Governor to make one last push for domestic partnerships bill

[Get That Fool]

Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the relevant part. Whether he was for or against it, he had NO business discussing it at work.

SHE brought it up to HIM. He didn't start the discussion. He told her how he felt about it, AFTER she approached him about her upcoming marriage to her girlfriend. Why wasn't SHE fired?

[Get That Fool]

NY Senate not expected to vote on gay marriage
By MICHAEL GORMLEY (AP)–

ALBANY, N.Y.— After weeks of uncertainty and pleas for action by Gov. David Paterson, New York's Senate wasn't expected to vote on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage during Tuesday's special session.

Speaking after the Democratic majority met behind closed doors, Sen. Neil Breslin of Albany County said flatly the bill wouldn't get to the floor, though it could come up later if other special sessions are called.

Sen. David Valesky of central New York also said it appeared the measure wouldn't get to a long-awaited vote.

Cont'd.....

[Get That Fool]

"I think it's a crushing blow," said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which opposes same-sex marriage. "I'm a little hesitant to call it dead yet. It's never over until it's over ... but if they had the votes it would have gone to the floor."

Although McGuire acknowledged the issue could re-emerge before Jan. 1, he said he doubted that lawmakers would be inclined to consider it next year, when they all face re-election.

There's more, but you get the idea. It will not be an issue in NY in the near future.

[Get That Fool]

From one of our founding fathers, speaking on the foundation of our country and what we expected from those who would join us to keep us strong.....

Ben Franklin wrote a pamphlet called, "Information to Those who would Remove to America." It was intended to be a guide for Europeans who were thinking of relocating in America. In it he said:

"Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.

"Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.

"And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country."

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped."

[Celebrate]

Get That Fool wrote:

From one of our founding fathers, speaking on the foundation of our country and what we expected from those who would join us to keep us strong.....
Ben Franklin wrote a pamphlet called, "Information to Those who would Remove to America." It was intended to be a guide for Europeans who were thinking of relocating in America. In it he said:
"Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.
"Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.
"And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country."
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped."

Uuuummm...that was a couple of hundred years ago and is no longer relevant, dear. Why don't we be realistic and understand that we can't turn back the hands of time. I, for one, would not want to. Besides, as great a man and American as he was, Franklin was a master politician and salesman. He was sent to Europe to paint America in the best of light to get this country populated so he probably said whatever he knew would make a new, dangerous and raw country attractive. I think that that quote can be taken with a grain of salt. It was an excellent sample of early American advertisement, for sure.

[Get That Fool]

Celebrate wrote:

<quoted text>Uuuummm...that was a couple of hundred years ago and is no longer relevant, dear. Why don't we be realistic and understand that we can't turn back the hands of time. I, for one, would not want to. Besides, as great a man and American as he was, Franklin was a master politician and salesman. He was sent to Europe to paint America in the best of light to get this country populated so he probably said whatever he knew would make a new, dangerous and raw country attractive. I think that that quote can be taken with a grain of salt. It was an excellent sample of early American advertisement, for sure.

Um, ALL of our founding fathers were politicians. What possible reason would he go to Europe and tell them this just because? I'm not trying to go back in the past. I'm showing proof of our history and foundation. It DOES still apply today, by the way.

[Celebrate]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, ALL of our founding fathers were politicians. What possible reason would he go to Europe and tell them this just because? I'm not trying to go back in the past. I'm showing proof of our history and foundation. It DOES still apply today, by the way.

What specifically in that quote applies to this country today? He said a few things there.
Franklin was sent to Europe as an Ambassador, both formally and informally to sell America as a legitimate nation and to form business and political alliances. The fact is, is was viewed as a bit of a snake-salesman and an eccentric by the more conservative American statesmen, which endears him to me, personally. He was an interesting character.

[soft landing]

If one studies the founding fathers carefully from current objective biographies by accredited historians and biographers,(NOT contemporary Christian prosyletizers or Harvard theologians circa 1840) one will learn that most of those guys were Deists.....period. Somewhat like Unitariarians, yet prior to that movement.

The most religious of all was probably Adams, but he too, was not very religious.

Franklin was indeed an eccentric snake-oil promoter. And they were all generally bright or brilliant, and superb politicians who well understood that religion can be the opiate of the masses, and a useful conventional morality tool and so they included some references in their rhetoric, whether they personally interpreted the Bible literally (and they didn't).

[JosephOne]

soft landing wrote:

If one studies the founding fathers carefully from current objective biographies by accredited historians and biographers,(NOT contemporary Christian prosyletizers or Harvard theologians circa 1840) one will learn that most of those guys were Deists.....period. Somewhat like Unitariarians, yet prior to that movement.
The most religious of all was probably Adams, but he too, was not very religious.
Franklin was indeed an eccentric snake-oil promoter. And they were all generally bright or brilliant, and superb politicians who well understood that religion can be the opiate of the masses, and a useful conventional morality tool and so they included some references in their rhetoric, whether they personally interpreted the Bible literally (and they didn't).

They still allowed more religious freedom than we do now. It is quickly becoming, especially if you are a christian, sit down, shut up...keep it to yourself and inside your church, your beliefs have no value or place anywhere else in society. Sorry soft landing but that isn't how America or the constitution made it, and neither did the founding fathers deist, christian whatever would have wanted it. It is more freedom, not less. Just less government restrictions, not more.

[Regina]

Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the relevant part. Whether he was for or against it, he had NO business discussing it at work.

Excuse me? He can't express his point of view? What happened to freedom of speech?

Also, the article I read said that she mentioned her marriage about three times to him and kept watching him, as if she was expecting him to say what he ended up saying (she knew he was against it). So she set him up.

[WildBurp]

Regina wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me? He can't express his point of view? What happened to freedom of speech?
Also, the article I read said that she mentioned her marriage about three times to him and kept watching him, as if she was expecting him to say what he ended up saying (she knew he was against it). So she set him up.

I totally agree with you. He was let go for voicing his opinion. Seems like SHE had an agenda and was basically trying to force her opinion and ideas on him. Why wasn't she fired for the same thing?

[Isaac C]

WildBurp wrote:

<quoted text>
I totally agree with you. He was let go for voicing his opinion. Seems like SHE had an agenda and was basically trying to force her opinion and ideas on him. Why wasn't she fired for the same thing?

She wasn't trying to force anything, she was trying to fit in a hateful, judgmental, Heterosexual culture. She should be able to talk about her upcoming marriage, and be congratulated, have some coffee and drive on. If he didn't want to hear it, all he would of had to say was that he didn't enjoy such conversation and drove on. BUT HE started preaching to her, and probably judgmental hateful voice (I'm assuming) and she told her employer. She didn't state she was getting married to piss off the church, or that she hates christian beliefs...etc. The only forcing was his preaching if any. Now I don't think he was forcing, but I do say if there was ANY at all, that it was on his part.

[Isaac C]

Regina wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me? He can't express his point of view? What happened to freedom of speech?
Also, the article I read said that she mentioned her marriage about three times to him and kept watching him, as if she was expecting him to say what he ended up saying (she knew he was against it). So she set him up.

As I was stating to Joseph, freedom of speech is great. I want to use it at work, and I have the ability, but I look around at my co-workers I realize that everyone has different views, expressions, ways of life, some sin, some hate, some love, some go to church...etc. It's a freedom because most businesses can't overthrow the constitution, but there is almost an unwritten rule that no one should talk about certain subjects because it will cause disruptions in the work environment. I love to talk politics with reasonable or civil people, but most people can't handle the reasonable or civil part, so I DON'T because I like to respect the others working around me. Same with religion, or dirty jokes, homosexuality...etc.

Please provide article stating that she KNEW he was against it and that she mentioned it "about three times".

[Get That Fool]

Isaac C wrote:

<quoted text>
She wasn't trying to force anything, she was trying to fit in a hateful, judgmental, Heterosexual culture. She should be able to talk about her upcoming marriage, and be congratulated, have some coffee and drive on. If he didn't want to hear it, all he would of had to say was that he didn't enjoy such conversation and drove on. BUT HE started preaching to her, and probably judgmental hateful voice (I'm assuming) and she told her employer. She didn't state she was getting married to piss off the church, or that she hates christian beliefs...etc. The only forcing was his preaching if any. Now I don't think he was forcing, but I do say if there was ANY at all, that it was on his part.

Well actually, it's been reported that she goated him on, and repeated her marriage sequence about 4 times before he said something to her.

[WildBurp]

Isaac C wrote:

<quoted text>
She wasn't trying to force anything, she was trying to fit in a hateful, judgmental, Heterosexual culture. She should be able to talk about her upcoming marriage, and be congratulated, have some coffee and drive on. If he didn't want to hear it, all he would of had to say was that he didn't enjoy such conversation and drove on. BUT HE started preaching to her, and probably judgmental hateful voice (I'm assuming) and she told her employer. She didn't state she was getting married to piss off the church, or that she hates christian beliefs...etc. The only forcing was his preaching if any. Now I don't think he was forcing, but I do say if there was ANY at all, that it was on his part.

Ah hell, you never heard of 'entrapment' have you? Know what you do when you 'assume'? Hey, if you are queer and telling me you are getting married, fine, but I don't want to hear the details of your wedding and life as I'm not pushing my heterosexual lifestyle on you. Besides, ain't it legal for a man and woman to be married? So why should she be special in this case?

[Isaac C]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Well actually, it's been reported that she goated him on, and repeated her marriage sequence about 4 times before he said something to her.

I have looked at about 5 different articles on the story, and still have yet to read that she mentioned it more than once. It's not that I don't believe you or that it didn't happen but I have yet to find it. Of course we don't know how offensive he was responding either, for all we know he was shouting profanities and yelling at her and telling her she's going to heck.

[Isaac C]

WildBurp wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah hell, you never heard of 'entrapment' have you? Know what you do when you 'assume'? Hey, if you are queer and telling me you are getting married, fine, but I don't want to hear the details of your wedding and life as I'm not pushing my heterosexual lifestyle on you. Besides, ain't it legal for a man and woman to be married? So why should she be special in this case?

I have hear of entrapment but I still have yet to find that she mentioned it more than once. I ASSUME, you are just ASSUMING that she kept saying it, trying to say she was wrong? I agree with you though, if someone has a religion, tell me you go to Church, that's great, but don't explain how faith helps you continue to live, or that your church sings great songs and try to 'recruit' me, or tell me what I am doing wrong in my life if it's something you don't agree with, or pushing a religious lifestyle on me.

It is legal for a man and woman to be married, but it is also legal to talk about a wedding regardless of who's in it, just as it's legal to talk about religion, my point has been in the last 5 posts is that at work because you can talk about it, doesn't mean you SHOULD talk about it.

[Get That Fool]

Isaac C wrote:

<quoted text>
I have looked at about 5 different articles on the story, and still have yet to read that she mentioned it more than once. It's not that I don't believe you or that it didn't happen but I have yet to find it. Of course we don't know how offensive he was responding either, for all we know he was shouting profanities and yelling at her and telling her she's going to heck.

It was on the news on television.

[Isaac C]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
It was on the news on television.

Well it should have a transcript or article based on what was reported on the TV. Maybe they were assuming also? Which station, I should be able to see their article on the subject.

[Get That Fool]

Isaac C wrote:

<quoted text>
Well it should have a transcript or article based on what was reported on the TV. Maybe they were assuming also? Which station, I should be able to see their article on the subject.

Actually, you can probably watch it on your computer. O'Reilly factor 'is it legal' segment from the day before yesterday.