- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And welcome New York to the 20th century.
Ummm... Pete. It's the 21st Century.
And welcome New York to the 20th century.
Ummm... Pete. It's the 21st Century.
Yea, and the civilized world had this in the 20th century... well most of it. Hence.. welcome to the 20th century New York!
Yea, and the civilized world had this in the 20th century... well most of it. Hence.. welcome to the 20th century New York!
Country-wide recognitionSame-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but these marriages must be recognized by all Mexican states.[66] Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions.
Actually...
I have been reading these forums for quite some time now... But on this issue I must finally say something, being from NYC. Gay Marriage was bound to pass in NY, that was known, but the exemptions for religious/moral groups to openly refuse gays not only from have ceremonies performed BUT from using their facilities is quite powerful. New York State led the way for sure tonight... these groups can openly and LEGALLY refuse gays
Just imagine these guys wearing wedding rings.
Gays are never fat pigs are they? Always portrayed as young 20 year olds with six-packs. :roll:
Gays are never fat pigs are they? Always portrayed as young 20 year olds with six-packs. :roll:
Ya gotta admit it makes sodomy seem a lot more appealing.
Gays are never fat pigs are they? Always portrayed as young 20 year olds with six-packs. :roll:
Neal Horselley said:When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.
I started a thread in sex and sexuality about the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So." Whether you support or oppose the LGBT community, you need to see this movie.
What is next, a new twist on puppy love? Oh wait there was the guy in Washington State who was caught doing a horse little more than a year ago.
Is that coming to a court near you?
We do have NABLA out there wanting to have sex with kids.
The Governor said he'll sign it now so that's a done deal.
Now, I AGREE that allowing a gay couple to raise chilidren may not be the best thing, but its certainly is not going to alter their maturing into adults. It will not influence their sexual orientation, homosexuality is not a choice, your born that way. For example, did all of you wake up one day and ponder if you will be gay or straight? I sure as hell didnt, I just KNEW I was not gay.
NY wants SSM, great, more power to them. My state happened to ban SSM at the constitutional level, and that's our right to do just as NY has the right to legalize it.
Good for New York. The rest of the country will follow, but how quickly?
you bring up an interesting point. should the Federal govt. MANDATE recognition of same-sex marriage for the whole nation?
Im not sure. States have the right to make different gun laws, different environmental laws, etc etc.
And as this is not a commerce issue, the Feds can't use the Commerce Clause.
All the Feds can do, is use the Equal Protection Clause.
honestly, I think a Federal law mandating recognition of SSM would not pass the Supreme Court. This may stay a state-by-state issue.
See that's exactly my point. Exactly.
If very anti-ssm states have to issue/honor SSM, then by those same legal arguments every pro-militant-gun-controle state has to honor my SD consealed weapons permit.
So, let's have some consistancy here. If everyone has to get onboard with SSM, then everyone has to get onboard with shal-issue concealed carry.
you bring up an interesting point. should the Federal govt. MANDATE recognition of same-sex marriage for the whole nation?
Im not sure. States have the right to make different gun laws, different environmental laws, etc etc.
And as this is not a commerce issue, the Feds can't use the Commerce Clause.
All the Feds can do, is use the Equal Protection Clause.
honestly, I think a Federal law mandating recognition of SSM would not pass the Supreme Court. This may stay a state-by-state issue.