states, but I would love to see an account of someone who in the last 30 years was actually arrested for it (between consenting adults I mean) and put on trial. These types of laws mean nothing because there's not going to be any law enforcement types roaming around enforcing it.

It's all for show so Ralph Reed (who is also gay ironically, I'm sure of it... he just needs to come out of the closet) and his flock can feel good about America and Apple pie.

*shrug*

[ohara]

any New Yorkers out there?

does anyone think this will be overturned?

isn't this strange that one judge can decide all this....

[mama's left eye]

Damn fags, be moving in here soon. Sitting next to me, watching my TV. Was a time when they knew their place, wasn't none of this mixing going on... Your mother, she hated 'em fags too... I'm telling ya, she did...

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by ohara any New Yorkers out there?

yep. i'm here.

does anyone think this will be overturned?

no clue. we are a pretty liberal state, so i would be surprised if the people wanted this overturned (and we do have a noticeable amount of gays). but i dont know about judges, the n.y. supreme court, the exact letter of law or nothing. well, i konw a few things about the n.y. s.c. building, but i dont know the justices or nuffin.

isn't this strange that one judge can decide all this....

buddy, you don't know the meaning of strange. i've walked, and i've crawled on six crooked highways... I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin'. {the rza}

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by ohara isn't this strange that one judge can decide all this....

Nothing strange about it. It's the tiered arrangement of the judicial system we've got around here.

[IonYz]

Originally Posted by ohara America's getting too Jesusy...

Amen... oh, wait.

Some serious loosening up is needed 'round here. In the same spectrum of television I could see people beaten to death by a shovel, shoot several people, drug someone, etc. etc. and then a flash of boob and America riots.

Oh, and good for New York. Go blue states all... few of you.

[InactionMan]

America just freaked out because it was a gross old boob with a railroad spike driven through it. It would've been fine had been Britney Spears or the Dixie Chicks.

[IonYz]

Originally Posted by InactionMan It would've been fine had been Britney Spears or the Dixie Chicks.

I propose an experiment!

[Wickers]

I would like to second that notion.

[FFL]

Yes, experimentation is definitely needed. And we need a focus group, I'll volunteer.

Remember, it was not just ANY gross old boob - it belonged to the sister of a gross old boob, as well.

[ast3r3x]

Why is this suprising, I thought NY was almost as blue as any other NE/Industrial Mid-North/Western states?

[nomorewindows]

Originally Posted by ohara this is surprising.... N.Y. ban on same-sex marriage struck down http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=472267 I hope it sticks - America's getting too Jesusy...

God doesn't give a shit about same-sex marriage. She told me so last week. Jerry Falwell really pisses her off, however.

But really, I don't understand why ANYONE would care. If you don't like it, don't do it. Most "straight" marriages are not exactly rock-solid, so exactly what's being protected here?

[spiff]

I always find it rather strange whenever this same sex marriage issue comes up because you always hear the religious right start preaching about the sanctity of marriage. Considering we live in a country with nearly a 50% divorce rate I find this to be quite humorous. I don't see how it's anybody's business who somebody marries, anyway, whether it's a man a woman or a toaster.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by nomorewindows But really, I don't understand why ANYONE would care. If you don't like it, don't do it. Most "straight" marriages are not exactly rock-solid, so exactly what's being protected here?

Inventing a common enemy can unite a group of people. It gives them a "cause" to stand together and fight for.

That's what the Nazis did.

YES I SAID NAZIS.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by Brad Inventing a common enemy can unite a group of people. It gives them a "cause" to stand together and fight for. That's what the Nazis did. YES I SAID NAZIS.

ahhh!! I can feel the rifts of hell opening unleashing waves of lamers and newbies to reach up and drag this thread to the ether!

[nomorewindows]

Originally Posted by Wrao ahhh!! I can feel the rifts of hell opening unleashing waves of lamers and newbies to reach up and drag this thread to the ether!

My guess is you're trying to be funny, but I'm not sure how. Brad is right.

[mama's left eye]

Originally Posted by spiff we live in a country with nearly a 50% divorce rate I find this to be quite humorous.

Hmmm... I haven't researched the argument enough to pick a side yet, but that number is completely false. It was a "projected" divorce rate if the trends of the times continued. It has already been lowered to a 40% projected rate. When measured year by year, the actual rate is between 18% and 20%.

What I don't understand is why marriage is so importans to homo's? I've always thought of marraige as a religous thing. The christian religion leaves absolutely no room for homosexuality.

[Paul]

you are right, marriage IS a religious thing. It should be barred from the public sector completely. The onlything the gov't should care about are civil unions. If someone wants to get "married" in a church that has nothing to do with the gov't... unless of course the civil union was being celebrated as well, but they should be COMPLETELY SEPARATE issues. PERIOD.

[Wickers]

Originally Posted by Paul you are right, marriage IS a religious thing. It should be barred from the public sector completely. The onlything the gov't should care about are civil unions. If someone wants to get "married" in a church that has nothing to do with the gov't... unless of course the civil union was being celebrated as well, but they should be COMPLETELY SEPARATE issues. PERIOD.

That is just how I feel.

I am all for civil union of any two persons reguardless of sex...
And I feel that 'marriage' has always been a religious binding of two people, so a 'marriage' would be at the terms of the religion -- not the government.

I was spoon-fed religion in catholic school growing up for 8 years of my life. . . because of this, I came to understand that marriage was in the eyes of God. Today, I don't fallow that religion, or any religion for that matter. And I know that when I choose to get "married" it will be by law, not by the church.

[InactionMan]

I kind of agree that government need not be involved in marriage but if they are then that right must be extended to queers. But would the religious folks be okay if the government didn't recognize their marriage only their union? Anyway, Canada's definition of marriage (if it's passed into law) will work nicely whether or not they get out of marriage business. If I recall, it's something like, "a union between two persons to the exclusion of all others".

[Brad]

Originally Posted by InactionMan ...but if they are then that right must be extended to queers.

You say it as though there's something wrong with that.

Just over a hundred years ago, Jim Crow was the name of the game and the government enforced all kinds of unfair laws against "colored" people. Do any of these lines sound familiar?

"The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void." "It shall be unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person. Any marriage in violation of this section shall be void." "The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void."

Mix them up a little with the terms homosexual, same-sex, gay, and lesbian and you've got what the modern-day bigots are trying to enforce. It's nonsensical, prejudiced, and disgustingly bigoted. You might as well say disabled people can't marry or that immigrants can't marry or that people with red hair can't marry.

[InactionMan]

No, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I was just saying, if government is in the marriage business (rather than just civil unions) then that right has be extended to everyone. Separate but equal is not enough. You can't exclude and two persons from marriage. Did I come across as being against it???

[Random Hero]

Originally Posted by mama's left eye Hmmm... I haven't researched the argument enough to pick a side yet, but that number is completely false. It was a "projected" divorce rate if the trends of the times continued. It has already been lowered to a 40% projected rate. When measured year by year, the actual rate is between 18% and 20%. What I don't understand is why marriage is so importans to homo's? I've always thought of marraige as a religous thing. The christian religion leaves absolutely no room for homosexuality.

You're right, and the statement that 50% of all couples who marry every year get divorced is also skewed, the number of divorces per year is not related to the number of marriages, for example, 100,000 couples could get married this year and 50,000 could get divorced, but those 50,000 could/would be from marriages from previous years.

[spiff]

Originally Posted by mama's left eye Hmmm... I haven't researched the argument enough to pick a side yet, but that number is completely false. It was a "projected" divorce rate if the trends of the times continued. It has already been lowered to a 40% projected rate. When measured year by year, the actual rate is between 18% and 20%.

Well, it's really high at any rate. I went with 50% because it seemed like a nice number. Measuring year by year I think is a cheap way to make it seem lower. And a 40% projected rate isn't exactly 40% either.

Not to get into some statistical argument with you, but I don't think my retarded 50% was way off.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by InactionMan Did I come across as being against it???

Sorry about that. Calling people queers and homos is derogatory akin to calling africans niggers or hispanics spics; so, I just assumed this was a jab at them.

[mama's left eye]

Originally Posted by Brad Sorry about that. Calling people queers and homos is derogatory akin to calling africans niggers or hispanics spics; so, I just assumed this was a jab at them.

I don't see calling someone a "homo" as being derogatory. It's just an abbreviation.

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by mama's left eye I don't see calling someone a "homo" as being derogatory. It's just an abbreviation.

I agree with Brad, although I see what you are saying. But as annoying as it is, calling someone a homo actually carries negative connotation while a homosexual is not.

On the same note, normally you can say 'is gay', but 'a gay' isn't acceptable. Fun fun huh?

[709]

Originally Posted by mama's left eye I don't see calling someone a "homo" as being derogatory. It's just an abbreviation.

Right. Like 'fag'.