Or bends over like a $2 tranny for a Republican...?

/I actually can see Smith's reasoning here. A defeat might be damaging, which in itself makes me ill. Can't believe this issue has to be debated, though. FFS, it hurts no one and is a good thing. Allow it and be done with it. It's an 'issue' only because of those who stubbornly oppose it for no rational reason. God, I love bigotry.

Like I've said a brazillion times in the past, a marriage--as far as THE LAW goes--is nothing more than a very complex contract. 2 gay men can enter into a contract and start a business. 2 gay men can sign a contract to buy a car. Why not sign a marriage contract? Something something 14th amendment something...

To the NY Legislature:

I bet he didn't see that coming.

He is blind to what the public wants.

So... a two-dollar suitcase folds extremely well? That's what I call value.

BalugaJoe: He is blind to what the public wants.

How about we get the government out of the marriage business, and only have the state handling "civil unions", or "declaration of household", or whatever.

It is the religious types who actually care about the word "marriage", anyone putting some rational thought into the subject sees that establishing a household has nothing to do with some twat wearing a white dress in a church.

xanadian: Why not sign a marriage contract?

Because some people are selfish assholes who think that, in some way, gay people getting married lessens the value of their marriage, which I am sure is perfect in every way as the babby jeebus wanted, and that they are strictly obeying the bible in every instance so as to not appear hypocritical.

Also, because two consenting adults getting married equates driectly to child molestation, marrying goats or trees, and farking your relatives.

/answers rhetorical questions

a $2 suitcase? Is that actually a valid analogy or are we just making shiat up now?

/internet is serious business
//like a $3.65 bumper sticker.

suare99: a $2 suitcase? Is that actually a valid analogy or are we just making shiat up now?

/internet is serious business
//like a $3.65 bumper sticker.

Ebay has suitcases for sale, right now, for less than a dollar. With free shipping.

See. (new window)

/but my guess is, there's a minimum and it's not a dollar.

Is Perez Hilton gonna call him a dumb biatch?

Sounds like you all need to make more gay people so you can get some type of majority to get this thing passed. Its working for the illegal aliens

TheYeti: xanadian: Why not sign a marriage contract?

Because some people are selfish assholes who think that, in some way, gay people getting married lessens the value of their marriage, which I am sure is perfect in every way as the babby jeebus wanted, and that they are strictly obeying the bible in every instance so as to not appear hypocritical.

Also, because two consenting adults getting married equates driectly to child molestation, marrying goats or trees, and farking your relatives.

/answers rhetorical questions

Well to be fair, most of the people against gay marriage would be for farking their relatives

Disappointing but I would rather have the votes to pass this than stick to some political grandstanding by a unpopular governor.

Trollomite: Sounds like you all need to make more gay people so you can get some type of majority to get this thing passed. Its working for the illegal aliens

Yeah! Just like the majority of black people it took to get civil right legislation passed!

jekxrb: I actually can see Smith's reasoning here. A defeat might be damaging, which in itself makes me ill.

Damaging because in this case the opposition that's making the difference isn't from Republicans, who don't have the votes to stop the measure. It's coming from three or four NYC Democrats with large homophobic minority constituences. The mask would be peeled off of some serious bigotry and ugliness on the part of somebody other than white Christian GOP males. Can't have that.

Can't believe this issue has to be debated, though.

Oh, it won't. In Albany, nothing gets to the floor until it's assured of passage. Your democracy in action.

me_the_farker: Disappointing but I would rather have the votes to pass this than stick to some political grandstanding by a unpopular governor.

Well, this hurts him coming *AND* going.

Conservatives are going to hate him for trying it in the first place, and the liberal are going to hate him for folding.

If he runs again I doubt even his own family is going to vote for him.

Trollomite: Sounds like you all need to make more gay people so you can get some type of majority to get this thing passed. Its working for the illegal aliens

oh snap.

TheYeti: Also, because two consenting adults getting married equates driectly to child molestation, marrying goats or trees, and farking your relatives.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about that...

dittybopper: me_the_farker: Disappointing but I would rather have the votes to pass this than stick to some political grandstanding by a unpopular governor.

Well, this hurts him coming *AND* going.

Conservatives are going to hate him for trying it in the first place, and the liberal are going to hate him for folding.

If he runs again I doubt even his own family is going to vote for him.

It's kinda farked up the legislative and executive branches are even this involved in the decision. It's clearly a civil rights issue and the courts should be slapping down all religious challenges to people consenting to marry one another.

Well, I'm off to install a couple networking devices. I'm sure, by the time I get back, we'll have heard from the fundies who say gays are sinful and therefore shouldn't marry, because you KNOW the United States is a Christian theocracy!

/hurrrr
//durrrr

Trollomite: Sounds like you all need to make more gay people so you can get some type of majority to get this thing passed. Its working for the illegal aliens

There is a majority in favor of same-sex marriage. 53-39 according to the new Siena poll out this week. The only thing holding up basic human rights for same-sex couples is a handful of NYC Democrats who refuse to stand up and do the right thing, because their continued ride on the Albany gravy train necessitates bowing down to the haters in their constituencies.

Gay couples should just live long and prosper.

Because, we all know, to make a baby, you just need some sperm bank and an incubator.

Maybe that's how democrats are made... two daddies and a rectal birth?

Cat Food Sandwiches: Is Perez Hilton gonna call him a dumb biatch?

Only if he gets paid to.

Why is nobody concerned about the rights of polygamists?????

Is everybody THAT bigoted?

"Well, we want equal rights for homosexuals, but those polygamists can just go to Hell!"

WTF???

It's just sick that we still have to debate over civil rights issues. I wonder how people don't see the connection between the LAST few times we had to stop discriminating and give rights to people (minorities, women) and this one?

jso2897: Cat Food Sandwiches: Is Perez Hilton gonna call him a dumb biatch?

Only if he gets paid to.

Perez gets sit all day in front of a computer ragging on celebrities and makes millions in ad revenues and appearances, I doubt he has to say anything to get paid if he doesn't want to.

dittybopper: Conservatives are going to hate him for trying it in the first place, and the liberal are going to hate him for folding.

What conservatives? This is New York we're talking about.

Gulper Eel: dittybopper: Conservatives are going to hate him for trying it in the first place, and the liberal are going to hate him for folding.

What conservatives? This is New York we're talking about.

I think like any area... the futher out into the boonies you go, the more conservative the population gets.

glassa: Why is nobody concerned about the rights of polygamists?????

Is everybody THAT bigoted?

"Well, we want equal rights for homosexuals, but those polygamists can just go to Hell!"

WTF???

Polygamy is bad practice socially, as it concentrates a limited resource (women) in the hands of a selected few. When that happens, offers like "40 virgins in heaven" start to become appealing to the young men in society. It's not really a road you want to go down.

Why do we allow the government to sanction marriage?

Gulper Eel: dittybopper: Conservatives are going to hate him for trying it in the first place, and the liberal are going to hate him for folding.

What conservatives? This is New York we're talking about.

You've never been upstate, have you?

glassa: "Well, we want equal rights for homosexuals, but those polygamists can just go to Hell!"

Under marriage law in the US, one spouse automatically gets to make medical decisions for the other in the event of incapacitation.

If Al, Becky, and Cindy are married, Becky goes into a coma, Al wants to keep her on the ventilator and Cindy wants to pull the plug, who wins? Remember, your answer will be written into the law as a universal solution to this problem.

IrateShadow: Polygamy is bad practice socially, as it concentrates a limited resource (women) in the hands of a selected few. When that happens, offers like "40 virgins in heaven" start to become appealing to the young men in society. It's not really a road you want to go down.

Are you trying to redefine marriage as "between only 2 people"? Sounds very draconian.

fenrael23: You've never been upstate, have you?

What, like above 110th st? There's lots of liberals up here.

GoodyearPimp: Are you trying to redefine marriage as "between only 2 people"? Sounds very draconian.

Everyone is welcome to have someone on the side :P

Zagloba: If Al, Becky, and Cindy are married, Becky goes into a coma, Al wants to keep her on the ventilator and Cindy wants to pull the plug, who wins? Remember, your answer will be written into the law as a universal solution to this problem.

Living will. Who is Becky married to? Al or Cindy? Also, is Becky hot?

Really though, how strong is the polygamy argument? Other than the fact that religious sects that practise polygamy generally do it by marrying children off to adults (something that's clearly illegal by itself) what's the big deal? I think any woman that would consent to being part of a polygamous marriage is woefully lacking in self-esteem or just plain foolish, but I see no overt reason to disallow it.

Regardless of that, the law against polygamy is different than any laws against gay marriage. Universally, in the US (and pretty much any civilized nation) a person is entitled to marry one person. Whether you're straight, gay or somewhere inbetween... you get to marry one person at a time. Now marriage on the other hand is (in most states) only open to straight people. See the difference? It's a situation of preferential treatment vs. universal treatment.

glassa: Why is nobody concerned about the rights of polygamists?????

Is everybody THAT bigoted?

"Well, we want equal rights for homosexuals, but those polygamists can just go to Hell!"

WTF???

Who the hell said that? Is he by any chance made of straw?

Gay marriage is fine by me, and so is polygami. Polygami is a bit more complicated to work out legally than normal marriage, though. Like how would you split your possesions in the event of a divorce? What if you're 4 people and 1 person wants a divorce? Who gets what? What about the children, who gets them? Etc.

That is really the only problem with polygami.

Mercutio74: I think like any area... the futher out into the boonies you go, the more conservative the population gets.

Irrelevant. The GOP doesn't have the votes to stop same sex marriage. This is in the Democrats' court.

Why don't we just completely de-regulate relationships between consenting adults?

You know, no marriage licenses no civil unions nothing?

WHY?

It'd be instant equality.

Mercutio74: Really though, how strong is the polygamy argument? Other than the fact that religious sects that practise polygamy generally do it by marrying children off to adults (something that's clearly illegal by itself) what's the big deal? I think any woman that would consent to being part of a polygamous marriage is woefully lacking in self-esteem or just plain foolish, but I see no overt reason to disallow it.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that it was mostly anti-mormon in design. However, it really is a nightmare to deal with legally. How would you handle the afforementioned coma case, or a divorce and/or custody battle? To allow for polygamy, huge sections of law would have to be rewritten in ways that would not be necessary for gay marriage.

Gulper Eel: Irrelevant. The GOP doesn't have the votes to stop same sex marriage. This is in the Democrats' court.

It's also irrelevant that votes matter at all. A civil rights issue shouldn't be put to a vote. It should be weighed against the constitution.

I am sure he is for it as long as it includes a $2500 gay marriage tax.

IrateShadow: glassa: Why is nobody concerned about the rights of polygamists?????

Is everybody THAT bigoted?

"Well, we want equal rights for homosexuals, but those polygamists can just go to Hell!"

WTF???

Polygamy is bad practice socially, as it concentrates a limited resource (women) in the hands of a selected few. When that happens, offers like "40 virgins in heaven" start to become appealing to the young men in society. It's not really a road you want to go down.

Yes but it is beneficial on an evolutionary level. The most successful men get the most women, meaning the most offspring, meaning mankind evolves.

Angry Hatter: Gay marriage is fine by me, and so is polygami. Polygami is a bit more complicated to work out legally than normal marriage, though. Like how would you split your possesions in the event of a divorce? What if you're 4 people and 1 person wants a divorce? Who gets what? What about the children, who gets them? Etc.

That is really the only problem with polygami.

That, and the fact that many polygamous marriages are coerced.

IrateShadow: It wouldn't surprise me to find out that it was mostly anti-mormon in design. However, it really is a nightmare to deal with legally. How would you handle the afforementioned coma case, or a divorce and/or custody battle? To allow for polygamy, huge sections of law would have to be rewritten in ways that would not be necessary for gay marriage.

As someone mentioned there'd have to be at least a living will, and preferrably a ton of ancillary documents outlining what would happen financially in the case of divorce, how much right to any children the other moms would have, etc etc. It's a legal quagmire to be sure, and one that wouldn't apply to gay marriage, as you state. And one of the benefits of having that kind of legal craziness associated with it might convince a lot of men and women that polygamy is really kind of a stupid thing in this day and age.

soy_bomb: Zagloba: If Al, Becky, and Cindy are married, Becky goes into a coma, Al wants to keep her on the ventilator and Cindy wants to pull the plug, who wins? Remember, your answer will be written into the law as a universal solution to this problem.

Living will. Who is Becky married to? Al or Cindy? Also, is Becky hot?

Living wills aren't all that common for married couples. If none is present, and Al is legally married to both women, who gets to decide?

ptelg: IrateShadow: glassa: Why is nobody concerned about the rights of polygamists?????

Is everybody THAT bigoted?

"Well, we want equal rights for homosexuals, but those polygamists can just go to Hell!"

WTF???

Polygamy is bad practice socially, as it concentrates a limited resource (women) in the hands of a selected few. When that happens, offers like "40 virgins in heaven" start to become appealing to the young men in society. It's not really a road you want to go down.

Yes but it is beneficial on an evolutionary level. The most successful men get the most women, meaning the most offspring, meaning mankind evolves.

I think we are beyond the point where we have to depend on multiple partners in order to preserve the human race

ptelg: Why don't we just completely de-regulate relationships between consenting adults?

You know, no marriage licenses no civil unions nothing?

WHY?

It'd be instant equality.

It's not a terrible idea. You'd just have to create some kind of procedural framework to allow the couples to work together in ways that they'd wish (dependents, living will, etc etc). And if you want a "marriage" you can just go down to your local imaginary friend worship center and get one, one that would have absolutely no legal standing whatsoever.

fenrael23: You've never been upstate, have you?

Sure I have. Besides the NYC Democrats I mentioned earlier, the other Democratic senator who's in the way is Darrel Aubertine from way up Watertown way - this, while two other Democratic assemblywomen from the same area are voting for the bill.

Last couple of elections, upstate went for Hillary, for Schumer, for Spitzer, and for Obama. You were saying?