Posted on 06/17/2011 6:28:00 AM PDT by flowerplough
Gov. Andrew Cuomo is lobbying individual senators in a quest to secure what appears to be one more vote needed to legalize gay marriage in New York and deliver a major win for the national effort.
The Democrat met with three Republican senators in his Capitol office Thursday and plans to meet with more on Friday, the day Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos predicted his house would bring the bill to a floor vote.
The quietly-called meetings come as talks drag on, leading the Senate's Democratic leader to say Republicans are more concerned with protecting their majority.
Some advocates thought a gay marriage law could be enacted as early as Tuesday.
"The meetings are ongoing," said Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto, putting no end date to the closed-door sessions.
"I'm still a `no,' I'm still talking to people, so I'll let that speak for itself," said Republican Sen. Andrew Lanza of Staten Island after leaving Cuomo's office Thursday night.
He said he continues to seek further protections for religious groups opposed to gay marriage so they can't be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse to allow their property or services to be used during gay marriage ceremonies.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Marriage should be the purview of the churches that performs such ceremonies...I could not have gotten married in the Catholic Church I was married in if I did not agree to certain religious regulations (you can be assured that a man-woman marriage is #1 on that list)
the state only needs to be concerned with contracts between people...let the state give out civil unions.
let the various churches give out marriages.(all marriages to be called civil unions by the govt...)
Gov. Andrew Cuomo is lobbying individual senators in a quest to secure what appears to be one more BLOW to New York
If its not a man-woman relationship, it is an arrangement/agreement/contract.
What people want to do in their bedrooms is not the government’s business. If the government wants to grant special legal status for two men, or a man and his mother, two-and-a-half men or a woman and her dog, that’s up to the voters who elect the government.
But it is NOT a “marriage” unless it is between a man and a woman.
Do not give a religious label to this abomination.
flowerplough: “Homos should be allowed to marry...”
You’re on the wrong site if you’re advocating for gay marriage.
Daisyjane69: “I have said, for a long time, that government should not be in the business of marriage.”
Then you’ve been wrong for a long time. Government is in the business of marriage for many reasons, not the least of which is its importance to a stable culture. I’m not going to list all the reasons here. This should be elementary stuff for a FReeper.
*
Oh, that's right. THESE SUPER-LIB DIKTATS ALWAYS LOSE WHEN THE PEASANTS ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE!!!
From, literally, Maine to California, gay marriage amendments have ALWAYS lost.
The commies keep hoping that enough brainwashing propaganda will change the basic truth of people actually knowing that homosex is a sickness. They have been moving the focus of self-justifying lies to a younger and more malleable group. (Now it's elementary school students who are being told that there are homosexual third graders that need to have the freedom to cross-dress and it's a hate crime to laugh and sneer...)
Opinion: Parents who try to claim that their Little Johnnie is actually a Jane, trapped in the wrong body, should be charged with child abuse, like it would have been for the last 5,000 YEARS!
“From, literally, Maine to California, gay marriage amendments have ALWAYS lost.”
As soon as they think they have the numbers, they will be howling for the repeal process for the pro-marriage amendments that have passed, as well pro “gay marriage” amendments.
Arizona rejected an pro-marriage amendment in 2006, by 51%. Then, in 2008, they passed it by 56%. Virginia only passed it by 57% in 2006. Hawaii passed it by an astounding(for Hawaii) 69%, but that was back in ‘98. Mississippi passed it by a whopping 86% in 2004! There are five states that passed amendments by majorities in the 52-59% range. I wonder how those votes would go in 20 years? In 50? Of course, that is if our masters in black robes just don’t decide to cut out the unwashed masses and decide for us.
Freegards
Those who advocate gay marriage are tools:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
Of all the libertarian arguments for sodomite marriage, this is perhaps the worst. Governments have been involved in issuing licenses for marriage for nearly five centuries. Prior to that the Catholic Church had issued banns of marriage for several hundred years (a practice that was also adopted by Protestants without revision).
By necessity, governments have an interest in marriage because divorce is a civil legal matter and always has been.
My only issue is that any kind of civil union type thing should involve two people. And no more. This is why I am not interested in changing the definition of marriage, to include multiple “spouses.” There is no good thing that will come of this.
That is the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard. Why are you okay with one and not the other?
And you better believe that if sodomite marriage becomes the norm that polygamy will be next.
Allowing sodomites to marry is an affront to six thousand years of Judeo-Christian culture.
You and the other libertarians need to understand that governments have been in the marriage business for centuries, it is a necessary function.
If sodomites want some sort of agreement for financial reasons there is NOTHING that prohibits them from entering into a legal partnership.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
There are SEVERAL posters on this thread pushing militant homosexualism!
Then you wouldn't have liked the Founders.
Homos should be allowed to marry
Homosexual marriage is impossible as they can't mate. They can only simulate genuine mating.
Any legal questions can be dealt with by a lawyer, wills,power of attorney etc.
1. It's going to happen anyway.
2. The government should not be involved in this issue.
3. It can be limited and controlled if we allow it.
There seems to be a complete inability to recognize the classic "slippery slope" in accepting civil unions between homosexuals. Of course, that leads us to:
4. The genitally mutilated are accepted as "transgendered", although they are nothing of the kind, and are considered "heterosexual" and may be eligible to marry.
5. Polygamy and virtually any other kind of marital or civil partnership now seems legally impossible to oppose given the above.
The goal on the part of those who are promoting civil unions is not civil unions. It is marriage and the affirmation of the state and society.
For what purpose? They have admitted that civil unions are a rung in the ladder to "marriage". they can already make wills and use power of attorney to speak for one another. What purpose would a civil union serve? None....except it's one more step down the slippery slope.
“Then you wouldn’t have liked the Founders.”
Some of the better-educated slaves in young America probably weren’t entirely impressed with all of the founders’ work, either. And my mom, wife, and daughters, they don’t always vote well, in my opinion, but I’m glad they can and do.
Hayna or no?
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.