[Albany NY] Flanked by four members of the State Senate Democratic majority and the leader of New York's LGBT lobby, Governor David A. Paterson announced an agreement by which the Senate leadership has, for the first time, agreed to debate and vote on a marriage equality bill before the end of 2009.
"This is the first time that the Senate leadership has indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality," the governor said. "This is a stunning and very happy development in this process. I will continue to place marriage equality on any special sessions that I call on Monday and Tuesday because I feel that the bill should be debated immediately. However, I have profound respect for the leadership of the Senate and the process that they took to bring us to this vote."
"This is the first time that the Senate leadership has indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality," the governor said. "This is a stunning and very happy development in this process. I will continue to place marriage equality on any special sessions that I call on Monday and Tuesday because I feel that the bill should be debated immediately. However, I have profound respect for the leadership of the Senate and the process that they took to bring us to this vote."
Read the rest here ... and keep the good people of New York in your prayers as they work to extend the "liberty and justice for all" our veterans have fought for down through the years to gay and lesbian families through long overdue
marriage equality legislation!
marriage equality legislation!
13 comments:
This is not correct. All we got is a firm commitment to a definate maybe.
Good Luck! You'll need it!
This is becoming a battle for the ages, isn't it? Just keep on pushing forward.
We live in a democracy. So shouldn't the majority have the right to deny rights to a certain minority?
This is an interesting question. I don't know that much about our government, can anyone help me?
You're kidding, right? Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying -- whether he did or not it's still worth quoting: "True democracy is two foxes and a chicken voting on what's for lunch."
That's why we're a republic, NOT a democracy ... with a Bill of Rights and Constitution that protects the rights of both the foxes AND the chickens.
Google equal protection. Read up on it. Get back to me.
Perhaps MItchell you should re-examine civics. We are a democratic republic, not a democracy.
Madison. Federalist Papers #10. Explicitly relies on structures of the republic to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
Yea, there is an equal protection bill but it mainly applies to African Americans or people of different races.
The House of Rep. is elected by the people every 2 years? They have the power to make federal laws. The Defense of Marriage Act is a ferderal law? Does this violate the constituion? And if it does why have the courts not overtuned it??
Another thought, the President is elected by the people and the Pres. appoints the Supereme Court. So do we really live in a republic?
Good heavens. If you're pinning your hopes on the NY state legislature to actually DO something, you're in for a looong wait. Seriously. This might be a good time to take up a new hobby.
Have you ever watched what happens in Albany? It beggars description. Those clowns can't even pass a budget, and that's just straight math. Imagine what sort of gordian knots they'll tie themselves into over any sort of "marriage equality" bill. [shudder]
Success in Albany is not measured by accomplishment, but in terms of what new horror can be prevented. You live in California, you should be familiar with this sort of thing. ;)
I don't know about the chicken quotes, but Thomas Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Susan is correct, our government is supposed to be a republic. The feds seems to have forgotten that and desperately need reminding. It would be helpful if they actually studied our founding fathers.
It seems that the vote in the New York Senate will be delayed. The one bright spot has been the court ruling which the Governor cited in his order that same-sex couples married elsewhere should be treated no differently than other married couples by sate agencies.
Whether we consider civil marriage a right or a privilege, I am always suspicious when people who enjoy a right or privilege are reluctant to allow others to enjoy it as well. Now in my thirty-eighth year of marriage, I want to see marriage equality in the state where I was born and now live, just as I see it in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where I grew up.
The so called 'sexual' union of 2 men and/or 2 women, is not sexual at all. Rather it is a clashing of genitals. You cannot be 'sexual' with someone of the same sex.
Marriage by definition, is.... One Man & One Woman. Together they form One Flesh. Ordained by God. It was not good for man to be alone... so God created, Woman... out of the Man. Each left their Mother & Father [not their Father & Father....]
Two Men, do not have the same Union. They do not have symmetry. They do not have a 'sexual' union. As sexual 'union' requires a fitting together, a God-designed Intercourse, and God-designed reproduction of the human race.
Two Men, is merely, a clashing together -- a violence against the natural body, not a Union. A destructive act that brings brokeness, heartache & bodily weakness. There is no logical argument for contrarian so-called 'unions'.
The people know this to be true. [their very existence supports the Truth] . Same-genital 'marriage' is a sham, to call the sexual union of two men, Marriage -- goes against logic, biology, culture, and the Supremecy of God's Word.
LG MARSHAL,
Your asking a good question. I am coming from a secular perspective and even there, it may be that your coments have some validity.
Yes, Two men can not reproduce
Yes, Two women can not reproduce
BUT, Sexuality like all things falls along something we in the SOCIAL SCIENCES call the "Bell Curve." So it is very likely that you, yourself have homsexual tendencies.
You really shouldn't apply LOGIC to humans because the world is not a math equation.
Yes CULTURE accounts for a lot of variations, but we really don't know how much.
The real question is does it really matter if people decide that they want to be in a same gender unions?
I would say that these same gender unions maybe superior in a lot of ways to heterosexual relationships. Maybe we should all be Gay?
LG ~ the problem is that you're missing the point altogether. My faith convicts me of what is right or wrong in God's eyes. However, my faith cannot dictate "law" in this country.
Imagine if our entire "justice" system was based on the faith of the majority. What if the majority of those in government were Muslim? Or Hindu? Would you want your personal life dictated by their beliefs? Would you concede to Sharia law because someone else's belief system overrides yours?
Your beliefs (or mine for that matter) cannot (and should not) dictate the personal lives (or civil rights) of those with a different belief system. That is NOT the America envisioned by the founding fathers nor is it the America I know and love.
Post a Comment