Photo credit: @julesdwit.
A not-for-profit media organization supported by people like you.
I think the description of the beginnings is accurate, indeed the institution is still practiced this way in some places. I see it as having evolved here, and I see it as needing to evolve further, because I do not see a good reason or a need by the state to impose a double standard. If the state decided to get out of the business of marriage altogether I would support that. But I don't think that will happen. So I ask for the evolution. As far as heterosexual marriage and the state's interest in it, I think that the state has an interest in stability. All the more reason to recognize other models of stable partnerships and marriages, particularly where children are concerned.
Well, that's a thoughtful response. I don't quite agree with your description of the beginnings of marriage, since it probably predates the state. It seems you're describing how it was practiced at one time. It has evolved to what we see as a more humane and more complete institution, and that's for the good, but it's not a reason to go beyond it. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm against civil unions, if the concern is for financial rights. I still think that it's not in the state's interest to approve at the level of marriage anything that would distract people from the very valuable (to the state) situation of heterosexual marriage. Of course I'm limiting myself to only practical state considerations. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Ed,If you are still reading: if you follow that logic then nothing about the institution of marriage would have ever evolved. It started as a commercial transaction, a man would "take a wife," sometimes in exchange for a dowry and that would ensure that he had heirs to take his property. The state and he had an interest in knowing whose offspring she was bearing and this was the accepted way to be sure. We have surly evolved past that here in the US. I think that many of us are saying that there are other stable models besides the heterosexual institution with kids attached and that the states and federal government should extend the same rights and protections.
Yes, I'm for more speech also. Someone asked if I had non-religious reasons to be against same-sex marriage. I assume they want to rule out any reasons that come from any metaphysical or ethical system also. Quite a restriction, which I don't really agree with since I can support something or not for any reason I choose. But here goes. I guess only natural science reasons, either medical, psychological, or sociological, etc., count. I would have thought AIDS would have gotten this point across, that hosexuality and by drug use are a bad idea. But we're not discussing the practice of homosexuality, which is covered by privacy, but it's promotion. The state has an interest in stability and can have an interest in promoting life (see Roe v. Wade). So, the state holds up the most stable institution as the norm for people in society: married with kids. It's a lasting and stable institution, and the kids grow up to pay Social Security, be doctors and lawyers, run society, and fight in wars. The stability of society rests largely on the stable families. Not everyone follows this model, but it is the only one the state supports, for these reasons. And, I think, it should remain the only one the state does support, since it doesn't benefit from any others.
Ed: In my experience this moderator is very willing to let people air their opinions. I think they draw the line at personal attacks. Sometimes the line may get drawn a little close--but I support more speech, not less.
I'm surprised the moderator let some of those comments through. These people feel stronly about this, don't they.
eva,Good talking with you too. It's been way too long. Educating is great and we can all do that. Keep up the good fight.
"By the way, I actually pounded pavement for the E.R.A. Seems like a long time ago. I guess it was."
You made me laugh. I did, too. I think that makes us old. Sigh. But thanks for making me smile.
No one should have their child taken away because the parent is gay. But do we have to protect parental rights through marriage? I am worried that marriage has become one of those unstated "requirements" for retaining one's rights, like, uh, we were all once pushed into home-owning, because we would have more rights in the ownership society. Well, we saw where THAT went!
Hey, about what you said about people not understanding the economics. I think we have a role to play in helping people to understand that the bank bailout is a fairly simple issue. I have gone out to explain to conservatives and liberals what I have learned from my own experience in finance and a lot from Simon Johnson's toolbook at baselinescenario.com.
You wouldn't believe the interesting ideas that these previously unaware people can come up with once they have a basic grasp of what's happened. I had a hardcore Republican tell me the other day that he'd just read all of The Wealth of Nations, and finally understood Adam Smith's call for government regulation.
Also, I use Gretchen Morgenson's work at The New York Times. It's interesting how many women were involved in calling out this disaster before it happened. Makes you wonder, right? Hmmmm..... :)
This stuff really isn't complicated. It's just given complicated names. But this is our moment to empower people with education.
These are really weird times. Every time I read something new about Goldman Sachs, I remember the line: "When the going gets weird, the weird get going."
Having said that, I have to "get going"... it's been great talking with you, mc!
eva,I will check out that blog. I am not familiar with it. Do you know who Maggie Mahar is? She's a health care wonk. Absolutely great. Changed my whole outlook. Healthbeatblog.org.
I was listening to a "This American Life" episode back in Feb. They went through the economic meltdown narrative. block by block. It was great. The end was devastating. They discribed a hockey stick-like line showing the collective debt of the American people. It is equal to the size of GNP. So we owe everything that we make. As bad as all the various actors were, banks, insurance companies, investment banks, mortgage brokers, the real culprits are us! WE borrowed more than we make. Until we cure that, there is no real way out. So then, I would like to look at the reasons for all that debt. Some of it is grandeous expectations, I believe. But some of it is the desire to have adequate housing, health care that can be relied on and a chance to send your kids to college. That can't be done on many many incomes right now. What do we do?
eva,I have to say, I was surprised at the nature of "truth's" postings today, and I mentioned that more than once to him/her. Usually he/she states better reasons than just "opinion."
I agree that the economic issues do not get enough attention from most people, perhaps it's because the concepts are harder for people to grasp. I think, also that when you are essentially talking about sexuality, true for gay marriage and abortion, you get a lot of people jumping up and down.
I agree with you about the awful civil rights violations going on in prisons, and it's not just in CA. And I agree on the hypocrisy of the liberal movement at not making more noise about it. There wasn't much noise about foreclosures either until white families started getting evicted.
My concern with civil rights and misery has to do with the lack of protection against having one's child taken away in court because a parent is gay, or being denied the right to adopt a gay partner's child. I also think that we cannot allow an appartheid system to continue unchallenged.
By the way, I actually pounded pavement for the E.R.A. Seems like a long time ago. I guess it was.
mc,about your 94 post, I would rather have you evaluate the bailout than have Larry Summers do so. Or Tim Geithner. Sigh.I am with you on Brooskley Born. (Now, she really is a subject for another post.)Do you read Simon Johnson's blog, baselinescenario.com?I think you would enjoy reading it, if you are not already doing so.And honestly? I think the idea that you are not a good enough economist to evaluate the bailout is not entirely true - no economist really knows what is going on. We've never been here. Never. Not even in 1929-33.But like you suggested, we ordinary people can and should ask questions about what is going on, and who is benefiting, and whose neck is on the line. And who is pulling the strings? Do you know what I mean? Our congress is broken, they are emptying the piggybanks, and we are talking about gay marriage. I feel bad saying that, because I know it's important to you and others, but... there is a timing issue here. Clawbacks are tough. So we must stop the money flow to the banks now. Now. Really. Look, I want PPIP to work, too. But... I don't want to keep pouring money into an endless black hole. Corzine came out on this issue, saying it's time to let some of these guys go into managed receivership. He's right. Separately, I actually think there is a proposal to get the state out of the marriage business entirely. If it exists, I will fight for it.
Also, about defining "hot-button". I see issues revolving around the church as hot-button. I see issues revolving around survival (e.g. real human rights issues like prison reform) as non-hot-button. But that is just my perspective.
Anyway, it's great corresponding with you again!
just saw your 2:33 post, thanks! See, that's the thing. I don't think this is a subject for another thread.
My point is that these hot-button social issues have successfully divided us - in order that we don't pay attention to real economic issues. (Exception: I know YOU, mc, do pay attention to both issues and many others, but by pushing this and other hot-button social issues to the forefront, I think we successfully serve the financial elites by distracting ordinary people from the more pressing economic issues.)
As for misery, well, given that you and I have both worked in health care, we've seen all kinds of misery. Say, we never got the E.R.A. passed, did we? And I find it VERY ironic that there is so much more support for gay marriage (marriage of any sort being an essentially conservative issue) than there ever was for ERA.
But on a proportional basis, I can no longer support the issue of gay marriage. Right now we have extremely serious civil rights and human rights violations going on in California prisons every second of every day. And yet we spent I don't know how much fighting Prop 8. Was it 100 million? 10 million? I don't remember, it was A LOT. Equal money spent on both sides.
How much money did liberals raise for prison reform? The hypocrisy to me is just too much. As someone who voted against Prop 8, and thus for gay marriage, I have actually met many fellow liberals who are VERY tired of having this issue take precedence over genuine civil and human rights issues. We are and have been withdrawing our support on this issue.
I know you disagree, but thank your for considering my points. I don't agree with the truth on many things, but I do think I understand that her resistance to gay marriage is not entirely based on religious scripture, given some of the other posts she's written.
eva,To continue: I am not a good enough economist to evaluate the bailout. What I am uncomfortable with is the presence of Larry Summers and others who deliberately marginalized Cassandras such as Brooksley Born, who's predictions came true.
I am somewhat more familiar with the issues related to health care reform and have been keeping a close eye on that narrative. I have noticed also that there is almost as much stubborness and intractability on the left as there is on the right on this issue.
Hi eva,Right back at you on the affection. I don't mind terms of endearment coming from people who are sincere in using them.
I am at a loss vis-a-vis the bailout. I just wrote a check to the US Treasury and even though the amound was not that great in the larger scheme it was hard for me and my family to part with that money. I am uncomfortable classifying certain issues as "hot button" and therefore not worthy of our attention. Some of these things really are affecting the every day lives of real people. It's not just gay marriage. How many people have been gunned down in large numbers in the last month in the US? Another "hot button" I'm afraid. What I would like to do is take some of the heat away and find some common ground. It seems to be making headway, nothwithstanding "truth" and others.
Hola, and I am resisting the urge to say, "Hola, Baby!" out of my genuine feeling of affection for you. I've really kind of missed you! Which is weird because in the year we've been corresponding, I've never met you.
Okay, so I don't think we're going to convince the poster "the truth". So why don't we spend our energy in another direction.
I have two suggestions.
1) Join the fight against the bank bailout
2) Boycott pols who pick fights over hot-button social issues until Goldman returns the $10 bil from TARP, the 12.9 bil it got from us through AIG, and all the other little goodies and subsidies, so we can assure a level of security for poor families across the country.
3) AFTER the bank bailout money and other monies have been returned, let's get the state out of the marriage business entirely. As a secular state should be. It can do all the civil unions it wants for gay and straight couples.
I'm tired of the wedge issues distracting us from issues of economic justice. That's the real fight. There are good solutions to this struggle for gay marriage. But we can work on those after we stop the government from pissing our future and our childrens' futures down the drain.
eva,Haven't interacted with you in a while. Hope all is well with you.
To be fair, I think that neither of us can say accurately that this issue doesn't have much of an effect. I have seen the misery up close with my own eyes.
That said, I agree with you about the bailouts, but it's the subject for another thread.
I also think that the state should not be in the marraige business, but that train left the station a looonngg time ago.
longstreet,What does "consummate" mean to you? Sounds like a very narrow idea of the sexual act.
Are non-breeding straight marraiges "consummated?" Do they count as real marriages? Flawed reasoning.
"truth" #79,You have stated you opinion. However, you also claimed to have empirical reasons based on "observation." You have failed to elaborate on them. Your choice, but you are making a false claim. I wonder what gender you think I am? Wouldn't it be funny if you were referring to me as "honey," "darlin'" and "sweetie" and we were the same gender?
Wow, all this heat for an issue that doesn't actually have much effect on either gays or straights.
This is a really successful wedge issue! The financial elites are laughing all the way to the BANK!
What if we put this much passion into fighting the bank bailout?
Families in the midwest are going hungry and the unemployment rolls are rising, while Goldman grows fatter.
And the longterm ramifications of the debt we're incurring through the bank bailout easily dwarfs ANY hotbutton social issue.
Fight the real enemy. Stay focused on the real fight. This marriage business (as far as I'm concerned, the state should remove itself from the marriage business entirely) can and must be on the back burner until we get our money back from Goldman.
Goldman just reported a profit of 1.5 bil? What about the 12.9 bil they got from the taxpayer through AIG? Let alone the 10 bil they want to give back that they got from TARP?
I am boycotting any politician who talks about ANY hotbutton social issue, from abortion to gay marriage to school prayer, UNTIL WE GET OUR MONEY BACK.
WE WANT OUR MONEY BACKWE WANT OUR MONEY BACKWE WANT OUR MONEY BACK
I'm wondering if the California gay community has made it to the Homeland Security Dept's watch list, or if it's just the right wing psychos we need to worry about?We're about 3 weeks away from the psychologically disordered community there going berserk when the court rejects their absurd challenge to Prop 8.Homosexuals will never be "married" in the normal sense, no matter what the law says. It's impossible to consummate such a union. Since homosexuals can't bring life into the world, the future belongs to breeders (like me). Forty years from now this will all be nothing more than an odd footnote in US history. Have a great weekend!
what about black and whites marring is that "natural?"
Gay marriage, however, has nothing to do with either of these issues. Obviously, the existence of homosexuals since the dawn of time hasn't prevented the procreation of the human race, and as homosexuals have been with us and amongst us all this time why to you want to repress them? J, you mention your family contains a gay member - if it brought your family down you obviously have no interest in engaging with that person, but instead choose to castigate. I hope they found happiness away from you all.
If either of you are concerned with human rights, and Truth claims to be a minority his/her self, equality of treatment for homosexuals (LGBT of whatever magnitude, an inhereny characteristic of that human being as much as the color of their skin) you would think beyond the control of your primative religion.
To truth & J: You are both right, all of the behaviors you mention - rape, incest, polygamy, murder - have ben present since the dawn of time, and are rampant throughout the animal kingdom.
However, humans have developed our various civilizations over the millennia and at some point behaviors such as these have been restricted.
The US was founded on the Constitution, and its guarantee of rights to all men, created equally. The Constitution has nothing to do with the bible or religion - if you read up on the history of our Founding Fathers you will find varied views on the topic, resulting in a document specifically designed to prevent a religious creed from making the laws of the land.
I think you will both agree that when slavery was part of the country it was an obvious restriction of people's rights and those who sought its abolition were doing teh correct thing?
Standing up for such rights is wholly different from crimes where there is no consent (such as murder, rape, beastiality) from one party.
Incest has obvious genetic issues, and polygamy engenders the risk of brainwashing generation to generation without allowing choice of lifesyle, but in essence if they are arrangements entered into my consenting adults who are you to judge?
are gay animals natural?
j 73you have a very interesting imagination
"truth" #76,Oh, good. Speaks more about you than me. If you can't grant a simple request like mine then you should not be surprised when people call you names.
"Natural" is a useless argument. Wearing clothes is not "natural." Being religious is not "natural." Just because something looks unnatural is not a reason to discriminate.
MC...give it a rest...it is my opinion, I have explained that over and again, you know the reasons, I'm done honey. Have a good day.
Phoebe...is just plain whack!
"shame?" Why is that being brought up?
Once again, being a member of a racial minority does not mean you cannot be a bigot. Some members of racial minorities ARE bigots, some even toward members of their own group.
'natural' and 'choice' is irrelevant. why should you oppress anyone ? why do u care who marries whom, how does it effect u?
MC will do darlin'
in addition to the truth's post
Yes, Phoebe, murdering, incest, and polygamy have also occured throughout the ages. Lets legalize them to.
"truth" #65, thanks for the explanation but I would prefer that you not refer to me with any term, of endearment or other.
Phoebe, you're right. We should all just start haveing gay incestual sex in the streets, and sex with dogs. Some people enjoy murdering, so I guess we have to respect their believe and let them do what they like to do. Afterall it would be bigoted to prevent them from murdering. We certainly have no right to tell muslims that they can't behead their wives when they seak for divorce. Afterall that would be bigoted. We have no right to tell people how to live their lives.
"truth" #63:Opionion (sic)needs no reason, of course. But based on what observation(s) is your empirical reasoning? Or do you have any?
That's what you said on in the other room too...get a job.
OK, Truth. Go take your meds... I recommend a powerful sedative.
you're - you are
PHOEBE...no you did NOT say it is "natural" and make an argument for it...if you really believe this is natural just b/c it has been happening since the beginning of time then we need to look into your gene pool 'cause so has rape, been happening since the beginning of time..and using your logic we should just accept it? Your NUTZ!
@j: Glad you have sympathy for the mentally retarded, for you are one of their number. Your post is quite disgusting, and if you base you opinion on some hand-me-down tribal tales from 2000 years ago, your judgement is not sound.
Try looking to the wonders of nature, brought to you courtesy of evolution, where you will see rampant homosexuality. Human history also shows homosexual people during every age. It is NATURAL. Just because you don't like it, you cannot castigate people who have that disposition. Just like one cannot choose the color of one's skin either.
I'm actually suprised the likes of Truth and yourself pull yourself away from Rush long enough to post on the WNYC site.
Whatever happened to "shame"?
Oh yes MC, also sweetie, just a term of endearment, to project lightheartedness into the conversation, as opposed to "look lady"!
OH yes, and for fear of sounding like Richard Nixon... I am NOT a BIGOT nor do I condone racism for the 1000th time! This is hysterical, people won't accept and allow me my opinion..thus far I have not gotten nasty but I am getting close
MC lol..my reason is two fold, 1) empirical yes, based on observation and 2) my opionion.
j/morningside:Again, your argument is flawed. "Making sense" is not required. If you are straight then of course you can't "make sense" of it. You have to get over the "ick" factor. It makes no sense to me to sacrifice live chickens, or to forbid drinking milk and eating meat at the same meal. If you witnessed a family member's gayness bringing down that family then I would submit to you that it was a result of the family's inability to get over it. Carnal lusts from gay or straight can bring down a family. I would say that it is the straight lusts that do it more often.
"truth",Being a minority does not mean that you can't hold bigoted views. You choose racism as the type of bigotry that you oppose but you seem to give a pass at bigotry towards other groups. The same phenomenom happens to other groups. I had expected a little more reason from you based on other posts. You don't seem to have an empirical reason for this. Maybe I misjudged you. I suppose anyone who calls him/herself "truth" thinks that he/she somehow has the direct line on truth.
I am not your "sweetie." Hmmm, more bigotry?
ji not sure i understand, are you saying infertile people should not be allowed to get married?
No Phoebe. A member of my family is gay so I have seen first hand how the carnal lusts of one person can bring down an entire family. I am just sad to see this country turning into an anarchist playpen.
Seriously, stop and think for one minute. How on earth could gay sex make sense? It is completely against all reason. There is a higher probability of producing a child if a man had sex with a female monkey than if he had sex with another man.
Now, I am not for legalizing man-animal relationships. But, if you support gay marriage you also support man-animal relationships, and incest, because clearly both make more sense than gay marriage.
If gay marriage is legalized I forsee that 10 years down the road we will legalize incest and man-animal marrige, after all, what right do we have to inhibit the sexual love between brother and sister or man and dog?
Anyone who is bashing Christians for opposing gay marriage needs to read the Bible. In the first chapter of the book of Romans the first sin that is listed is gayness. Clearly gayness and Christianity do not go together. Therefore any true Christian would recognize the inherent flaw in gayness and gay marriage.
I, and most people that are against gay marriage bear no ill will towards gays. In fact, I sympathize with them, in the same way that I sympathize with mentally retarded peole. Certainly I would not want a guns to be sold to a mentally retarded person. In the same way I don't want marrigae to be given to gay people. We should have rehabilitation centers where they can recieve the treatment they need. Not gay marrige, which encourages young children to be gay.
No one hear from that side is making an argument for LOVE. Things that make you go hmmmm.
What is the obsession with getting married??? Just grant them all the rights to their partners, insurance, bank accounts et al and end this discussion already 'cause that's what this is really all about, benefits.
J from Morningside,Using that rationale it would be OK to discriminate against people on the basis of faith. Certainly that is a "choice" on some level.
MC can't use that on me either sweetie, I am a minority and opposed to racism on all levels my answer to "Gay Marriage" is still NOOOOOO!
Ahhh another voice of reason...J!
truth where ever you are from:This is the most closed minded I have ever read you. "Until I die?" Where have I hear that before? Maybe from Jim Crow boosters. 10% of the population IS a minority. A separate, unequal institution for them is a form of appartheid. If we decide that marriage is a religious institution then we should get the state out of it altogether for gays and straights.
@56: With such violent rhetoric, I can't help but wonder if you have issues with your own sexuality?
GARY, I most certainly do NOT discriminate, and I do not judge but I will ALWAYS give MY OPINION, like it or NOT..I don't know who the Knights of the Golden blah blah are but they sound white and discriminatory, don't know what they have to do with this don't care about them either...and I will continue to give the truth as I see it, like it or not. My worship has no bearing on this, in my opinion again partner up with whomever you want..by all means go forth and be happy and gay.
Gays minorities?Was that a joke?Gays make a consciouse descision to go against all rationality by going against nature in the highest degree. At any time they could renounce there sodomistic ways and become normal, natural people.Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Jews (and whites for that matter), cannot change the their race. The race they were born with has nothing to do with their lifestyle.
It is sickening to see WNYC throw out it's rationality to support such disgusting nonsense.Honesty, it doesn't take a genius to understand that a man should not stick his member into another man's body. And likewise for the lesbian version. In fact, it would be less foolish to legalize marriage between siblings of the opposite sex, or even between a man and a female animal or a woman and a male animal.
You do discriminate therefore you judge, and your 'handle' is unfortunately a technique passed down from the Knights of the Golden Circle. If you're strong enough to continually dismiss equality can you not be strong enough to say your name? What form of worship do you propel?
Ok I am done with this topic and I still say NO!
(I will check back for the slams later)
PHOEBE, anyone has the right to believe whatever they want, doesn't make it right or religious.
ROBERT, Thanks. That is now written in your book of life too.
GARY, read up...I did not say I was the judge.
come on people keep up.
Yes I do HJS and I always will.
Charles, are you slow? I am NOT from Georgia read up!
They are NOT the same, my opinion still.
Let me remove this from my name for the people who think, "Atlanta' has something to do with my opionion!!!
truth you SAY you don't care but u ALWAYS have to let us know where u stand on this.
Truth: Marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. I am married, but did not marry in a church and have no irrational faith.
Do you think Mormons should be able to use tenents of their faith to discriminate against people of color?
Do you think Muslims should be able to use tenents of their faith to discriminate against women?
If not, then why do you think Christians have a tight to use tenents of their faith against homosexuals?
Besides, the Constitution draws a line between Church and State. You are free to hold your ignorant, bigoted and extremely uneducated position on this matter but not to use the Legaslative and Legal organizations of the country to impose them on others.
As for your final statement, if you really don't care and you really believe we'll all "stand before the judge" then just shut up.
Taking the history of Georgia in the most favorable light, no citizen from that state should confuse civil rights and gay rights. They are the same. Just as minority rights were unsuccessfully argued as outside civil rights years ago, so too will the argument fail that civil rights does not encompass gay rights. It is just a matter of time. Civil right's core principle is equal protection and treatment of all people by the government. And for all those who disagree, take a lesson from history: religious belief was separated from government function in the United States long ago, and we have not dropped a challenge to this principle yet. Gay people will eventually be allowed to gain marriage licenses ... start liking it, get use to it!
The so-called "National Organization for Marriage" is on the march in Connecticut.
They persistently robocalled me three times until I answered their one-question poll: a brusque voice positing "do you believe marriage is between one man and one woman?"
I'm confident they'll release the results of this "scientific" survey.
As a Hispanic I am ASHAMED and DISGUSTED by these opportunistic 'Christian', evangelical political leaders such as Ruben Diaz and Mr. Espada who are using social issues to mobilize their base while doing nothing for the problems affecting the Hispanic community. Shame on these criminals!. I just heard last night that evangelical ministers in the Bronx are asking their 'flock' to NOT participate in the upcoming census unless there is amnesty for illegal aliens. These opportunist thieves are doing a great disservice to the Hispanic community and condemning most Hispanics in a sub-culture of poverty outside of the opportunities this country has to offer.
minority -The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
Wow you people are so easily worked up...lol..honestly I don't care because I know in the end we will all stand alone before the true judge and give account for our actions here on earth.
MIA - I am Not from GA yankee.
PHOEBE - I have said over and over give them all the rights but not because they are in the minority but inspite of the alternative lifestyle.
I am not against gays some of my best friends are gay bi-sexuals.
I love Richard Weed. He's originally from Rochester, and we've been together for six years. We want to get married. He's standing by me during very rough times, and I've done the same without hesitation.
Why should we be refused equality? Why should we accept anything less?
If you don't want the Church in your business don't use religious practice. Stop trying to "Marry" each other, Civil Union each other or some other such legal term. Appoint someone like Kathy Griffin to preside over the proceedings and then you will be far far away from religion.
There was a gay caller who suggests that "minorities" will automatically vote against legalizing gay marriage, and how unfair that would be because gays have always supported minority rights. Sweeping generalizations. First Blacks Asians and Latinos are NOT monolithic groups -- some of us are socially conservative, some of us are not. Stop thinking of non-whites as monolithic voting blocs - it's very simplistic.
Secondly, I find Patterson's introduction of this bill right now very suspect at best and clumsy at its worst. Patterson is an embattled governor right now, and throwing up the gay marriage bill right now seems to be a bit of a distraction tactic. However if he truly is serious about legalizing gay marriage, its clumsy inarticulate introduction is a disservice to the movement and its supporters.
I used to belong to a group called Straights For Gays...who staged the Wed In in Bryant Park years ago. My logic is that if you have TWO genders then you have THREE possible bonding combinations - so what is the fuss. I resent the religious sector claiming ownership over citizens rights. Actually it infuriates me.....as far as I'm concerned straight people should have the right to marry each other. Marrying is a concept, and idea, a condition -how dare one group of taxpayers deny it to another group of taxpayers?
No one is talking about what is really abhorrent here. Paterson is bringing this up now to obfuscate from the fact that he isn't dealing with the MTA issue. Gay marriage should be brought up in its own right not as a way to hide his incompetence.
First, with all due respect, that caller named Andrew was clueless and selfish, basically claiming that we shouldn't have marriage equality because he had trouble in his personal life. Second, I've never been of fan of Governor Paterson's, but I appreciate his having the political backbone to put this forward. It may well change win the Governor my vote next year. Thanks.
Plenty educated upstate, this is my opionion until I die. Gays are NOT in the minority anymore than mosquitos are.
Truth: Gays are estimated to be around 10% of the population, and are discriminated against in many forms which makes them a minority.
What is wrong with granting equality and freedom to an estimated 30 million Americans who love each other in the same way that men and women do.
There is no basis to discriminate aganist gay marriage, and it is particularly sadenning to see other groups who have fought for their rights wishing to remove or restrict those of others.
Diaz and friends,
This nation is not a theocracy. Keep your ignorant religious views to yourself and don't even think about stepping on the rights of gays in NY. You backwards types are on your way OUT!
Liz has the politics of this Spot On!
I hope this shows the Catholic church for what it really is - a bunch of bigots. Not to mention many closet cases.
Give 'em civil unions already, give them primary beneficiary rights, give them right to be on their partners health insurance rights please and the right to visit in the ICU all those benefits that come with being the "partner" that is the only reason why this keeps coming up!
There is unanimity. WE'd preferfull equality marraige rights, but are so starved for anything are likely to grasp at C.U.'s.
I think it's great - Paterson is getting his fight back. Even if it does benefit him it benefits a lot of other people too. There is no reason why NY needs to be so conservative. Is there any organized backlash to that ridiculous Diaz thing in the Bronx?
Gays are NOT minorities...Trust me!
And in my opinion it is a LIFESTYLE/CHOICE
"Civil Rights for minorities and women, Gay Rights for people with alternative lifestyles rights."
Oh come on. You don't "choose" the object of your affection.
Really, if some of you are so "righteous," let's also outlaw divorce and arranged marriage. It's ridiculous that people would hypothetically support a financial-based marriage of a rich old man and a young woman (simply because a penis and vagina are involved) and deny the love and commitment of a same sex couple.
And Diaz? Seriously?? It's one thing if you passively don't care for a segment of the population, but actively campaigning AGAINST them is another.
I was a 3 year old flower girl in 1989 when my gay friends got married in Manhattan at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. So when did it become illegal to get married in New York?Also, I think Paterson has botched a lot of things since taking office, the Caroline Kennedy incident, cutting back on health care and education . . . but I have to admire him for taking this political risk, I mean at this point, what does he have to lose really? He already has the lowest approval ratings of any NY governor.
EVERY SINGLE "gay" person needs to get the phone # of Rubin Diaz, find out the exact district , and CALL him.
He needs to receive about 200,000 phone calls.
I think that Patterson was just using Obama's new strategy of being PROACTIVE and making surethat HE controls the spin, instead of the opposition.
Reframing this as a CIViL Rights issue is QUITE important.
And making sure that the "log cabin republicans' start to call the church, and ALSO request NOT to interfere in politics.
The fact this is being reframed is taking the TACTICS of the christian right (it's not ANTi-abortion, it's pro-life...)
AND making it into CONTROLING the discussion.
12/Marcy -- that would be Brian's angle I would guess.
TIMING "OFFENSIVE"? Doubt that timing here was intentional in anyway. Think guest (and host, apparently) is too quick to buy into this angle of Mr. Diaz'. How concerned should we be about "offending" bigotry? (No disrespect to Catholics...)
Gay Marriage YES. If I as a straight American have the right to marry, why not my fellow gay Americans?
Big deal, who cares, Senator Diaz and the Archdiocese of NY. What a joke, lolololololol.... Both had mongers and both with dark pasts. NY1 the voice of the Archdiocese too even bringing this point up, again I say who cares. We know where these child abusing and whore mongering duo come from.
Diaz should "come out of the closet" and admit he is a Republican (or a DINO)!
Hey Atlanta - Gays are a minority.
Why not discuss Rubin Diaz use of his public office to preach religious conviction?
This is too important of an issue to waste time talking about motives and timing.
It's kind of insulting.
Civil Rights, Gay Rights - two different animals.
Civil Rights for minorities and women, Gay Rights for people with alternative lifestyles rights.
I'm so tired of hearing about gay marriage! And resent WNYC for treating it like a straight (no pun intended) news story.
It IS a news story for the Christian newspapers. It is a story for the Gay press maybe. If anybody is hurt or killed then it IS a news story for the crime beat.
The only story is why on earth the government is involved in picking the genders of who can be married. We have a constitution that protects the rights of all citizens.
I swear, if I keep hearing about "Gay Marriage" I'm going to switch against it just for spite.
I'm glad he is putting it out there because if it doesnt pass then I will know who voted against it and I will do everything I can to get them out of office. As a Puerto Rican woman I am digusted by my fellow Latinos that are siding with oppression.
What this again? NO!
Why don't we discuss Rubin Diaz and the his use of his public office to pursue religious conviction?
Ed - DO you have any NON-religeous based reason for being against these civilequal rights for gays?!!
And there are many of us out here who think gay marriage is an excellent idea.
Even if it fails in the Senate, we want a vote now so that we can see exactly WHO is voting against civil rightsequality, and we can know exactly how and where to challenge politicians in their upcoming primaries and elections.
That will ensure we get it next time if it does not pass this time. You watch.
--and you guys will all be dead pretty soon!
I'm told that he's introducing this bill knowing it will not have the votes, but hoping it might the next time it is proposed. There are many of us out here who think that legalizing gay marriage is not a good idea at all.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
Brian Lehrer leads the conversation about what matters most now in local and national politics, our own communities and our lives.
Subscribe on iTunes
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR, PRI and American Public Media, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.