Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters) NewsFlash Gay marriage passes in NY. Finally New York is just as cool as Iowa   (reuters.com) divider line
923
    More: NewsFlash, Iowa, Religion-supporting organization, marriages  
•       •       •

6895 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2011 at 10:42 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

923 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Newest

 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 11:07:07 AM  

ThisNameSux: thatguyjoe: So then marriage would have no legal status, just religious?

A marriage and civil union would be the same in the eyes of the government.


And for the gay people that are part of a church that performs marriages? Should they still only have civil unions as you said before? If they have the same standing before the law, what would it matter?
 
NkThrasher [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2011-06-25 11:11:16 AM  

eddiesocket: Why is this necessary? The word marriage works fine as both a civil and religious term, always has.


It sidesteps the argument of "redefining" marriage. It works fine as long as all parties involved understand that there is a differentiation, but some tend to forget and blur the lines from time to time.
 
eddiesocket
2011-06-25 11:16:19 AM  

NkThrasher: eddiesocket: Why is this necessary? The word marriage works fine as both a civil and religious term, always has.

It sidesteps the argument of "redefining" marriage. It works fine as long as all parties involved understand that there is a differentiation, but some tend to forget and blur the lines from time to time.


It won't work, and I'm sure straight atheists would resent having their marriages demoted. And the right wing bigots are against gay people having civil unions, anyway.
 
ThisNameSux
2011-06-25 11:18:19 AM  

truthseeker2083: And for the gay people that are part of a church that performs marriages? Should they still only have civil unions as you said before? If they have the same standing before the law, what would it matter?


Like I've already said, the church has the right to choose who they marry. If that includes gays, so be it.
 
Ihaveanevilparrot
2011-06-25 11:18:38 AM  

truthseeker2083: Ihaveanevilparrot: markfara: Your future mother-in-law sounds stupid at worst and sheltered at best. The false dichotomy between "gay" and "religious" is bullsh*t. I've known gays who are just as religious as anyone you'd want to meet, some of whom are just as mentally and emotionally f*cked up as any straight religious fanatic out there.

Didn't Jesus say "let him who is without sin cast the first stone," anyway?

Just because you perceive your "sins" to be lesser doesn't mean you have the right to make that kind of moral judgement. I was under the impression that God was supposed to decide who is and is not going to hell. The bible shows that God is not static, He may change his mind at any point.

But I'm not Christian, so what do I know?

Future mil is apparently hooked up to god's personal phone line to hear her say it. Tried a few times to point out she has no say in heaven, hell, or who her son loves. Gave up after I figured out her cat would have a better chance to understand.


Probably not. They mainly just praise the lolz.

icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.comView Full Size

see more Lolcats and funny pictures, and check out our Socially Awkward Penguin lolz!

It is caturday...

And this thread is way too serious anyway :p
 
eddiesocket
2011-06-25 11:20:47 AM  

ThisNameSux: truthseeker2083: And for the gay people that are part of a church that performs marriages? Should they still only have civil unions as you said before? If they have the same standing before the law, what would it matter?

Like I've already said, the church has the right to choose who they marry. If that includes gays, so be it.


And again, what's the point? To you think people who are against gay marriage will be fine with their marriages being called "civil unions" by the government?
 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 11:23:15 AM  

ThisNameSux: truthseeker2083: And for the gay people that are part of a church that performs marriages? Should they still only have civil unions as you said before? If they have the same standing before the law, what would it matter?

Like I've already said, the church has the right to choose who they marry. If that includes gays, so be it.


Then marriage it is!
 
fn129
2011-06-25 11:23:39 AM  

ThisNameSux: I don't agree with this at all. Give them civil unions and that's it.


Ok... but while we are at it, we should ban all legal recognition of marriage. Nobody can get married and have it legally count. That pretty wedding you just had is now null and void... have to go to the JP to get unioned.

(or is that "different"?)
 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 11:28:46 AM  
I have no problem with a chuch not performing the ceremony. What I have a problem with is a church (and the people who make up the church) saying that NO one can perform the ceremony, and no form of government can bind me and my partner together. Oh, problem solved, and I'll be married as soon as possible.
 
markfara
2011-06-25 11:30:43 AM  

truthseeker2083: I have no problem with a chuch not performing the ceremony. What I have a problem with is a church (and the people who make up the church) saying that NO one can perform the ceremony, and no form of government can bind me and my partner together. Oh, problem solved, and I'll be married as soon as possible.


And good on ya.
 
God-is-a-Taco
2011-06-25 11:34:55 AM  
Very nice. Baby steps.

And also how sad that Obama has to ignore it (or even condemn it) or risk not getting elected again.
 
eddiesocket
2011-06-25 11:39:35 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: Very nice. Baby steps.

And also how sad that Obama has to ignore it (or even condemn it) or risk not getting elected again.


That was probably true in 2008, but he's "evolving" (conveniently as support for gay marriage rises) I suspect he'll be a convert about six months before the election. Someone pointed out that if he had jumped in the fray on this NY thing with a full-throtled support of gay marriage, the Republicans who were needed to vote for it might've been scared off. I suspect that's true.
 
Didgeridon't
2011-06-25 11:42:54 AM  
Nice to see that NYS has solved all its problems and can focus on the important things, like gay marriage.


/the state is a total shiat-hole
 
phenn
2011-06-25 11:48:04 AM  

Didgeridon't: Nice to see that NYS has solved all its problems and can focus on the important things, like gay marriage.


/the state is a total shiat-hole


The state is a shiat-hole, yes. But, this is an extraordinarily important thing and I hope you will see it for what it is.

The government has no authority to create separate and unequal classes of citizens. This is long settled and consitutionally correct. What New York did was to assert the state's role in protecting the inherent liberties of its citizenry.

It was correct and long overdue. With hope, it sets a nice, consitutionally-guided precedent that all states will soon follow.
 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 11:48:27 AM  

Didgeridon't: Nice to see that NYS has solved all its problems and can focus on the important things, like gay marriage.


/the state is a total shiat-hole


Yes, because civil rights aren't an important issue. Everywhere should be a utopia before we work on making people's lives better.... oh wait...
 
phenn
2011-06-25 11:58:03 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: Very nice. Baby steps.

And also how sad that Obama has to ignore it (or even condemn it) or risk not getting elected again.


This has fark-all to do with him. This is a state's issue. Remember, government redefined marriage (from a sacrament to a contract), not the gays. That put it in the purview of the state. The feds ain't got shiat to say about anything. Which makes all this defense of marriage talk utterly moot.

Since only the states may sanction such a contract, they must show cause for removing the right to enter into such a contract. Yes? Being same-gendered does not give cause to the state to reduce that right.

Do this - find your state's statutory scheme online and look up (under civil rights or probate chapters) how and when your state can reduce or remove your rights or privileges. It's typically after showing cause that you are no longer capable of making your own decisions. Has utterly nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Thumbnail: the government never had - nor should have - the authority to tell you who you may call family.
 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 12:24:18 PM  

phenn: God-is-a-Taco: Very nice. Baby steps.

And also how sad that Obama has to ignore it (or even condemn it) or risk not getting elected again.

This has fark-all to do with him. This is a state's issue. Remember, government redefined marriage (from a sacrament to a contract), not the gays. That put it in the purview of the state. The feds ain't got shiat to say about anything. Which makes all this defense of marriage talk utterly moot.

Since only the states may sanction such a contract, they must show cause for removing the right to enter into such a contract. Yes? Being same-gendered does not give cause to the state to reduce that right.

Do this - find your state's statutory scheme online and look up (under civil rights or probate chapters) how and when your state can reduce or remove your rights or privileges. It's typically after showing cause that you are no longer capable of making your own decisions. Has utterly nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Thumbnail: the government never had - nor should have - the authority to tell you who you may call family.


This, this, and more this!
 
neomunk
2011-06-25 12:29:02 PM  
There's more butthurt in that Free Republic thread than there was from celebrating last night.
 
Nemo's Brother
2011-06-25 12:29:51 PM  

phenn: God-is-a-Taco: Very nice. Baby steps.

And also how sad that Obama has to ignore it (or even condemn it) or risk not getting elected again.

This has fark-all to do with him. This is a state's issue. Remember, government redefined marriage (from a sacrament to a contract), not the gays. That put it in the purview of the state. The feds ain't got shiat to say about anything. Which makes all this defense of marriage talk utterly moot.

Since only the states may sanction such a contract, they must show cause for removing the right to enter into such a contract. Yes? Being same-gendered does not give cause to the state to reduce that right.

Do this - find your state's statutory scheme online and look up (under civil rights or probate chapters) how and when your state can reduce or remove your rights or privileges. It's typically after showing cause that you are no longer capable of making your own decisions. Has utterly nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Thumbnail: the government never had - nor should have - the authority to tell you who you may call family.


I'm not convinced that Obama is really for gay marriage. He oversteps his boundaries and violates laws constantly for things he wants. He could step in to support gay marriage nation-wide. The problem is that a lot of his voters do not support gay marriage. If not for the bigots in California that voted for him, there would be gay marriage there as well.
 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 12:33:14 PM  

neomunk: There's more butthurt in that Free Republic thread than there was from celebrating last night.


They know they're losing ground on bigotry. Of course they're pissed.
 
cameroncrazy1984 [TotalFark]
2011-06-25 12:41:31 PM  

hillary: Your knowledge, then, is by your own admission extremely limited, cuz she was all over the place on this issue -- on every news show, talk show, press interview she could get, and that was a lot.


You sure? Cause I'm a New Yorker and I didn't see sh*t. I dislike Lady Gaga a ton, so I don't seek out her publicity, but if she was "all over the place" it was probably all in the city because I sure as hell didn't see her. And I don't follow her on twitter.
 
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums
2011-06-25 12:51:42 PM  
I hear teachers will now be required to teach gay marriage to first graders. And, that's all they'll teach.
 
studebaker hoch
2011-06-25 12:58:18 PM  
Well it's day two, and God has STILL not sent Godzilla to stomp New York.

This can mean only on thing....

Godzilla is gay.
 
phenn
2011-06-25 1:05:08 PM  

Nemo's Brother: I'm not convinced that Obama is really for gay marriage. He oversteps his boundaries and violates laws constantly for things he wants. He could step in to support gay marriage nation-wide. The problem is that a lot of his voters do not support gay marriage. If not for the bigots in California that voted for him, there would be gay marriage there as well.


Well, this is a bit of a sidebar, but walk along with me for a moment.

As a candidate, Obama promised to restore Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto. Member that? First year in office, he wrote Amicus Curea into a federal case, beseeching the judge to DENY Habeas Corpus from a so-called enemy combatant.

I think what this man says and what he does are totally divorced things.
 
Ed Grubermann [TotalFark]
2011-06-25 1:08:19 PM  

truthseeker2083: /I'm getting married to my wonderful partner at the first opportunity!


May your marriage give you the happiness and security mine has given my wife and I.
 
Ed Grubermann [TotalFark]
2011-06-25 1:12:16 PM  

Didgeridon't: Nice to see that NYS has solved all its problems and can focus on the important things, like gay marriage.


Look, mah! A bigot! Quick, take a picture while he's still covered in his own feces!
 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 1:18:18 PM  

Ed Grubermann: truthseeker2083: /I'm getting married to my wonderful partner at the first opportunity!

May your marriage give you the happiness and security mine has given my wife and I.


Thank you!
 
neomunk
2011-06-25 1:24:31 PM  

truthseeker2083: neomunk: There's more butthurt in that Free Republic thread than there was from celebrating last night.

They know they're losing ground on bigotry. Of course they're pissed.


Well, as a happily married hetero, I wish all the happiness in the world to those loving couples who join lives. IMHO the best and easiest route to a happy marriage is to marry your best friend. If you assume that there are a higher percentage of man-man or woman-woman best friend relationships than there are man-woman best friend relationships then you're looking at a trend that could lead to a (possibly much) higher "happy marriage" rate among homosexual couples. It's even possible that a long term happy marriage trend could help relieve this country from the extreme cynicism that we've been experiencing the past few decades.

/look at me, being all optimistic n stuff n junk
 
expobill
2011-06-25 1:46:03 PM  
im upset because we are over-applauding the government for these "heroics".
and why are humans turning to Fark™ for wisdom?
 
Mrtraveler01
2011-06-25 1:49:37 PM  

ThisNameSux: thatguyjoe: So then marriage would have no legal status, just religious?

A marriage and civil union would be the same in the eyes of the government.


We tried that with blacks and water fountains, lunch counters, and schools and that didn't work out too well.

/Open a history book
 
styckx [OhFark]
2011-06-25 1:52:24 PM  
How can anyone be happy? New York is being burned to the ground God for changing his way! So many people are dying...

Oh, it isn't. You mean freepers were wrong?????? This is impossible, they never, ever overreact.
 
Mrtraveler01
2011-06-25 2:01:10 PM  

styckx: How can anyone be happy? New York is being burned to the ground God for changing his way! So many people are dying...

Oh, it isn't. You mean freepers were wrong?????? This is impossible, they never, ever overreact.


No but the Mets lost yesterday. This is clearly a sign that God is pissed about this.
 
cameroncrazy1984 [TotalFark]
2011-06-25 2:09:56 PM  

Nemo's Brother: He oversteps his boundaries and violates laws constantly for things he wants


Such as?
 
phenn
2011-06-25 2:37:06 PM  

expobill: im upset because we are over-applauding the government for these "heroics".
and why are humans turning to Fark™ for wisdom?


No one is turning to fark for wisdom. They're simply chatting it over.

Your first point, however, is very much noted. Nothing at all heroic in our representative government asserting protections of the liberties of their citizenry. It's their farking job description.

And, in this day and age, all the cosmetics, well-worded speeches, posturing and haircuts don't really amount to shiat. I get that.

If I may be so bold, however, focus that disgust where it was earned. That is the people who tolerate this amount of discrimination and oppression in the name of hatred towards others. Yes. I said it. We allowed this nation to be hijacked. We have only ourselves to blame.
 
Now That's What I Call a Taco!
2011-06-25 2:45:54 PM  
Between this and the budget, Cuomo is on pace to be one of New York's greatest governors.

It takes a bona fide miracle to get Albany to do ANYTHING. Well done, Governor. Now, I beg you, pleeeease don't do anything stupid like Weiner or Spitzer...
 
studebaker hoch
2011-06-25 2:52:08 PM  
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums

I hear teachers will now be required to teach gay marriage to first graders. And, that's all they'll teach.

I hear that they will soon outlaw opposite-sex marriages, and that same-sex marriage will be required. And that if you don't have a same-sex partner, one will be assigned to you by the state.
 
iq_in_binary
2011-06-25 3:04:04 PM  

tony41454: truthseeker2083 Quote 2011-06-25 07:33:12 AM
Again using 'proof' from desert goat farmers. How about using something with proof? Oh, bigotry doesn't have proof you say? Too bad. I'm sure you'll get over it.

Well, you're certainly not "seeking" the "truth," despite what your login name implies. Proof? The proof is in men's hearts and in their actions:


For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:21-32)


Unless you can speak ancient Aramaic fluently and have read those passages from the original scrolls they were written upon and can verify with the person who wrote the passage that he meant what he wrote, you're not qualified to tell us what those passages mean.

In other words, you're quoting a millenia's old game of FARKING TELEPHONE. Until we invent time travel, there's no way you or any other tummy sword playing pervert are qualified to tell us what God does or does not want from us.
 
expobill
2011-06-25 3:16:30 PM  

Didgeridon't: Nice to see that NYS has solved all its problems and can focus on the important things, like gay marriage.


/the state is a total shiat-hole


and some places there charge $10 for a beer!
 
envirovore [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2011-06-25 3:21:02 PM  

studebaker hoch: Well it's day two, and God has STILL not sent Godzilla to stomp New York.

This can mean only on thing....

Godzilla is gay.


Came back in here to make a 'day two and still not burning to the ground here' comment. No way I could top that.
/tip of the hat to you good sir
 
sleeper2995
2011-06-25 4:43:57 PM  

oldebayer: AverageAmericanGuy: Gay marriage today. Bestiality tomorrow!

Fark that, I want to marry my blow-up doll.


Hell yeah I wanna marry my fleshlight
 
RottenEggs
2011-06-25 4:47:26 PM  
Points and laughs at New York.
 
Scorpinock
2011-06-25 5:03:04 PM  
Congratulations New York!

silencedmajority.blogs.comView Full Size
 
shokokuphoenix
2011-06-25 5:13:41 PM  
Congrats New York!

/straight and married, but not narrow-minded
//hope the old couple on the CNN link from above are first in line!
 
truthseeker2083
2011-06-25 5:15:46 PM  

neomunk: truthseeker2083: neomunk: There's more butthurt in that Free Republic thread than there was from celebrating last night.

They know they're losing ground on bigotry. Of course they're pissed.

Well, as a happily married hetero, I wish all the happiness in the world to those loving couples who join lives. IMHO the best and easiest route to a happy marriage is to marry your best friend. If you assume that there are a higher percentage of man-man or woman-woman best friend relationships than there are man-woman best friend relationships then you're looking at a trend that could lead to a (possibly much) higher "happy marriage" rate among homosexual couples. It's even possible that a long term happy marriage trend could help relieve this country from the extreme cynicism that we've been experiencing the past few decades.

/look at me, being all optimistic n stuff n junk


Optimistic is the best way to be :)
 
Nickers
2011-06-25 5:30:12 PM  

Cpl.D: Excellent. Equal freedom and rights for ALL.


Agreed. Took them long enough, but so happy that it finally happened. :D

Congratulations New York!
 
Praise Cheesus
2011-06-25 6:06:05 PM  

ThisNameSux: I don't agree with this at all. Give them civil unions and that's it.


Can I ask you what the difference is between a "civil union", as you would prefer, and a "civil marriage", which is what this legislation allows, is?

The reason it's taken a few weeks to get this bill through the NYS legislature and to the governor for signature was hammering out the wording that protects the the priests, preachers, pastors, rabbis, mullahs and all other church officiants from being sued if they do not want to officiate a gay marriage.

The big difference, legally, is that a married couple enjoy tax breaks, automatic assumption of next of kin, joint tenancy on property and the term marriage is recognized by most federal agencies, where civil union is not. This may explain why the use of the "M" word is so important.
 
expobill
2011-06-25 6:26:49 PM  

Praise Cheesus: The big difference, legally, is that a married couple enjoy tax breaks, automatic assumption of next of kin, joint tenancy on property and the term marriage is recognized by most federal agencies, where civil union is not. This may explain why the use of the "M" word is so important.


dont forget visitation rights.... as memory serves me, laws forbid same sex couples to visit their dying companion while in any medical institution due to the fact they were not immediate family, which started the cause.
 
Mandrake1964
2011-06-25 6:46:43 PM  
The whole "marriage" versus "civil union" argument is sooooo annoying. Marriage is a LEGAL contract AND/OR a religious covenant. You don't have to be married in a religious setting to be considered married in the eyes of the government and you don't have to be legally married to be considered married "in the eyes of God". Should atheists be banned from getting married because their definition of marriage has nothing to do with religion? Allowing same-sex marriages won't redefine legal marriage because legal marriage has nothing to do with God!

Also, legal marriage has nothing to do with procreation. There is no stipulation that if you get married, you must have babies! Plenty of people get married and plan to never have children. What about infertile people? Should they have to enter "civil unions"?

These and other arguments are just a load of BS that people have come up with to hide the fact that they are just average, everyday bigots and want to impose their religious believes on all of us.

I'll keep my government out of your religion if you keep your bloody religion out of my government!

/atheist
//happily married
///has read the Constitution and it's amendments
////understands English
 
GWSuperfan
2011-06-25 6:49:04 PM  

Praise Cheesus: ThisNameSux: I don't agree with this at all. Give them civil unions and that's it.

Can I ask you what the difference is between a "civil union", as you would prefer, and a "civil marriage", which is what this legislation allows, is?


How about this: "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Link (new window)
 
cameroncrazy1984 [TotalFark]
2011-06-25 7:00:51 PM  

expobill: Didgeridon't: Nice to see that NYS has solved all its problems and can focus on the important things, like gay marriage.


/the state is a total shiat-hole

and some places there charge $10 for a beer!



NYC is a wonderful place to visit, but I'll take my $3 Molson any day of the week over their $10 Yuengling and Sam Adams (if you're lucky)
 
Displayed 50 of 923 comments


Oldest | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Newest



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.