N.Y. Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage

N.Y. Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage

There are 108 comments on the CBS News story from Dec 2, 2009, titled N.Y. Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage. In it, CBS News reports that:

New York's Senate today easily voted down a bill to legalize gay marriage in the state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#97 Dec 5, 2009
Fitz wrote:
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
Walter Fauntroy - Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
What's the point in quoting yet another old homophobe? Is it supposed to make a difference just because he's a black homophobe? All that proves is a black man can be a bigot too. Next you'll be quoting the founder of the KKK or
smith1

Houston, TX

#98 Dec 5, 2009
NY: did something right for a change. good for them
Fitz

Detroit, MI

#99 Dec 5, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the "landslide" in Maine or California? I'd hardly call a 52-48 vote a "landslide". You barely squeaked out a win, 6 years ago the votes were 70-30; obviously your days in the majority are numbered.
Someone dosent realy follow politcs very much. Think of presediental races were 52-53 is considered a landslide. Look at healthcare that may be passed by a single vote.

Anything over 55% is such a landslide that politicians will go running to the hills to avoid it...

57-43 = Oregon

59-41 = Michigan

48-52 = California

62-38 = Ohio

66-34 = Utah

67-33 = Montana

71-29 = Kansas

71-29 = Missouri

73-27 = North Dakota

75-25 = Arkansas

75-25 = Kentucky

76-24 = Georgia

76-24 = Oklahoma

78-22 = Louisiana

86-14 = Mississippi

56-44 = Colorado

6337 = Idaho

74-26 = South Carolina

52-49 = South Dakota

82-19 = Tennessee

57-43 = Virginia

60-40 = Wisconsin

62 -48 = Florida

53 -47 = Maine

These Numbers are so large its poltical suicide. More over they are starting to "firm up" as they say quite solidly. As the message gets out and wins like in N.Y. show that the faux "momentum" is not really there..

Add in a succesfull Supreme Court Victory and poliically and socially the "movement" grinds to a halt.
Carol

Fort Smith, AR

#100 Dec 5, 2009
wow, New York grew some common sense huh? The only ones that would benifit from giving gays rights to marry each other is gays, and of course the lawyers it will take to take all the cases created from the accusations of violating their rights because you looked at them crosseyed. They now have all the same rights I do.....now whether they want them or not is not the question. Can I get a law to specifically give me some special rights to marry a squirrel? I could just go marry a politician...lol And why would getting married make them feel any more honerable, when doing something so totally against the norm. I guess thats the whole point to not only make them feel more normal, but to force others to accept what they do as normal. And thats not hate to say that, just just more common sense.
Gay Man Rapes Boy

Phoenix, AZ

#101 Dec 5, 2009
A 24 year old named Raul Pando has been arrested in OKC for raping a 6 year old boy and knowingly trying to transmit HIV AIDS to the boy.

www.news9.com
"Man Accused of Raping 6 Year Old Boy"
Bulldog

United States

#102 Dec 5, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the "landslide" in Maine or California? I'd hardly call a 52-48 vote a "landslide". You barely squeaked out a win, 6 years ago the votes were 70-30; obviously your days in the majority are numbered.
Maybe you should read a little closer. Somebody posted that 51% of NY CITIZENS (NOT SENATORS) supported gay marriage. My response stated that if it ever came to a PUBLIC vote you'd find that the CITIZENS would vote in a landslide against gay marriage. Personally, I don't care where same-sex marriages are recognized. Nobody is going to tell me that I have to accept it, condone it, support it, or deal with it. I'd move my business out of NYS if I was told that I had to provide full spousal benefits to an employee in a gay marriage. I've already considered it due to the freakin' taxes here.
Proud supporter

United States

#103 Dec 5, 2009
I think maybe the homophobes might win this thing yet.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#104 Dec 5, 2009
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone dosent realy follow politcs very much. Think of presediental races were 52-53 is considered a landslide. Look at healthcare that may be passed by a single vote.
Anything over 55% is such a landslide that politicians will go running to the hills to avoid it...
These Numbers are so large its poltical suicide. More over they are starting to "firm up" as they say quite solidly. As the message gets out and wins like in N.Y. show that the faux "momentum" is not really there..
Add in a succesfull Supreme Court Victory and poliically and socially the "movement" grinds to a halt.
Keep on crowing, if that makes you feel better. You obviously think in the short term. The gay rights movement has been steadily progressing since the Stonewall riots in 1969. For 40 years we've been working to achieve equal rights in this country. Yes, there will be setbacks, but we always keep moving forward in the end.

If it takes another 40 years for full equality, so be it. I don't think it will take nearly that long, but I'm sure you'll keep bringing up 5 year old votes that keep getting closer & closer to passing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#105 Dec 5, 2009
Bulldog wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should read a little closer. Somebody posted that 51% of NY CITIZENS (NOT SENATORS) supported gay marriage. My response stated that if it ever came to a PUBLIC vote you'd find that the CITIZENS would vote in a landslide against gay marriage. Personally, I don't care where same-sex marriages are recognized. Nobody is going to tell me that I have to accept it, condone it, support it, or deal with it. I'd move my business out of NYS if I was told that I had to provide full spousal benefits to an employee in a gay marriage. I've already considered it due to the freakin' taxes here.
I think you should leave New York state regardless of gay marriage. I'm sure you'd be much more comfy in a state like alabama or kansas or mississippi with the rest of the bigots.
The Virgin Queen

AOL

#106 Dec 5, 2009
Proud supporter wrote:
I think maybe the homophobes might win this thing yet.
What a glorious day that will be.

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#107 Dec 5, 2009
American Dood wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about??? Were does it say people have the right to change definitions of government-social institutions. Under law, federal and state Marriage is defined.
Were in the constitution does it say you can change the definition of marriage as an inalienable right??
You pro-gay supporters have a very thin argument that is falling apart, as the backlash against changing marriage is growing.
EVEN the president doesn't support gay marriage. If Obama, a liberal democrat doesn't support marriage why should a moderate ?
Where in the Constitution does it say you can define marraige to exclude certain groups you don't like and give only some people the benefits of marraige based solely on their sex?
The 14th amendment says specifically that you can NOT do that.

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#108 Dec 5, 2009
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone dosent realy follow politcs very much. Think of presediental races were 52-53 is considered a landslide. Look at healthcare that may be passed by a single vote.
Anything over 55% is such a landslide that politicians will go running to the hills to avoid it...
57-43 = Oregon
59-41 = Michigan
48-52 = California
62-38 = Ohio
66-34 = Utah
67-33 = Montana
71-29 = Kansas
71-29 = Missouri
73-27 = North Dakota
75-25 = Arkansas
75-25 = Kentucky
76-24 = Georgia
76-24 = Oklahoma
78-22 = Louisiana
86-14 = Mississippi
56-44 = Colorado
6337 = Idaho
74-26 = South Carolina
52-49 = South Dakota
82-19 = Tennessee
57-43 = Virginia
60-40 = Wisconsin
62 -48 = Florida
53 -47 = Maine
These Numbers are so large its poltical suicide. More over they are starting to "firm up" as they say quite solidly. As the message gets out and wins like in N.Y. show that the faux "momentum" is not really there..
Add in a succesfull Supreme Court Victory and poliically and socially the "movement" grinds to a halt.
And yet if you look at any polls support for gay marraige in the lower age ranges (18 - 30) it is very high, and in the very old ranges (60+) it is very low. So if you do the math, in 10 years when you loose lots of very old voters and gain lots of very young voters these numbers will shift dramitcally and keep shifting.

Eventually gay marraige will pass, or the government will get out of the business of marrying people.
Bulldog

United States

#110 Dec 5, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you should leave New York state regardless of gay marriage. I'm sure you'd be much more comfy in a state like alabama or kansas or mississippi with the rest of the bigots.
That's right. You can't stand people that disagree with you so you resort to name calling. I didn't calling you a derogatory name until now you fudgepacker.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#112 Dec 5, 2009
The Virgin Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
New York is a liberal state and even there the politicians know it would be risky to their careers to support the gay agenda. Nothing shoots a hole in my theory. Have you forgotten the topic of this thread?
no, have you?

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#113 Dec 5, 2009
Bulldog wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. You can't stand people that disagree with you so you resort to name calling. I didn't calling you a derogatory name until now you fudgepacker.
oh, wow... sheeple! he called you a 'fudgepacker'. i guess that put you in your place, didn't it?
OGGA

Queens Village, NY

#116 Dec 5, 2009
The New York Senate votes down Gay Marriage on the same day that Tiger Woods admits to cheating in his Heterosexual marriage.

How ironic.
FastFred

Gulf Shores, AL

#118 Dec 5, 2009
Guy wrote:
There are lots of simultaneous discussions going on at once, which doesn't serve anyone well.
The word marriage is being used multiple ways:
- To describe the state of an emotional relationship between people
- To describe the state of legal contract between people as sanctioned by a particular government body
- To describe the state of social contract between people as sanctioned by a religious organization.
This discussion would have been over a long time ago if we didn't use one word to describe three things!
To those who feel that their "Sanctity of Marriage" is threatened by any actions of any other entity in the universe, I pity you. You've subjugated your happiness to how a third party views you. I'll go further and say that if they weren't "victimized" by the thoughts and feelings of others on this issue, it would be something else. It is a form of mental illness. And just because there are crowds of people that think and say the same thing doesn't mean it isn't an illness, it's just an illness in the context of a plague.
To those who seek equal-treatment-under-the-law, I am sympathetic. Heterosexual couples enjoy (although it sometimes isn't in their favor) different legal status as recognized by government, employers, hospitals, insurance companies, etc., than those that aren't. "Those that aren't", includes not only same-sex couples, but also singles. And to be honest, I think that those that are for same sex marriage would find more allies in their cause if they advocated for universal equality rather than marriage parity.
The original flaw here is that our government segregates the populous into married and not-married individuals. I say segregated because they are not treated equally. Why is this tolerated? Isn't our country founded on the principles that all individuals are to be treated equally? Equality is absolute and should not be based on the manner in which an individual associates with other individuals. What we have is a case where our government is operating in a manner that is in conflict with the fundamental rights assured it's citizens. This isn't unique, we've fixed these kinds of flaws in the past and been better for it.
Those who seek recognition from your respective religion organizations, best of luck to you, the only dog in the fight on that one is you and your fellow parishioners.
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost.... There is no authority, civil or religious there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.4
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a Eutopia what a Paradise would this region be!5
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.6
hello there

Troy, NY

#119 Dec 5, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you're not going to like the next 5 years, because this issue isn't going away. D.C. just voted to approve same-sex marriages and New Jersey is set to vote next week. We'll be back for votes in California, Maine, New York, and elsewhere until they get it right.
the whole world is going straight to sh*t, queers oughta keep their sickness to themselves and out of the public eye.If you gays we're just born like that, when did this start happening, did gayness just evolve?Makes me sick!!!I'll move the f*ck out of new york or any other state that allows this horse-sh*t.Bunch of perverts, gayness is a sexual preference, just like child molesters have a sexual preference, should we as a country recognize that too? It's at just about the same level in my book!!!ROT IN H*LL

“: )”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#121 Dec 5, 2009
Good news! In New York you can *still* marry your first cousin.
Fitz

Detroit, MI

#122 Dec 5, 2009
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet if you look at any polls support for gay marraige in the lower age ranges (18 - 30) it is very high, and in the very old ranges (60+) it is very low. So if you do the math, in 10 years when you loose lots of very old voters and gain lots of very young voters these numbers will shift dramitcally and keep shifting.
Eventually gay marraige will pass, or the government will get out of the business of marrying people.
We are being told that legal implementation of gay marriage is inevitable. We have also been told that Hispanics will eventually become an ever-increasingly large segment of the population. These two "facts" cannot be reconciled. Hispanics may be, out of necessity as much as anything else, politically liberal, but socially they are very conservative. As their percentage of the population--and electorate--grows, their influence will expand. The next five years or so may be the last chance for the proponents of gay marriage to have a chance at broad acceptance. Also, the amusing argument that all those over 65--and anti-gay marriage--will die soon supposes, I guess, that young people who support it will not get older. And we all know what happens to people's political and social philosophies as they age. They tend to the right.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Marist College Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ex-Marist brother Gregory Joseph Sutton gets su... (Feb '17) Feb '17 CanberraFailsNude... 1
News Clinton, Trump Hold Md. Leads: Poll (Apr '16) Apr '16 Jeff Brightone 1
News Bernie Sanders Holding Rally In Hudson Valley (Apr '16) Apr '16 Sheri Lynn 1
News Why the female generational divide for Clinton? (Feb '16) Feb '16 spud 50
News Nude kids' images are shown at porn trial (Apr '09) Dec '14 Still today 10
News What if the 2014 election isna t really about O... (Aug '14) Aug '14 fatbacks x 7
News Marist Poll: Cuomo Apparently Hurt By Moreland ... (Aug '14) Aug '14 Sunny Sheu 2
More from around the web