NY Gay Marriage Baggage

[del]

Are you trying to say you think it's fair to force a photographer to shoot a gay wedding against their religious conviction?

No. They always possess the freedom to not open a business.

Everyone has the freedom to go hungry. Great argument dipshit.

it's okay to die of exposure, too.

 

[manifold]

No. They always possess the freedom to not open a business.

Everyone has the freedom to go hungry. Great argument dipshit.

it's okay to die of exposure, too.

Polk's idea of liberty is that you have the freedom to fuck off and die if you don't agree with his moral judgement and subsequent authoritarian dictates.

What an asshat. Seriously.

 

[Intense]

Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York's three top political leaders said Wednesday they supported several additional religious exceptions to a gay marriage bill and were in critical negotiations over wording.

Even if the exceptions are approved, however, the Republican conference, most of whose members oppose gay marriage, must send the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. The Democratic-led Assembly has already approved the bill but would need to approve any revised version that might come out of the Senate.

Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said that while there was no deal on the religious exceptions, talks were encouraging.

"We are going back and forth on language," Cuomo said late Wednesday. "But we have not hit any obstacles."

Exceptions to NY gay marriage bill focus of talks - WSJ.com

Negotiations were expected to continue into Thursday.

Negotiators are trying to include enough protections in the bill so religious groups that oppose gay marriage aren't hit with discrimination lawsuits. Those provisions also are intended not just for the few undecided senators, but to satisfy the entire Republican conference enough to send the bill to the floor.

"It's not just the people who are going to vote 'yes' or who may vote 'yes,'" Cuomo said. "The entire conference is looking at this language and the whole conference wants to make sure that they feel confident that if it comes out, and if it passes, that it protects religion."

Exceptions to NY gay marriage bill focus of talks - WSJ.com

Separation of Church and State. Why is the State Legislating Debatable Ethics???

 

[Intense]

New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults.

Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences.

1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry.

A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?

Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not.

2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits.

More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion.

3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships.

But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much.

Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage, and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model."

4. Education. It is possible the social impact of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage will be negligible. But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculums there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction.

5. Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now? Cont.........

Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change

 

[bodecea]

New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults.

Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences.

1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry.

A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?

Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not.

2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits.

More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion.

3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships.

But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much.

Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage, and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model."

4. Education. It is possible the social impact of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage will be negligible. But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculums there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction.

5. Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now? Cont.........

Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change

#5

 

[Intense]

New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults.

Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences.

1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry.

A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?

Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not.

2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits.

More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion.

3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships.

But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much.

Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage, and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model."

4. Education. It is possible the social impact of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage will be negligible. But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculums there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction.

5. Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now? Cont.........

Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change

#5

I hope you are not out cruising for recruiting too often.

 

[tonystewart1]

all you're doing is flapping your gums; you've proven nothing

Listen I have shown you in the Bible where God does not endorse homosexualtiy. I do not advocate violence toward homosexuals nor do I hate them. But they can not say that the bible supports their lifestyle. It does not. So yes I have proven the bible takes a dim view toward homosexuals. That was no great stretch to do anyway. Everyone knows what the bible says about it. Its been reapeated many times over.

Your mad because you cant take the bible and prove me wrong. I am sorry but the bible does not support the current feel good everybody is okay mood. If you are gay and you do not repent you will go to hell. Its that simple. I do not want anyone to go to hell but I will not let anyone say that the bible supports their lifestyle when it plainly does not.

Okay......here ya go, Bible verses are also provided.........

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

It's from a scholar site called Sacred Texts Archive. Internet Sacred Text Archive Home

As far as gays getting married? Well, the short answer to that is that marriage liscences could have 2 boxes, one for civil ceremonies (a la JP), and one for marriages. The only person that could sign the certificate as a marriage would be only an ordained minister.

However.......civil union or marriage, it all should carry the same legal rights, benefits and tax rates.

But, if you are gay and can find a church to marry you? Go for it.

No where in the passages you provided does it say the they lived together as a woman and a man would (husban and wife). They never did have intercourse. It is a brotherly love.

Beileve it or not I do agree with you on your point of civil unions. If gays want civil unions have at it. They should have equal treatment under the laws of man as any other married couple. They should not be harmed or treated badly for their bad decisions.

I say again. The bible, Gods holy word, does not endorse gay marriage and condems all sinners, gays included, to hell if they do not repent.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have been married to the same woman for 35 years, married in a Christian church, raised 3 children in that church and attend church.
Now NY allows same sex marriages.
My marriage will now never be the same and society is doomed to fall into moral decay forever because 2 people of the same sex, that happen to love each other, want to marry and share their lives together.
This must end. Gay marriage will destroy the world. The embers of hell will start to fall on us immediately.

 

[Nemo]

The real issue of same-sex marriage is legal recognition. Marriage is a right defined by state law. Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: “Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The recent constitutional challenges over recognition of same-sex marriage have been under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1); e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts (and now New York) moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and the issue raised is whether one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect. In this regard, Congress has enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a federal law that has to do with the applicability of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." 28 U.S.C. § 1738c. Thus, in order for laws providing for same-sex marriage to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997). Thus far, challenges to the validity of DOMA have not been successful. See, e.g., In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004).

NB: The Administration has recently issued a policy statement that the government will not defend challenges to DOMA based upon constitutional standards.

 

[Intense]

New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.

"That's certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. "It's truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won."

"We made a powerful statement," Cuomo said. "This state is at its finest when it is a beacon of social justice."

The leading opponent, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz, was given only a few minutes to state his case during the Senate debate.

"God, not Albany settled the issue of marriage a long time ago," said Diaz, a Bronx minister. "I'm sorry you are trying to take away my right to speak," he said. "Why are you ashamed of what I have to say?"

The Catholic Bishops of New York said the law alters "radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage."

"We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," the bishops stated Friday, "We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization."

Legal challenges of the law and political challenges aimed at the four Republicans who supported gay marriage in the 33-29 vote are expected. Republican senators endured several marathon sessions, combing through several standard but complex bills this week, before taking up the same-sex marriage bill Friday.

The bill came to the floor for a vote after an agreement was reached on more protections for religious groups that oppose gay marriage and feared discrimination lawsuits.

"State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues," said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. He said his organization would work in next year's elections to defeat lawmakers who voted for the measure.

The big win for gay rights advocates is expected to galvanize the movement around the country after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage - Yahoo! News

Congratulations, the ball is in your court. Do you run with it, play within the rules, Live and let Live, or force your will on the rest of us??? This remains to be seen.

 

[Gadawg73]

The real issue of same-sex marriage is legal recognition. Marriage is a right defined by state law. Texas, for example, recently passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which provides in pertinent part: “Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b ) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The recent constitutional challenges over recognition of same-sex marriage have been under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1); e.g., a gay couple married in Massachusetts (and now New York) moves to a state like Texas. Many provisions of federal law incorporate state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and the issue raised is whether one state’s law defining marriage must be given extraterritorial effect. In this regard, Congress has enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a federal law that has to do with the applicability of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution to state marriage laws. The act provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." 28 U.S.C. § 1738c. Thus, in order for laws providing for same-sex marriage to be given extraterritorial effect, DOMA would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997). Thus far, challenges to the validity of DOMA have not been successful. See, e.g., In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004).

NB: The Administration has recently issued a policy statement that the government will not defend challenges to DOMA based upon constitutional standards.

What a great hard working Congress we have. They always focus on the real issues that have the most impact on citizens.
They rightfully ignored the debt, education, energy, transportation, health care and a hundred other non important issues and focused and spent a lot of time drawing up, debating and passing DOMA.
And that act has saved us from disaster. It will balance the budget and make us competitive with other countries once again.

 

[Nemo]

That’s precisely the point. There is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.

 

[Sallow]

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gov. Andrew Cuomo said he was cautiously optimistic his gay marriage bill will soon become law as he held more one-on-one negotiations Friday with Senate Republicans. The Republicans who hold the critical votes say they worry Cuomo's bill doesn't adequately protect religious groups and churches that refuse to preside over same-sex weddings and other services..........

"There has been no decision — in fact that really was not the discussion — as to whether it will come out yet, who's voting for it, who's voting against it," Majority Leader Dean Skelos said immediately after Friday's two-hour conference.

The Long Island Republican said senators for and against gay marriage want to make the sure that if the bill gets a floor vote there won't be "unintended consequences to this legislation" — a reference to religious protections.

Skelos didn't go into more details but noted that some Catholic adoption agencies closed after a law was passed years ago prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Other Republicans have sought further protections of caterers and others who might object to providing services or a venue for a wedding of a same-sex couple. One proposal apparently not under serious discussion would protect individuals opposed to gay marriage from laws against discrimination.

"They want to make sure the line between church and state is intact and is clear and however the state defines marriage, is the state's business and it will not be imposed on a religion," Cuomo, a Catholic, said Friday.

"That is a very important point and I am as equally concerned about that as I am in achieving marriage equality," the Democrat said. "I believe we can address their concerns."

N.Y. gay marriage bill hits snags on religion questions - USATODAY.com

Where do we draw the line between Church and State? Individual Conscience and the will of the State backed by mandate. What does the State have the Right to Force You to participate in, where, how, and why is that line drawn in the sand?

Let's distinguish between Gay Coupling or Marriage Rights, and their desire to force others to participate against their will and conscience, by mandate. Why exactly can't we have one without the other? Is it that your Ethics are okay, because you are special, but mine are not?
It is right for you to impose your will on me because......

Marriage pre-dates religion.

Something the theocrats never seem to acknowledge.

And it's perfectly rational that government grants benefits to married couples and promotes families.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

My quality of life is no way diminshed because gay people marry. In fact, there is no impact at all. Gay people seem happy about the NY outcome and so I am happy for them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

California just lost the title of the US's gay mecca.

It's now NYC.

 

[martybegan]

California just lost the title of the US's gay mecca.

It's now NYC.

Unless SF gets blown (heh) off the map, it isnt happening.

 

[ABikerSailor]

California just lost the title of the US's gay mecca.

It's now NYC.

Unless SF gets blown (heh) off the map, it isnt happening.

California doesn't allow gay marriage, NY does.

Unless California allows gay marriage soon, SF is gonna lose to NYC.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Is this an east coast west coast tupac biggie issue?

 

[bodecea]

New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults.

Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences.

1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry.

A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?

Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not.

2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits.

More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion.

3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships.

But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much.

Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage, and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model."

4. Education. It is possible the social impact of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage will be negligible. But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculums there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction.

5. Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now? Cont.........

Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change

#5

I hope you are not out cruising for recruiting too often.

One can never have too many toaster ovens.....

 

[bodecea]

I have been married to the same woman for 35 years, married in a Christian church, raised 3 children in that church and attend church.
Now NY allows same sex marriages.
My marriage will now never be the same and society is doomed to fall into moral decay forever because 2 people of the same sex, that happen to love each other, want to marry and share their lives together.
This must end. Gay marriage will destroy the world. The embers of hell will start to fall on us immediately.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Our ebil plan to take over the world with gay marriage laaazurs (insert finger quotation motion here) is working....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!