Posted on 12/04/2009 7:13:16 AM PST by lbryce
The New York State Senate held an emotional debate on Wednesday in which there was talk of belief and conscience and eloquent reminders of earlier civil rights struggles. It then took a stand against equality and fairness.
By a 38-to-24 vote, lawmakers chose to continue the state’s discrimination against couples who want to get married and simply happen to be the same sex.
Like Gov. David Paterson and advocates who pressed for the vote, we had hoped a sufficient number of senators would do the right thing when required to take a stand. In the end, though, not a single Republican possessed the courage or sense of justice to depart from an obsolete and narrow-minded party line, even the handful who had indicated that they might.
Also succumbing to what Senator Thomas Duane, a Democrat of Manhattan, called “contagious lack of backbone” were eight Democrats: Joseph Addabbo Jr., Darrel Aubertine, Rubén Díaz Sr., Shirley Huntley, Carl Kruger, Hiram Monserrate, George Onorato and William Stachowski.
Mr. Paterson was right to insist on the vote during the current special session, but he was too weak to get the job done. The Democratic Senate leaders — John Sampson of Brooklyn, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx, and Malcolm Smith of Queens — also failed to deliver.
Beyond any ideological divide, the disappointing result, which is at odds with the sentiment of the majority voters registered in recent opinion polls, is yet another sign of Albany’s ongoing squabbling and dysfunction.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
..destroys the optimism of gay rights advocates..
That phrase is much too funny, meriting a Barf Alert all its very own. But wait, The New York Times Editorial Board calls New York State Senate's failure to approve the Gay agenda, "discrimination" (my quotation marks).....
The chickens are coming home to roost for the gays.
“we had hoped a sufficient number of senators would do the right thing when required to take a stand”
But......they did!
People who wish to drive their cars on the sidewalks are also “discriminated against.”
People who wish to drive their cars on the sidewalks must instead drive exclusively on the paved roads. Just like the people who prefer driving on the paved roads.
People who want to drive on the Hershey highway are discriminated against....
“Discrimination” is GOOD when you’re “discriminating” between right and wrong, good and evil, supportive of society and destructive of society.
That's the problem. They're both the same sex. A butt fetish should not be considered a Marriage. Neither should a farmer be refereed to as his favorite cows husband.
Sheesh. Get real, people. A kinky sex fetish is NOT a marriage.
“discrimination against couples who want to get married and simply happen to be the same sex. “ — it sounds so reasonable when they say that, don’t they? Newspeak...
Which means that one of them is of the wrong sex for this marriage. Some women want to be men and vice versa but they aren't. Some blacks want to be white but they aren't, yet they are equal under the law. Some short people want to be tall but they aren't, yet they are equal under the law. Equality under the law is the important thing, not indulging every whim a person may have.
All this PC crap, which has bled over to our military and their ROE, is intended to divide this country and demoralize the people to make us weaker as a society. The idea of diversity has been perverted and then elevated to "rights" status.
The "civil rights movement" was fueled by the Left for the reasons above, disorder and guilt. It also cemented the black vote for Democrats for years to come. That is the main reason for it rather than any concern for blacks. The same is true of feminism and this gay movement. It is intended to disrupt society. The Left has no concern for people other than those they can con into voting for them as those people are subjugated.
It is all part of the Leftists playbook.
Well, if that's what protecting traditional marriage means, then homosexual discrimination gets my vote. I'm all for it. I have no problem with that.
How come they did not vote for man boy marriages?
Isn’t that discrimination?
I discriminate against potential employees who want to work for me handling large sums of money but have felony convictions for grand theft, embezzlement, or bank robbery. Is there something wrong with discriminating based on relevant criteria such as whether a potential employee has the basic character compatible with the job or whether people have the basic anatomy compatible with a marriage?
No matter how you cut it is a mortal sin.
By a 38-to-24 vote, lawmakers chose to continue the state’s discrimination against couples who want to get married and simply happen to be the same species.
By a 38-to-24 vote, lawmakers chose to continue the state’s discrimination against couples who want to get married and simply happen to be brother and sister.
By a 38-to-24 vote, lawmakers chose to continue the state’s discrimination against couples who want to get married and simply happen to be parent and child.
By a 38-to-24 vote, lawmakers chose to continue the state’s discrimination against couples who want to get married and simply happen to be both alive.
By a 38-to-24 vote, lawmakers chose to continue the state’s discrimination against couples who want to get married and simply happen to be both already married.
Those nasty discriminators !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.