Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY leaders say no obstacles to gay marriage vote
Associated Press ^ | June 22, 2011 | MICHAEL GORMLEY

Posted on 06/22/2011 12:47:03 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: Free ThinkerNY
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.

21 posted on 06/22/2011 4:03:48 PM PDT by foreshadowed at waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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.


22 posted on 06/22/2011 4:09:47 PM PDT by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

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.


23 posted on 06/22/2011 4:19:28 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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.


24 posted on 06/22/2011 4:26:12 PM PDT by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: foreshadowed at waco
"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.
25 posted on 06/22/2011 4:28:17 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

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.


26 posted on 06/22/2011 4:31:57 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

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.


27 posted on 06/22/2011 5:14:29 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: foreshadowed at waco

>> 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.


28 posted on 06/22/2011 8:24:54 PM PDT by Gene Eric (*** Jesus ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: foreshadowed at waco

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.”


29 posted on 06/23/2011 2:33:50 AM PDT by dupree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
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.

30 posted on 06/23/2011 12:08:30 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson