Saturday, June 25, 2011

Gay Marrage passes in NY

And I have to say good for NY. 

I freely admit I was against it when it passed in MA.  Then I got further and further into the gun rights thing, and the Constitution, and finally realized I was wrong.

The state has no place in marriage beyond recording it.  The Constitution does not say a thing about it, so they leave it up to the states.  But the states should not discriminate against anyone - so beyond recording who is married and who is not it should stay out of it.

I had to learn it but what it came down to is how can I expect anyone to respect my rights - be it over the Second Amendment or any other if I don't respect and fight for theirs?

Our rights are what they are, and the government is trying to slowly take them away in it's quest for more and more control of us.  We need to stand together and hold the line.  We need to force the powers that be to see we know what our rights are and we won't give them up.

So Congrats to New York, you have not only won your right to marry, but you have won for all of us a little bit of control over our lives back.



Serr8d said...

The issue of gay ‘marriage’ (instead of the less provocative but still legally binding made-for-gays terminology ‘civil unions’) is more about protecting the institution of and the existing rights of properly married couples than it is about denying ‘rights’ to gays, who if ‘married’ would cause great harm and lay waste with superfluous sham ‘marriages’, overriding and demeaning the meaning of marriage that many (but not all, obviously) really-married couples hold sacred.

You see, marriage goes beyond simple civil services. Religion is involved in real 'marriages'.

JD said...

Marrage is no longer only religous. The states have offered marrage by a justice of the peace for years and years so I have to disagree with you. Churches can refuse to recognize or marry anyone they want, but the state should not be able to do the same. Marrage as far as the state is concerned is a legal thing, a contract between two people and any two people should be able to enter into it. Because they are gay does not make it a sham, and they have all the rightes in the eyes of the states.

Now if you called EVERY state marrage a Civil Union since it was not a religous ceramony I would be OK with that, but we don't. Be it a state or religous union it is still a marrage.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"Religion is involved in real 'marriages'."

Assuming, only for the sake of argument here, that you are correct, remember that there are churches that recognize and perform gay marriages.

If, as you say, marriage is a religious matter, then the state still should not be able to deny recognition to any marriage performed by any church, regardless of the genders of the participants, as long as they recognize any marriage performed by a church.

Also, the terms "marriage" and "civil union" are not synonymous from a legal standpoint. Yes, some states grant civil unions all the benefits, etc., of marriage, but there is still no federal recognition of civil unions, and they are not normally recognized in other states as marriages are. They are not equal, no matter what some people claim.