NYC Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage - Oh Happy Day!- Page 4
NYC Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage - Oh Happy Day!
#75re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:03am
Some facts about interracial marriage:
from http://marriage.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2Fdurable%2F2001%2F07%2F25%2Fp15s1.htm
"In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional."
Interracial marriage was made legal by a court case. You could say "activist" judges made this decision.
Number of interracial marriages in 1960: 51,000
Number of interracial marriages in 2001: 450,000
1991 survey by National Opinion Research Center: 66 percent of white Americans polled opposed a close relative marrying a black man.
More recent survey by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University found 86 percent of black respondents said their families would welcome a white person. But only 55 percent of white families would respond in kind.
And all of the same things said in support of banning gay marriage were said of interracial marriage:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#76re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:09am
Women's rights. Re-defining women's roles in society.
Minority rights. Re-defining blacks (and other minorities) position within society.
Gay rights - the last straw, and the one they must defend until death - or their complete belief system is in jeopardy, and that is not acceptable. That would leave them facing the fears inherrant in all humans - that they have given up to their fabricated 'belief systems'.
#77re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:18am
I agree. There is a bigger picture at work. Gay marriage is but one symbol.
And, I think the key to getting people to support gay marriage is two fold:
1. Making people realize that their churches don't have to accept gay marriage. It is strictly a civil right.
2. That gays do not choose their sexual orientation. And even if they did--religion is a chosen facet of human beings and is still protected.
People who oppose homosexuality try to pass it off as a behavior--one like alcholism, pedophilia, serial murder, rape, etc. The HUGE difference is that even if homosexuality was a behavior, it does not adversely affect ANYONE, where as those other behaviors infringe on someone's health or civil rights.
Then they try to say that homosexuality IS an unhealthy behavior. No---promiscuity may be unhealthy behavior. Unsafe sex is unhealthy behavior. But homosexuality has nothing to do with health.
The other thing is showing people that being gay isn't a lifestyle--it's just a part of who you are just like hair color or race or gender or religion. There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle. There are stereotypes of what that is--but it is the same lifestyle as heterosexual people who engage in a party and/or hedonistic lifestyle.
CurtainUp2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/8/04
#78re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:21am
There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.
- Nelson Mandela
Updated On: 2/6/05 at 02:21 AM
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#79re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:23amJRB - I agree with everything you just said. Please understand, though, that you are dealing with a subsection of society who is absolutely willing to argue about the scietific discoveries of things as basic as carbon dating. There is a substantial number of the population who has completely abdicated their 'god given gift' (I love that part) of awareness and sentience.
CurtainUp2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/8/04
#80re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:45am
Link to NY Times article for anyone interested.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0205-03.htm
There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.
- Nelson Mandela
#81re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:56amterrific! now all i have to do is bring tara mclain back to life, make her a non-fictional character, and move to ny! time, people, just give me time...
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#82re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 3:12am
feinstein - that was pretty funny 
franco2
Swing Joined: 1/19/05
#83re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 9:48am
Geez...where's ya sense of houmor?
Franco
#84re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 12:03pm
Well...Bloomberg didn't waste any time. Unbelievable!
City to Appeal Move Backing Gay Marriage
If you'd have been there...If you'd have seen it...I betcha you would have done the same! - CHICAGO
Understudy Joined: 12/31/69
#85re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 12:06pmI hope you're realizing that the reason he wants to 'move this along' is to get it decided by the highest court. He is fully in support of gay marriage, and has stated so very succinctly.
#86re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:22pm
Ah, but DG, the thing is, by appealing it, he can appease his Republican counterparts by saying he wants to see the litigation continue. That way, regardless of the outcome, he can win by saying a.) I wanted it approved statewide or b.) I wanted to see the ruling struck down.
Win-win!
CurtainUp2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/8/04
#87re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:35pm
Personally, I think it's a good thing. The state Court of Appeals will decide the matter once and for all. (Unless of course, there's a change in state law or an amendmant to the constitution prohibiting it.) It was going to end up there eventually anyway. While Bloomberg is obviously playing both sides of the fence (it is a mayoral election year, after all), on the one hand supporting gay marriage and, on the other, appealing the Supreme Court's decision, his statement, "I think people have the right to love, to live with and to marry whoever they want, regardless of their sexual orientation", along with his promise to "work with you to change the law" in Albany if the lower court ruling - which he called "something to celebrate" - was struck down, is a fairly bold endorsement coming from an incumbent official, especially a Republican one.
There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.
- Nelson Mandela
Updated On: 2/6/05 at 02:35 PM
#88re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:41pm
I can't even imagine why someone with that kind of liberal viewpoint on a social issue could be a Republican.
Except, of course, he's a multi-millionaire. Or billonaire. Whatever he is, he's too dang rich.
CurtainUp2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/8/04
#89re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 2:46pmMichael Bloomberg is to Republican what Paris Hilton is to Celebrity. They both became one practically overnight. And neither makes much sense.
There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.
- Nelson Mandela
#90re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 3:26pm
I am out the door so I hope this makes sense.
DGrant...there are so many things wrong with your statement...the most obvious being that we should have all learned by now NOT to believe everything that comes out of a politician's mouth. Perhaps Bloomberg's personal beliefs are such that he approves of gay marriage, but given his political position, I don't really think that he would take that position further than his immediate inner circle...no matter what he spews in public. Bloomberg has a large gay population in his constituency...better to appease them with words if at all possible. How many public figures, especially politicians, say one thing but do another? OK, maybe that was rhetorical. :-P Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy...and we all know the ending to many of those stories. That being said..I don't believe that an immediate appeal was the way to go.
First off, the attorneys for NYC have an obligation to zealously represent their client. Anything less would be unethical. This isn't my opinion...it is the reason every attorney has to take an ethics exam in order to be admitted to the NYS Bar. Been there, done that. If Bloomberg is playing games, then shame on him. It is wrong for anybody, especially a representative of the people, to mess around with the legal system. I'm not saying that it isn't done every day...just that it isn't kosher, and the process should be allowed to run its natural course. Is Bloomberg going to ask his attorneys to throw the case in order for the institution of gay marriage to be preserved? I don't think so. There is always a chance that the appeal will be successful. Then what? It's a win-win situation...just like Bwaysinger said. Bloomberg shrugs his shoulders and continues to remain in good favor with Bush and his cronies, thereby being at the head of the line when funding and other such goodies are handed out?
If the decision never gets appealed, which is unlikely, then the right to gay marriage stands unless another case twists it in the direction of another decision. At the very least, NYC could have waited until the eleventh hour and perhaps allowed a few gay marriages to take place, if only for show. This whole thing is ridiculous and was nothing more than a publicity stunt by Bloomberg. All he is doing is looking out for himself. JMHO.
If you'd have been there...If you'd have seen it...I betcha you would have done the same! - CHICAGO
Updated On: 2/6/05 at 03:26 PM
Plum
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
#91re: nyc supreme court decision on gay marriage
Posted: 2/6/05 at 9:27pmBloomberg couldn't have gotten the Democratic nomination against Green, so he became a fake Republican.
#92GAYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY:
Posted: 2/7/05 at 1:29am
Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
Updated On: 2/7/05 at 01:29 AM
#93GAYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY:
Posted: 2/7/05 at 11:38am
Wonder how long it will be before that is exactly the kind of United States we live in.
Videos