NY governor to unveil bill to legalize gay marriage

[Niels Bohr 72]

Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:22pm EDT NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Governor David Paterson will introduce legislation on Thursday to make gay marriage legal, but the move faces an uncertain vote in the state's Senate.

If the bill passes, New York would follow Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa in legalizing gay marriage.

"The timing was always right," said Paterson, a Democrat -- who ordered all New York state agencies a year ago to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. "It's just who is willing to take that step, and I am."

Gay marriage has broad support in the Democratic-controlled State Assembly, where it passed in a vote of 85 to 61 in 2007. It was never put to a vote in the Senate while it was controlled by Republicans.

While the Democrats now hold a Senate majority for the first time in more than 40 years, it is slim -- 32 to 30 -- and at least one Democratic senator, Ruben Diaz, opposes gay marriage. He says the issue should be decided by a voter referendum.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire and Maine, which already offer same-sex couples some form of legal recognition, are also considering bills to allow gay marriage.

California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year.

Forty-three U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriage, including 29 with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Forty-three U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriage, including 29 with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of such amendments. What a sad reflection of our country's ideals.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The gheys are pissed about this move by Paterson. They don't think the timing is right, they think Paterson is setting this up for failure. They want more time to soften up legislators, wage a PR war to sway public opinion (this is new york state, not just new york city...).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gov. Paterson urges gay nuptials Senate vote

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson wants the state Senate to vote on a gay marriage bill, even if there aren't enough votes to pass it.

In an appearance on an Ithaca radio station, Paterson said Wednesday he doubted the measure would pass, but that it still merited a vote on the floor of the Senate.

...

Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, a Queens Democrat, supports the gay marriage bill but has not allowed a vote because he thinks it will be defeated.

"This is an issue that demands much more than a symbolic gesture," Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The gheys are pissed about this move by Paterson. They don't think the timing is right, they think Paterson is setting this up for failure. They want more time to soften up legislators, wage a PR war to sway public opinion (this is new york state, not just new york city...).

I'd rather see some gay couples challenge some states bans all the way to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules on gay marriage, it is going to continually be fought out among the states, which is asinine, IMO.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The gheys are pissed about this move by Paterson. They don't think the timing is right, they think Paterson is setting this up for failure. They want more time to soften up legislators, wage a PR war to sway public opinion (this is new york state, not just new york city...).

I'd rather see some gay couples challenge some states bans all the way to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules on gay marriage, it is going to continually be fought out among the states, which is asinine, IMO.

It should be a state issue, IMO.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The gheys are pissed about this move by Paterson. They don't think the timing is right, they think Paterson is setting this up for failure. They want more time to soften up legislators, wage a PR war to sway public opinion (this is new york state, not just new york city...).

I'd rather see some gay couples challenge some states bans all the way to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules on gay marriage, it is going to continually be fought out among the states, which is asinine, IMO.

It should be a state issue, IMO.

Not if you take the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection under the law' to mean that marriage for two consenting adults is a right afforded to all, not just some.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Not if you take the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection under the law' to mean that marriage for two consenting adults is a right afforded to all, not just some.

I don't take it to mean that at all. The state of not being married does not lead to loss of 'protection'. Not being able to include your gay mate as beneficiary on your insurance does. Not being able to include your gay mate on your health coverage does. None of those things require 'marriage'. They can receive equal protection without marriage. They deserve that from SCOTUS. Marriage belongs in the states.

[Niels Bohr 72]

wrong thread

Edited April 16, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

wrong thread lol

Edited April 16, 2009 by Randomizer

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not if you take the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection under the law' to mean that marriage for two consenting adults is a right afforded to all, not just some.

I don't take it to mean that at all. The state of not being married does not lead to loss of 'protection'. Not being able to include your gay mate as beneficiary on your insurance does. Not being able to include your gay mate on your health coverage does. None of those things require 'marriage'. They can receive equal protection without marriage. They deserve that from SCOTUS. Marriage belongs in the states.

I understand, but as long as civil law recognizes marriage as a right, which according to the Supreme Court, it does, then that right must be afforded to all.

Prior to Loving v. Virginia...

the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. (1882)

...

However, after Loving v. Virginia...

In its decision, the court wrote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

....

Right there, that ruling sets precedent for all future cases involving the right to marry...in my opinion of course.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Interesting. That sounds pretty retarded to me, but if a court says so.....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Interesting. That sounds pretty retarded to me, but if a court says so.....

If you look at marriage's existence in civil law throughout history, it makes logical sense. The origins of civil marriage had to do with property rights. We couldn't anymore remove the word 'marriage' from our law books than we could the word 'property'.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Interesting. That sounds pretty retarded to me, but if a court says so.....

If you look at marriage's existence in civil law throughout history, it makes logical sense. The origins of civil marriage had to do with property rights. We couldn't anymore remove the word 'marriage' from our law books than we could the word 'property'.

Today? Marriage is not necessary for my survival and/or existence. The statement is silly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Interesting. That sounds pretty retarded to me, but if a court says so.....

If you look at marriage's existence in civil law throughout history, it makes logical sense. The origins of civil marriage had to do with property rights. We couldn't anymore remove the word 'marriage' from our law books than we could the word 'property'.

Today? Marriage is not necessary for my survival and/or existence. The statement is silly.

I think it's element of property rights is still very relevant in civil law. Even if we erased the word 'marriage' from our law books and replaced it with 'civil union', the legal importance still hasn't changed. Do you really think those opposed to gay marriage would be in favor of removing 'marriage' from our law books and replace it with 'civil union'?