explosion: without possibility of reversalI'm not exactly an expert in NY State politics, but couldn't a subsequent legislative session simply pass a bill reversing it?
-Sen. Diaz Sr. - Marriage equality vote is "treason."posted by ericb at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
-Sen. Schneiderman: "You cannot legislate morality, but you can legislate justice."
-Sen. Adams: "I have never been more nervous than I am today." Read off names of states that sold Blacks into slavery: "Because a numerical majority is in one place. It does not mean they are in the right place." ... "You don't have to be gay to respect the rights of those who are."
-Senator Klein: "We owe it to the entire gay community around New York to pass this legislation."
Family Reserach Council Claims Obama Has A ‘Plan’ To ‘Impose Homosexuality’posted by ericb at 10:14 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
"Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on December 2, 2009 [81 favorites]
Creating a 'family partnership' under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.'
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family."*
"I don't know why it has to be done in special session. I don't know why it has to be today. Is it going to be done? I believe so," Diaz Sr. told me rather glumly during a brief telephone interview just now.
"Of course I'm going to vote 'no' - that's my position...I will hold all my comments for the floor if the issue comes to the floor. You will hear me say everything I have to say about it. I have a strong feeling that it is (coming to the floor). I’m in my office. I'm calling around. I'm praying."
"...I don’t know anything anymore," Diaz Sr. added. "I don’t know what’s going on anymore. People give you word and then they go back on their word. There is no gentleman’s agreement anymore. Me, I give you my word and I don’t go back on it. Not anymore."
For Massachusetts, a Chance and a Choice (by Peter J. Gomes | February 8, 2004)posted by ericb at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2009 [7 favorites]"When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620, among the first things they did for the well-ordering of their new commonwealth was to institute the Dutch custom of civil marriage with which they had become familiar during their long sojourn in the Netherlands.
The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590, and the first marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in exercise of his office as magistrate.
There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph Smith in 1629, but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who may perform such ceremonies.
This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the court's ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition, rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been since 1621.
Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of consideration, those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution.
No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church or with its blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these distinctions.
It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the constitution.
We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage, the so-called 'miscegenation' laws that obtained in many parts of this country within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious.
Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners
....[more]"*
munchingzombie: I will purchase and then eat a hat if this passes.Haaaaaaaats!
Dear Mr. Onorato,Now to find someone running against this asshole to donate to.
Your No vote on legalizing marriage equality is shocking in its cowardice. I won't attempt to dissuade you from being so comprehensively on the wrong side of history, obviously you've made your mind up.
It should be quite obvious that anyone running against you has gained at least one enthusiastic vote.
Sincerely,
Skorgu
"I wasn't expected to be betrayed, and so I have some justified anger. But it's just going to propel me to - I don't want to say redouble my efforts, because my efforts have been pretty strong - but I'm not going to let up. I'm angry. I'm disappointed. I am let down. I'm betrayed. But I am not going away...Unfortunately, I think there was a contagious lack of backbone that occurred here today. And I’m angry about that and sad about that, but it was contagious. Similarly, the opposite would have meant far more votes than anyone had expected but unfortunately that wasn’t the way it went today."posted by ericb at 2:30 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
"The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: 'Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce..."posted by ericb at 2:50 PM on December 2, 2009
Evangelicals: Why Do We Have the Highest Divorce Rate?
Proposition: 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act -- "Safeguarding Marriage From The Evils of Divorce." [video | 02:07]."'Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more,' [John Marcotte] the 38-year-old married father of two said. ...
Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.
As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be 'impractical,' said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8. ...
Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.
'That's where our intention begins and ends,' he said.
Funny, what's preventing Prentice...from using similar logic in his battle against same-sex nuptials? Couldn't he be content with 'seeing fewer gay marriages' through advocacy instead of rewriting the California Constitution, just as he does in his efforts to reduce the divorce rate of straight couples?"*
"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."posted by ericb at 2:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [15 favorites]
'Traditionalist' Rhode Island Gov Joins Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign.posted by ericb at 3:04 PM on December 2, 2009
Rhode Island Governor Won't Even Give Rights to Dead Gays."If you're gay and you die in Rhode Island your domestic partner won't be able to make funeral arrangements for you because Governor Donald Carcieri just vetoed a bill providing for that.
Why?
According to Carcieri, 'This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.'"
"Today we share in the frustration and disappointment that the Senate did not pass the marriage equality bill. We are deeply saddened that the Democratic Conference failed to secure the votes they promised, undermining the possibility of a credible bipartisan vote of conscience on the merits of marriage equality. Winning marriage equality in New York requires the Democrats to keep their promises, and Log Cabin will continue to work to ensure that Republicans vote their conscience when that finally happens."Yes, and how's that whole "working on Republicans to ensure they vote their conscience" thing going for you bastards? Blame the Dems, who at least voted in large numbers in favor, yet completely give the Republicans a pass when they're the ones that unanimously voted no???
As a straight, married man, it baffles me why people are threatened by extending basic human rights to those different than them.posted by phrenq at 5:41 PM on December 2, 2009
What possible reason could you have for voting against this bill? Religion? It has no place in government. Lack of support in your district? While I can't support it, at least I could understand your motivation. Is there some other reason I don't understand? I genuinely want to know.
Marriage equality WILL happen sooner or later, and you will be on the wrong side of history. What will you have to say to the generations to come? Shame on you.
"Here are the eight 'no' votes from Democrats on marriage equality in New York state today, along with their email addresses if you'd care to speak your mind. The percentage before their names...represents — FYI — their 2008 general election percentages.posted by ericb at 5:44 PM on December 2, 200953% Aubertine (Upstate) - aubertin@senate.state.ny.usLooks like efforts need to focus on Queens, where four of the eight senators reside."
53% Stachowski (Upstate) - stachows@senate.state.ny.us
58% Addabbo (Queens) - addabbo@senate.state.ny.us
81% Onorato (Queens) - onorato@senate.state.ny.us
93% Diaz (Bronx) - diaz@senate.state.ny.us
93% Kruger (Kings) - kruger@senate.state.ny.us
100% Huntley (Queens) - shuntley@senate.state.ny.us
100% Monserrate (Queens) - monserra@senate.state.ny.us
You have no knowledge of what you're talking about, and no appreciation for the nuances of internal politics of an organization more vast and more subtle than you could possibly comprehend. Do you know how many people a billion people is? Do you have any concept? Do you know what two millennia of tradition is like? Is it any wonder that the more rarefied levels of leadership are slow-moving?This doesn't read like a very good defense of the Vatican, honestly.
## "...I don’t know anything anymore," Diaz Sr. added. "I don’t know what’s going on anymore. People give you word and then they go back on their word. There is no gentleman’s agreement anymore. Me, I give you my word and I don’t go back on it. Not anymore."
## Diaz: … "Better to keep your word than make other people look like the bad guy."Sounds like he was expecting the vote to go the other way, and was feeling betrayed by specific people. Anyone know what the story behind that is?
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.You may be embarrassed by the teachings of your own church, but lying about what it (i.e., the hierarchy) clearly teaches in order to avoid the issue is just evil. So is, by the way, playing shitty semantic games so you can weasel out of association with a church hierarchy that blatantly teaches bigotry.
...
The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
...
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
A reasonable non-catholic who hasn't been taught the nuances of the teachings could think that the church teaches that homosexuals aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Nobody is being an anti-catholic bigot by saying that they think the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong. That's a fair assessment of catholic dogma. And once you've accepted that, the parade of horribles follows.Tracking back through the thread, it's clear that he's not limiting his comment in some strictly technical sense the way you describe. He was talking in the broader sense about how the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is wrong, explicitly as it manifests in the outworkings of civil rights, and how it is therefore easy for a reasonable non-Catholic to walk away with that impression.
...Have YOU read the Bible?EmpressCallipygos, while I applaud those who try to extract a more compassionate faith from the subtext of Christian scripture, it's more than fair to say that the interpretations you cite are far outside the mainstream of Christian theology and thought. Cherry picking ambiguous statements like that is not likely to convince a conservative Christian that they should be cool with gay people: they will get angry and tell you that you are engaging in perverse distortions of Scripture.
I don't hate them, but I hate their Catholicism.That isn't bigotry. That's loving the sinner and hating the sin, which is a sentiment that some guy who's really important to Christians advocated at some point. Shit, what was his name?
Franken: You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow.Religious reformers, or reformers of any stripe are open and accepting of honest and well-intended criticism. Owning up to those flaws is an essential part of helping the organiztion grow and change. Reformers understand the ways in which the organizations they try to change have caused or are causing serious harm, and don't begrudge others well-justified anger and frustration.
« Older Izza Kizza - I'm The Izza Kizza (lyrics nsfw) by Y... | Metafilter knows that texting ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by gerryblog at 9:16 AM on December 2, 2009