• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

New York State Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Law

After a two-week long fight that centered mostly around assuring legislative protections for religious organizations, the New York State Senate gave final approval to a law legalizing same-sex marriages:

ALBANY — Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed, and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

The same-sex marriage bill was approved on a 33-to-29 vote, as 4 Republican state senators joined 29 Democrats in voting for the bill. The Senate galleries were so packed with supporters and opponents that the fire marshals closed them off. And along the Great Western Staircase, outside the Senate chamber, about 100 demonstrators chanted and waved placards throughout the night — separated by a generation, a phalanx of state troopers and 10 feet of red marble.

“Support traditional marriage,” read signs held by opponents. “Love is love, Vote Yes,” declared those in the hands of the far more youthful group of people who supported it.

Senate approval was the final hurdle for the same-sex marriage legislation, which is strongly supported by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and was approved last week by the Assembly. Mr. Cuomo is expected to sign the measure soon, and the law will go into effect 30 days later, meaning that same-sex couples could begin marrying in New York by midsummer.

Passage of same-sex marriage here followed a daunting run of defeats in other states where voters barred same-sex marriage by legislative action, constitutional amendment or referendum. Just five states currently permit same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.

The approval of same-sex marriage represented a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates, who just two years ago suffered a humiliating, and unexpected, defeat when a same-sex marriage bill was easily defeated in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. This year, with the Senate controlled by Republicans, the odds against passage of same-sex marriage appeared long.

But the unexpected victory had an unlikely champion: Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who pledged last year to support same-sex marriage but whose early months in office were dominated by intense battles with lawmakers and some labor unions over spending cuts.

Mr. Cuomo made same-sex marriage one of his top priorities for the year and deployed his top aide to coordinate the efforts of a half-dozen local gay-rights organizations whose feuding and disorganization had in part been blamed for the 2009 defeat. The new coalition of same-sex marriage supporters also brought in one of Mr. Cuomo’s trusted campaign operatives to supervise a $3 million television and radio campaign aimed at persuading a handful of Republican and Democratic senators to drop their opposition and support same-sex marriage.

For Senate Republicans, even bringing the measure to the floor was a freighted decision. Most of the Republicans firmly oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds, and many of them also had political concerns, fearing that allowing same-sex marriage to pass on their watch would embitter conservative voters and cost the Republican Party its one-seat majority in the Senate. Leaders of the state’s Conservative Party — the support of which many Republican lawmakers depend on to win election — warned that they would oppose in legislative elections next year any Republican senator who voted for same-sex marriage.

But after days of agonized discussion capped by a marathon nine-hour, closed-door debate on Friday, Republicans came to a fateful decision. The full Senate would be allowed to vote on same-sex marriage, the majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, said Friday afternoon, and each member would be left to vote according to his conscience.

Or, as one Republican State Senator who voted in favor of the bill put it in his final speech, “I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage.”

Passage by the Republican controlled Senate was the final obstacle to legalization of same-sex marriage.

New York is the largest state to ever pass legislative approval of same-sex marriage, a fact which in and of itself is important. Additionally important is the fact that New York marriage laws do not require residence for a marriage license. Meaning that there are likely to be a significant number of gay and lesbian couples coming to the Empire State to get married and returning home with a marriage license. Which makes the injustice of Section Two of the Defense of Marriage Act all the more apparant.

Good for you New York.

 

 

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Vast Variety says:

    Congratulations to the state of New York.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. michael reynolds says:

    Right on New York.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. Scott O. says:

    “I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage.”

    That says it all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. Neil Hudelson says:

    Another step in their agenda, eh?

    No, seriously, congratulations New York. It is a big victory.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  5. michael reynolds says:

    Malkovich:

    So, you’re a New York dog lover?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Scott O. says:

    So when do New Yorkers get to marry their dogs?

    When dogs can say “I do”. We’ll have to lower the age of consent too, most dogs don’t make it to 18. Besides, who would want to marry an 18 year old dog? Unless the dog was really, really rich.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. michael reynolds says:

    Malkovich:

    Yeah, I don’t think you’re going to manage to bait anyone. The day of people like you is done. We win, you lose, so basically I guess you’ll be the one sucking it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  8. wr says:

    JM — You mean the elected president of the United States? God, you’re a loser.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. EddieInCA says:

    JM –

    Yes. More importantly, he got more than 270 Electoral Votes.

    Jeez, that must hurt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. michael reynolds says:

    JM – You know what’s especially cool about this? the NY Senate is Republican controlled.

    Ah hah hah hah hah. It passed on Republican votes!

    Does it burn/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. ponce says:

    Ten quatloos says John Malkovich is the sockpuppet of somebody else who posts here…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Jay Tea says:

    THIS is how it should be settled. State by state, by legislative action or Constitutional amendment. The BS where courts “find” the right in their own Constitutions (I’m looking at you, Massachusetts) was downright grotesque.

    The only tough question remaining is how this will play out under the Full Faith & Credit clause when a same sex couple married in one state relocate to a state that doesn’t sanction it.

    And JM’s BS about bestiality is very easily dismissed. “Two consenting adults” is the criteria. Pedophiles are excluded by the “adult” thing. “Consenting” eliminates his “marry a dog” fantasy. Incest is already banned. There are also sound reasons to maintain the ban on polygamy. (When one in a three-way marriage wants out, what does that do to the legal relationship between the remaining two?).

    It shouldn’t be that big a deal — as long as it’s done properly. With the consent of the people, as expressed through elected representatives. NY did it right — like NH and VT also did.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Hey Norm says:

    Malkovich makes me miss Jwest.
    Can we arrange a hostage exchange?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Davebo says:

    THIS is how it should be settled. State by state, by legislative action

    Well since obviously a state can decide whether or not it wants to support a citizen’s civil rights we should be open to states legalizing slavery. On a state by state basis of course.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. anjin-san says:

    THIS is how it should be settled. State by state

    Of course. Because red states SHOULD be able to force Americans to become second class citizens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. G.A.Phillips says:

    Who is this imaginary friend “John Malkovich” you guys keep talking to!?!?!?!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Scott O. says:

    G.A., He was some guy that wanted to marry a dog. All his comments have disappeared.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. G.A.Phillips says:

    Of course. Because red states SHOULD be able to force Americans to become second class citizens.

    You mean like in Milwaukee, the way they got it set so that if I don’t work for the city I can’t give my benefits to my roommate I can just pay for it?

    I am so glad to be getting my old job back so I can be forced to be one and pay for the privilege, Yeah!!!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. G.A.Phillips says:

    G.A., He was some guy that wanted to marry a dog. All his comments have disappeared.

    Dogs already got more rights then unborn babies, now people want freaking tax breaks, benifits and wedding gifts for them too? I am glad he was baned!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. ken says:

    Only four Republicans voted extend civil rights to gays. What is wrong with Republicans? Seriously what is wrong with them?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Ben says:

    THIS is how it should be settled. State by state, by legislative action or Constitutional amendment. The BS where courts “find” the right in their own Constitutions (I’m looking at you, Massachusetts) was downright grotesque.

    Jay, don’t be obtuse. The right to marriage has already been found to exist under the US Constitution (Loving v. Virginia). All the Mass court did was come to the obvious conclusion that the equal protection clause means that people can’t be denied that right based on sexual orientation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Scott O. says:

    G.A., Have you spoken to your imaginary friend yet today? Is He upset about this new law in NY?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. THIS is how it should be settled. State by state, by legislative action or Constitutional amendment. The BS where courts “find” the right in their own Constitutions (I’m looking at you, Massachusetts) was downright grotesque.

    So you think the Supreme Court decided wrong when it overturned the gun laws in DC and Chicago instead of waiting for legislative action in those cities to do it?

    Gay marriage is, like immigration, one of those issues that shows how most conservatives are completely bullshitting when they talk about small government and liberty. In this case, they’re arguing that rights only exist when the government chooses to give them to you, and that they can be given or taken away whenever people vote to do so.

    That’s an incredibly collectivist attitude.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Rock says:

    Only four Republicans voted extend civil rights to gays. What is wrong with Republicans? Seriously what is wrong with them?

    Maybe they aren’t into sodomy and have moral standards.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Jim Henley says:

    Maybe they aren’t into sodomy and have moral standards.

    If you really care about reducing the frequency of gay sex I don’t know a better strategy than getting them all married . . .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. michael reynolds says:

    Rock:

    Or maybe they’re narrow-minded bigots who 20 years from now will have to pretend they were for equality all along. That’s the usual pattern with conservatives on civil rights issues.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. G.A.Phillips says:

    G.A., Have you spoken to your imaginary friend yet today? Is He upset about this new law in NY?

    Dudes a lib, and he don’t speak to me anymore since I grew up, started thinking for myself and became a conservative:( I miss him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Christopher Bowen says:

    Of course. Because red states SHOULD be able to force Americans to become second class citizens.

    That’s what the SCOTUS is for. There is no legal argument against same sex marriage, and I’m sure the SCOTUS would agree.

    Remember, if we left things up to the states, we’d still have segregation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. DMan says:

    If you really care about reducing the frequency of gay sex I don’t know a better strategy than getting them all married . . .

    I definitely never thought of it that way, but I like it!

    Other strategies for reducing gay sex…

    Make it illegal. Definitely need to hire more law enforcement for that though, and perhaps cameras in every house. Then there’s the problem of controlling the prison population…

    Education. Would definitely need some systematic changes here. Priority one would have to be to reduce the amount of free thought we encourage from students. Priority two would have to be to ensure the people teaching don’t stray from a narrow set of beliefs that we approve of.

    Theocracy. Democracy was a good experiment but its proving to be failing now that the superior morals are becoming the minority. Education and law enforcement will prove much easier once we give power to the individuals who actually understand what God has intended. Even better if our theocratic leaders talk to God, or they are part God themselves.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. BTW, I’ve always wondered what GA Philips Icon image is. It looks like Opie Taylor wearing a woman’s blouse.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. mantis says:

    THIS is how it should be settled. State by state, by legislative action or Constitutional amendment…

    The only tough question remaining is how this will play out under the Full Faith & Credit clause when a same sex couple married in one state relocate to a state that doesn’t sanction it.

    Well look at that. Jay asserts that this issue should just be handled by the states, and then immediately identifies why it can’t just be handled by the states.

    Way to go, Jay. You’re one step closer to realizing things the rest of the country figured out in 1967.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. ken says:

    What is wrong with the Republicans?

    They clearly have the wrong moral standards, if they have any at all. To deny that all people are equal in both the eyes of god and under our constitution is deeply immoral, and un-American as well

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Bleev K says:

    Maybe they aren’t into sodomy

    Weird, I though that’s what they usually do to american people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. G.A.Phillips says:

    BTW, I’ve always wondered what GA Philips Icon image is. It looks like Opie Taylor wearing a woman’s blouse.

    lol It’s me when I was 11 in 1976, I use it because of the flag and the slick shirt:) It was originally meant for when I stopped playing the troll with the troll pick, and was doing the Have a nice G.A. thing because I felt bad for being mean in combination with the fact that many here was changing their blogging handles and I was making fun of them….

    Now I am 6’1″ 220 brown hair blue eyes almost 46 and do not like the way my pics come out. when I get back to work hopefully next week some time I’ll put aside a little money for some glamor shots:)…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Janis Gore says:

    It’s a big country. I’d bet there are more legally married straights into sodomy and without morals in this country than there ever will be gays.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. Janis Gore says:

    Remember, the LGBT pop. is only approx. 3.5%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. Once again I’m glad I’m young enough to have (barely) avoided 70s fashion. =)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Janis Gore says:

    G.A.’s image has alway broughtLittle Lord Fauntleroy to mind.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. Jay Tea says:

    Hey, Davebo: show me the equivalents of the 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments that cover marriage. Or ANYTHING in the Constitution that discusses it.

    Then show me the paperwork where you’re challenging state laws that limit consanguity, age of consent, and other factors on marriages.

    Plus, on a purely pragmatic level, legislation is the best way to go. There are STILL court fights in Massachusetts over gay marriage. While they’re going on, New Hampshire — a far more conservative state — passed a gay marriage law with almost no fuss.

    You talk about it as some lofty principle, but 1) “gay marriage” is about as much a federal issue as abortion, meaning you gotta flail and stretch and convolute and spin to find some Constitutional basis, and B) going your way guarantees nothing more than tons of work for lawyers and years of bitter fighting — while my way has worked in at least three states, getting it emplaced with a minimum of fuss.

    Any particular reason you wanna insist on doing it the slow, hard, and stupid way?

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  40. mannning says:

    Slippery paths abound over the next 25 years or so!!

    Next up? Polygamy! Does anyone really find a compelling legal reason to bar polygamy? Several airline pilots, truckers, railmen, salesmen and many servicemen would welcome such freedom to marry in each city they are based in, not to leave out various Mormon and other sects that practice it now.

    Following that: forgetting about marriage and the family altogether, as many already do, and adopting the Islamic divorce rule of throwing three stones on the ground and muttering “I divorce you!” with each stone.

    And then: let the State support, raise and educate the children, as Secular Humanists once proposed in writing (but omitted in later manifestos), thus creating a society fully trained in SM ideology (read universal communism).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. mattb says:

    First of all, go NY!

    Second, I’m somewhat sympathetic to Jay’s argument that this needs to start on the state level. I fully expect that it will — like civil rights issues — be decided on a federal level within the courts. Likewise, all signs point to those who are in opposition to Gay Marriage are on the wrong side of history.

    All that said, the more states that explicitly vote on this, the stronger the case for Gay Marriage is. And I also think the more palatable it becomes on the national level.

    As far as why this becomes a federal issue — as may have pointed out, marriage law is essentially contract law, and it seems to me that the issue of spousal benefits — especially in the case of businesses that operate across state lines — will be one of the things that elevates it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. Janis Gore says:

    I doubt partners in the US would suffer that many in-laws, Manning.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. DMan says:

    Slippery paths abound over the next 25 years or so!!

    Is a pro-life position also a slippery path towards protecting sperm?

    Are tax breaks a slippery path towards anarchy?

    Are slippery path arguments a path towards imagination trumping reality?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. ken says:

    show me the equivalents of the 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments that cover marriage. Or ANYTHING in the Constitution that discusses it.

    The equal protection clause means that all persons must be treated equally under the law. We do not have to amend the entire constitution each time we decide that it is time to take the constitution seriously.

    If two people of different genders can apply to and receive legal sanction for a marriage contract then there is no constitutional justification to deny the same privilege to two people of the same gender.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. Ben Wolf says:

    Slippery paths abound over the next 25 years or so!!

    This is why it’s so difficult to take the radical right seriously. To them a couple of men wearing rings and dancing to Lady GaGa is equivalent to a communist tyranny.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  46. Jay Tea says:

    manning: I got hung up on the polygamy exception, then came across an explanation that made a lot of sense: what happens when one of those break up?

    Bob, Carol, and Alice are hitched. Alice wants out. Are Bob and Carol still married? Worse, Bob is the one who wants out. Are Carol and Alice out? Even worse, Bob wants Carol gone and stay with Carol. Carol doesn’t want Alice to leave. What then?

    It gets way, way too complicated with three.

    Ken, then I presume you’ll be going after state laws about consanguinity and age of consent next. After all, if I can marry my 16-year-old second cousin in one state, why can’t we get married in any state? That’s just as discriminatory, isn’t it?

    I’ve publicly been in favor of gay marriage for years. What I am NOT in favor of is ramming it through the courts. That just sets up years and years of fights. Take a little more time, get the legislature to approve, and it’s much more secure.

    Hey, it happened in New Hampshire. It can happen pretty much anywhere.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  47. Neil Hudelson says:

    GA,

    Glad to hear you landed a job.

    -Neil

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. DMan says:

    Bob, Carol, and Alice are hitched. Alice wants out. Are Bob and Carol still married? Worse, Bob is the one who wants out. Are Carol and Alice out? Even worse, Bob wants Carol gone and stay with Carol. Carol doesn’t want Alice to leave. What then?

    It gets way, way too complicated with three.

    It’s probably not that complicated. Simply put, if any of Bob, Carol, or Alice wants a change in the group arrangement, the marriage would have to be dissolved. After a divorce, any of the 3 could remarry under a different arrangement if they can reach common terms.

    That said I think there are simple regulatory reasons for granting marriage privileges to just two individuals. Presumably the state would want to draw a line somewhere so as to prevent corrupt practices by groups seeking to gain benefits together (the marriage of everyone under an entire religion together, a town or city grouping together in marriage, etc.). I think drawing the line for marriage privileges to be maintained between two individuals is both a smart and fair regulatory decision. And according to Wikipedia it has been the decision all around the world so far:

    No country legally condones group marriages, neither under the law nor as a common law marriage.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. sam says:

    It’s probably not that complicated. Simply put, if any of Bob, Carol, or Alice wants a change in the group arrangement, the marriage would have to be dissolved. After a divorce, any of the 3 could remarry under a different arrangement if they can reach common terms.

    Not necessarily. If any one of the four, say, wanted a divorce, he or she could divorce the other three, and the marriage would (could) remain intact. I think that as long as at least two of the parties wish to remain married, the marriage would continue. I grant that property issues could get complicated, but that could be worked out. (See Heinlein’s concept of the “line marriage” in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. michael reynolds says:

    GA:

    Likewise, happy for you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. ponce says:

    Slippery paths abound over the next 25 years or so!!

    Slippery slope arguments are the laziest arguments.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. ken says:

    Ken, then I presume you’ll be going after state laws about consanguinity and age of consent next. After all, if I can marry my 16-year-old second cousin in one state, why can’t we get married in any state? That’s just as discriminatory, isn’t it?

    I don’t think any state allows underage teens to marry without court approval. If you know that your state allows you to marry your 16 year old cousin without court approval please tell us which state it is so we can all mock it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. matt says:

    GA: CONGRATULATIONS on finding a job. Hopefully it’s not like the last one :(

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. Jay Tea says:

    ken, I find myself somewhat surprised (and a tad embarrassed) to note that my own state of New Hampshire has the lowest ages for marriage — under “special cause” it’s 14 for males and 13 for females. Most other states it’s 16 with parental consent, judicial consent, or both.

    Consanguinity, though… this site leaves me feeling somewhat icky, but if anyone would be an expert on the laws, it’d be them. And I’ll blame Google on finding it.

    So, cross-referencing the two lists, 15-year-old first cousins could legally marry in Georgia or Hawaii if their parents consented. You wanna argue that their rights would be violated should they travel out of state and act like (and expect to be treated like) husband and wife?

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. Kylopod says:

    >Who is this imaginary friend “John Malkovich” you guys keep talking to!?!?!?!

    He disappeared into his own portal.

    >Maybe they aren’t into sodomy

    So you have to be “into” something in order to believe it should be legal? I guess I better start my petition to ban okra…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. mannning says:

    Many same-sex couples want to have children. I suggest that some would want to have biological children, and hence would want to marry a woman to bear their children. Thus the pressure builds to permit polygamy from this direction. The gay community would surely marshal their efforts to have legislation passed permitting married gay men couples to marry a willing woman. As they have been successful in the first instance of same-sex marriage in a number of states, it is reasonable to believe that the gay community would in time have a sporting chance in these states in this instance of polygamy too.

    Why shouldn’t they have the right to biological children from their marriage and propagate their names and their genes as others do as their bit of immortality? Poligamy is established, eventually, which adds significantly to the pressure against marriage in the first place, which is already under attack from many other directions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. mannning says:

    I suppose this would hold for two gay women as well, who would need either a man or a semen store; and perhaps would prefer the “real thing”!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. An Interested Party says:

    I suggest that some would want to have biological children, and hence would want to marry a woman to bear their children. Thus the pressure builds to permit polygamy from this direction.

    How’s that? A man doesn’t need to be married to a woman to have children with her…the only people who are talking about polygamy are people like you, who don’t approve of gay marriage…

    …which adds significantly to the pressure against marriage in the first place, which is already under attack from many other directions.

    Indeed, considering the 50% divorce rate, most of that attack is coming from heterosexuals…perhaps you should address your concerns to them…

    It really is amazing the logical pretzels that the opponents of gay marriage are twisting themselves into to justify their disapproval of it…why not just say it’s icky to you and save everyone else the humor of your ridiculous arguments…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. mannning says:

    @Jay Tea

    Somehow, I cannot see potential complications as being the reason to deny poligamy any more than denying normal marriage because of its high percentage of faliures. But I can readily agree that there would be some tragically chaotic situations arising from it all. It would be an enormous boost for lawyers, though! My concern would be for any children brought into the situation. I am afraid they would suffer the most in the long run.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. mannning says:

    Here is another one that rejects the very thought of both name and gene propagation by normal reproductive acts as a means for a form of immortality. You would deny same sex couples that right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  61. mannning says:

    Legally as in marriage, that is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  62. anjin-san says:

    My concern would be for any children brought into the situation. I am afraid they would suffer the most in the long run.

    Well, based on your ravings, I would be concerned for any children that might be exposed to you. Perhaps there should be some legislation to restrict your freedom…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. sam says:

    @Manning

    Many same-sex couples want to have children. I suggest that some would want to have biological children, and hence would want to marry a woman to bear their children. Thus the pressure builds to permit polygamy from this direction. The gay community would surely marshal their efforts to have legislation passed permitting married gay men couples to marry a willing woman.

    Please. Surrogacy is an established fact not requiring marriage to the surrogate. But I’d think what you’re claiming is susceptible of empirical verification. Has any gay rights group in the states, eg, Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal pushed for polygamy? I’m not aware of any, but perhaps you have other info.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    Many same-sex couples want to have children. I suggest that some would want to have biological children, and hence would want to marry a woman to bear their children.

    Strange.

    You know, there are lots of heterosexual couples who want biological children and can’t have them. There have been lots of attempts to rectify this, from IVF to surrogate pregnancies. Strangely, despite the larger number of these couples, and the persistence of the problem over the centuries, the strong push towards polygamy has yet to occur.

    Your reasoning does not pass the reality check, I’m afraid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  65. Jay Tea says:

    mannning, that’s just the tip of the iceberg of legal issues in polygamous situations. Parental rights? Child support? Custody? Alimony? Division of assets?

    The biggest benefit, as you point out, would be for lawyers. And my own prejudice kicks in there to say “screw that” and say “no, two adults only.” We got enough cans of worms lying around.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  66. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    mannning, that’s just the tip of the iceberg of legal issues in polygamous situations. Parental rights? Child support? Custody? Alimony? Division of assets?

    I must admit that I am not privy to American family law, but at least extrapolating from our laws I see almost nothing there that cannot be handled by the already established foundations of family law.

    The only problem might be custody/place of residence since getting three people to agree on sth is always harder then getting two “agree”s. But that could easily fixed by either giving precedence to the physical parents or by giving the biological mother the right to nominate one additional primary custodian (roughly analogous to how many countries handle custody in cases of an unknown father).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  67. michael reynolds says:

    You know, after my first biological child, I wanted another. So we adopted. If only I’d known polygamy was an option.

    Thus the pressure builds to permit polygamy from this direction.

    Manning always manages to kick the stupid up to a whole new level. It’s a weird kind of genius.

    Pressure. . . building for polygamy . . . pressure!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  68. Ben Wolf says:

    Mannng’s two issues are:

    1) The gays, the goddamned gays.

    2) Quintupling the defense budget to prepare for invasion from the Klingon Empire, The Padishah Emperor and Allah.

    And yet he thinks he’s the one making sense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  69. G.A.Phillips says:

    Thanks y’all….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  70. WR says:

    Manning — Is there anything you’re not afraid of?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  71. Neal says:

    It is pitiful to see how afraid politicians are of losing votes and what they will pass in order to get them. As for Cuomo-don’t get me started. The term same-sex marriage is : (a) a lie ? (b) a pretense? (c) a reality fracture? (d) a blatant contradiction ? (e) all of the above?. The term is self-contradictory and legislatures should have not vote on any contradictory legislation with such language. Any terms which by definition are contradictory do not have a suitable place in law and should not be written as such because they belie themselves. The pretense is that suddenly bodies that are not designed to fit together have by a miracle of voting by wimpy politicians desperate for votes has instantly caused in same- sex couples a growth of female sex organs in the anuses of some while the growth of male sex organs have replaced female organs on others.This is the pretense-wishing will not make anything a reality. Truly this is a fracture with reality. Although we all heterosexuals and homosexuals share the planet, we technically live in two different worlds. We attend different meeting halls, different nightclubs, speak with different lingos,view so many things differently also. The homosexuals community should have their own ceremonies without the improper use of the term marriage. The use of the term marriage was deliberate but unnecessary. All the rights in the world could have been obtained without using the institution of marriage. Marriage is the physical joining of two bodies that actually fit together-ipso facto. Perhaps to perfect the pretense, have all the “ladies” wear gowns and the”gentlemen” wear suits or tuxedos. Maybe that would help the pretense along. Also the true marriage ceremony is to bless the mingling of bodies that do fit together and has always been designed to precede sexual activity because sexual activity is the physical act of marriage (two bodies that appropriately fit together) itself. The reason that the word marriage is being used to refer to homosexual activity is deliberate and does poke fun at; belittles; and thumbs homosexual noses at the institution of marriage. Those who deceptively wrote this legislation should have used much more self-control. As for young persons supporting this fiasco, just look at their political inexperience and sadly how they were used as easily-if not easier than-those politicians. Maybe they lost their dictionaries. They were told that it was a good social thing to do and they went with what they thought was their path of destiny. Again it was wholly unnecessary to abuse and make fun of marriage. Perhaps homosexuals have poked so much fun at marriage that it was simply of matter of a bad habit. For the legislation not to be an apparent farce the term same-sex marriage should be redacted and the legislation should be corrected by not including any such ridiculous wordings and therefore be proper and correct. One will not find my using the term marriage in reference to homosexuality because it is much worse than condensed double talk and legislators should know much much better than this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2