New York State rejects Gay marriage

[Shadowbeach]

.

.

 

[melensdad]

What would have been surprising is if they would have passed it.

In EVERY STATE where the citizens have voted this type of measure has been turned down. In the case of New York the citizens didn't vote but rather the Senators cast their votes. They simply voted the will of the people.

 

[ATF Consumer]

What would have been surprising is if they would have passed it.

In EVERY STATE where the citizens have voted this type of measure has been turned down. In the case of New York the citizens didn't vote but rather the Senators cast their votes. They simply voted the will of the people.

Yep...just like the bailouts and stimulus packages.

 

[groovatron]

The same folks that "claim" to want less government and more freedom, want to tell other folks who they can and can't marry?....Makes no sense. This is what is wrong with many republicans today. I'm all about states rights and the will of the people, but I am truly sick of hearing about this issue. It shouldn't be an issue at all. It's right up there with congress getting involved with steroids and baseball. What a complete waste of time. There are about a million other issues that actually matter.

 

[melensdad]

The same folks that "claim" to want less government and more freedom, want to tell other folks who they can and can't marry?....Makes no sense.

Well that may not be an accurate portrayal. It could just as easily be argued that the supporters of gay marriage want the government to redefine marriage by injecting government into the traditional family. So who is really looking for bigger, more intrusive government?

 

[groovatron]

Well that may not be an accurate portrayal. It could just as easily be argued that the supporters of gay marriage want the government to redefine marriage by injecting government into the traditional family. So who is really looking for bigger, more intrusive government?

Traditional in a religious sense. For example, I have a friend who is a devout Catholic. He went to the courthouse with his fiance and signed the paperwork strictly for insurance purposes. They have wedding plans in the near future, but the legal side of it could not wait. In his mind, he is not truly married untill he says his vows at the church. He could really care less what the government recognizes. For him, it's all about being married in the eyes of the lord. That being said, I'm fine with churches or any other private institution not recognizing gay marriage. But to take your religious views and paste them on top of government is flat out wrong. Not only does it support more government, but it also supports a religious infiltration of government. Taking away a persons right to make there own decision in no way represents freedom, no matter how you twist it.

 

[level.eleven]

Well that may not be an accurate portrayal. It could just as easily be argued that the supporters of gay marriage want the government to redefine marriage by injecting government into the traditional family. So who is really looking for bigger, more intrusive government?

Government has no business in the "traditional family"....or the non-traditional family, or the orthodox family, or your family, or my family. I don't know how you feel about the subject, but it chapped my arse when I had to ask the state of Indiana for permission to marry/enter into a taxation partnership with my wife. Oh, and its going to cost you to even ask for permission because you will need a license! Just like you do to drive a car, open a business, or carry a handgun.

I believe the "big gov" accusation comes from those who support a "Defense of Marriage Act", similar legislation, or a constitutional amendment.

Oh, and as long as we are defending marriage, I would assume that divorce would be equally as threatening to marriage and require...'defense'.

Heh...why did I just jump into a gay marriage thread.....these always seem to go so well.

 

[CarmelHP]

Heh...why did I just jump into a gay marriage thread.....these always seem to go so well.

"Fools rush in...." *




*[1711 Pope Essay on Criticism l. 625]

 

[haldir]

Traditional in a religious sense.

How about traditional as in traditional. What other type of marriage has there been until this current generation in any society or culture but between a man and a woman...

 

[Son of Liberty]

+1 groove. Republicans do sometimes seem to only want freedom and less government control for those people who think as they do.

 

[groovatron]

How about traditional as in traditional. What other type of marriage has there been until this current generation in any society or culture but between a man and a woman...

Oh, sorry. I forgot that things should never change. I'm throwin the Blackberry into the river and bustin' out the old telegraph......and now, some food for thought.....

From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions.

In 1076, Pope Alexander II issued a decree prohibiting marriages between couples who were more closely related than 6th cousins.

In the 16th century, servants and day laborers were not allowed to marry in Bavaria and Austria unless they had the permission of local political authorities. This law was not finally abolished in Austria until 1921.

From the 1690s to the 1870s, "wife sale" was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.

Marriage was strictly a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686.

The Pilgrims outlawed courtship of a daughter or a female servant unless consent was first obtained from parents or master.

Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriages in any of the British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.

Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.

In 1848, New York became the first state to pass a Married Woman's Property Act, guaranteeing the right of married women to own property.
Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.

As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

In the fifteen years prior to the decision, fourteen states had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. Those fourteen states were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

In 1978, New York become the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By
1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime.


Hmmmmmmmm, looks to me that there have been many traditions and changes in the meaning of marriage throughout history. I guess the tradition is change itself. So......worship your own God, teach your children what you think is best, and stop worrying about what other people who are different than you do.......ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE MANY MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO FOCUS YOUR ENERGY ON!

 

[haldir]

I'm sorry. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so maybe I missed it. Is one on the list an example of an official marriage not involving a man and a woman?

 

[groovatron]

I'm sorry. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so maybe I missed it. Is one on the list an example of an official marriage not involving a man and a woman?

Did you read the first one? Besides, you are missing the whole point. But if I must, here is a Wiki entry.....

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[32] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[33]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[34]
The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[35] While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships were tolerated in ancient Rome, the frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period is unclear.[36] In 342 AD, Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[37]


I'm sure that this isn't sufficient enough for you for one reason or another. I just wish you people would finally admit that you don't really stand for freedom and liberty. It is very frustrating to have so many that claim to be a true righty, when they are really just religious elitest. This is the whole reason why much of my generation is turned off by the republican party. Those of us who stick with it (myself included), want to take the party back. Do you realize how hard it is to try to explain to one of my peers that I am a republican. I have to start off by telling them that what they think is a republican is actually an imposter. Personal responsibility and less government. Very simple philosophy. Most young people will agree with this. But that's not what they see in the republican party. They just see a bunch of religious folks with a personal agenda that contradicts itself. I'm not sure how you can justify fitting trivial things like gay marriage into that equation. If anything, the republican philosophy actually supports it. I'm not sure how people fail to realize this, but is has to stop............Bottom line (repeating myself again).....Do your own thing, let others do theirs, and as long as no one gets hurt, it's all good.


Note: I respect everybody's right to choose their religion or lack there of. This is a huge part of living in a free society. I am in no way trying to bash anyones personal religious beliefs. As long as you are not imposing on my right to do the same, then you are all right with me. If you are attempting to impose on my right to choose what's best for myself, then enemies we are, and fight I will!

 

[ATF Consumer]

Good post groovatron...A church should not use its influence on the state as to what it can and cannot recognize as a union. If the church does not want to recognize it as being a true union, then that is their freedom to do so, and I would fully support them in that decision. Also, if a church wants to recognize same sex marriage, that's all fine and dandy with me as well. I have recently changed my views on this matter, as my libertarian ideals are becoming stronger than my conservative views. You cannot believe in freedom and justice for all if you will not allow certain segments of society the same rights as you because of your religious or personal upbringing. I personally do not agree with same sex relationship practices, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist, nor should I have any control over them because of what I believe.

 

[KDUBCR250]

Good post groovatron...A church should not use its influence on the state as to what it can and cannot recognize as a union. If the church does not want to recognize it as being a true union, then that is their freedom to do so, and I would fully support them in that decision. Also, if a church wants to recognize same sex marriage, that's all fine and dandy with me as well. I have recently changed my views on this matter, as my libertarian ideals are becoming stronger than my conservative views. You cannot believe in freedom and justice for all if you will not allow certain segments of society the same rights as you because of your religious or personal upbringing. I personally do not agree with same sex relationship practices, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist, nor should I have any control over them because of what I believe.

What he said !

 

[CarmelHP]

Did you read the first one? Besides, you are missing the whole point. But if I must, here is a Wiki entry.....

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[32] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[33]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[34]
The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[35] While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships were tolerated in ancient Rome, the frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period is unclear.[36] In 342 AD, Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[37]

Except that this appears to be almost entirely made of whole cloth, based on the writing of a John Boswell, which is very effectively questioned in another Wiki entry here. It appears that Mr. Boswell takes an ancient ceremony of fraternity (kind of like joining Delta Chi or making "blood brothers") and broadly translating it into a modern civil union without a thread of support from others who researched his claims. Co'mon, if you're arguing for honesty, physician, heal thyself.

 

[groovatron]

Except that this appears to be almost entirely made of whole cloth, based on the writing of a John Boswell, which is very effectively questioned in another Wiki entry here. It appears that Mr. Boswell takes an ancient ceremony of fraternity (kind of like joining Delta Chi or making "blood brothers") and broadly translating it into a modern civil union without a thread of support from others who researched his claims. Co'mon, if you're arguing for honesty, physician, heal thyself.

That's fine. I definitely don't believe all Wiki entries. But when someone asks you to give them examples, you gotta bring it. Especially when they don't like the paragraphs you've already written. We can argue about the legitamacy all day. But then we would totally be missing the point. And if the whole physician healing thyself is a reference to me, then shame shame. I cited my source and never once claimed it to be absolute truth. What's so dishonest about that?...........................But anyway, how bout we get off this chasing around historic opinions. Do you want to respond to the other 1000 words I typed? Do you have responses to my actual accusations, or are we just gonna chase our tales all night?

 

[CarmelHP]

That's fine. I definitely don't believe all Wiki entries. But when someone asks you to give them examples, you gotta bring it. Especially when they don't like the paragraphs you've already written. We can argue about the legitamacy all day. But then we would totally be missing the point. And if the whole physician healing thyself is a reference to me, then shame shame. I cited my source and never once claimed it to be absolute truth. What's so dishonest about that?...........................But anyway, how bout we get off this chasing around historic opinions. Do you want to respond to the other 1000 words I typed? Do you have responses to my actual accusations, or are we just gonna chase our tales all night?

So, if someone asks for examples, "you gotta bring it" even if it's based on a lie or a gross distortion; "you gotta bring it," but when called on it, it doesn't really matter anyway, move the ball and shout, "look over there." Heaven forfend I should argue with such logic. Shame indeed.

 

[hornadylnl]

As a Christian, I don't believe in homosexuality. The liberatarian in me says the solution is for government to gtfo of the marriage business. If I were ever to get "married" again, I may have a religious ceremony but there WILL NOT be a marriage license filed. All that is is a license for her to take half of your stuff.

 

[TopDog]

What would have been surprising is if they would have passed it.

In EVERY STATE where the citizens have voted this type of measure has been turned down. In the case of New York the citizens didn't vote but rather the Senators cast their votes. They simply voted the will of the people.

That makes sense. If the federal government was in the least bit concerned about the will of the people this would a very different and much better country. Too bad for the people the ones that lord over us are not in the least bit concerned about the will of the people.