Same-sex marriage defeated in state Senate Bill fails to draw GOP support to overcome Democratic defections
Capitol bureau Last updated: 4:14 p.m., Wednesday, December 2, 2009
ALBANY -- The state Senate rejected a bill to legalize gay marriage in New York, voting 38-24 to defeat the measure. The legislation, which had been halted from coming to the floor of the Senate several times in recent years, received no votes from the 30 members of the Republican conference as well as eight Democrats: Ruben Diaz Sr., Joseph Addabbo, Shirley Huntley, Darrel Aubertine, Carl Kruger, Hiram Monserrate, George Onorato and William Stachowski. With the exception of Diaz, none of the senators who voted no explain their stance in the chamber
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Re Dec. 6 article, “Gay marriage advocates still optimistic”: Well, they did it again. They (our New York state Senate) voted down the same-sex marriage proposal. They made and repeated the fundamental error of not learning and applying the evolutionary progress of mankind, which attempts to improve the lifestyle of most people while doing no harm to others (i.e., marriage of white and black). They also continued to follow the sheep mentality — perhaps as part of a quid pro quo with their party leaders. These people are supposed to be leaders, not followers of the out-of-touch voters who also resist change to their preconceived conceptions. Also don’t forget that this issue is an important economic factor for this group of people. Maybe the court system can better replace the politics and emotion with logic and perspective.
Most often, the loudest and most vocal people are the ones to whom media attention is given. That media attention is going to those outraged by the defeat of same-sex marriage in New York state. I can empathize with their frustration; I know if I were in their shoes I would be beyond upset. That being said, our representatives are voted into office based on their political views, and they are obligated to represent those who elected them. That is why the United States is a representative democracy. People can disagree with the vote, but there was nothing unconstitutional or unfair about it. It is fairly common knowledge that marriage is a Christian institution as first set up in the Bible. It is a reflection of the marriage between God and his people and was designed to take place between a man and a woman, period. There is no other definition for marriage. If couples of the same sex who love each other would like to be joined and have recognition by their state and country, I understand. But I hope they can understand the opposing viewpoint that believes marriage has, since its origin, been defined and designed to be a union between a man and a woman. It is the basis for the family and thereby a basis for civilization. I believe it is vital to the health of our nation that marriage remains as it is. I would encourage the media to try to represent the majority of people who are actually pleased with the state’s decision, and not only those who are angry.
Please do everything you can to publicize this simple fact: Homosexuality is not a “civil right.” Homosexuality is a moral issue and a behavioral issue. It is certainly not a fact that homosexuality is an unavoidable, innate, genetic condition such as dark skin or blonde hair so that it would need to be protected from discrimination. And even if homosexuality were to be proven one day to have a certain element of genetic predisposition, that would not mean the behavior is correct (or protectable by law). For example, I know children who are born with propensities toward certain behaviors, such as a quick temper or emotional oversensitivity, so that they are easily disturbed by teasing. Children with such innate, inborn tendencies need to be coached. The behaviors that result from the propensities, such as hitting in anger, or emotional breakdowns in pools of tears, need to be modified appropriately so that the child can learn to function in society. In fact, all of us have certain traits we are born with that we have to learn to moderate and control appropriately to be better human beings. Homosexual urges, where they appear in certain humans, are no different. Marriage, since the creation of the world, was designed by God with a beautiful vision in mind. A man and a woman come together complementarily, in a loving, nurturing relationship, for life. Though the vision is lofty and often difficult to attain, especially in recent times, let us strive to move toward the vision rather than further away. Maintaining the sanctity of marriage is best for all of society and for our children.
Homosexuality is not some problem that needs to be fixed
Mr. Ken Carlstedt’s Dec. 27 anti-gay civil rights letter — suggesting a child’s temper or oversensitivity to teasing are, like homosexual “tendencies,” something to be “coached” away — shows little understanding of children or psychology. Sensitivity to teasing, not to mention anger, signal a child’s need to be listened to, not fixed. Rather than encouraging children to “get over it,” adults need to lovingly help them name what is hurting or angering them. Bullying is rampant in our schools. In Schenectady we’ve felt its sting. Social workers, child psychologists and community leaders see the lasting effects of “teasing.” Children learn words like “f*g**t,” racial expletives, and anti-religious jibes from adults. As a teaching artist, I hear people of all ages share stories of prejudice they have witnessed and experienced. Victims of slurs carry emotional scars, often for a lifetime. The American Psychiatric Association long ago opposed “reparative” or “conversion” therapy for homosexual orientation, as did the American Medical Association, the American Psychologists Association and the National Association of Social Workers. While cultural ideas change slowly, the courts eventually helped us accept interracial marriage, though sadly racial bias has not disappeared from our land of the free. Let’s see if we can do better by the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, sensitive and angry young people we claim we want to help.
Ken Carlstedt’s Dec. 27 letter about the legality of homosexual marriage was flawed in a variety of ways. Leaving my personal opinion out, I’d like Mr. Carlstedt to consider the following. Let us assume Mr. Carlstedt is correct, and homosexuality is not genetic but, rather, a choice. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: “No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Constitution does not mention that it only protects those with unavoidable, innate or genetic conditions. Civil rights are defined as those rights that have been historically denied to a group that they deserve under the law. Again, there are no qualifications of the group. As for his views on marriage, and the creation of the world, are they not just as much of a choice as sexuality? Don’t citizens have the right in America to choose their own religion? Homosexuals have the right to choose their partners and enjoy equal protection under the law, just as Mr. Carlstedt can choose to believe God created the world with a particular view of marriage in mind. Using Mr. Carlstedt’s logic, should agnostics be denied the right to marry? How about Jews or Muslims? Under the current laws of our country, homosexuality is a civil right. This logic is not meant to disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Americans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, the constitutional rights of all people as expressed in the 14th Amendment.
I say the same thing I have said several times before. People of a homosexual nature have the same exact rights any other person has. Any person, no matter what their gender, has the right to enter an agreement to marry with any other person of the opposite sex. What these people are asking is for something wholly outside the lines of anything that has ever been allowed before.
The debate over gay marriage in New York state and elsewhere has been difficult to resolve. As a means to make progress, I would suggest that same-sex couples and their allies advocate instead for civil unions. And it’s much more than semantics. In pushing the gay marriage agenda, which ignites passions about religion and politics, same-sex couples probably undermine their own cause. They fight against not only widespread homophobia, but this country’s very wise separation of church and state. A Jan. 3 letter in The Daily Gazette [“14th Amendment protects homosexuality”] hit the proverbial nail on the head. It argued that all men and women deserve equality under the U.S. Constitution, regardless of sexual orientation. Still, homosexual Americans cannot reasonably expect government to pass any laws that force churches to conduct marriage ceremonies for their group. A decent society like ours should grant equal rights to homosexuals, especially the many benefits related to marriage. That goal could be reached a lot faster if the terms were changed and the focus was on same-sex civil unions.
CAPITOL Same-sex marriage’s odds improve Cuomo backs legalization; polls show many others also BY MICHAEL GORMLEY The Associated Press
Lady Gaga on stage on Long Island this weekend, actors Kevin Bacon, Julianne Moore and Kyra Sedgwick on video and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in Albany are headliners in New York’s growing push to legalize same-sex marriage, a fi ght that may already be won thanks to shifting voter sentiment and a concerted, disciplined campaign. New Yorkers opposed to samesex marriage are being swamped by younger people who support it, while polls seem to show a new tactic by advocates is working in the suburbs and upstate, the more conservative areas where the issue will be won or lost. Five states, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have approved same-sex marriage laws. New York has always been a goal of advocates because of its size, high profi le and unparalleled media presence. “A win in New York will provide significant momentum for the movement nationally and, quite frankly, internationally,” said Brian Ellner of the Human Rights Campaign, working for same-sex marriage. “New York is very signifi cant.” ......................................>>>>....................>>>>.................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01600&AppName=1
CAPITOL Same-sex marriage’s odds improve Cuomo backs legalization; polls show many others also BY MICHAEL GORMLEY The Associated Press
Lady Gaga on stage on Long Island this weekend, actors Kevin Bacon, Julianne Moore and Kyra Sedgwick on video and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in Albany are headliners in New York’s growing push to legalize same-sex marriage, a fi ght that may already be won thanks to shifting voter sentiment and a concerted, disciplined campaign. New Yorkers opposed to samesex marriage are being swamped by younger people who support it, while polls seem to show a new tactic by advocates is working in the suburbs and upstate, the more conservative areas where the issue will be won or lost. Five states, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have approved same-sex marriage laws. New York has always been a goal of advocates because of its size, high profi le and unparalleled media presence. “A win in New York will provide significant momentum for the movement nationally and, quite frankly, internationally,” said Brian Ellner of the Human Rights Campaign, working for same-sex marriage. “New York is very signifi cant.” ......................................>>>>....................>>>>.................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01600&AppName=1
And I'm supposed to care what a bunch of ENTERTAINERS think??? really? although I have no problem with a gay marriage(call it what you will) I dont need a bunch of tutty-fruity entertainers who have nothing better to do than talk about how we can all get together and donate more money for this and the poor folks who dont have that and then sidel-up with our elected officials.....sounds like the Tudors to me......the court jesters are making policy? really? wait,,,,let's find out what the Kardashians think? or how about the Jersey Shore morons......
Lady Gaga---what a moving force.....yay
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
