Comments on: Paterson unveils gay marriage bill

By: CHARLES DAVID HASKELL

CHARLES DAVID HASKELL — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:11:20 +0000

why not? straight people have be making a joke of marriage. it appear that gay are more loyal to their life partner than the so-called straight people. good luck to gov. paterson and his gay marriage bill. he going to need it. your truly charles david haskell

By: Billbear

Billbear — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:26:33 +0000

It is thown in our face about government should not be involved in religion, so shall it be that religion should not be involved in government. I am a human first and the religion I chose to follow second. My human rights are not dictated by any religion.

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:40:34 +0000

LOrion, can you please give us a reference for your statement that divorce rates have dropped in the states and countries that allow same sex marriage. That would be helpful for us to know, but many people challenge such assertions by demanding sources. Thanks for your help.

By: Budbud

Budbud — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:42:33 +0000

O.k. TWO points here.

1. The Catholic Archdiocese of New York needs to be investigated for a possible revocation of their TAX EXEMPT status.

2. As my sister is a New Yorker, and I’ve spent a good deal of time there, I’ve come to the conclusion that New Yorkers are if nothing else, a pragmatic folk.

I don’t think our side should play heavily on the “look how this hurts our poor…pitiful families”. That should be about 40% of things.

In the case of New York, it’s not really about getting marriage rights, we technically already have marriage rights in New York, as the state already recognizes gay marriages performed elsewhere!

Silly as it sounds, it’s really more about WEDDING rights. Our side should make this clearly known and talk about ALL THE MONEY that the neighboring, gay marriage states are taking away from New York state.

Remind New York how much is spent on venues, flowers, catering, gifts, parties, hotels, transportation etc. as a result of gay weddings.

The pragmatic issue of MONEY is one that New Yorkers can get behind. If our side can play this as an issue of basic economics and portray the ban as a stupid loss of money for the state the business interests in the city will lean HARD on the upstaters in the legislature.

I think adds stressing that the current law DOES NOT keep A single New York State gay couple from obtaining a VALID STATE SANCTIONED marriage would go a long way.

Remind people that same-sex marriages are already legally recognized in the state and that New York law really just serves to send the money spent on the expensive window dressing known as a WEDDING to other interests in other states!

Even if a gay couple just goes to a neighboring state to get hitched with no frills, neighboring states are STILL getting the license fee, and their merchants are still getting the food, hotel and misc. expenditures.

In the current economic climate, I think such a message would go very far, especially if our side could get some well known New York business tycoons to make spots touting this message. Don’t talk about what’s right or wrong and how it’s unfair to the poor gays, just what a stupid loss of money the current law is.

This angle could even give reps from conservative districts cover. They could STILL pretend to be against gay marriage, but claim that since gay marriages are already a legal reality, the existing law just serves to take desperately needed money away from ALL New York families and doesn’t do a thing to prevent gay marriages.

By: George Mohr

George Mohr — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:00:11 +0000

I am not sure why Republicans want a religion based civil law. Haven’t they taken the forefront of the fight against theocracies in Pakistan, Afganastan, Iraq, Iran? If the Catholic Church’s congergations want theocracy, they should emigrated to above named countries. If the Catholic Church is going to function like a political group, they should be taxed like any other political group. America was not founded as a “christian nation”. The founders had enough concern about this to put the “separation of church and state” clause in the US Constitution. I do not want to marry but if you do you should be able to. These folks truly piss me off.

By: Rodney Moore

Rodney Moore — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:09:53 +0000

Drewski,, sir,, you are so well endowed with that brain of yours.

VERY well said!!

By: Bud Burgoon-Clark

Bud Burgoon-Clark — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:55:08 +0000

Arch-Weasel Dolan can kiss my divinely deviant derriere. Wonder how many notches HE has on HIS boy-boinking belt? It’s all right to fraak boys; it’s just not all right to MARRY them.

Yeah.

Right.

Bridge for sale here, half-price while supplies last.

He’s Maledict the XVI’s man … you can take it to the bank that he didn’t get appointed because he’s a compassionate liberal.

By: Jarrod

Jarrod — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:05 +0000

Bishop Dolan needs to pay attention to his child molesting priests and leave marriage equality alone.

By: Asheley

Asheley — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:48:29 +0000

I think we should start calling gay or same-sex marriage “equal marriage” or something like that. That’ll leave marriage gender and sexual netrual.

By: LEO

LEO — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:22:57 +0000

You can believe that the Right Wing Religious Charlatans will be working against equality in marriage and to maintain legalized discrimination.
Through Fear and Deception religion Legislates and Legalizes Discrimination and prevent Legislation that would give Equal Rights. Just assess what happened in California with Prop 8!