BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage

Subject: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 11:46 PM

Yaaaayyyyy!!!! Gay marriage is being legalized in NY state!

The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which passed a different version last week, is expected to pass the new version with stronger religious exemptions and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying begin 30 days after that.

The A.P. story.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 12:33 AM

YES!!!

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 01:24 AM

Three cheers at last for the NY Legislature--especially the brave four Republicans who had the nerve to buck the party line.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 02:17 AM

The governor did sign it into law tonight!

NY Times article

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: bubblyrat
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:54 AM

Another nail in the coffin of decent,civilised ,Christian behaviour .

What next , I wonder ?? Is nothing sacred any more ??

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:14 AM

Another nail in the coffin of decent,civilised ,Christian behaviour .

Speaking as a practising Christian, and a Roman Catholic one at that, I don't see that. We don't have to get into an exchange of biblical quotations here, since we (and I guess most readers of this thread) will be pretty familiar with them already. But to me allowing gay union is much more in accord with the Christian message than to refuse a committed partner the right to be recognised *by the law*. And be clear: we are talking about the relationship between individuals and the state here, not religion.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:16 AM

So there'll be an interesting linguistic variation between the definition of the word in New York and elsewhere...

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 07:12 AM

I'm quite glad about this gay marriage thing.

Or as I like to call it, marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 07:42 AM

Though I can never understand why *anyone* be they gay or straight, would want to undergo a Christian religious ceremony, unless a practicing Christian and believer. As a non-believer (eg: I don't believe that god is simultaneously all good, omnipotent and omniscient or indeed that sodomy is a sin for example) I'll never marry.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 08:01 AM

... I'll never marry

This is NOT a comment on your decision, but in most countries, and certainly in the UK, 'marriage' is a mixture of two entirely different things. One is the social/religous aspect, with its historically unbalanced relationship between the male and female partners. By and large it is this people object to. But, and importantly, there is the relationship between the partners and the law, and there a huge number of things like pension and inheritance rights that do not apply unless you are married. So anyone who chooses not to marry would be well advised to spend a lot or time (and money) with a good lawyer making sure all of this is sorted. It needs to said again and again that currently living as partners does not bestow any legal rights (UK) to, for example, inheritance. It is reviewed occasionally but I believe the situation has not changed recently.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:54 AM

I can hear Sarah Palin now . . .

"Mrs Palin, how do you react regarding the legalization of gay marriage in New York?"

'Well, Al, if God didn't believe in gay marriage He would have had those people born heterosexual, not homosexual.'

I can see Newfoundland from my rooftop. It's only 1400 km away.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 10:13 AM

As a non-believer... I'll never marry.

Guess some folks have never heard of a civil ceremony? Amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 12:11 PM

The leading opponent was Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz.

"God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago," said Diaz, a Bronx minister.

If a gay couple next door to Rev. Diaz marries, HIS life will not change one whit... nothing will be different except inside his head as he turns his own narrow view of 'natural order' into enhanced upset at other's behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 12:19 PM

Fine, fine. I'm glad them gays is gettin' their civil rights and all that, but the fight is not over! And it won't be over until New York State and every other states legalizes inter-species marriage so that apes and humans can get married too if they want to.

Admittedly, there ain't too many chimps around who would want to marry a human...but they still oughta have the right to do so IF they want to! That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.

We also demand inter-species church marriages for chimps and humans that are practicin' Christians, by the way, and we don't give a damn WHAT the Pope has to say about that.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: olddude
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 01:00 PM

Its a good law, it doesn't force any religious leader to conduct any service that they are opposed to in any church. Yet it allows for legal rights to a group of people that the law has bypassed.

"render to Cesar that which is Cesar, render to God that which is God's"

Frankly I am not God nor do I pretend to understand everything about God but I don't think he cares contrary to many preachers. Most of the time their quoting is cherry picking of the old testament without understanding the real message in the New Testament. Pretty clear how we should treat others I think.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 01:21 PM

As DMcG (no relation) pointed out, there are lot of very practical advantages to getting married if you are intending to spend your life with someone. Civil Partnership in the UK, if the partner is the same sex as you, carry the same advantages.

If it is argued that the term "marriage" needs to be widened to include Civil Partnerships, would the next logical demand be for everyone to abandon the terms "husband" and "wife" in favour of "partner" - or maybe "spouse" to avoid confusion?

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 01:32 PM

No...'husband' and 'wife' would continue to be clear terms for hetrosexual spouses. But now same-sex couples could legally SAY 'spouse'...meaning 'legally married'..which is quite different from mere 'civil partnerships', which confer only limited rights.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 01:58 PM

I'm not aware of any civil rights married people have over those in civil partnerships, or vice versa, in the UK anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 02:03 PM

There's a difference between civil partnership and marriage? I didn't know that.

My favourite line so far has been "Cue awkward glances between those couples who've said they won't marry until homosexual marriage is allowed"

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 02:14 PM

I've always felt that if gay people want the agonies and woes of marriage, then they should be able to experience them just like those of us who have been heterosexually married. Why should they be deprived of the, um, "joy?"

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 02:38 PM

Kevin.. here are the differences in the US

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: olddude
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 03:38 PM

saul
LOL ... priceless

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:36 PM

I think people should be allowed to marry dogs too...as long as the dog gives consent. This could be determined by a professional, licensed Dog Whisperer, of which there are a few around. Failing that, an impartial judge could render an idependent judgement on whether or not the dog was giving consent, following a private interview with the happy couple.

After all, if both parties are of the age of majority (1 human year equalling 7 dog years), and if both freely give their consent, what does anyone else have to say about it? How is it anyone else's business? And how does it hurt you if the married couple next door are a human chiropractor and a Doberman Pinscher?

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:45 PM

The love that dare not speak it's name, seems to have a permanent case of verbal diarrhoea.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:02 PM

...here are the differences in the US

None of that would apply here. Changing your rules for Civil Partnership to fall in line with other places would perhaps be a better way of getting rid of stupid stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 06:25 PM

Our problem is... many states treat such issues as "states rights"....a major part of our extreme differences. That is why New York (barely) passing that law was so important.

Can you imagine some freedom being legal in London, but not in backwards old Hull? That's how it works here. I am lucky in that I live in a fairly liberal state- Maryland... but right across the river, 20 miles from me, they have a state, Virginia, with a seriously conservative state government right now.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 06:33 PM

YAY! Another victory for humane-ity!

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 08:50 PM

It's about time.

And then there's divorce.

But everything is on an equal footing.

Yah!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: ChanteyLass
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:51 PM

I'm glad for New York and its residents. In RI, we thought marriage for all couples might pass this year, but it didn't. Civil unions did pass, finally. It's better than nothing but not good enough. Maybe next year . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 10:58 PM

Maybe next year apes too will finally get what they are due...

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 11:13 PM

My friend Bill has 3 ex wives. If he wants to get married again, he can.

My friends Kathy and Jane have been together for 27 years. They can't get married.

I can't think this is right.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: LilyFestre
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 11:15 PM

It's about time New York!!!

YAY!!!

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 06:09 AM

Funny...I've always had the option to get married, and yet I have never done so! I wonder if I'd have been filled with a burning desire to do so, if I wasn't legally allowed to? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 06:25 AM

Forbidden fruits are always the sweetest, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 09:13 AM

I am lucky in that I live in a fairly liberal state- Maryland... but right across the river, 20 miles from me, they have a state, Virginia, with a seriously conservative state government right now.

But how does a change in the law in New York State change this, except for people in New York State?

I'd have thought that changing the status of civil partnership right across the whole country so that it carried the same rights and responsibilities as marriage would be less of an uphill struggle than changing the definition of marriage so that it covered civil partnership as well. Doing it that way seems to have worked out pretty well in a wide range of countries.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:05 PM

"But how does a change in the law in New York State change this, except for people in New York State?

Right now, it doesn't. It is merely a step... but an important one. It would take perhaps a Constitutional amendment to ensure ALL states followed the same rules.... and that would take many years to get it ratified.

...Now, because New York doesn't require residence to be married, many would go there and hope that their state would recognize the marriage. It would at least be a psychological victory.

This United "States" arrangement is a complex one...it has advantages...and many disadvantages. Marriage laws, voting laws, liquor laws, economic laws...and more... can all vary. It allows states like Delaware and South Dakota to be financial 'home' to credit card companies...and states like Kansas to practically eliminate legal abortion.

You can barely imagine how deeply the idea of some states not wanting to be bound by the laws & practices of others is ingrained here. The South is the prime example, but Nevada gets to host Las Vegas ...etc.

Advantages? Well, this way some states CAN legalize same-sex marriage when it might not be possibly to do it nationally for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:21 PM

I can't see how it makes any difference to those issues whether it's a question of equal conditions for civil partnerships and marriage, or redefining marriage.

Where the difference might come it is that maybe it'd be less of an uphill struggle getting people to agree to the former than the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:25 PM

Bravo.

Tolerance is a rare commodity in this world and there is definitely something wrong with that.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:35 PM

Civil Union/Marriage: its all a case of fundagelical semantics.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 02:34 PM

"fundagelical"

Cool word.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: IvanB
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 03:08 PM

In the U.S., until the federal government recognizes same sex marriages, there will continue to be a difference in the rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples and same sex married (or civilly joined) couples. However, it is true that in those states which allow same sex marriage, both groups have equal status in the eyes of the state. The problem with civil unions has been that those states which have allowed them have not extended all the rights of marriage to same sex couples, probably more through oversight than intention.

That said, hurrah for NY state for striking a massive blow for equality.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 03:48 PM

Why would it be easier for your federal government to change the existing definition of marriage than to fix the definition of civil partnerships so that it would involve the same duties and responsibilities as marriage, in the same way many other countries have done? I would suspect that the reverse is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 05:03 PM

To those with limited rights, it is not a matter of 'fixing' the definition of civil partnerships to resolve "duties and responsibilities". It is a matter of being able to just ....go get married freely as others do ... whereupon those "duties and responsibilities" become just one aspect of the relationship.
They want marriage to be a formal, **sometimes** religious, recognition, by the state AND/OR their church, of a deep personal commitment... just as it is for heterosexual couples.

   You may think that it is just nitpicking detail.. but most folks who want a 'marriage' want it to be equal to anyone else's. The words used.. 'wife, husband, bride, groom, partner, spouse' should be a matter for them to decide on.

For that matter, I think it should be **legal** for any combination of people to 'marry', as long as they are of legal age. More complex relationships than "two partners" would have to submit carefully approved (by a court) documents detailing how to handle situations not covered by traditional one-to-one marriages.
No, I do NOT think this is likely soon... maybe in 100 years.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: IvanB
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 05:31 PM

According to Wikipedia (and you can take it for what it's worth), the one stated difference in civil partnerships in the U.K is that a member of a civil partnership is not allowed to use a courtesy peerage title which derives from his/her partner. A silly distinction, I'll admit, but a distinction nonetheless.

We humans have a propensity to find someone to whom we can feel superior. Using a different term for the union between two persons of the same sex seems to feed right into that need.

My wife's and my best friends are a lesbian couple of 36 years. I'd love to see them to be able to formalize their relationship here in Michigan, U.S.A. in whatever form. Probably won't happen in their lifetimes or ours. In an interesting side note, one of these two women inherited her family's farm in Michigan as well as a lakeside cottage in Canada. In Canada, she was able to go to a local office and create joint ownership of the cottage with her partner by filling out a form and paying a minimal fee. In Michigan, she was told the only way she could create joint ownership of the farm was to "sell" it to the two of them, thus incurring a sales tax of 6% of its market value. Nice kick in the teeth, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 11:59 AM

Can't you give things away in Michigan without having to pay a sales tax? That's an unfair law whether it affects gay couples straight couples, siblings or friends.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 01:11 PM

I am not all that up on US law but I was under the impression that if a couple (of whatever respective genders) were legally married (as distinct from civil partners) then other states were obliged to treat that in all respects as a marriage. That might be a parallel to international conventions. Or it might not.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: IvanB
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 02:46 PM

The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution might theoretically cover same sex marriage, but it hasn't yet been adjudicated to such a level as to set precedent. Many of the states having their own legal descriptions of marriage as between one man and one woman also provide that same sex marriages performed in another state are not recognized. In one case, the state of Oklahoma was required by the court to recognize an adoption done by a same sex couple in another state. Although the full faith and credit clause lists no exceptions, states have ignored it (and been upheld in the courts) to the extent that almost every instance of its application is subject to adjudication.

It's certainly an evolving issue in the U.S., and I'd expect to see suits forthcoming although I have no confidence, with the makeup of our present Supreme Court, that gay marriage proponents would be successful.

As for sales tax in Michigan, one can make a gift to a family member without sales tax being assessed. This would include one's spouse. But, since Michigan passed a constitutional amendment some years ago to prohibit same sex marriages and the granting of any benefits normally given to married couples, you can be sure the tax isn't going to be waived for a same sex couple. And, I must admit to a technical error. Although our friend referred to it as the sales tax, it's actually the real estate transfer tax that she'd have to pay. This is 1% rather than 6%, still a significant amount. But, again, this tax is waived on transfers to a spouse or immediate family when no cash sale is involved.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 03:59 PM

Is there an inheritance tax in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 04:46 PM

There is an inheritance tax in the US for certain forms of inheritance. There is a current movement among the rich...mostly Republicans... to do away with it. Surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 01:10 AM

Its called the "estate tax." The GOP calls it "the death tax."

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 01:18 PM

Twits...

CP

GENESEO, N.Y. - Opponents to New York's gay marriage law filed the first lawsuit challenging the measure, an anticipated salvo that came one day after weddings were celebrated around the state.

A representative of New Yorkers for constitutional Freedoms and a rabbi said in a lawsuit filed Monday in state court that New York's Senate violated its own procedures and the state's open meetings law when it approved the bill on June 24.

The lawsuit claims that the Senate prevented lawmakers who opposed the bill from speaking and that the Senate didn't follow procedures that require a bill to go through appropriate committees before a full Senate vote.

Opponents of the gay marriage law had promised lawsuits.

"We should have an open and deliberative process," the Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for constitutional Freedoms, told The Associated Press. "If truly the legislation can stand on its own merits then it should be able to withstand being deliberated publicly."

Spokesmen for Senate Republicans and the state's attorney general declined to comment.

Hundreds of gay couples got married starting just past midnight Sunday as New York became the sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex weddings. Ceremonies were held around the state, mostly in New York City where the day's celebration was tempered by a protest in which thousands of opponents marched to the United Nations.

On Monday, a mass wedding in Niagara Falls saw 46 same-sex couples exchange vows.

The bill was adopted the night of June 24, the last day of the legislative session after days of closed-door negotiations involving Gov. Andrew Cuomo and key lawmakers. The lawsuit claims that Cuomo improperly waived the three-day waiting period between a bill's introduction and a vote. Such waivers are common in Albany for negotiated bills.

The debate on the night of the vote on June 24 was severely restricted in a manner unprecedented in recent years.

The Senate's Republican majority allowed unlimited time for supporters of the bill to speak, including Democratic Sen. Thomas Duane who sponsored it and Republican Sen. Stephen Saland who provided the pivotal vote. But Lieutenant Gov. Robert Duffy, presiding of the Senate, repeatedly cut off Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., a minister who led the opposition to the bill. Diaz sought to persuade his colleagues to vote "no."

The lawsuit also claims that promises of campaign contributions were made to Republican senators who voted for the bill.

Financial filings with the state Board of Elections July 15 showed Cuomo and the four Republican senators who voted for gay marriage received large campaign donations from groups and individuals who pushed for the legalization of gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 10:27 AM

Following up on my earlier post (great minds think alike!):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-25-2011/runaway-pride


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:13 PM

Thankfully unavailable in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:26 PM

ake...

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 04:43 PM

Huh!!??

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 10:31 AM

Meanwhile back in Utah gay-bashing and discrimination abounds. I hope they catch the bastards who did this.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 05:21 PM

And in Ohio, a man phoned the police, last night, when he found poison pellets sprinkled in his yard. He has a tame raccoon. This is his description of the event:

THE POLICE DIDN'T CARE! THEY WERE FIRST CURIOUS TO SEE "THE RACCOON" AND DURING THEM LOOKING AT MY BOY THEY SPOKE ABOUT "THE TIMES THEY HAVE KILLED RACCOONS" ON TOP OF THAT THEY INSINUATED THAT I AM A PROSTITUTE!!! A QUOTE/QUESTION FROM THEM..." GAYS ARE ALWAYS SELLING THEIR ASS " AND - NOW THIS IS GOOD!... "WHY DO THE GAYS LIKE TO MOLEST KIDS?" YES FOLKS! THIS IS WHAT I DEAL WITH...

We are not yet living in the best of all possible worlds. He is fortunate, indeed, that these "police" did not grab and shoot his raccoon.

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:22 PM

I guess I have to say that personally, I don't like the idea of gay marriage - or of gay sex, for that matter. I don't like abortion, either. I think it is the taking of a life, although I acknowledge that many people have valid reasons for disagreeing with me. Those are my opinions. I am squeamish to dead set against both of these things.

But I feel compelled to acknowledge that gay people have gay sexual relationships for reasons that are very valid to them, and that women have abortions for reasons that are very valid to them. Although I may disagree with them, what right to I have to interfere with their rights to make choices for their own lives.

I don't like gay marriage and I don't like abortion, so don't expect me to strongly support either of these things. I certainly can respect a person's right to choose these things - so those who support abortion and gay marriage are well-advised to respect my point of view. It is to their advantage to count me as an ally.

On the other hand, those who oppose gay marriage and abortion might find advantage in considering me an ally, also.

I think that too often, we humans tend to reject others that we do not consider to be ideologically pure. If they don't see things exactly the way we do, we find it very difficult to find any value in them or in their point of view. If we hold too rigidly to our own perspective, we find it impossible to form alliances and compromises. We spend our lives being "right," but never getting anything accomplished because we can never find a majority of people who share our exact point of view.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:47 PM

I can't see what difference it makes, so long as it doesn't frighten the horses. I know a couple of women who just got hitched and I wish them nothing but the best.

Sorry though, I feel compelled to confess that my first irreverent thought on reading the thread title was the notion of fairy cakes at the reception. Perhaps I'll grow up one day..

Subject: RE: BS: New York state legalizing gay marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 07:05 PM

Now, I am a gentle, peaceful soul, but—

When I heard of the torture and murder of Matthew Shepard by a trio of homophobes a few years back (tortured and pistol-whipped a young college student for nothing more than his being gay, and left him tied to a fence on a country road. Days later, he was found still hanging from the fence, and taken to a hospital where he died from severe brain injuries received during the beating), I was roused to a kind of anger that I never want to feel. I want to kill—brutally—the kind of people who do such things.

I don't like that feeling. But I had the same feeling when I just read of what was done to Dane Hall.

The kind of people who perpetrate this kind of animal brutality on another human being—no matter what they consider the reasons—deserve to be banished from all human contact. They have proven that they, themselves, are not fully human. In fact, calling this sort of thing "animal brutality" is not correct. Animals may kill for food or to protect themselves, but not out of this kind of brutality.

I wonder if Dane Hall—or the authorities in Utah—are aware of The Matthew Shepard Act.

Don Firth