Streams

Gay Marriage by the New York Numbers

Monday, June 13, 2011

Gay Pride Rainbow Flag Gay Pride Rainbow Flag (marlith/flickr)

All of a sudden it looks like Albany might actually pass a gay marriage bill, maybe. Ever wondered how many same sex couples lived in the state, or how many out-of-state couples would feed New York's economy if they got married here? Maybe you're just curious how much a wedding costs in the Big Apple (hint: it's cheaper to elope). Whatever happens in the legislature this week, here's a look at gay marriage by the numbers.

4,839

The number of Queens constituents who wrote to until-recently-undecided Democratic State Senator Joseph Addabbo in support of gay marriage. Addabbo claims he received 6,015 calls and letters on the issue total. He now says he'll vote yes.

60/40

Fellow former undecided Democratic Senator Shirley Huntley's estimation for gay marriage support in her district. After voting against gay marriage in 2009, she said she will vote yes.

$210 million

The estimated amount of money New York state's economy would pick up in the three years following gay marriage legalization, according to former NYC Comptroller Bill Thompson. (Thompson originally estimated a $184 million pickup in a 2007 report, but increased his estimate via press release in 2009.)

56,000

The estimated number of gay couples who would travel from out-of-state to get married in New York in the three years following gay marriage legislation, according to the same 2007 report from Comptroller Thompson.

50,854

The estimated number of gay couples living in the state in 2005.

58

The percentage of New Yorkers in favor of gay marriage, according to an April Siena poll.

3

The number of Republicans who would have needed to vote 'yes' on gay marriage for it to pass.

4

The number who did.

2009

The last year a gay marriage bill came up for a vote in the New York legislature.

$32,000

The average cost of a wedding in New York state, again according to Comptroller Thompson's 2007 report. (It jumps to $37,000 in NYC.)

Tags:

More in:

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [43]

Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

Stan,

"Also preposterous is the notion that marriage existed before governments, since what we're discussing is ultimately a legal issue, making which might come first irrelevant."

If you think it is preposterous or not makes no difference. Since government is comprised of people and people come from families and families come from the union between a man and a woman and since this is the traditional definition of marriage, it is quite clear that before government could be, people had to procreate or there would be no one around to make up the government. So, the only thing that is actually preposterous is your claim that the above outlined reasoning is preposterous.

Now, since marriage and families were established prior to government, it is not up to government to define or re-define what it is or is not. That definition existed long before government and it is government that owes its existence to it, not the other way around. The definition arose out of biological necessity and is defined such objective basis, not some subjective feeling that government officials or lawyer-activists might have.

Jun. 17 2011 07:28 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

lawprof

"f the right to marriage is grounded in the ability to procreate, how about denying the right to marry to heterosexual couples who cannot (due to age or infertility) or choose not to, have children? Are you ok with that Louis?"

If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I have already dealt with this issue adequately. It is the responsibility of government to set general policy that promotes the greatest good. As a rule, by nature and by design and as a group, the couples in a traditionally defined marriage produce the next generation and establish the building blocks of civilization called a family. In order for gays and lesbians to participate in this, they must borrow from that definition "the union between man and a woman", by uniting with the opposite sex through artificial insemination or to have someone else to act as a stand-in or proxy to have their child, which also borrows from that. They are forced to borrow a small portion of the full definition of marriage because otherwise they could not have kids and this is all due to the fact that same sex unions cannot produce them.

You cannot make broad and sweeping government policy by taking every exception to the rule into account. Just one serving the greatest good.

Jun. 17 2011 07:19 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

Stan
"A typical lesbian woman is more than able to carry & birth a child as is a typical gay man able to ejaculate perfectly viable sperm. "

What this referendum is about is what marriage actually is, which has long ago been established. As has the fact that it is only through the union of a man and a woman that the next generation can occur. As you have just agreed in the above statement. While the union is not in the conventional way(therefore not a marriage in the traditional sense), it is a union between man and woman. What you have just done, is affirmed what I have been saying all along. Biologically, the union between same sex couples does not produce offspring. The union between a man and a woman does. This establishes same sex union s as being different from traditional marriage. Yet, everyone seems on the bandwagon to apply the same definition to something different the traditional definition of marriage.

Jun. 17 2011 07:10 PM
lawprof from Long Island

If the right to marriage is grounded in the ability to procreate, how about denying the right to marry to heterosexual couples who cannot (due to age or infertility) or choose not to, have children? Are you ok with that Louis?

Jun. 16 2011 09:44 AM
Catherine from Long Island

HELP! Who should we be calling today to get this vote PASSED!

Jun. 15 2011 02:53 PM
Stan from NYC

Louis...

I think you're under the misconception that somehow the genitals of homosexual couples somehow become unusable. While I'm not gay myself and can't speak for the entire gay community, I'm fairly certain this is not the case. A typical lesbian woman is more than able to carry & birth a child as is a typical gay man able to ejaculate perfectly viable sperm. The fact that they need someone outside of their relationship to facilitate this is irrelevant as invitro-fertilization, surrogates, etc. are all used by heterosexual couples as well. By your reasoning it is not a couples sexual orientation that's the reason for their denial of rights, but their ability to procreate without any assistance from the outside world. That's simply ridiculous. Heterosexual couples unable or unwilling to have children get married all the time and are afforded all the appropriate rights.

Whatever your notion of 'traditional marriage' is is also irrelevant to the discussion. Aside from the fact that people get married for countless reasons other than procreating (companionship, financial support, social standing, etc.), what's at issue here isn't what one subset of the population thinks 'marriage' is, but how the law arbitrarily awards rights to some but not to others.

Also preposterous is the notion that marriage existed before governments, since what we're discussing is ultimately a legal issue, making which might come first irrelevant. And wouldn't societal recognition of a union (which is what marriage ultimately is) imply there is in fact some sort of basic government already then in place, even if it's not the what we regard as a 'government'??

Again, with regards of your dismissal of the race or religious comparisons, you can't simply dismiss arguments because they're damaging to your point.

Some people are simply convinced the world is flat and will argue until they're blue in the face. They are, by all definitions, unreasonable & irrational. I've torn apart every flimsy excuse for an argument you have and simply don't care to discuss this any further.

Jun. 15 2011 11:36 AM
jon not john from Denver

Let me rephrase. Where are you sourcing that the governments reason for "protecting and privileging" straight-only marriages is "because it is the mechanism by which the next generation is spawned."

Jun. 14 2011 08:12 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

John

And where in that is the "idea that the government has decreed marriage a reward for bring more people into the world"?

I made it clear that government confers some privileges on what it recognizes as a marriage. The institution is protected and privileged by the government because it is the mechanism by which the next generation is spawned. The marriage can easily exist without any government at all and did so prior to any government. If you don't believe me...strand a heterosexual couple on an island and come back five years later. You will find a family. Strand a gay couple and you won't. That is the difference worth protecting. And it is not some imagined difference, it is a quantifiable one in the form of rambunctious toddlers. So, why is it again that we should treat two fundamentally different things as if they were the same thing? Do you also prefer lies to the truth as it seems to be the case with student from Denver?

Jun. 14 2011 07:50 PM
Jon from Denver

Posted by Louis:
"If there are privileges that are granted straight couples as a policy it is not because the state is supporting their loving relationship, but because there is a reasonable expectation that the couples will, by nature, create the next generation. It is on the basis of such an expectation of benefit from straight marriages that the government privileges such unions. What benefit of equal magnitude is offered the state by the gay or lesbian couples? I say none and therefore there is no basis for privileging such unions."
Jun. 13 2011 08:33 PM

Jun. 14 2011 07:38 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

John

"And you still haven't answered my question about where you've sourced this idea that the government has decreed marriage a reward for bring more people into the world..."

I am not interested in defending a claim I did not make.

Jun. 14 2011 07:16 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

blacklight

"The purpose of extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples is to give them the equal protection of the body of laws of civil marriage. Because government has the overwhelming interest in protecting the well-being of families headed by same-sex couples as in protecting the well-being of families headed by opposite-sex couples."

There is nothing in the nature of same sex unions that make a family biologically possible. So, why should one protect that which brings no equivalent value to that of marriage as traditionally defined? By design, by nature and by enlarge as a group, no babies are coming out of same sex unions for such to be credited and applauded for doing so. There is no reason why the government should give credit for bringing children into this world to the institution of same sex unions. That institution is designed, not to bring any into it, while traditional marriage is designed to do the opposite.

Jun. 14 2011 07:14 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

My friend John,

"Louis, while I respect your right to say whatever the hell you want. There is a difference between celebrating the diversity of all the different ways people were created"

With a biology that fits together in a way that is appropriate for its intended design in order to bring about the procreation of the next generation. Is that what you are willing to celebrate? Excellent. The diversity comes in the form of a man and woman and there is a great deal of diversity there between the two.

" and celebrating ignorant, homophobic ideology aimed at oppressing people. Should we celebrate the KKK too?"

I agree that I am not willing to celebrate the diversity of driving tactics people employ on the roads that get them and other skilled. However, I am willing to hear out diverse ideas even from KKK and accept or reject them on the basis of their merit or the lack thereof. (I've read their Kloran and I don't think there is any merit, on the basis of very sound reasoning, to any of their claims). As to homophobia, ideologies do not have phobias, people do. If you call giving gay people the same rights that I have oppression, it seems that the word phobia is not the only definition you are having trouble with. Sorry to hear it.

"You weren't born a bigot, "

How do you know that? Maybe there is a gene for that too and you are unknowingly discriminating against me..Mr. Celebrate Diversity.

"you learned it upstate. I grew up in rural PA and was taught lots of ignorant things as a child. Thankfully I unlearned that crap when I left home and became a man."

That's the nature of indoctrination...isn't it? We are all indoctrinated into something. Some into truth some into lies and some into a mix.

"I will not celebrate your views because they are harmful to the rights of others."

You have not shown a single right I am willing to deny they gay folks. I am against offering "privileges" that married people enjoy for very specific reasons. They do not qualify for them based on not being married.
That does not mean that I am interested in preventing them from joining in any kind of union they like and set up housekeeping just like married couples do. I have never believed in placing any kind of obstacles in their way in that regard. There are plenty of churches out there that will be happy to have them walk down their isle and accept them into their congregation and I am willing to quietly sit in the corner and let them.

Jun. 14 2011 07:01 PM
jon from Denver

Louis, stop saying the same stupid thing over and over. You already admitted this is really about the fact that you are disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle and you are afraid of gays shoving offensive things down your throat.

And you still haven't answered my question about where you've sourced this idea that the government has decreed marriage a reward for bring more people into the world...

Jun. 14 2011 06:58 PM
blacklight from New York City

The purpose of extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples is to give them the equal protection of the body of laws of civil marriage. Because government has the overwhelming interest in protecting the well-being of families headed by same-sex couples as in protecting the well-being of families headed by opposite-sex couples.

Jun. 14 2011 06:50 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

Stan

"It ain't their ability to have children"

There is nothing about a same sex union that facilitates the bringing of children into this world. In fact it makes that impossible. While, traditional marriage is, by definition, designed for just such a purpose. So, you are mistaken when you imply that same sex unions have a positive bearing on conception. Yes, I know that gay couples can adopt or artificially inseminate or go outside of the confines of their same sex union that is designed to make it impossible to have kids. Keep in mind that it is the thing, marriage, that we are privileging on the basis of what that thing is capable of providing that we value. The traditional marriage is, by itself, capable of bringing children into this world. The same is not true of same sex unions. This is why we privilege the one and not the other.

"By making a distinction b/t the two, the government IS then getting involved, needlessly. "

The distinction is there if the government acknowledges it or not. Marriage in the traditional sense existed prior to government and as such is not defined by government, but is simply described, acknowledged and protected as something that is by nature valuable.

"Perhaps the government shouldn't recognize a marriage b/t Asians and Whites or b/t Jews & Hindus. Absurd."

Here you are making the same mistake that was made by student from Denver and I have already shown that there is a big difference between men and women, while none between races. The racial example is not a parallel to the racial marriage, which actually qualifies as a civil rights issue for the reasons I outlined in previous response.

Jun. 14 2011 06:44 PM
jon from Denver

Louis, while I respect your right to say whatever the hell you want. There is a difference between celebrating the diversity of all the different ways people were created and celebrating ignorant, homophobic ideology aimed at oppressing people. Should we celebrate the KKK too?

You weren't born a bigot, you learned it upstate. I grew up in rural PA and was taught lots of ignorant things as a child. Thankfully I unlearned that crap when I left home and became a man.

I will not celebrate your views because they are harmful to the rights of others.

Jun. 14 2011 06:35 PM
Stan from NYC

Louis... my strongest point is that NONE of your points have any merit at all.

You fail to demonstrate even the slightest reason why homosexual relationships should "fall appropriately under the same general category as unmarried people". You think by somehow just saying it is enough of an argument to make it valid. Like if I were to say 'women should appropriately be categorized as children' or 'my bicycle should be appropriately be categorized as a sports utility vehicle'. See, just by saying insane wildly unreasonable things doesn't somehow make your position strong.

As a family unit, a homosexual COUPLE has far more in common with a heterosexual COUPLE than a single person. In every way (aside from the obvious one) they are identical. You haven't provided a single shred of an argument to explain why the government is justified in differentiating b/t homosexual & heterosexual couples. It ain't their ability to have children. It ain't their ability to raise and provide for their children. It ain't their ability to do anything else heterosexual couples do together. Recognizing them as two different entities under the law IS in fact an example of the inefficiencies you were so quick to attack. By making a distinction b/t the two, the government IS then getting involved, needlessly.

Using sexual orientation as a guideline of legal marital recognition b/t two consenting adults is as arbitrary and morally reprehensible as using race or religious affiliation. Perhaps the government shouldn't recognize a marriage b/t Asians and Whites or b/t Jews & Hindus. Absurd. And while it has taken a long time to have the overwhelming majority of Americans to see this way, I take solace in the knowledge that ultimately the country will drag the ignorant into the 21st century and my kids and my kids kids will look back at people like you and laugh.

Jun. 14 2011 05:58 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

"Furthermore, you show your true colors in your second to last post: this isn't about not being able to give the government more babies. This is about something "deeply offensive" being "shoved down your throat" (LOL!)"

Actually, you are half right, but you will have to work on that one-dimensional thinking you seem to be stuck in. My true colors are terribly inclusive and I hold to both of those ideas. Just how willing are you to celebrate diversity of ideas that disagree with yours? You don't have to answer that question, except to yourself.

"By the way, I'm not one of "them"; I'm straight, just like you. Some of "us" celebrate diversity and value equality."

Excellent! Then you will not have any trouble in celebrating the diversity that I bring to the table with a different view from yours. By all means, celebrate diversity and while you are doing that, you can celebrate inclusive and include my ideas as part of that diversity you are celebrating.

If you value equality, you would join me in my attempt at preserving it.

Jun. 14 2011 05:33 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

Student

"Wow, this man is out of his mind! I started reading your comments and I literally had to stop. It is so asinine to tell me that I have the same rights because I can also marry a female just like you can."

This is the first time I have had a true statement called assinine. Do you prefer lies? I can do that, but how would you benefit from lies?

"Newsflash for you! I am GAY!! I have no desire to marry a female. "
Not desiring the same rights I enjoy, is not proof that you are being denied them. Please keep pretending that I am an ignorant south of the boarder hick if it makes you feel better.

"As much as I love them with all my heart I would not be able to fall in love with one..."

You are welcome to that as well. I am denying you absolutely nothing. If anything, I am the one that wants the same rights for you as I have. I truly want equality.

"Now, just to give you an example of how absurd your reasoning is...how about we go back in the day and allow ONLY white people to get married. "

There an enormous difference between men and women while there is no difference between people of different collor. That is why different sexes sharing bathrooms is not something we deem appropriate. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in those situations and this is perfectly rational approach to such segregation. However, this is not the case with just color being the reason to segregate people into different bathrooms. So, your attempt at a comparison with the ban of racial marriages fails.

The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter).

Therefore this is again shown not to be a civil rights issue and fails the test as such.

Jun. 14 2011 05:23 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

Stan,

I am a bit short for time right now so, I will not address all of your issues, though there are answers for those as well. I will stick to what you seem to think is your strongest point and is on point with mine.

"if it wasn't for your point of "Policy is not made on the basis of individual couple exceptions, but on what is true as a rule for a group." You suggest that the government shouldn't attempt to handle issues on a minority or individual basis and therefore needs to aim policy towards groups and broader sections of general population for efficiency purposes. Fine, I agree."

Good, then you are on-board with me being against government waste.

"Don't you then think it to be reasonable to say that by the government creating two separate policies for homo & heterosexual people (rather than 1 policy for all couples), it is then being needlessly inefficient??"

Not at all since the homosexual relationships by their nature fall appropriately under the same general category as unmarried people, for whom we already have a policy as to what privileging they are entitled to and it is not the same as married people. So, the only inefficiency that is introduced is through providing special privileges that, on principle, if you provide to the gays, can be arguably defended for all unmarried people.

"You do in fact realize that this is a stronger argument FOR gay marriage rather than against."

I don't realize it because it is in fact not.
So, since you agree that we should not introduce elements into government that will make it less efficient in promoting the greater good and your offering does nothing to prove that will occur as a result of redefining marriage to be something it is clearly not, it would seem the wise direction to go into is to allow gays and lesbians to continue to get married, but without forcing government involvement in something that does not benefit society in the way traditional marriage does.

Jun. 14 2011 05:02 PM
jon from Denver

Furthermore, you show your true colors in your second to last post: this isn't about not being able to give the government more babies. This is about something "deeply offensive" being "shoved down your throat" (LOL!)

By the way, I'm not one of "them"; I'm straight, just like you. Some of "us" celebrate diversity and value equality.

Jun. 14 2011 04:46 PM
Gay College Student from Denver, CO

Wow, this man is out of his mind! I started reading your comments and I literally had to stop. It is so asinine to tell me that I have the same rights because I can also marry a female just like you can. Newsflash for you! I am GAY!! I have no desire to marry a female. As much as I love them with all my heart I would not be able to fall in love with one...Now, just to give you an example of how absurd your reasoning is...how about we go back in the day and allow ONLY white people to get married. What would you say to an African American person who would also like to have the same right? Ooh you could also get married...if you were WHITE...You are pretty much telling me that yes I could get married...if I were straight. Just because the difference is not as obvious as it is in race does not mean that it is nonexistent. There's so many gay people in the world, I highly doubt that you don't have a gay relative or friend. Whether you know it or you don't.

I'm not going to comment on what you say anymore because what you are saying is utterly nonsensical.

After all...what harm does it do to you to allow gay people to get married? How does it affect your life or your choices at all? It's one thing to not agree with "gay people's life styles" but is another thing to actively oppose and do anything you can to destroy the happiness of others when what they want does not harm you in any way.

It's very sad that you think this way. I'm very happy that the world is changing and that most people my age (20's) are not stuck in the past as you seem to be.

Jun. 14 2011 04:42 PM
Stan from NYC

Louis... you are continually contradicting yourself.

You make the argument that homosexual couples should be denied the rights of heterosexual couples due to the fact that as a group society generally expects heterosexual couples to produce children. This in fact nonsense, due in part to the examples I posted previously of heterosexual couples who can't or won't have children, yet are granted identical rights under the law of heterosexual couples with children. You can't dismiss these as irrelevant simply because they're devastating to your argument.

But fine, you think that these examples are simply a minority of the couples who are simply a small fraction of the total households in the US.... and again you'd be wrong. Latest US Census data puts the total number of households in the US as 113 million and the number of households with children 17 & under at 35 million (roughly 31% of households). Heterosexual couples currently raising children are the minority by a large margin. You are more than twice as likely to find a heterosexual couple that is not in fact raising children, yet you see fit to claim that these all of these people (even the ~70% who are NOT raising children) should have rights above homosexual couples.

I couldn't go without mentioning that lesbian couples are more than able to be artificially inseminated (as are women in heterosexual relationships) and are more than able to then carry, birth & raise a child. Same line of reasoning for homosexual men who are able to donate and have a surrogate carry and birth the child (something heterosexual couples might do as well). The idea that somehow it doesn't count (only for the homosexual couples btw) since they received sperm from or donated the sperm outside the relationship is simply idiotic, and in fact might be the most idiotic thing you suggested...

if it wasn't for your point of "Policy is not made on the basis of individual couple exceptions, but on what is true as a rule for a group." You suggest that the government shouldn't attempt to handle issues on a minority or individual basis and therefore needs to aim policy towards groups and broader sections of general population for efficiency purposes. Fine, I agree. Don't you then think it to be reasonable to say that by the government creating two separate policies for homo & heterosexual people (rather than 1 policy for all couples), it is then being needlessly inefficient?? You do in fact realize that this is a stronger argument FOR gay marriage rather than against.

Jun. 14 2011 04:34 PM
jon from Denver

This is still absurd, Louis. What is the basis for your argument that the government rationalizes marriage as a mean to reward procreation? I have never heard such a decree.

On the contrary, more and more states are saying the opposite, that the purpose of marriage is to express a legally binding life commitment between two loving partners. And, also to the contrary, the vast majority of people trying to ban gay marriage are religious zealots who view gay sex as a detestable sin.

Young people today do just fine getting pregnant without the benefits of marriage thanks to abstinence-only sex education. As a matter of fact, I don't think the government has ever needed to twist anybody's arm with tax breaks in order to get them to bone.

Jun. 14 2011 04:22 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

"Louis... Your reasoning couldn't be more absurd.

"What about heterosexual couples who can't have children?? "

I have mentioned on numerous occasions in my post that this is an issue to be taken up as a group contribution. That is to say, there is a certain expectation of heterosexual couples as a group to create the next generation. It is on such a basis that a government policy is created. This is the only reasonable and practical course for government to take. You cannot expect for government to remain efficient and at the same time take every minority exception into account. The government's duty is to focus on the greater good and its promotion and such is accomplished in the most effective and efficient manner through promotion of marriage as it has been traditionally defined.

"What about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children??"

This is also irrelevant on the same grounds as already stated. It is an expectation of the particular group that is in question, not a minority portion of the group.

" What about heterosexual couples who might have already had children from a previous relationship but will not have any more?? "

Same rationale as before.

"Should these couples not then be entitled to the same across the board legal standing as other heterosexual couples??"

No, because again, this does not support the natural expectation as a group making the kind of contribution I outlined.

"If a heterosexual couple requires a sperm donation from 'outside their pool' are they no longer entitled to the same rights as other heterosexual couples??"

Policy is not made on the basis of individual couple exceptions, but on what is true as a rule for a group. You keep raising rare exceptions compared to the greater majority. You cannot make policy on rare exceptions and expect efficient governance to efficiently produce a peaceful and productive society.

Jun. 14 2011 01:38 PM
Stan from New York

Louis... Your reasoning couldn't be more absurd.

What about heterosexual couples who can't have children?? What about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children?? What about heterosexual couples who might have already had children from a previous relationship but will not have any more?? Should these couples not then be entitled to the same across the board legal standing as other heterosexual couples?? If a heterosexual couple requires a sperm donation from 'outside their pool' are they no longer entitled to the same rights as other heterosexual couples??

Jun. 14 2011 11:33 AM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

...Continued

"WE, the gay community, are MORE THAN WILLING to take care of and love these kids like their parents, who "by nature",

should have."

I am not denying this. But that is not the issue here as I did not bring into question your communities ability to

raise children. I have brought into question your ability to create those children without dipping into the pools

outside your particular group in order to do so. Since the privileges we are talking about are granted on the basis

of the uniquely valuable contribution as a group, when it comes to couples as man and woman, it is only fair to both

sides if the government offer your group the exact same treatment. That's equality. If you, as a group, can bring the

same thing to the table, you should be granted those same privileges. But gays cannot do so without dipping into the

pool of lesbians or straights to do so and similar thing is true of lesbians. Since you wish to be identified as a

unique group, and I have no objection to that, you should be treated as such.

"the government must honor and validate that marriage the same as it honors and validates marriages performed in your

church,"

On what grounds? I have already pointed out that your group does not bring the same thing to the table as does the

union of a man and a woman, by design and by nature and as a group. So, there are no grounds for granting the same

privileges to your group. The truth of the matter is pretty much spelled out in your statement. You want "approval",

not just tolerance, of people that might find your lifestyle offensive. It is not enough for us who disagree with your

lifestyles to sit quietly in the corner and allow you your right to hook up with anyone you wish. You want us to clap

our hands publicly in approval of your actions and offer gifts at your reception to show our public approval. Why

should we have something showed down our throats that we find deeply offensive? Do we not have the right to follow the

dictates of our conscience? Do you wish to make us prisoners of conscience in this country?

Jun. 14 2011 11:27 AM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

College student from Denver:

"If you think there are absolutely no rights being denied then how come you could get married anywhere in the country

and I can't?"

This is untrue on multiple levels. Firstly, you are not going to jail for joining in union with someone of your own

sex and setting up housekeeping the same way any married couple does. It is perfectly legal for you to do so. You can

even have a wedding in a church that supports gay and lesbian marriages, there are plenty that will. Therefore, your

claim that you cannot get married is baseless. Secondly, you are not even denied marriage in the traditional sense as

you are perfectly free to marry someone of the opposite sex. This option is also not denied to you. So, everything

that is available to heteros is available to gays and lesbians. Conversely, everything that is denied to heteros is

denied gays. That sounds like equality under to law to me. To answer your question, the similarity is obvious, not the

difference.

"rights over anything my husband and I have worked for during the years of our relationship."

I think a well constructed will can take care of that. At any rate, the original laws in such cases were based on the

need to protect a woman who loses a husband being able to raise children and thus protect the building block of

society which is the family. This protection also rested on the foundation of a reasonable expectation of a man and

woman(or more precisely these types of couples as a group) starting a family which is the building block of society.

Again, being able to leave things in a will is not being denied to gays or lesbians and thus has been exposed another

fiction about what is a civil right being denied gays and lesbians.

"Do you know how many girls out there are getting pregnant all the time and aborting their kids?"

Yes, that is why I am pro-life and do not believe in government support for abortion.

"Do you have any idea of how many kids are in orphanages RIGHT NOW because their heterosexual parents did not want

them?"

Apparently not that many in the US because of all those abortions and that fact is reflected in how many childless

couples are forced to jump through all kinds of hoops going abroad to adopt. So, it would seem that your statements

are a tangled collection of contradictory knots that are far more obvious to others than you.

Continued...

Continued...

Jun. 14 2011 11:26 AM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

Dann:

I am well aware of the fact that gays and lesbians can adopt. But that a couple of any gender can raise children was not my argument. It was that the same is not true of creating children and that is a contribution that can only reasonably be expected of a couple that is comprised of a man and a woman. Since same sex couples as a group are not capable of providing an expectation of such a contribution, they should not be privileged in the same way as couples that can. Same sex couples have to dip into the pool outside their group to in order to make such a contribution and that is what is meant by not providing the same expectation of a equivalent benefit from same sex couples. As a group, they do not offer an equivalent benefit to that of a couple that is comprised of a man and a woman. Thus, a man and a woman, as an identifiable group, bring to the table a unique contribution the value of which is not matched by the same sex couples as a group. Thus there is no justification for granting them the same privileges.

Jun. 14 2011 10:39 AM
Dann Birkholz from Dallas

Louis in Rochester, I certainly hope your not as stupid looking as you sound because having children is not a prerequisite for marriage. But since you want to go there with this stupid dumb ass argument here goes. Gays can adopt, surrogate as well as artificial inseminate to for the "American family" that you speak of. Grow up dumb ass!

Jun. 13 2011 11:43 PM
Gay College Student from Denver, CO

This comment is to Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

What right is being granted to the individual hetero that a gay is denied? If you think there are absolutely no rights being denied then how come you could get married anywhere in the country and I can't? Isn't the difference obvious? This is not only a matter of me loving someone and wanting to get married just because, it is a matter of having legal rights over anything my husband and I have worked for during the years of our relationship. It is a matter of having the rights a heterosexual marriage would have after one of them has passed away. This IS a matter of civil rights and equality should be granted to everyone regardless of sexual orientation or religion.

Now, you talk about how heterosexual marriages have this expectations of creating the next generation. Do you know how many girls out there are getting pregnant all the time and aborting their kids? Do you have any idea of how many kids are in orphanages RIGHT NOW because their heterosexual parents did not want them? WE, the gay community, are MORE THAN WILLING to take care of and love these kids like their parents, who "by nature", should have. How can you talk about the next generation when this is what you want to teach them? I know many gay parents who absolutely love their kids to death. We teach our kids about love and acceptance, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

What are YOU teaching them by opposing gay marriage?

Jun. 13 2011 09:49 PM
Louis Kuhelj from Rochester, NY

I constantly hear that same sex marriage is all about civil rights. In civil rights cases a particular individual is denied a right that someone else enjoys. What right is being granted to the individual hetero that a gay is denied? If there are privileges that are granted straight couples as a policy it is not because the state is supporting their loving relationship, but because there is a reasonable expectation that the couples will, by nature, create the next generation. It is on the basis of such an expectation of benefit from straight marriages that the government privileges such unions. What benefit of equal magnitude is offered the state by the gay or lesbian couples? I say none and therefore there is no basis for privileging such unions.

Jun. 13 2011 08:33 PM
jon from Denver

Dollars and cents is not the motivating factor for the people advocating marriage equality, it is a moral one for us, just as its a moral one for those against it. However, if dollars and cents is what gets through to some people who may consider themselves more fiscally conservative than socially conservatives (as many Young Republicans are today) then there is no harm in framing an issue in the terms that make sense to them.

But the really bottom line on this issue goes to the heart of our 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion: Just because *YOUR God* hates fags doesn't mean *MY God* does. So if I belong to a faith that performs and recognizes gay marriage, the government must honor and validate that marriage the same as it honors and validates marriages performed in your church, or it must refuse to validate all marriages equally. Basically, the government should recognize all marriages under our right to Religious Freedom or not recognize any marriage under the Separation of Church And State clause.

Jun. 13 2011 07:53 PM
Elder Earl from Alabama

All men are created equal.CORRECT! Romans 3:23 Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory of God.
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....CORRECT! 2Corinthians 6:2 For He says, In the time of favor (of an assured welcome) I have listened to and heeded your call, and I have helped you on the day of deliverance (the day of salvation). Behold, now is truly the time for a gracious welcome and acceptance [of you from God]; behold, now is the day of salvation!
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."....LIFE! Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

LIBERTY! Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS! Psalm 144:15 Happy is that people, that is in such a case: yea, happy is that people, whose God is the LORD.

People who seek their pleasure over Gods desire in this age are given over to a reprobate mind

Romans 1

18For God's [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.
19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],
21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

23And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],

25Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).

26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

Jun. 13 2011 07:23 PM
Mister mcdonald

The issue here which has long been the demise of any politicians worth there salt is economics. Look at the nucleus of this debate. You are because the ny economy will gain a boost from gay marriages you will vote in its favor. If your going to vote for at least have a substantive reason. You can be sure if that is the basis of Huntleys choice or anyone else for that matter some of of you willl be sold out eventually. I am aware that we have to play the game some time but at what cost. Believe it or not there is something to be said for a "Backbone".

Jun. 13 2011 07:15 PM
David from Flushing

The only form of government to come out of the Judeo-Christian tradition was divine right monarchy (what was overthrown in 1776). The US government was founded on the pagan Roman republic and the pagan Greek democracy. Our laws are based on English Common Law that again can be traced to pagan Rome. Glory to Jupiter/Zeus for our freedoms!

Jun. 13 2011 07:01 PM
daniwitz13 from hawaii

I take offense that Marriage is put into a dollar and cents category. That because they have won on the discrimination front that they now can go to the front of the line, like cutting in and say that they have a Right to be up front. This defies logic. I want to ask one simple question. Do anyone want Legislatures making laws for an unknown group? That this new law does NOT know who they are? This is like making a law for aliens but don't know and can't know an alien from anyone else? I would call that stupid. And in the same class a law for Gay couples. Who are they? Pity.

Jun. 13 2011 06:51 PM
Bud Dean from Seal Beach, California

Show me a passage in the Bible that
refers to "gay marriage" If you are referring to the abomination clause then
stop eating shell fish! If you eat shrimp you are probably going to be stoned to death someday. Be wary about "pick and choose" quotes.

Jun. 13 2011 06:49 PM
Just some guy from Philadelphia

If you don't want gay marriage, then don't get one.

Jun. 13 2011 06:44 PM

Yes! please! Move all these perversions from SF! Then maybe terrorists wont target innocents(people who dont support immorality that will lead to the demise of the human animal)

Jun. 13 2011 06:43 PM
Bob from New York

America was built on men families who beleived in God,the Bible says that gay marriges Detestable & that is putting it a good way

Jun. 13 2011 06:42 PM
Residenttroll from NYC

Who knew the homosexuals would save New York? Now even the economics of a socialist state can be queered. Justifying perversion for economic purposes is about as low as it gets.

Jun. 13 2011 06:34 PM
mister Preston

fyi PASS ON TO jOSH m.

Jun. 13 2011 05:57 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Feeds

Supported by