|Have something to tell us at The Call? Drop us a line at email@example.com and we'll post it to our blog.|
As long as I live, I'll never be able to figure out why anyone cares what his or her neighbors do if those actions don't affect anyone else. You may believe God disapproves of gay marriage, and that's okay. But if I remember Sunday School correctly, God disapproves of an awful lot of things that are perfectly legal. When are we going to outlaw war, adultery and sloth?
I'm honestly surprised New York is behind New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa (and probably a few other states) on this issue. Haven't we always fancied ourselves to be at the forefront on gender equality, civil rights and other forward-thinking ideals?
Consider this: Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage. Yes, THAT Dick Cheney. His daughter convinced him there was no legitimate reason to oppose it. Ask yourself: Do I really want to be less enlightened than Dick Cheney?
New York will not be the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Today, lawmakers in New Hampshire approved a gay marriage bill and their Governor is expected to sign it.
Meantime, the debate over legalizing same-sex marriage in New York is getting nasty. Today, Senator Rev. Ruben Diaz, an opponent of the bill, said Senator Tom Duane "should release the names of those Senators who are supporting the bill. If not, he should shut up." Diaz accused the undecided and undeclared politicians of being "ashamed to be publicly associated with the gay community."
Governor Paterson said he's still optimistic the bill will pass. Are you?
Should every State lawmaker announce a position on legalizing same-sex marriage? Are you optimistic, or do you wish politicians would "shut up" and move on? What does it say that New York hasn't approved same-sex marriages, but New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa have?
Send us your thoughts using the link above.
I wish politicians would move on to more important issues that plague our city, state & economy- Marriage should be only between a man & woman-not between same sex individuals. I:m sick of hearing that this is a Catholic viewpoint-
There was a time in this country when Black Americans couldn't marry White Americans. That was changed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
So therefore we shouldnt call it anything but what it is--marriage. And lets be clear marriage is a contract by two people. At the moment, those oindividuals have to be of opposite sex. That needs to change because individuals of the same sex should be able to enter into this contract.
As for the caller who stated that a marriage were for individuals who could have children. What about heterosexuals who physically cannot have children.
(D) City Council
District 2, Manhattan
Senator Diaz's comment today that those NYS Senators who will not publicly declare their positions on the marriage equality bill are "ashamed to be associated with the gay community" is despicable and homophobic. There is no valid rationale for not passing this important legislation. The delaying tactics of the Republicans in the NYS Senate are precisely why this civil rights issue should not be decided by individual state legislatures. Marriage equality is a national issue and SCOTUS should declare it unconstitutional for states to ban same-sex partners from marrying. Moreover, the NYS Senate should do the right thing and pass this bill overwhelmingly.
I AM THE PROUD FATHER OF THREE SONS. IF ANY OF MY SONS WERE GAY AND WANTED TO BE MARRIED TO THEIR LIFE PARTNER, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. YOU SUPPORT YOUR FAMILY UNCONDITIONALLY WITH LOVE, NOT JUDGMENT.
THIS ISSUE IS A PEOPLE ISSUE, YET, WHEN I HEAR THE LIKES OF DIAZ MAKING COMMENTS DEMANDING TO SEE THE NAMES OF THOSE SENATORS SUPPORTING THIS BILL, IT CREEPILY REMINDS ME OF McARTHY HUNTING DOWN COMMIES IN HOLLYWOOD. THERE SHOULD BE A NEW RULE, IF YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS LEADER, YOU CAN'T SERVE IN ELECTED OFFICE. DIAZ NEEDS LESS CAFFEINE AND MORE PRUNES.
JOE, BAY TERRACE
although a life-long heterosexual, I dont see why a minister like Ruben Diaz is so overly concerned about homosexuals marrying or having civil unions. Does his homophobia indicate that he and many others are perhaps closeted and not yet outed. Religion and public policy rarely mix and the rage and fervor that this issue arouses makes one suspicious as to motive also why in an otherwise politically-correct state are gays being treated disparately. Yu christians should remember how Christ reacted to Mary Magdelaine. This is why I no longer believe; its hypocrisy.
Senators should announce their opinions on same sex marriage if they are voting for or against. or running for election. Shame on them if they don't. But then they don't tell the public if they frequent prostitution web sites either. This is an issue of equality and freedom. It has nothing to do with religion. If religious people are opposed to same sex marriage that's their choice. It won't hurt them in anyway if the law passes. They should look in their own backyard and not others.
Diaz is an idiot..period.
it should not pass!!!! it is simple man and woman husband and wife, what is next people wanting to marry dogs
If we do not legalize gay marriage in NY, we will look and feel ludicrous. It is crazy that it has not yet happened, and all arguments to the contrary do not hold water.
p.s. Sen. Diaz should stop being such a bully.
Upper West Side
This still has to do with getting the votes one way or another.
They should all get busy taking care of the business at hand that is more important than this same sex marriage bill.
By them playing coy with not releasing the names or not committing one way or another is the same thing that they did with the third term elections.
To me they are all very selfish demanding that they get what they want one way or another and again I am sick and tired of all of them raising their voices on any bills that they propose, it's their way and to us it is take or leave it.
Everyone is so sure of themselves, I hope they all get voted out, I can't wait.
Why bother to inform us about anything at all.
Again I say they are all selfish for their own reasons and that
is not that they want to be recognized but they only seem to be talking about the financial aspect of it.
Why do they think they are entitled to money if they marry?
There are laws on the books for married people concerning Social Security, Veterans Pensions etc. or are they going to make their own laws.
I think that there are so meny other issues to focus on right now in NYC. That they should just let that sector live and be happy. Then they could go back to consentrating on more important things like creating jobs in NYC.
The defense of marriage act was for the protection of legacy and the rights of children. Homosexuals do not qualify for protection as they cannot produce a child between them. Moreover, there is a compelling state interest where there is a threat to the function of society as a whole. Therefore, marriage is between one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, New York has a history of being ludicruous about obvious issues of the day. Look at our indecision on the Declaration of Independence. I don't think we even signed it. This is no less important.
Upper West Side
Senator Diaz is quite right that if Senator Duane proclaims that he has the votes he should say who they are. Why the big mystery? Is there a "what's in it for me?" lurking in the background of the undecideds, or do they lack the fortitude to say which way they will vote?
One word for you :
I M M I G R A T I O N
Fear of immigrants getting married only to get legalized in this country.
I refuse to believe New York falls behind on this matter because of "conservative ideals"
I'm a lesbian and I 100% agree with the previous caller. change the language; stop calling it marriage!
we want legal/ social/ economic rights. that is all! no taxation without representation!!!
The problem with developing a new term is that if we were to do that, straight people would feel that they were actually losing something. If we, in the gay community, seek marriage, straight couples lose nothing, but if we aim to make them change what their relationships are called, we will face even stronger opposition.
-Elisabeth, in Queens.
How about revising the Civil Union Laws to include anyone.
DMD in Wash Hghts.
i agree, that this would be a HUGE ECONOMIC BURDEN on everyone if gay marriage were to be allowed.
And i can't believe that you're not discussing it, or not elaborating on that.
lisa from queens
The definiton of marrige needs to be changed. I think anyone who is
opposed to the gay community being able to marry, doesn't want people to have their happiness. Wake up people, eventually its going to happen. I SAY YES TO SAME SEX MARRIGE.
I respectfully suggest that Gay marriages demeans traditional marriage. Gay encroach in a realm that has been respected. What is it that has been respected: marriage.
Emmanuel J. K.
In spite of what we have been thought as children - marriage has never been about a union with god, it has always been about the division and distribution of property. If marriage is indeed a religious sacrament, then the state has no business recognizing ANY marriage, just as the state doesn't recognize bah mitzvahs, first communion, or christenings
Yes. The bill for gay marriage should be passed! So many new yorkers speak of how God made marriage between a man and women yet Not every1 believes in God. One of the main reason's people come to america is for freedom. Freedom of religion freedom of speech and Freedom to be free Everyone should be allowed the right to happiness!
--Kayla from the East Village
My wife and i are close friends with a gay couple. They wish to marry. They cannot. BUT they just got their education TAXES which was over $4,000 for the year. Why should they pay this tax? They have never had a child in the schools, so why pay an education tax.
I think the bill will past and give New York the next state for same-sex marriage to come into effect, but I don't when this will happened with all these homophobic people surrounding us. Politicians, should not move on and deal with this issue now for two reasons:
1. The gay community votes for a politician in the polls, so they could get their vote and win. Now, we need them and they should give us the same respect we need with their vote.
2. Politicians are married with their wife's and they are happy. We don't care the women they pick as long they are happy. We earn that happiness as well, and is not their business who we pick and get true love in return.
Eric, Bronx, NY
I am appalled by the hate and ignorance that your Black callers have made against the gay marriage bill. Did they forget that just only 40 some odd years ago they were given equal rights?
As for it being an economic issue? It will only BRING IN money to New York!
New York's tourism will increase with people coming to get married, wedding planners will be busy as well as florists, hotels, banquet halls, waiters, bartenders, caterers, printers, etc... everyone who is in some way connected to weddings! The incoming cash flow is all the reason to pass it!
With every state in the union going bankrupt, this is one way to get the much needed money and start up the economy! Homosexuality is God's/Nature's birth control. It exists in EVERY culture, EVERY generation, and in EVERY one of God's creation! If God doesn't make mistakes then homosexuals are not a mistake!
Strong family values are taught. As your heterosexual viewers have said/written, there are so many straight families that go through divorce, abandon children, and beat up their spouses/offspring. Are straight people any better? There are so many gay couples that would LOVE to adopt a child, cast off, and unwanted. There are SO many American children that are waiting to be adopted and yet everyone is adopting an Asian or Somalian (yes talking about Madonna and Angelina). If gay marriage were allowed in America, there would be more loving couples/families adopting these unwanted American children.
Who are we, who's ancestors came here to America for freedom and equal rights, only to turn and deny others? We voted for a Black President who promises change. It's going to come whether we like it or not!
Why does not someone answer the demand of Gays for equal rights? We don’t want to be unfair. The constitutional right to equal protection does not mean that everyone must be treated the same. An adult, two or three times the age of a child may be given voting or property rights that are not given to the child... In the use of a village owned parking field, a nonresident may be charged a fee higher than charged to a village resident. A healthy, able bodied, person need not be given the same right to public accommodations as a handicapped person. What is the test? Where there is a substantial difference between two groups having some reasonable relation to the subject of the regulation. In the case of benefits given to married couple and withheld from “gay unions” there is ample reason why rights given to a union of a man and a woman can be withheld (and perhaps should be) from a "gay" couple. This distinction is not based on religious principles.
For centuries the family has been regarded as a foundation of a tribe or nation. This is a union designed to produce the children needed to sustain nation. We see this illustrated in present day Europe. The non-Muslim couples in nations like France are not having children. Abortion and contraception have led to a situation where the marrieds are not replacing themselves. The Muslims are producing children and expanding. It is in the interest of a nation to encourage family stability and production of offspring. Is it not fair to ask: What benefits flow to the national welfare from the union of same sex couples? There is no constitutional objection to laws treating the two groups differently.
One might question my expertise in this area of the law. I graduated law school “summa cum laude”. I was a judge for 15 years. I handled the legislative program of Nassau County for 10 years.
Francis D. writes "What benefits flow to the national welfare from the union of same sex couples? There is no constitutional objection to laws treating the two groups differently."
Reply: First of all, why does there need to be any benefit to the national welfare from any marriage? Marriage is for the benefit of the two people involved, not the government nor the national welfare. There are many heterosexual couples that do not have children, some because they choose not to reproduce, and there are many gay/lesbian couples that choose to raise children, both their own biological children and adopted children. If the government or nation benefit from marriage, it is because the government has attached self-serving benefits to it, like higher tax rates applied to joint tax returns versus single ones. These benefits would flow to the national welfare regardless of the genders of the married couple. It is obvious that your 15 years on the bench have not increased your wisdom with regards to social justice. The only reason anyone opposes marriage equality is because she/he has homophobic and discriminatory opinions towards gay/lesbian people as a group.
The reason these pols will not pass laws like this is because new statistics will drop. What if gay marriages are 71% successful when straight marriages ar 54%? It will embarrass people. And this will not be allowed
not a gay but if they wanna be miserable, they should be allowed
I think the gay marriage bill would be a good first step. But I think it falls short in giving families security because it only covers one group. A more compassionate bill would include all people not just gays. What about unmarried siblings, or just friends that bond in a non sexual relationship in order to survive in this world. I think they need to come up with a bill that would give security in a larger scale. And not called marriage. I think we need change it a much larger scale.
The idea that many people oppose same-sex marriage is ludicrous. How will a woman marrying another woman or a man marrying another man have any affect on the economy? The environment? Politics? Neighbors? It won't. Why should someone who wants to legally bind themselves to another of the same-sex be denied that right? Consider this: In an alternate world where heterosexual marriages were not allowed, would it be fair to that man or that woman to live the rest of his or her life unfulfilled? All it takes is a simple flick of a pen, people.
or perhaps the irises of briarwood and the rest of the usa who oppose this bill will pay MY TAXES. i am a citizen. does the constitution say that only SOME people pay taxes? of course not. then why can only SOME people marry?