[FewsOrange]

Passes 33-29

[Absolutely Nobama]

Another nail in the coffin.

[greene66]

Memo to NY: since you’ve decided to officially become a degenerate fag state, don’t expect any help or sympathy from me the next time you have a 9/11. Burn in hell, New York.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It was only a matter of time until enough votes were bought.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

So I suppose our only hope is that a single conservative judge will throw this out, like that rump-ranger in California did?

[RIghtwardHo]

*sigh*

[Gene Eric]

Nothing like a bunch of good ol’ GOP bags to bend over and take one for the other team. Jackasses, all.

[little jeremiah]

The real reasons sex pervert pushers want same sex marriage, and it’s not about lifelong monogamy and happy “families”.

From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”

“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”

Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:

“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:

“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

More articles about this horrible vote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2739661/posts?page=42

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2739655/posts

[RC2]

Kinda gives a new meaning to a “Shotgun Wedding” don’t it?

[Mike Darancette]

Imagine all those old chicken hawks marrying young butt boys to lower their taxes. Watch it happen on the federal level before the election.

[GreenLanternCorps]

This is disappointing, but not surprising. “Gay rights” is a litmus test issue with little or no room in the middle. If you don’t have a clear sense of what is right and wrong, You are usually going to cave in to the most emotional appeal. With an issue like this, when you get down to just few “undecided” legislators, you have already lost. That’s why I’m scared about this issue getting to the US Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy has about as much of a moral compass as the four RINOS in the New York Senate. If the California case, or a Defense of Marriage Act challenge comes be the USSC, he’ll cave on this and we will have “gay marriage” imposed nationally.

[Nowhere Man]

First off, I don't see most gays or lesbians as demons, generally they want to be left alone and if they keep it private as we all should, well, I don't have much of a problem. For the most part, I see them as people that are misguided. People are going to do what they are going to do. They have the same rights to a job, house and life like we all do. I don't even have a problem with civil unions, actually, there really need not to have sex involved at all in that. Civil unions can also be had by two friend who live together and so on. We already have provisions for that, go to a lawyer and draw up an agreement. However, I draw the line at the government recognition of same sex marriage, no way on that one.

I know there are gays who are pedophiles but you also have hetero ones too, no matter what, that is illegal and we have the law to prosecute them.

I guess it is in our system to late each State decide this issue for itself. New York has that right like any other. However, I think on an issue as big as this, I think we should have taken it to the people at large to see if the people themselves would vote up or down and go from there. I do think this was pushed through for more ulterior motives.

That said, I see this as a huge part of weakening Western Civilization and our country. Yes, we do need to be tolerant at times and if kept private, we generally can live with that. However, I see it as a goal to weaken our society as well as a way to bicker and fight to keep the spotlight off of other issues like the economy, New World Order and so on. Therin lies the rub, the old Cloward and Piven strategy, divide and conquer, in short, gays and lesbians are just being used by them.

It is also a thing with money, a way to grab more money and benefits like health insurance and so on. If a company wants to offer same sex benefits, it is their choice to make on their own, they should not be cajoled by the progressives or the gay lobby.

I'd like to know what the average New Yorker (State) thinks on this one, take it to the people. I think this passed because you got a huge elephant in that State, New York City. I understand that New Yorkers outside the city resent New York City since they dominate the State. We have the same thing here in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh resents Philadelphia, but New York City is 10 times worse. Maybe same sex marriage is OK in New York City itself, I don't know really, but when you get out in the hinterlands, I'm sure it would be flatly refused.

Personally, the only way we can resolve the issue is to amend our Constitution with a clause to make marriage between one man and one woman much like they did in Russia.

This does open a can of worms overall, if we allow same sex marriage, then how can we not say to the old style Mormon who wants to marry more than one woman? Same deal for someone who practices Islam. How about a woman who wants to marry more than one man or group marriage. How about guy or gal who wants to marry their 1969 Caddy? It will not stop. If we favor one different group, then we will have to favor all, in all fairness, we cannot look at one group/couple and say, "you can marry" but to another, "you cannot."

The worst of all of this is the death of common sense to where to make it right again, you need to code it into law. For years, marriage has generally been one man and one woman, although in ancient times, men did take multiple wives, but over time, Western Civilization boiled it down to what we know today, until in recent years.