Same-Sex Marriage Amendment NY State

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

Do heterosexual couples have the choice of just entering into civil unions too?

Only if they promise to have gay sex with one another.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Smart move to give a shot in the arm to New York tourist industry. Everybody knows gay men have lots of money to spent, not having the hetero partner to max-out the credit limit on purses and shoes. It's amazing how they still manage to dress fabulous, yet still live within their means.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I just caught it off of a friend's site. No official news sources just yet. Hope he wasn't messing with his readers.

Caught it on FNC hours ago.

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

Caught it on FNC hours ago.

You really are a loyal Fox News watcher.

[dalegg 143]

Only if they promise to have gay sex with one another.

That sounds fair.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You really are a loyal Fox News watcher.

It's on so much, I hardly notice. It's like Muzak.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You really are a loyal Fox News watcher.

I like all the up-skirt and down-cleavage camera angles. No frumpy lesbians on that channel.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That doesn't sound any different from what civil unions have in California.

wait, wait, wait. In Vermont, why didn't they disband civil unions when Gay marriage became legal? You mean they have a choice? Do heterosexual couples have the choice of just entering into civil unions too?

Yes and yes. Whether gay or hetero, you can choose either marriage or civil union.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Smart move to give a shot in the arm to New York tourist industry. Everybody knows gay men have lots of money to spent, not having the hetero partner to max-out the credit limit on purses and shoes. It's amazing how they still manage to dress fabulous, yet still live within their means.

What about a lesbian couple?

FWIW I have read that so far, lesbian marriages far outnumber gay male marriages in Vermont. Lesbians are much more "visible" so to speak.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I like all the up-skirt and down-cleavage camera angles. No frumpy lesbians on that channel.

FOX has, by far, the hottest women on TV. It is almost ridiculously obvious that they are not necessarily chosen for anything else. I saw one the other day, forget her name, and it said she was a "former public defender" and I was thinking "...more like former exotic dancer..."

Do you want biased news shows from hot women or from the people on MSNBC or CNN?

[dalegg 143]

What about a lesbian couple?

FWIW I have read that so far, lesbian marriages far outnumber gay male marriages in Vermont. Lesbians are much more "visible" so to speak.

It seems like it would be that way. Men generally have to be pushed in to marriage more than women do. I can't imagine that the ratio of gay men who want to raise children is much higher than that of straight single men either, so for most couples it doesn't seem like there is much of a reason to get married. Especially if you can get most if not all of the same benefits in a less committal arrangement of a civil union.

[Boiler 45,514]

Yes. They can insure each other's lives as they now have an "insurable interest". They can be beneficiaries of health insurance, etc. They can make life or death decisions about their spouse in medical emergencies, as some examples. Whether that is better than civil union partners or not would depend on the state. In Vermont which has both civil union and Gay marriage there is no real difference.

Insurable Interest is not dependent on Marriage.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Insurable Interest is not dependent on Marriage.

But marriage and/or civil union is a way to meet that requirement. At any rate, the benefits of either civil union or marriage are basically the same and either homosexual or heterosexual couples can enter into either one, at least in this state.

[Amby 490]

Another reason why I NY

[danik713 21]

Another reason why I NY

And another reason why some of us don't. It's not like we have an economy or budget to worry about yet instead the government is more interested in "holy matrimony" ... go figure.