New York State Senator speaks up, does "the right thing"

#1
rockytop9808

rockytop9808

Ludicrous Display
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
6,591
Likes
8
#1
#2
#2
good for him

I arrived at the same conclusion via a different route, but I share his sentiments regarding the social zealots that would consider me some kind of traitor to the "cause".
 
#3
#3
There are more and more gay and gay-friendly Republicans all the time, seems like. My sister and her partner went to a rally just recently hosted by Ann Coulter. They said it was a lot bigger event than they anticipated.
 
#4
#4
agree with what he's saying, but a new york politician going pro gay marriage isn't exactly career threatening.
 
#6
#6
There was an interesting article a couple weeks ago (maybe months) that suggested we either completely do away with the government backed marriage perks or relabel them civil union perks. Either way the government is out of the marriage business. Also, either way if a couple wants to get "married," they can do so, assuming their religious institution recognizes their relationship. It makes sense to me. You just get a civil union license at the courthouse. If you also want to get married you can do that too (the proverbial icing).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
dreVol said:
There was an interesting article a couple weeks ago (maybe months) that suggested we either completely do away with the government backed marriage perks or relabel them civil union perks. Either way the government is out of the marriage business. Also, either way if a couple wants to get "married," they can do so, assuming their religious institution recognizes their relationship. It makes sense to me. You just get a civil union license at the courthouse. If you also want to get married you can do that too (the proverbial icing).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This would be my preferred solution but it will never happen.
 
#8
#8
droski said:
agree with what he's saying, but a new york politician going pro gay marriage isn't exactly career threatening.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Let me know when one from Oklahoma or Mississippi takes a stand and you'll have some news.

Having dutifully minimized it, I will say that this is the kind of thing that starkly illustrates the divide within the GOP that I've talked about before.

While all Republicans would lay claim to fiscal conservatism being a priority, the reality is that a fairly large and VERY vocal portion cling to these social issues and still view them as a mandatory part of the platform. They are drowned out right now by the fiscal issues, but they are very much still driving at least a part of the bus.

Meanwhile, it is becoming clear that a lot of Republican office holders are sick of the social policy issues and having to yield to them when so much more is going on. A lot of the comments in this thread I think echo that.

In other words, please quit weighing us down with having to beat the drum about same sex marriage and abortion and affirmative action and let us fight the more important stuff. Gay rights is a distraction. The only people that care are homosexuals and the people who absolutely loathe them and forever will. The rest of us are bored by it.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Exactly. Let me know when one from Oklahoma or Mississippi takes a stand and you'll have some news.

Having dutifully minimized it, I will say that this is the kind of thing that starkly illustrates the divide within the GOP that I've talked about before.

While all Republicans would lay claim to fiscal conservatism being a priority, the reality is that a fairly large and VERY vocal portion cling to these social issues and still view them as a mandatory part of the platform. They are drowned out right now by the fiscal issues, but they are very much still driving at least a part of the bus.

Meanwhile, it is becoming clear that a lot of Republican office holders are sick of the social policy issues and having to yield to them when so much more is going on. A lot of the comments in this thread I think echo that.

In other words, please quit weighing us down with having to beat the drum about same sex marriage and abortion and affirmative action and let us fight the more important stuff. Gay rights is a distraction. The only people that care are homosexuals and the people who absolutely loathe them and forever will. The rest of us are bored by it.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'm bored with the issue, per se, but a person's stance on it certainly shouldn't be part of a their running platform.

Besides, why is it anyone's business to tell anyone who they should be able to marry?
 
#10
#10
You really think that's a great quote? Nothing is black or white... right or wrong... but HE IS trying to do the right thing?

If there is no right... there is no wrong... then how exactly is HE trying to do the right thing.
 
#11
#11
dreVol said:
There was an interesting article a couple weeks ago (maybe months) that suggested we either completely do away with the government backed marriage perks or relabel them civil union perks. Either way the government is out of the marriage business. Also, either way if a couple wants to get "married," they can do so, assuming their religious institution recognizes their relationship. It makes sense to me. You just get a civil union license at the courthouse. If you also want to get married you can do that too (the proverbial icing).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Agree with this with some caveats. First, the income tax has to be eliminated so that this free RELIGIOUS choice is neither subsidized nor punished through the tax code (this should done regardless of gay marriage). Second, gov't should get out of the business of telling private companies whose relationship MUST be recognized. If a company wants to support gay partners then that should be their right. If they don't then that should be their right as well.
 
#12
#12
rockytop9808 said:
Besides, why is it anyone's business to tell anyone who they should be able to marry?
Click to expand...

Yes. As long as it is a state sponsored LICENSE allowing a PRIVILEGE which is NOT a RIGHT then it is perfectly within the authority of the state and its people to set the legal terms for that license.

That is NOT to say that a state cannot endorse gay marriage against my opinion if I am in the minority. However by your logic, the state should have no age requirements for marriage... relatives should be able to marry... polygamy should be legal... bigamy is not a crime... people should be able to marry animals if they choose to.

If it is NO ONE'S business then you have no grounds to object to any of these things.
 
#13
#13
sjt18 said:
Yes. As long as it is a state sponsored LICENSE allowing a PRIVILEGE which is NOT a RIGHT then it is perfectly within the authority of the state and its people to set the legal terms for that license.

That is NOT to say that a state cannot endorse gay marriage against my opinion if I am in the minority. However by your logic, the state should have no age requirements for marriage... relatives should be able to marry... polygamy should be legal... bigamy is not a crime... people should be able to marry animals if they choose to.

If it is NO ONE'S business then you have no grounds to object to any of these things.
Click to expand...

And I never said I did object to those things, even though your example of marriage to an animal is an extreme stretch and a clear example of the slippery slope fallacy.

It's not the government's job to meddle in people's personal lives. If you want to light up a blunt, snort some coke, or shoot up with heroin in private, that's your business. Same case if you want to marry another dude.

The reasoning most people give is that it's "against the Bible". The Bible is not the be-all, end-all in government, nor should it be in any circumstances ever.
 
#14
#14
sjt18 said:
Agree with this with some caveats. First, the income tax has to be eliminated so that this free RELIGIOUS choice is neither subsidized nor punished through the tax code (this should done regardless of gay marriage). Second, gov't should get out of the business of telling private companies whose relationship MUST be recognized. If a company wants to support gay partners then that should be their right. If they don't then that should be their right as well.
Click to expand...

Taxes are small part of the issue for the GLBT community.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
rockytop9808 said:
And I never said I did object to those things, even though your example of marriage to an animal is an extreme stretch and a clear example of the slippery slope fallacy.

It's not the government's job to meddle in people's personal lives. If you want to light up a blunt, snort some coke, or shoot up with heroin in private, that's your business. Same case if you want to marry another dude.

The reasoning most people give is that it's "against the Bible". The Bible is not the be-all, end-all in government, nor should it be in any circumstances ever.
Click to expand...

This
 
#16
#16
sjt18 said:
Yes. As long as it is a state sponsored LICENSE allowing a PRIVILEGE which is NOT a RIGHT then it is perfectly within the authority of the state and its people to set the legal terms for that license.

That is NOT to say that a state cannot endorse gay marriage against my opinion if I am in the minority. However by your logic, the state should have no age requirements for marriage... relatives should be able to marry... polygamy should be legal... bigamy is not a crime... people should be able to marry animals if they choose to.

If it is NO ONE'S business then you have no grounds to object to any of these things.
Click to expand...

Gay self loathing?
 
#17
#17
milohimself said:
Taxes are small part of the issue for the GLBT community.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So? The "big" part seems to be the imposition and forced acceptance of their morally chosen behavior on those who disagree with that behavior.
 
#19
#19
Wait, sjt, are you saying gay people are forcing their morals on you by wanting to get married?

That's classic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#20
#20
sjt18 said:
So? The "big" part seems to be the imposition and forced acceptance of their morally chosen behavior on those who disagree with that behavior.
Click to expand...

And if you don't believe that gay couples should enjoy inheritance and other property rights, visitation rights, etc. then that's you imposing your morals on them through the government.

Take a look in the mirror, bud.
 
#21
#21
milohimself said:
And if you don't believe that gay couples should enjoy inheritance and other property rights, visitation rights, etc. then that's you imposing your morals on them through the government.

Take a look in the mirror, bud.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#22
#22
The divorce rate among heterosexuals is 50% or higher. Until heterosexuals respect the institution of marriage, I see no reason why they should have the audacity to keep the homos from marrying.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top