Hate to say I told you so… Him and Sam Hoyt pledged to make this a priority in this legislative session. In the big picture Sam, it does matter. (Sam’s response to me during the campaign for assembly.)
It most likely will be put in front of the voters in Mass and it should be here in New York. Let the people make this decision, not the politicians.
N.Y. Gov. Spitzer: Legalize ‘Gay Marriage’
Newly installed New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer intends to follow through with campaign pledges to propose legislation legalizing gay marriage in his state, the New York Sun is reporting.
As a candidate, Spitzer said same-sex marriage should be legal and he would seek to make New York the second state, after Massachusetts, to permit same-sex couples to wed.
“The governor made a commitment to advancing it this year, and he will do so,†Spitzer’s communications director, Darren Dopp, told the Sun.
However, the governor did not address the issue in his 61-minute State of the State address Wednesday.
But he did say he envisioned New York as a “state that understands that the civil rights movement still has chapters to be written.â€
Asked by a reporter if the “chapters to be written†included the gay marriage issue, he said: “It was a reference to a range of areas where the civil rights movement has not yet been completed, and I think that subsumes all of them.â€
It’s unclear how much support a gay marriage proposal would receive from lawmakers, according to the Sun.
The Democratic speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, hasn’t taken a position on same-sex marriage, and in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slight majority, GOP leader Joseph Bruno has said he is opposed to gay marriage.
2 users commented in " N.Y. Gov. Spitzer: Legalize ‘Gay Marriage’ "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackMarriage, a religious institution?
I have difficulty trying to understand why allowing gays to use the term “marriage†rather than “unions†to be such a sticking point. I have heard it often said by people that are opposed to gay marriage; say that marriage is a religious institution. Or using the term marriage will somehow make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or on a mountaintop, it seems to me it just doesn’t matter and that there are no restrictions. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.
I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages; they seem to be doing a damn good job of their own, making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t seem last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple, and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together, do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver Saugatuck, Mi 49408 269 561 6789 www.aaronjasonsilver.com
It is not merely an empty semantic difference. To establish a separate legal status for a particular group of American citizens is de facto discimination against them. In every respect, gay Americans are citizens of this country, paying taxes, raising families, participating in civic and religious organizations, etc. A civil union is a legal construct that serves only one purpose, and that is to satisfy the comfort level of people who wish to continue segregating this population so they may continue to feel that their relationships, their families, their place in the world is sanctioned and the “others” can remain second-class. As we have historically seen with other disenfranchised groups the majority still is uncomfortable with the empowerment of women and minorities that only the interventions of the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to flourish. Many Americans would certainly try, and in some cases, do try, to turn back the clock on those decisions. People don’t like change, they don’t like perceiving that their privileged and “superior” station in life is being challenged. Gays are one of the last groups to remain marginalized in this respect. And as long as our society and its laws view them as lesser beings, certain people will still beleive they have carte blanche to bash, insult, and even murder us.
Leave A Reply