• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[NY Gov.] Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Paterson Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com

Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday will announce plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor’s plans.

Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.
Click to expand...

If he actually follows through on this and gets it passed, that will be the second great thing he's done in his term. It looks unlikely though:
The fact that Mr. Paterson is introducing a bill does not, however, mean that action in the Legislature is imminent. It could take months — even longer — before the bill makes its way through the appropriate committees and onto the floor of the Senate and the Assembly.

“This is not a guarantee of anything,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat from the Upper East Side who noted that it took two months for legislation legalizing same-sex marriage to get through the Assembly in 2007 before it ultimately stalled. The Senate never acted on the bill.

The legislation is likely to have an especially bumpy ride in the Senate, where more lawmakers oppose same-sex marriage than support it. Gay rights advocates are now actively seeking more senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the bill.
Click to expand...

Still, I'd like to get people on the record with their position on this so the Dems in the Senate who ran on a platform of legalizing gay marriage have to answer for their reversals.
 
I forget, didn't NEw York already have a referendum on this?
 
RightinNYC said:
Paterson Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com

If he actually follows through on this and gets it passed, that will be the second great thing he's done in his term. It looks unlikely though:

Still, I'd like to get people on the record with their position on this so the Dems in the Senate who ran on a platform of legalizing gay marriage have to answer for their reversals.
Click to expand...

What catches my attention is the language, the way this is presented.

"Legalize same-sex marriage" implies that same-sex marriage is currently a specific criminal offence.

Is it?

Or is it simply neutral?
 
Jerry said:
What catches my attention is the language, the way this is presented.

"Legalize same-sex marriage" implies that same-sex marriage is currently a specific criminal offence.

Is it?

Or is it simply neutral?
Click to expand...

There is no provision in the law allowing them to get married. They want to create one.
 
RightinNYC said:
There is no provision in the law allowing them to get married. They want to create one.
Click to expand...

Right, so it's not a matter of "legalizing" it because it is not currently illegal.
 
Jerry said:
What catches my attention is the language, the way this is presented.

"Legalize same-sex marriage" implies that same-sex marriage is currently a specific criminal offence.

Is it?

Or is it simply neutral?
Click to expand...
Well if you legalize it, then other states have to recognize it, don't they?
 
American said:
Well if you legalize it, then other states have to recognize it, don't they?
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm talking about at all, though.

I'm pointing out how headlines and language is being used to posture before you and I even debate the issue.
 
Jerry said:
Right, so it's not a matter of "legalizing" it because it is not currently illegal.
Click to expand...

Same-sex marraige isn't a criminal offense but it also isn't legally recognized by the state. Thus "legalizing" it, in terms of the state stating it will legally recognize the union, would be the correct term?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
There is a difference between being "illegal", or criminal offense, and not being legally recognized.

Same-sex marraige isn't a criminal offense but it also isn't legally recognized by the state. Thus "legalizing" it, in terms of the state stating it will legally recognize the union, would be the correct term?
Click to expand...

"Legalize" strongly implies that it is currently a criminal offence, placing pro-gm on the defensive and placing the burden of proof on anti-gm to demonstrate why it shouldn't be.

"Create" is the accurate term precisely because gay marriage is neither criminal nor legal. It doesn't exist. If pro-gm were to use the accurate term "create" then the burden of proof would be on them to demonstrate how gay marriage would be a benefit and compliment society.

They can't do this because gay marriage does not compliment society. Every pro-gm argument I've read in my 3 years on DP have shown that gay marriage is at best benign when not volatile.

"We will have the same divorce rate as you" and "we'll rais crappy kids just like you" are not a supporting arguments when presenting gay marriage as a step toward "a more perfect union", and pro-gm knows this; hence the posturing.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Well if you legalize it, then other states have to recognize it, don't they?
Click to expand...

Not currently. There's the possibility that they could be forced to by their own state courts later on, but it's not very likely in most cases.
 
Jerry said:
"Legalize" strongly implies that it is currently a ciminal offence, placing pro-gm on the difenceive and placing the burdon of proof on anti-gm to demonstrate why it shouldn't be.

"Create" is the accuret term precicly because gay marriage is neither criminal nor legal. It doesn't exist, yes some want it to exist. If pro-gm were to use the acuret term "create" then the burdon of proof would be on them to demonstrate how gay marriage would be a benifit and compliment sociaty.
Click to expand...

They are creating a legal recognition of "gay marraige". How is that not "legalizing" it? I don't think the term implies or requires recognition of criminalization to be present. That's just me though.

Jerry said:
They can't do this because gay marriage does not compliment sociaty. Every pro-gm argument I've read in my 3 years on DP have shown that gay marriage is at best benign when not volitile.

"We will have the same divorce rate as you" is not a supporting argument when presenting gay marriage as a step tword "a more perfect union", and gm knowes this.
Click to expand...

So one group should only be granted the same abilities as other groups if they can prove that when they are given the ability that they will produce better results then the group that currently has the ability? Equality isn't a factor?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Right, so it's not a matter of "legalizing" it because it is not currently illegal.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
"Legalize" strongly implies that it is currently a criminal offence, placing pro-gm on the defensive and placing the burden of proof on anti-gm to demonstrate why it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

It could be read that way, but I don't see why it has to be.

"Create" is the accurate term precisely because gay marriage is neither criminal nor legal. It doesn't exist. If pro-gm were to use the accurate term "create" then the burden of proof would be on them to demonstrate how gay marriage would be a benefit and compliment society.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that from?

Again, because you interpret language one way doesn't mean that everyone else does. There are plenty of things in the law that are neither permitted nor illegal. Passing legislation to allow them to occur could be characterized as "creating" a new right just as it could be characterized as "legalizing" an activity that was outside the law.

They can't do this because gay marriage does not compliment society. Every pro-gm argument I've read in my 3 years on DP have shown that gay marriage is at best benign when not volatile.
Click to expand...

Lolwut?

"We will have the same divorce rate as you" and "we'll rais crappy kids just like you" are not a supporting arguments when presenting gay marriage as a step toward "a more perfect union", and pro-gm knows this; hence the posturing.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are the only arguments for gay marriage.
 
Gibberish said:
They are creating a legal recognition of "gay marraige". How is that not "legalizing" it? I don't think the term implies or requires recognition of criminalization to be present. That's just me though.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's just you.

Gibberish said:
So one group should only be granted the same abilities as other groups if they can prove that when they are given the ability that they will produce better results then the group that currently has the ability?
Click to expand...

If a given piece of marital legislation doesn't have the improvement of marriage as it's goal, I have no intention of supporting it.

Gibberish said:
Equality isn't a factor?
Click to expand...

No, equality is not a factor. It never was.

Gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
It could be read that way, but I don't see why it has to be.
Click to expand...

There you go atributing absolutes....

RightinNYC said:
Where are you getting that from?
Click to expand...

You were told already.

RightinNYC said:
Again, because you interpret language one way doesn't mean that everyone else does....
Click to expand...

...more assumed absolutes I never said...

RightinNYC said:
Yes, those are the only arguments for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

..and even more absolutes assumed.

Come back when you can bring something.
 
I wonder how those hate filled National Organization for Marriage folk will take it. Their propagandic hate ads:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo&feature=related"]YouTube - Lies from the "National Organization for Marriage"[/ame]

are running in NY, NJ, MA, and VT IIRC.
 
The right solution is: That the state and federal vacate the realm of deciding what is or is not a legitimate marriage and get rid of any benefits for marriage people and allow religious institutions to dictate marriage on their own scale whatever it may be.

The reality is: People that are married will not give up what they perceive as "entitlement" of discounts by the state and federal for being married (this includes the law makers).

Therefore since those people currently getting benefits for being married will not give up those rights, the only recourse for gays is to fight for marriage rights.

If people were TRULY interested in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" they would give up their "benefits of marriage" and let the churches dictate that.

But since that is about as likely to happen as Jesus coming down and smoking a bong with his crew and banging some hookers, let's deal with reality of it and just say gays are going to continue their fight for marriage since the majority of "married" folk aren't going to give up their FEDERAL and STATE benefits of marriage.
 
Jerry said:
If a given piece of marital legislation doesn't have the improvement of marriage as it's goal, I have no intention of supporting it.
Click to expand...

It was never meant to improve marriage. It was meant to expand the state recognition of marriage to another social group.

Jerry said:
No, equality is not a factor. It never was.
Click to expand...
Equality is the main factor. People that want to live a specific lifestyle don't have the same state recognized ability as someone that chooses different lifestyle.


Jerry said:
Gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...
Homosexual couples are looking for the same legal and social rights as heterosexual couples. To have their union be state recognized.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Equality is the main factor. People that want to live a specific lifestyle don't have the same state recognized ability as someone that chooses different lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Equality can be quite vague and hard to define in such specific cases, it certainly is in this case where it is far from a blanket issue of "equal rights". Homosexuals have equal rights to marry someone of the opposite sex, they want equal rights to marry someone of the same sex. Both situations are equal, equality is not some simple thing and generalised calls for it can be dangerous.
 
Governor to Submit Bill Legalizing Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/nyregion/15marriage.html?em

Gov. David A. Paterson plans to introduce legislation on Thursday to make marriage between same-sex couples legal in New York, advancing his push for greater rights for gay men and lesbians, at a time when other states have done so.
=====
Mr. Paterson’s plans represent the most public effort yet by the governor, who has been a consistent supporter of gay rights, to position himself and New York at the crest of a broadening national movement.

The move allows him to lead on an issue that could prove defining in his governorship, which has so far been marked by political missteps and the crumbling economy.
Click to expand...


If I recall correctly, RightAtNyc had a thread about the proposal.

This takes spine.
 
Re: Governor to Submit Bill Legalizing Gay Marriage

Why does it take spine for an unpopular appointed governer who has no chance of being re-elected to do this?
 
Re: Governor to Submit Bill Legalizing Gay Marriage

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Why does it take spine for an unpopular appointed governer who has no chance of being re-elected to do this?
Click to expand...

Still could promote widely popular legislation so he doesn't tea-bagged whenever he goes home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom