NY leaders say no obstacles to gay marriage vote

Associated Press ^ | June 22, 2011 | MICHAEL GORMLEY

[Free ThinkerNY]

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- State legislative leaders said Wednesday afternoon there are no major obstacles to a vote on whether to legalize gay marriage.

Democrats and Republicans emerged from meetings with Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and said there is progress toward proposed additional religious protections that could bring a gay marriage bill to the Senate floor for a vote as early as Wednesday night. No deal had been struck as of Wednesday afternoon.

[foreshadowed at waco]

My 2 cents on this issue. On my NYC block there are 3 gay couples--2 male and 1 female. They are not flaming but rather sedate, quiet people who have been together for more than a decade. They don't appear to be predatory but are tax-paying homeowners in committed relationships.

I'm not comfortable with the term 'marriage' being used for homosexual unions because I don't want any churches being sued for discrimination but...I knew a gay man in a therapy group that I was in over 20 years ago. Despite having been in a long-term monogamous (as far as I know) live-in relationship with his partner, his partner's family would not let him into the hospital to sit with his partner when he was dying of cancer.

I have also been a teacher for over 20 years. I totally believe that there is more to homosexuality than simple lifestyle choice. Some people just simply are gay and they deserve to be treated like human beings IMHO. Believe me, some teenage boys don't want to be gay but they have no choice. Their lives are often painful emotionally for themselves and their families.

[ivyleaguebrat]

There is no “case” here in NY. Nobody in NY is (currently) arguing that same-sex marriage is constitutionally required by the NY constitution or the U.S. Constitution.

They’re just trying to pass it into law in the legislature.

The only “case” would be if opponents were to argue the NY constitution or U.S. Constitution FORBIDS same-sex marriage, which would be a tall order, to say the least.

[trumandogz]

If this law passes, there will be a case as Traditional Marriage advocates will sue.

And it will be a tough case to win.

At that point the SCOTUS will Roe v. Wade bans on gay marriage.

[ivyleaguebrat]

Eh... I don’t see it that way. The courts can say “the legislature passed same-sex marriage, and nothing in any constitution forbade them from doing so. They were only exercising their traditional state police power of regulating marriage.”

That is not the same thing as saying “every state must allow gay marriage.” In fact, I think it is much more likely for the Court to strike down DOMA section regarding federal recognition (not the section allowing states to refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages).

I think SCOTUS will likely uphold state-level marriage bans, precisely to avoid the kind of backlash and division precipitated by Roe.

[rollo tomasi]

"Believe me, some teenage boys don't want to be gay but they have no choice."

How come teenage boys have no choice in being happy? Sounds like a psychological problem that can be solved with the correct therapy.

[Dilbert San Diego]

The Supreme Court will uphold traditional marriage as long as the conservative bloc on the court stays intact until we have a new president.

If same-sex marriage went to the U.S. Supreme Court today, it’s likely that there are four votes in favor — Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Four would be against — Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. The ninth justice, Anthony Kennedy, would be decisive.

So, if Obama gets to replace any conservative on the court, he will appoint a liberal, and same-sex marriage would be definitely imposed on all 50 states.

And it could happen anyway, if Justice Kennedy votes for same-sex marriage.

[trumandogz]

Bottom line is that it will be in the hands of Tony Kennedy.

And with the NY legislature and courts on board, the SCOTUS will leave the NY law alone.

[Gene Eric]

>> I don’t want any churches being sued for discrimination but...

There is no “but...”. They WILL be sued.

This has NOTHING to do with allowing homosexuals to marry. It’s about forcing others to support it. Wake up.

[dupree]

And the reason two men or two women need to marry is..is...is....? Their marriages benefit society by...by...by....?

I can’t believe you fell for that “gay people can’t visit their partners in hospitals” nonsense. They’ve been repeating that line for years to get sympathy for their agenda (”Oh, how cruel these policies are against gay people”). I have one question: Why doesn’t the gay person just ask his/her partner to come into the room? Or tell the nurse that it’s okay for this person or that person to visit? I’ve visited several people in the hospital over the years and have never been told I can’t visit someone. And these hospitals don’t have signs on the doors that say,”No Gays Allowed.”

[Lurking Libertarian]

If that is the case, the CA Prop 8 case and this NY case will both go to the SCOTUS. And on the surface, it would appear that NY case offers the greatest threat to traditional marriage.

There is no New York "case." The New York courts years ago decided that the New York Constitution provides no right to gay marriage. The New York Legislature is considering changing the State's law to allow gay marriage.