Same Sex Marriage Passed in New York

[Political Junky]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

 

[martybegan]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

 

[Political Junky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html

 

[FuelRod]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

I'm guessing it means a house of worship (church) would not be forced to do a cermemony if their religious beliefs do not fit that of the law.
Perfectly reasonable as well as Constituitional, and possibly a model for other states to follow if the ACLU can keep its panties out of its ass crack.

 

[martybegan]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

I'm guessing it means a house of worship (church) would not be forced to do a cermemony if their religious beliefs do not fit that of the law.
Perfectly reasonable as well as Constituitional, and possibly a model for other states to follow if the ACLU can keep its panties out of its ass crack.

Your last sentance is the key. As we all know the ACLU has made a living out of having panties in said asscrack.

 

[Seawytch]

How is this not political when it was passed by the State Legislature? Guess the title should have been "Republican NY State Senate Passes Gay Marriage" for it not to get moved. (and so quickly too)

Ah, reminds me of my old board...{nostalgic sigh}

 

[George Costanza]

Something there is about conservatives that cannot stand empathy for others.

I love it.

 

[syrenn]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

That is just it, religion has nothing to do with gays getting married. Who cares if they will be exempt or not.

 

[gautama]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

I doubt if New York will have anything on the People's Republic of San Francisco.......the way I hear it they'll have a statute for GoldFish fucking, or somethang.

 

[gautama]

Something there is about conservatives that cannot stand empathy for others.

I love it.

YEAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those fucking conservatives piling up on our favorite whackjob pervert Weanie Weiner !!!

Those arseholes my even curtail GOLDFISH FUCKING in the People's Republic of San Francisco !!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, conservatives are proven to be on the wrong side of history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

There ought not be a religious exemption; when religious officials take on the role of civil servants, they ought to be required to accept the responsibilities of that job, however,

the exemption is a worthwhile concession to achieve the greater good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is this not political when it was passed by the State Legislature? Guess the title should have been "Republican NY State Senate Passes Gay Marriage" for it not to get moved. (and so quickly too)

Ah, reminds me of my old board...{nostalgic sigh}

It's a concession the issue is settled, and conservatism has lost the battle.

 

[Dabs]

To the OP's title.....*yay* (??)

 

[chikenwing]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

That is just it, religion has nothing to do with gays getting married. Who cares if they will be exempt or not.

Who cares or not?? Ya got what ya want so screw everyone else,you beg for respect but offer non in return?

 

[chikenwing]

I don't give a ripe you anyone marries,your pet pig will do,but don't expect nor demand that churches perform ceremonies against their will. Tolerance and equality works both ways.

 

[uscitizen]

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

I'm guessing it means a house of worship (church) would not be forced to do a cermemony if their religious beliefs do not fit that of the law.
Perfectly reasonable as well as Constituitional, and possibly a model for other states to follow if the ACLU can keep its panties out of its ass crack.

Your last sentance is the key. As we all know the ACLU has made a living out of having panties in said asscrack.

Yeah they defended Rush the pill popper for his doctor shopping.

 

[chikenwing]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

There ought not be a religious exemption; when religious officials take on the role of civil servants, they ought to be required to accept the responsibilities of that job, however,

the exemption is a worthwhile concession to achieve the greater good.

LOL love the double standard. you can't hear anything above the row over separation of church and state form the left until it fits their wants.

 

[Ravi]

I'm guessing it means a house of worship (church) would not be forced to do a cermemony if their religious beliefs do not fit that of the law.
Perfectly reasonable as well as Constituitional, and possibly a model for other states to follow if the ACLU can keep its panties out of its ass crack.

Your last sentance is the key. As we all know the ACLU has made a living out of having panties in said asscrack.

Yeah they defended Rush the pill popper for his doctor shopping.

The state cannot compel a church to administer a sacrament and as far as I can tell the ACLU is on the side of the churches on this particular topic.

 

[tonystewart1]

Just voted on. Link not available yet.

Curious to see the religous exemption, and wondering what the first lawsuit challenging said exception will look like.

There ought not be a religious exemption; when religious officials take on the role of civil servants, they ought to be required to accept the responsibilities of that job, however,

the exemption is a worthwhile concession to achieve the greater good.

What do you mean there should not have been a religious exemption? So the federal government has the right to tell me and my church what our beliefs should be.

What civil servant responsiblites are you refering to for preachers. They are not civil servants. You dont need a minister to get married.