Gays

[jimnyc]

N.Y. Judge Bars Mayor From Gay Marriages

ALBANY, N.Y. - A New York state judge on Friday barred the mayor of a college town from performing more same-sex marriages for a month, saying he was ignoring his oath of office.



Lawyers for the city of San Francisco, meanwhile, defended the more than 3,600 gay marriages sanctioned there, arguing to the California Supreme Court that nothing in the state constitution requires local officials to obey laws they believe infringe on the civil rights of their citizens.

New York Justice Vincent Bradley issued a temporary restraining order against the 26-year-old mayor of New Paltz, Jason West, at the request of the Florida-based Liberty Council, which acted on behalf of a local resident.

"The mayor in substance ignores the oath of office that he took to uphold the law," Bradley said.

West insisted he was upholding his oath of office to uphold the constitution.

"But in our system of constitutional government, judges have the last word," West said in a prepared statement. "I intend to fully abide by the judge's decision. And I am considering legal options."

The ruling came as New York Gov. George Pataki said the state is ready to crack down on any official who performs a wedding without a marriage license. West performed his first spate of 25 same-sex marriages a week ago in his village, which is about 75 miles north of New York City and includes the State University at New Paltz.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&cid=519&ncid=716

 

[eric]

nothing in the state constitution requires local officials to obey laws they believe infringe on the civil rights of their citizens

This is a dangerous trend, when public officials disobey the law. If you have a problem with the law then change it, don't break it !!!

 

[Bullypulpit]

You know, after wading through all of the crap that's been posted here, and elswhere, equating homosexuality with pedophilia, bestialiy, necrophilia, halitosis, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I have yet to find an argument that demonstrates how same-gender marriage causes irreparable harm to society...Or anyone else.

All the arguments I have seen are based upon religion, tradition and just plain cussedness...with a few based upon specious claims of biological science thrown in for good measure. While the first two are, at best, guideposts for moral action, they are not absolutes. It is the attempt to render them thus that leads to conflict. The third...Well there are stupid, mean spirited people everywhere you look. Who cares if Ricky and David are getting married...Buy 'em a nice gift. The last is simply folks grasping at random scientific straws in order to justify their homophobia and make their otherwise untenable arguments sound, at least, plausible.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by montyfowler
I would love to hear some rational responses from those in favor of gay marriage. Specifically, how does sanctioned gay marriage benefit society? I understand how it benefits the individual...but what about the larger question?

Firstly, and on a personal level, same-gender couples would enjoy the legal incidents of marriage: the ability to adopt children togehter, provide medical care for each other, inherit each others property and so on.

Secondly, the "slow motion" means of legitimizing a same-gender relationship by means of a variety of legal instruments such as POA's, wills, DP's etc. are far more expensive and less secure than the same benfits acquired through marriage. An extra-legal same-gender union can also harm a parent's case in claiming custody of his/her children or in trying to adopt a child.

On a broader level, the values held by commited gay and lesbian couple are indistinguishalbe form those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities...in essence, they are working to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well.


Another, less obvious benefit, which has been shown in those countries which permit same-gender marriages, is that these couples tend not to engage in the promiscuous sexual activity which leads to the spread of STD's. The same is true in the heterosexual community.

There is no rationally valid reason to prohibit the marriage of same-gender couples.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Sir Evil

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You know, after wading through all of the crap that's been posted here, and elswhere, equating homosexuality with pedophilia, bestialiy, necrophilia, halitosis, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I have yet to find an argument that demonstrates how same-gender marriage causes irreparable harm to society...Or anyone else.

So Now that you are keeping this thread alive I must ask this, Are you a :sausage: sucker?

Tch...Tch...How predictably juvenile.

But to answer your question, in a word...No.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You know, after wading through all of the crap that's been posted here, and elswhere, equating homosexuality with pedophilia, bestialiy, necrophilia, halitosis, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I have yet to find an argument that demonstrates how same-gender marriage causes irreparable harm to society...Or anyone else.

If you REALLY think that?

www.hookedonphonics.com - because you really can't comprehend what you are reading here, bro.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You know, after wading through all of the crap that's been posted here, and elswhere, equating homosexuality with pedophilia, bestialiy, necrophilia, halitosis, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I have yet to find an argument that demonstrates how same-gender marriage causes irreparable harm to society...Or anyone else.

All the arguments I have seen are based upon religion, tradition and just plain cussedness...with a few based upon specious claims of biological science thrown in for good measure. While the first two are, at best, guideposts for moral action, they are not absolutes. It is the attempt to render them thus that leads to conflict. The third...Well there are stupid, mean spirited people everywhere you look. Who cares if Ricky and David are getting married...Buy 'em a nice gift. The last is simply folks grasping at random scientific straws in order to justify their homophobia and make their otherwise untenable arguments sound, at least, plausible.

And I'll repeat myself again as well. You haven't given even close to one good argument as to why the majority of the nation should bend to suit their deviant ways of life.

You've been given answer after answer to your question. You just don't find them acceptable. That's fine, but you're in the minority. You're going to have to learn to deal with it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And I'll repeat myself again as well. You haven't given even close to one good argument as to why the majority of the nation should bend to suit their deviant ways of life.

You've been given answer after answer to your question. You just don't find them acceptable. That's fine, but you're in the minority. You're going to have to learn to deal with it.

Ain't askin' the "majority" to do anything, There's no reason for them to abandon their moral beliefs in order to alow same-gender couples the ability to have their unions recognized under the law and permitted the same rights and priviledges under the law as the rest of us married folks. And many gay folks think straight sex is as disgusting as you think think gay sex is.

As for the "answers"...What answers? The arguments don't hold water.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by dmp
If you REALLY think that?

www.hookedonphonics.com - because you really can't comprehend what you are reading here, bro.

Prove your assertion.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Ain't askin' the "majority" to do anything, There's no reason for them to abandon their moral beliefs in order to alow same-gender couples the ability to have their unions recognized under the law and permitted the same rights and priviledges under the law as the rest of us married folks.

As for the "answers"...What answers? The arguments don't hold water.

Nor do yours, which is why you are in the minority!

And for the last time, queers have the identical rights as heterosexuals right now.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Nor do yours, which is why you are in the minority!

And for the last time, queers have the identical rights as heterosexuals right now.

No, they don't . Same-gender couples don't have the right to have their relationship recognized in the eyes of the law.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
No, they don't . Same-gender couples don't have the right to have their relationship recognized in the eyes of the law.

And I, as a heterosexual, don't have that right either. I do have the right to marry the opposite sex though, as do the queers.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Same-gender couples, incestual partners, polygamists, man-boy lovers don't have the right to have their relationship recognized in the eyes of the law.

And thank GOD for that.


All those relationships are diviant, and inherently BAD for society, as a whole.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
All the arguments I have seen are based upon religion, tradition and just plain cussedness...

Bush as the anti-Christ would be a good example of such arguments.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
No, they don't . Same-gender couples don't have the right to have their relationship recognized in the eyes of the law.

Nor do couples who shun marriage for personal reasons. Nor do first cousins. Nor do me and my dog. Nor do sisters living together. Nor do friends who live together.

Why, just because homosexuals choose to engage in deviant behavior, are they any more deserving of special rights?

Your assertion assumes a fundamental right to the orgasm of your choice. There is no such guarantee in the constitution.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Comrade

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
All the arguments I have seen are based upon religion, tradition and just plain cussedness...

Bush as the anti-Christ would be a good example of such arguments.

It's not an argument, it's satire.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by dmp

Originally posetd by Bullypulpit

Same-gender couples, incestual partners, polygamists, man-boy lovers don't have the right to have their relationship recognized in the eyes of the law.

And thank GOD for that.


All those relationships are diviant, and inherently BAD for society, as a whole.

First of all, numbnuts, don't try to put words in someone else's mouth. Your little additions are not relevant to the issue at hand. Incest and pedophilia are criminal behaviors arising from psychological disturbances. Polygamy and polyandry are accepted in many cultures, and so long as the wives and husbands find the situation agreeable and no coercion is involved, polygamy and polyandry aren't an issue either.

Homosexuality was removed as a psychiatric disorder from the DSM nearly 30 years ago, and as to it being "deviant", 'tis but an opinion.

Oh, and whicc GOD are you referring to? There have been many throughout human history.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Homosexuality was removed as a psychiatric disorder from the DSM nearly 30 years ago, and as to it being "deviant", 'tis but an opinion.

Sorry, we've been through this before, it is a FACT. Homesexual behavior meets the definition exactly.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
All the arguments I have seen are based upon religion, tradition and just plain cussedness...

Bush as the anti-Christ would be a good example of such arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
It's not an argument, it's satire.

Based on religion and "cussy". Satiracal too.

 

[wonderwench]

I am continue to be amazed and saddened that people who say they believe in The Consitution are so obtuse when it comes to applying its protections to consenting adults engaged in private behavior.

If two heterosexuals are able to enter into a legally recognized civil union with rights and responsibilities spelled out in the law, so should homosexuals.

Leave the religious aspects and definitions to individual religions.