Bbradley62 Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 6 down, 44 to go. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 A small step in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 A small step in the right direction. I'm hopeful that this is a reasonable large step...This is the first time that a GOP controlled body approved marriage equity. (FWIW, I still very much prefer a system in which marriage is a strictly religious ceremony that doesn't have any legal standing. However, so long as church and state are going to co-mingle, I'm very glad that the government isn't allowed to discriminate.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Surely it will be challenged? :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Surely it will be challenged? :(Shouldn't be. It's a law approved by the legislature and signed by the governor. It contains all of the reasonable protections for religious groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Definitely a positive step for America and against oppression. Congratulations New York! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces by Michael Barbaro NYT In the 35th-floor conference room of a Manhattan high-rise, two of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s most trusted advisers held a secret meeting a few weeks ago with a group of super-rich Republican donors. Over tuna and turkey sandwiches, the advisers explained that New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage and would deliver every possible Senate vote from his own party. Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals. But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views. Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million. Steve Cohen, the No. 2 in Mr. Cuomo’s office and a participant in the meeting, began to see a path to victory, telling a colleague, “This might actually happen.” The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed. But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition. And it was about a Democratic governor, himself a Catholic, who used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Shouldn't be. It's a law approved by the legislature and signed by the governor. It contains all of the reasonable protections for religious groups. Challenge does not mean prevail. Can anyone comment on the appeals process of a referendum compared with a legislative action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Challenge does not mean prevail. Can anyone comment on the appeals process of a referendum compared with a legislative action? I'm sorry to say Phil that you live in one of the strangest republics in the western world. I have no clue how your referendums work or their awkward legal standing. As for challenging a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, it is law. It can be ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court, but there's nothing in the constitution about marriage. Even if one wanted to try and challenge this, first you'd need to prove standing in the court (prove that you personally have been harmed and have a legal right to challenge the law in court). This would probably be the first big step and would (basically) assure that any legal challenge would be thrown out quickly. For all intents and purposes, the only going back on this in NY would require the legislature to pass a second law undoing it, and the governor to sign it. Not too likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces by Michael Barbaro NYTA great example of practical politics. Thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Challenge does not mean prevail. Can anyone comment on the appeals process of a referendum compared with a legislative action? Been a while since I lived I New York, but I don't think we had referendums... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Far as I know, we still don't. Here's some info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Challenge does not mean prevail. Can anyone comment on the appeals process of a referendum compared with a legislative action? New York state doesn't have an initiative process, unlike California, thankfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Far as I know, we still don't. Here's some info. And based on how well it's worked for California, be glad that you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 "Stupid activist legislatures. We need a lawsuit!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 Tricky question: What happens if a married gay couple moves to a red state? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 Tricky question: What happens if a married gay couple moves to a red state? Just curious.For now, it depends on the state. Some have laws explicitly saying that the red state does not recognize such things. Court cases will clarify the constitutionality of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 Tricky question: What happens if a married gay couple moves to a red state? Just curious.snarky answer: all the red-blooded American marriages in that state collapse from devaluation immediately. Or maybe not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 A small step in the right wrong direction. I realise I will probably be in the minority on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 I realise I will probably be in the minority on this forum.How do you answer the "rude" question asked of Santorum: do you have any gay friends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 How do you answer the "rude" question asked of Santorum: do you have any gay friends? Yes. About five with whom I have regular contact. Many more if you include those I seen on an occasional basis. I strongly object to the insinuation of this statement that my view is based on some kind of personal prejudice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 I strongly object to the insinuation of this statement that my view is based on some kind of personal prejudice.I, for one, wouldn't think that of you, but I am a bit surprised at your position on this. I'd be interested learning what negative effects gay marriage has that make you call it a step in the wrong direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 I strongly object to the insinuation of this statement that my view is based on some kind of personal prejudice. As opposed to the prejudices of your church? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 I'd be interested learning what negative effects gay marriage has that make you call it a step in the wrong direction. I think I know. He probably feels that unmarried people should not be subsidising married people, so that the ranks of the latter should not be expanded -- rather the economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated. Equality should extend not only to people who choose to marry, but also to gay and straight people who choose not to. Or who do not marry due to some other circumstances than choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 I think I know. He probaly feels that unmarried people should not be subsidising married people, so that the ranks of the latter should not be expanded -- rather the economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated. Equality should extend not only to people who choose to marry, but also to gay and straight people who choose not to. Or who do not marry due to some other circumstances than choice.I see. You are sure that Phil would be fine with gay marriage if the economic benefits of marriage were eliminated. If Phil concurs, that would be that. And I do agree that the economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.