RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

I read that the Koch brothers had hired a PR firm.

They may be for gay marriage but that's hardly a big issue for most people compared to their wages and drinking water. Plus considering the elected officials that they've bought and paid for are not for gay marriage, it's really meaningless.

Not everyone hates people for having money.

In historic vote, NY Senate passes same-sex marriage bill: The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which passed a different version last week, is expected to pass the new version with stronger religious exemptions and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying begin 30 days after that.

That's great!! About time. Lothar will be THRILLED!

Seriously, though, congrats to MEM. I'm sure he's excited, as well.

And Dave the Weiner-Boy...

his penis of truth will be overjoyed

Speaking of MEM, on the day that the Republican-controlled state senate passed gay marriage in New York, Obama Stops Short of Endorsing Same-Sex Marriage.

Poor Zick. His little brain must be particularly addled this evening.

A sad day for America, in my opinion.

No doubt NY Republicans did it to not alienate political support. If states individually want gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever, I think that is the people of that state's right. And those who don't like it can move to a state that shares their legal opinion.
But needless to say, abortion was shoved down everyone's throat in 1973, and gay activists have voiced their intent to similarly leverage gay marriage. I have less of a problem with gay marriage if at some point it is voted for by a majority, rather than forced on the people by elites, and conversely (like border security and Proposition 8) where a handful of elites overturn the majority choice of millions of voters, when voting doesn't go the way liberals want.
That is tyranny, not democracy.

I only oppose gay marriage because I see it as
1) not marriage (man-woman) as clearly defined for 6000 years by both religious and secular law,
2) the push for gay marriage shows every evidence --as voiced by the ACLU/gay community-- of being a legal beachhead to impose gay marriage on those who have a religious or personal objection to it
3) can also be used to make any religious mention of homosexuality "hate speech" and a crime punishable by fines or imprisonment.

My argument has not changed. The same evidence I cited in years prior is still there, about the stated goals of gays and liberals to use this as a weapon against Constitutionally protected religious freedom.
Gays already have rights.
They already have civil union, can live and work without persecution.

This is about gays and progressives building the momentum to stomp on others' rights and freedoms.

You've become a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of a parody of yourself.

What you post manifests no intelligence. It's just the posting equivalent of vandalism.

You have to understand poor Wondy, he really believes a gaypist is gonna show up on his house now and homo-marry him. In the ass.

In fact Dave is already moist from the thought.

No, I just know what liberals have stated as their objectives, that they are pursuing. And dislike their tactics of slander, harassment, intimidation, and when all else fails, legislating from the bench.

New York is a liberal state, and it was a very close vote. But I seriously wonder if even a majority of New Yorkers want this. As I said, Proposition 8 was voted AGAINST in California (opposing gay marriage) and a liberal court just tossed it out.

I wonder how New York state liberals would feel if a conservative court was able to overturn this vote, and did.

I'm more concerned about the momentum they are building, to ram it down the throats of all 50 states.

If some states have it and some states don't, by will of the voters, so be it. When courts or even legislators make those elitist decisions for everyone, I don't recognize that as the will of the governed.

Are you writing gay romance fiction now, too?

Remind me not to bend over to pick up the soap in the RKMB showers!

One word = +100 points

Thanks, it is really nice news. The gays are happy and New York will make some money out of it. Seems like a win for everyone.

I personally would still like to see states decide on the basis of referendum and popular votes, but if elected representatives are voting on it the people are still represented at least a little. again, a state-by-state basis is still preferable to a federal-level decision IMO because it allows for the most accurate representation of the will of the people.

That would be the same as my crazy "embarassment to conservatives" opinion that I just posted above, that you just agreed with.

For all the partisan demagoguery of conservatives, and all the RKMB silliness here, it's still a very reasonable opinion. Will of the people, not the elites.

Except when the people vote against gay marriage ( or stricter immigration enforcement, or abortion) and then activist courts arbitrarily overturn it. Would that the rule of law cut both ways, whether the majority ruling is conservative or liberal.

It's the job of elected representatives to pass laws. Referendums are, more often than not, just a way for politicians to dodge their duties. New York did it right.

I'm not sure I see your point.

It seems to me that majority popular vote is more precisely representative of the people.

We've seen time after time that our elected leaders are influenced by lobbyists, campaign finance, and other pockets of wealth that promote their own interests over those of the nation and its people.

Was Obamacare the duty of our Senate and Congress? Stimulus? Omnibus? Cap-and-Trade?
No.
It was clear influence-peddling for a hidden agenda, against the best interests of the nation and the popular will of American people.

Its funny that gay marriage being legalized pisses off the biggest faggots here.

We have a representative form of government. We do so, in no small part, because we want our officials to have some discretion to study and consider the pros and cons of legislation before it becomes law. It's a way to limit the potential for "mob rule" and the tyranny of the majority over the weak and the innocent.

plato was right?

I aint moving to New York just to marry some guy.

Lothar ain't the marryin kind. He just wants the mansex.

Add to that the shakedown intimidation tactics of Jesse Jackson, ACORN, and gay activist groups, where a tiny minority harasses and intimidates to ram through corrupt policy.

So WB what would you propose here? Honestly it seems like you don't have a problem in general with elected officials making laws before this. Is it just this issue and maybe a couple of others that you want treated differently?

I propose that on heartfelt issues, like abortion and gay marriage or border security, where there is polarizing opinion, that the only way to legislate these things fairly is
(1) by popular vote.
(Where even a legislative vote like this one in New York state is unacceptable, because it no doubt is a political decision maneuvered behind the scenes, and not credibly representative of what the people of that state really want. It was 29 Democrats, who managed to leverage an additional 4 Republican votes, not an overwhelming consensus.)

And
(2) where will of the people is upheld, whether popular opinion goes for the way of liberals or conservatives. It's an outrage to me that Proposition 8 knocked down gay marriage in Nov 2008 --in liberal-heavy California of all places-- and a higher court liberal judge just threw the law out, despite it being the clear popular consensus will of California voters.

As I said above, these changes in controversial social policy should clearly be will of the people, not the elites.

If you think ACORN, et al, is capable of stealing elections for public office why do you think they can't do it with referenda? For example, look at the "astroturf" going on in Wisconsin, where the unions and the DNC are trying to organize recall votes.



Actually, the polls I've seen show that a majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage. You need to remember that this is a liberal state. Even republicans here are often moderate to liberal.

Do you think there could ever be a consensus as to what constitutes a "heartfelt issue"? Also as G-man points out there are polls that show this law is actually representative of voters. That's why I think you had some republicans vote for it. They want to get elected again.

Couldn't you say that about California?

I think NY is actually to the left of CA on a lot of issues.

I never actually gave the Left credit for being able to rig a popular election. Unions are an estimated 7% of the private sector, and obviously much larger percent of the public sector (teachers, civil service, police, firefighters..) but ultimately still a minority of the total population.
I give them credit for using their smaller numbers through organized intimidation tactics (a la ACORN and SEIU) to leverage an advantage over a less vocal and less organized majority.

The thought that they could rig a popular election is scary stuff. With all the federalizing of private sectors of the economy, you may be right that they now are a majority. But I see many of the people in these sectors resisting federal takeover, rather than going along with it.
But you may be right. Unions, SEIU and so forth might be able to rig a popular election now. I may have under-estimated them.




I acknowledged that N Y is a liberal state, where no doubt many support gay marriage. The N Y Daily news poll you cited says 56% of New York staters support gay marriage.
My point is that still leaves a large minority (44%) who do NOT support gay marriage. And that large minority will not feel represented by this vote.

The NY state gay marriage vote was supported by 29 Democrats and only 4 Republicans.



Obamacare was supported by a similarly "bipartisan" (i.e. very small Republican support) majority. Obamacare was leveraged through by people offered political favors for their votes. I question what favors or intimidation were used to leverage votes, both Democrat and Republican, in New York state.

Assuming the polls are accurate, a referendum would have passed 56-44% in favor of gay marriage. So the "large minority" would still "not feel represented" by the vote.

Every election has a side that wins and a side that loses. There is simply no reason to assume that a referendum would somehow be "more fair" than an act of the duly-elected legislature.

Well, speaking as a voter, even if in the 44% minority, I still would feel it more legitimate if gay marriage, abortion, or whatever social issue, were voted into law by popular vote, rather than by court ruling, legislative vote, or presidential mandate.

I acknowledge your point that popular vote can be rigged too. But, perhaps naively, I see that as less likely and harder to pull off.

Every election, except for the president, is by popular vote.

Well, in the specific case we're discussing of the New York state legislature...



...it was legislative representatives, not the actual people, and the hidden backroom negotiations that led to just 4 Republicans approving to legalize gay marriage.

Again, if it was the clear will of the people, I wouldn't have a problem with it, I wouldn't question it.
But it was a narrow margin of victory, and there is some question whether that is truly the will of the people, or just a few Republicans (and/or Democrats) caving in as part of some sleazy compromise, against the will of the people.

I don't know why they couldn't just do it on a popular ballot, either back a few months ago in the Nov 2010 election, or in the upcoming Nov 2012 election, so that it would have been the clear will of New York voters, as opposed to arguably being just the whim or compromise of a few elite legislators, that arguably flies in the face of what voters really want.

Again, it really bugs me that nationwide, liberal judges shoot down clear majority rulings in favor of more conservative mandates, such as Proposition 8 and Proposition 187, whereas a liberal vote like gay marriage in New York state is accepted as legitimate and gospel truth.