NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs State's Marriage Equality Bill

CNN ^ | June 24, 2011

[Steelfish]

CNN Ticker Tag only NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs State's Marriage Equality Bill. Same-sex couples will now be able to marry within 30 days.

[Steelfish]

Does NY have an Initiative System like California to override this Sodomite perversion?

[headstamp 2]

That was fast. Must have signed it in his boxer shorts.

Garbage politicians throw the entire electorate overboard for less than 2% of the population for this ridiculous insanity.

[headstamp 2]

Nope. It’s a done deal.

[LibLieSlayer]

Burn in hell NY.

LLS

[originalbuckeye]

But the public (thanks to Big Media) thinks the gay population is around 25%. No kidding. Look at the polls.

[RecoveringPaulisto]

Can we kick NY out of the Union? If we can’t, we need to pass a constitutional amendment so that we can.

[JeanLM]

So I have a question. If I wanted to marry a male friend ( I’m a male) with no sex involved, I could do it in NY and the other states that have passed similar laws. You don’t have to prove a sexual relationship. There are several reasons why this might make sense to do. Citizenship rights is just one of them. Of course it would be a sham deal, but so what. This is going to lead to a lot of complications.

[Steelers6]

Yep, you have your Repubic Senators to thank, call them over the weekend at home or on Monday, don’t give these scumbags anything, protest them all the time and make their life hell for destroying your State.

[cherry]

I’m anxious for “married” gays to start taking on the responsibilities of married regular people....especially the TAXES that they’ve skirted all these years...

[little jeremiah]

The fiend doesn’t waste any time, does he.

Just to make sure everyone knows the real reasons the homosexual agenda pushers want same sex “marriage” and it has nothing to do with “love”, monogamy or pretend family life.

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.]

[headstamp 2]

“So I have a question. If I wanted to marry a male friend ( I’m a male) with no sex involved, I could do it in NY and the other states that have passed similar laws. You don’t have to prove a sexual relationship. There are several reasons why this might make sense to do. Citizenship rights is just one of them. Of course it would be a sham deal, but so what. This is going to lead to a lot of complications.”

You are on to something there. Especially as it relates the immigration.

[Ballygrl]

Hypothetically speaking, just say 3 people fall in love, or even 4 people, or 5 people, why can’t they get married? the fact that they’re not allowed to is discriminatory isn’t it? see the slippery slope this creates.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Nope. This is law of the land in NY now. The NYS courts are even more liberal than the legislature (state and federal) so don’t expect judicial relief. Gay marriage is a done deal.

[ABQHispConservative]

So, why couldn’t they put this crap up for a popular vote? Were they afraid the little people would not support this? Aren’t there enough welfare cases in NY to pimp this out? What a pathetic state, roads suck, NYC seems like a third-world country in most parts, too expensive.

[LonelyCon]

"I don’t think any other state had its legislature pass it."

Sad to say, "gay marriage" was instituted legislatively in New Hampshire, Vermont, DC, and now New York. That's three out of six states (the other three were mandated by state courts) plus the DC city council. I certainly don't like the outcome, but there's something that makes me feel a little less bad when it comes from the elected branches rather than when it's mandated by the courts.

[headstamp 2]

See post 13.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

This is NY we are talking about. I’m not so sure it wouldn’t have passed a popular vote on NYC residents alone.