June 24, 2011

NY passes same-sex marriage law.

The vote was 33-to-29, with 4 Republican state senators joining the 29 Democrats.

Good.

171 comments:

victoria said...

woo, hoo!!!


vicki from Pasadena

Titus said...

Excellent.

edutcher said...

Bad idea.

I'll bet a lot of people upstate are anything but happy.

clint said...

Good indeed.

And the right way -- legislation from the legislature, not from the bench.

Shouting Thomas said...

Wasn't an issue that needed to be addressed in NY.

But, I'll live with it.

Now, will they stop bitching?

Or, will they just find something else to bitch about?

Expat(ish) said...

They gonna force domestic partnerships to marry to keep benefits?

-XC

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: I'll bet a lot of people upstate are anything but happy.

In upstate NY? We had a openly gay Republican mayor in Plattsburgh back in the '90s. Everybody loved him. This probably wont phase them at all.

enicar333 said...

Geez- just wait for what is next - Intra -species marriage followed by intra-alien marriage. Long live the Ligers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

Ken Pidcock said...

Good indeed. It embarrasses me to confess how recently it was that I regarded my psychologically well-adjusted neighbors to be suffering a psychological illness.

No, that was me.

sunsong said...

Very good :-)

enicar333 said...

LOL. Of course- this man married.. a DOG. Not in looks, but the Species. LOL. There is nothing more degenerate than a human being. LOL.

"DeLeon recalled the day last month when she saw Bower bring his dog home from the shelter. “He had a sign that said, ‘Just Married,’” DeLeon said. “I was (thinking) who in the world did he get married to? I didn’t see it in the paper, and (I found out) he was talking about his dog, Tara.”

http://www.dreamindemon.com/2011/06/17/man-charged-with-animal-cruelty-for-allegedly-liking-it-doggy-style/

Yeah... Partnership benefits... OH YEAH.

edutcher said...

The woo-hooing makes me laugh. As I've said before, the only reason the Lefties love the homosexuals is that they bloc-vote Democrat.

Consider how a homosexual appointee in the next Republican Administration would fare.

As bad as Clarence Thomas?

Sarah Palin?

Condi Rice?

Consider if, as an example, Tammy Bruce were made an FCC Commissioner, I'll bet vicki from Pasadena would throw up a little in her mouth every time Ann mentioned her name.

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: I'll bet a lot of people upstate are anything but happy.

In upstate NY? We had a openly gay Republican mayor in Plattsburgh back in the '90s. Everybody loved him. This probably wont phase them at all.


I'll bet somebody voted against him. Besides, Plattsburg isn't the whole of upstate New York.

enicar333 said...

Ken Pidcock sez: "Good indeed. It embarrasses me to confess how recently it was that I regarded my psychologically well-adjusted neighbors to be suffering a psychological illness."

Or something like this - "It is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

Dose of Sanity said...

The woo-hooing makes me laugh. As I've said before, the only reason the Lefties love the homosexuals is that they bloc-vote Democrat.

Yes, that must be the reason we "love the homosexuals". Because they vote for us. Yup. You pegged it buddy.

/sarcasm

Palladian said...

Oh, thank you, Mr Government! Thank you for deigning to bestow your beneficent blessing upon my personal relationships!

Peter Hoh said...

Yes!

I am glad that this was done by the legislature.

There's more to be done, of course.

I'd prefer to see DOMA undone by an act of Congress.

And I can't wait for the first state to undo one of those constitutional amendments.

Palladian said...

"Yes, that must be the reason we "love the homosexuals". Because they vote for us."

We don't all vote for you. And we survive a hell of a long time without your beneficence. So why don't you bend over and kiss your own ass, instead of expecting us to do it because you deigned to throw us some crumbs.

Shouting Thomas said...

I think that people in upstate New York will be remarkably unaffected and unconcerned.

The newspapers will find some people who are angry about it, and they'll characterize the entire region by those few people. That's to be expected.

New Yorkers are a lot more worried about out of control taxes, official corruption, population flight, a negative business climate, etc.

This action is an electoral sop to one constituency in New York City.

Not that much will change.

But, the media will work hard to make it appear that the yokels in the boonies are outraged.

They aren't. They're too busy making plans to move south to some place that has jobs.

That the New York legislature spent its time on this is probably just another reason to leave... not out of moral indignation... but because this is how they choose to spend their time.

Sorta like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Shouting Thomas said...

So why don't you bend over and kiss your own ass, instead of expecting us to do it because you deigned to throw us some crumbs.

You see, it's this sort of BS that makes me think this is all about some sort of Daddy conflict thing, rather than about something of any importance.

But, I'd rather not characterize all gays by Palladian's gassing. I actually have gay friends who act like adults.

Palladian said...

Why are we supposed to be happy that we've ceded yet another human right to the State to bestow or deny?

All the "WOO HOO" nonsense is just more party-line cheerleading from the usual suspects who view human rights as yet another bit of materiel in their political battles.

The only reason to cheer would be if the legislature voted to divest the State of any interest in meddling in people's romantic/domestic affairs. This is just bread-and-circus nonsense designed to make stupid people forget the fact that New York State is completely fucked.

Palladian said...

"I actually have gay friends who act like adults."

I can't believe that anyone who acts like an adult would want to hang around you.

Peter Hoh said...

NOM's not happy.

They've pledged two million to reverse this.

Jason (the commenter) said...

WOO HOO!!!

Palladian said...

"You see, it's this sort of BS that makes me think this is all about some sort of Daddy conflict thing, rather than about something of any importance."

So you think all the various "victim groups" owe something to the Democrat party for deigning to toss some crumbs?

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Palladian

You quoted me being sarcastic in response to the comment I put in italics. I'm not sure you saw that...

MayBee said...

Yes.

Shouting Thomas said...

So you think all the various "victim groups" owe something to the Democrat party for deigning to toss some crumbs?

The things you utter, even in response to what I say, are just about absolutely irrelevant to me. And, I'm not saying that angrily. We're not living in the same universe.

Congratulations to the gays who wanted this and won. I wasn't in favor of it. I have gay friends who aren't in favor of it. But, the game is over and the other side won. Big deal. My life won't change in any appreciable way. Nor will my children's lives change.

I don't have enough interest to fight it. And, I don't think that the groups that are going to fight it ought to waste their time on it.

We have more important issues in New York State. Like financial survival. We haven't even begun to address the issue of out of control public employee unions in New York.

Eric said...

I'm ambivalent about gay marriage in general, but if that's what the people have decided through their representatives then it's fine. What I will never accept is the court-imposed variety.

Palladian said...

"And, I'm not saying that angrily. We're not living in the same universe."

That's a relief!

Jason (the commenter) said...

Palladian: I can't believe that anyone who acts like an adult would want to hang around you.

You'll never get a man to marry you with that attitude.

Chuck66 said...

Will it be illegal to be a Catholic in New York?

Fred4Pres said...

Stimulus for the NYC wedding industry!

Fred4Pres said...

Palladian, at least this marriage law passed the way it should, via a legislature. I will give a woo woo to that.

garage mahal said...

So you think all the various "victim groups" owe something to the Democrat party for deigning to toss some crumbs?

Oh get over yourself. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for equality tonight. Isn't that enough?

Bender said...

Congratulations on enacting a legal fiction.

But it is beyond the competence or ability of legislatures or courts to decree that which is false to be true.

It does not matter how many vows a same-sex couple may make to each other, they will never, ever be married in fact, only in that arbitrary and irrational act that laughably passes for "law."

I know that in this age it is all the rage to create one's own truth (thank you Anthony Kennedy), but merely saying so doesn't make a lie the truth.

enicar333 said...

Just... Let it Grow... the sixties offered so much hope - we got change alright - to an all encompassing, regulating, hateful, taxing, spiteful Government.

It's now 2011. Where is World peace and harmony? Rockets to Mars? Yeah - right - I fell inbetween Boomers and Gen X. So I am lost forever. Revolution -coming soon. When you have nothing left to lose... you have nothing left to lose. Satisfied? Now B%*&^$%

Marshal said...

"Now, will they stop bitching?"

Did the Germans stop after they bombed Pearl Harbor?

Marshal said...

"Fred4Pres said...

Palladian, at least this marriage law passed the way it should, via a legislature. I will give a woo woo to that."

Government does not have the authority to change a universal human institution against the will of its citizens. The legitimate way to enact such a change is via referendum.

Revenant said...

Good for New York!

Chuck66 said...

Serious question. Is there an exemption for conscienctious objectors? Generally, the gay crowd has pledged to destroy anyone and anything the doesn't submit.

Peter Hoh said...

Bender, under certain church doctrine, remarriage after divorce isn't "real," either.

Bender said...

Will it be illegal to be a Catholic in New York?

Make no mistake, Chuck, there are plenty of would-be Cromwells who would seek to make it so. But know this too, there are not a few Thomas Mores as well, who understand that no person of good conscience owes any duty of obedience to such an irrational and fraudulent act.

"Some men think the earth is round,
others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign."
--St. Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons

phx said...

Generally, the gay crowd has pledged to destroy anyone and anything the doesn't submit.

Unlike the right-wing social conservatives, who told everyone to vote their conscience.

Palladian said...

"It does not matter how many vows a same-sex couple may make to each other, they will never, ever be married in fact, only in that arbitrary and irrational act that laughably passes for "law.""

Don't want to interrupt your little rant, but, pray tell, why won't gay people "be married in fact"?

Palladian said...

"But know this too, there are not a few Thomas Mores as well, who understand that no person of good conscience owes any duty of obedience to such an irrational and fraudulent act."

More got his head lopped off and Catholicism never regained its status in England. Not a great example, that one.

Revenant said...

Serious question. Is there an exemption for conscienctious objectors?

How exactly does one go about "conscientiously objecting" to a marriage?

Bender said...

Because truth is not a malleable thing, Palladian, that you can bend to your will.

There is a truth concerning marriage. It has a meaning. Legislative alteration of definitions does not alter that true meaning.

Shouting Thomas said...

Did the Germans stop after they bombed Pearl Harbor?

Did that happen recently?

I remember reading about it, but I've forgotten the details.

Palladian said...

Actually, Catholicism made a minor resurgence in England during the reign of Mary I, where we got to see many examples of the gentle tolerance that the Roman church has always shown to dissenters when it has political power.

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

So you think all the various "victim groups" owe something to the Democrat party for deigning to toss some crumbs?

Oh get over yourself. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for equality tonight. Isn't that enough?


Yeah, all four of them. Wonder what they got in return?

Chuck66 said...

phx, do you want me to type up the couple of dozen of cases where businesses or persons were prosecuted by the gaystapo?

Here is just one. There are dozens and dozens of these:

Lesbians go to a photographer in Pheniex. They want her to photograph their "wedding". She says no, due to here religious beliefs. There are thousands of photographers in Phx. But they go to the gov't, which is working to close down this woman's business.

Palladian said...

"There is a truth concerning marriage. It has a meaning. Legislative alteration of definitions does not alter that true meaning."

I don't understand "true meanings". Must be a Catholic thing.

Chuck66 said...

Want more? How about the bakery in Cleveland that was closed down by the city because they would not make rainbow flag cupcakes. Actually they don't do special orders at all, but that doesn't mater to the gay rights facists.

Shouting Thomas said...

You'll never get a man to marry you with that attitude.

Yes, and Palladian, I'm a hell of a catch!

Fred4Pres said...

Marshall said:

Government does not have the authority to change a universal human institution against the will of its citizens. The legitimate way to enact such a change is via referendum.


No.

If you want that, move to a state that has referendums. New York doesn't have it. It passes laws this way. You can disagree and you can try to vote out those who voted the way you disagreed. You can push to have New York adopt a referendum process (I would support that I love referendums). But you can not say a law passed through the existing system is illegitmate because you disagree with it. Because that is just being a whiny loser.

Palladian said...

"Yes, and Palladian, I'm a hell of a catch!"

Wait, I though you were married?!

Bender said...

I don't understand "true meanings".

Must be a terrible thing to be such a slave to error.

Palladian said...

"But you can not say a law passed through the existing system is illegitmate because you disagree with it. Because that is just being a whiny loser."

Wait, then what have all those people in Wisconsin been going on about?

Chuck66 said...

Revent.....a bed and breakfast in Illinois refused to host a "gay marriage" ceremony. They said they host gay guests and the everyone is welcome to stay, but they just don't want a gay marriage on their grounds.

The gays and gov't are trying to close down the bed and breakfast.

Christopher said...

"How exactly does one go about "conscientiously objecting" to a marriage?"


I imagine that it deals with the performance of ceremonies and the locations in which they are performed. As to the actual recognition of such unions I have no idea what is required.

If you would like to see what happens without such an exemption just look to New Mexico where the refusal to photograph a gay wedding has resulted in people being dragged in front of "human rights courts".

Palladian said...

"Must be a terrible thing to be such a slave to error."

I'm not into kinky stuff, dear.

Revenant said...

Want more? How about

... some links?

Bender said...

Yep. Clueless.

Shouting Thomas said...

Wait, I thought you were married?!

Widowed! Twice!

Just the right age for a sunrise/sunset type of thing!

You know, the mature man hardened by experience and the pretty young thing looking for guidance?

Peter Hoh said...

Palladian, you can get a taste of "true meanings" and how it relates to the marriage debate by wading through this essay by Robert George, et al.

Palladian said...

Yep. Clueless."

Nah. I've just learned that it's pointless to argue with people who spout off about mystical truths and deep meanings.

Chuck66 said...

Revent...it's hard to find links due to the fact the MSM refuses to report these stories, but a quick interet search should lead to them.



This is the bakery story (and it is Indianapolis)

Chuck66 said...

okay, I don't know how to do links, so here is the full link:


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bakery_under_fire_coming_refusing_r3k1DKK1aJ2Ka93h2Kt3hJ?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

Peter Hoh said...

Bender, according to you, or the doctrine to which you adhere, are Althouse and Meade really married? Does it matter that the state says they are while the Pope says they're not?

Palladian said...

"You know, the mature man hardened by experience and the pretty young thing looking for guidance?"

LOL. I'm afraid I'm not particularly young or pretty and I'm looking for money rather than guidance.

phx said...

Chuck66: That stuff happens in politics all the time. It's not just one side either.

From what I gather watching the local coverage of the vote tonight both sides are playing hardball. There will be a price for a lot of people to pay - including the four Repubs who voted yes.

I think the photographer should be allowed to decline the job and those clients should graciously accept it. Doesn't say a thing to me about the right or wrong of the gay marriage vote however. Nothing at all.

CachorroQuente said...


Did the Germans stop after they bombed Pearl Harbor?


Not immediately. They didn't stop until we dropped the nukes on them. That's why they're called "Rads."

Chuck66 said...

The Illinois bed and breakfast thing has several links, but here is from the Sun times.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/3958932-417/gay-couple-file-complaints-after-refused-space-to-host-their-ceremony.html

And let's not forget the war on the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts. The gay crowd has pledged to crush both of those organizations.

phx said...

True meanings are meanings blessed by Jesus I gather.

This is going to be very hard for a lot of people.

Marshal said...

"If you want that, move to a state that has referendums."

What I want is a state with limited government. Unfortunately there don't seem to be any. But whining that others who have a different view of government should leave the country is just being an authoritarian statist.

Bender said...

are Althouse and Meade really married

Whether they are or are not married, by their respective natures, they are certainly ontologically and logically capable of marriage.

And from what I have read, I would suppose that they are married, although it is not within the sacrament of matrimony. But I have not made it my business to get into their personal business.

Chuck66 said...

Phx, you don't understand. The gays want to change America into their vision of what the country should be like, and want to do it by force.

I don't see right wingers asking for a major change in the law, where they will then use that law to destroy all liberal organizations.

Can you give me an example where conservatives tried to make a liberal organization illegel?

Shouting Thomas said...

LOL. I'm afraid I'm not particularly young or pretty and I'm looking for money rather than guidance.

If you're not young or pretty, who's going to give you some money?

Peter Hoh said...

Bender, nice weaseling.

Revenant said...

Revent.....a bed and breakfast in Illinois refused to host a "gay marriage" ceremony. They said they host gay guests and the everyone is welcome to stay, but they just don't want a gay marriage on their grounds.

It was a civil union ceremony, actually. The owner stated that "homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate". That was a dumb move, since discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public is illegal in Illinois.

Personally, I think business owners should be able to discriminate against whomever they please. In practice neither Democrats nor Republicans believe in that right; they differ only in which forms of discrimination they believe should be illegal.

Come to think of it, the question "is there an exception for conscientious objectors" doesn't make any sense to begin with. A law that says "you don't have to follow the law if you really don't want to" isn't a law; it is a non-binding resolution. :)

Palladian said...

"But I have not made it my business to get into their personal business."

Then why are you here, babbling away?

Palladian said...

"If you're not young or pretty, who's going to give you some money?"

I give great head.

Chuck66 said...

Rev, so the KKK can go to a Black owned business and hold a cross burning? I mean, cross burning is protected free speach.

Peter Hoh said...

I don't know the details, but key to getting this passed was religious liberty language that makes it clear that religious institutions will not be forced to perform any ceremony that is contrary to their teachings.

phx said...

Chuck66: I think you mean gays want to change it by legislative force, and failing that, as in the case of the Boy Scouts, by popular opinion and even boycott. Or in the case of the photo customers, through litigating for what they see are their civil rights.

I don't always agree with those tactics but they aren't used exclusively by gays.

But let me know if there are illegal movements afoot by gays to change America to their vision of what it should look like. Especially if they are anywhere near successful using such tactics we should all be roused to fight them.

Chuck66 said...

phx,

Can you give me an example where conservative went to ultra-liberal pro-gay towns like San Francisco or Mpls and tried to use force to make businesses and organizations there submit to right wing christian views?

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, it's not fair to label the Westboro Baptist Church as conservatives, but they have managed to force themselves on plenty of towns and cities that would rather not have put up with them.

Revenant said...

Rev, so the KKK can go to a Black owned business and hold a cross burning? I mean, cross burning is protected free speach.

Protected against government censorship, yes. So far as I know it isn't protected against private discrimination by businesses. The protected classes are usually race, religion, national origin, gender, and sexual orientation. Political views are usually fair game.

Regardless the business would only be forced to allow the practice if they had a general policy of allowing cross burnings by blacks and liberals, and only discriminated against white redneck cross-burners. A blanket "no cross-burning" or "no marriages of any kind" policy would be safe.

Chuck66 said...

Westboro actually hate Republicans, hence why they protest at military funerals.

And what organizations are they forcing to take a certain action? Are they suing businesses to do work for them? Getting "human rights commissions" to put businesses closed?

phx said...

Chuck66: I get the feeling you think demonstrating for what people believe are their equal rights, and yes threatening boycotts or enforcement of civil rights laws, is the same as "making others submit to their views."

"Making others submit to their views" is your description. You could also say "Making others adhere to the law" or "making others not discriminate against them."

I don't always like such tactics myself - I take it on a case by case basis. But all sorts of people use these tactics - not just gays.

Revenant said...

Can you give me an example where conservative went to ultra-liberal pro-gay towns like San Francisco or Mpls and tried to use force to make businesses and organizations there submit to right wing christian views?

Right-wing religious organizations provided most of the funding for California's gay marriage ban.

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, asking someone to bake rainbow cookies is not asking them to submit to their views.

FWIW, I don't think anyone should raise a fuss if a bakery or photographer or printer doesn't want to do bake rainbow cookies or take photos at a civil union ceremony or whatever -- so long as the business is upfront about that and doesn't sign a contract and then back out at the last minute, when the customer doesn't have time to find an alternative.

But that's just me. I don't have the experience of a business owner telling me that he or she won't take my business because of something about me. "We don't serve your kind" has a certain sting about it.

Chuck66 said...

But what if some racists invent a new civil right to wear Nazi uniforms and to burn crosses.

Revenant said...

"are Althouse and Meade really married"

Whether they are or are not married, by their respective natures, they are certainly ontologically and logically capable of marriage.

It was a yes or no question, Bender. As in: are they married, yes or no?

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, Westboro protests at military funerals because that's how they can get attention, not because they hate Republicans.

Westboro uses threat of legal action to get municipalities to offer them police protection and space in which they can shout and wave their signs without getting their asses kicked.

Revenant said...

But what if some racists invent a new civil right to wear Nazi uniforms and to burn crosses.

Er, they already have a civil right to wear Nazi uniforms and burn crosses.

phx said...

Getting "human rights commissions" to put businesses closed?

Don't blame someone - gay or not - if they are savy enough to use a human rights commission to close a business. If you think it's unfair, ask how the HRC was established.

And if you think it was gay pressure that got the HRC established, well, what are you advocating? Taking away gay people's right to representation?

Chuck66 said...

Rev, gay marriage was already illegel in California. Christians and African-Americans that supported the cause were not forcing anything new on people.

Peter Hoh said...

Rev, I expect that Bender won't give you a clear answer, despite his/her appeal to "clear meanings" upthread.

Revenant said...

Rev, gay marriage was already illegel in California.

No, it had been legal since May 15 of that year.

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, same-sex marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 was passed.

Chuck66 said...

So no ones mind is ever changed. But thank you for your clarity. You're side invented a new civil right and have pledged to destroy anyone who doesn't go along. But at least Madison fascists are polite and willing to discuss without getting angry. Not being sarcastic, I appreciate that.

Chuck66 said...

Actually an activist judge invented a new right to gay marriage. Prop 8 was in response to that. Not a legitamete change in the law.

Kind of like Plessy vs Fergeson.

(and thank you for not mocking my poor spelling. WEAC didn't do a good job on that with me)

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, several NY legislators changed their minds since the previous vote on this issue.

Minds change. I have family members who used to be opposed to marriage equity who have changed their minds over the past dozen years that this has been kicking around.

Chuck66 said...

I have to go, but one last thing. What is next for your side?

A) Polygamy
B) Doing away with genders

Peter Hoh said...

Chuck, was it activist judges on the Supreme Court who decided Loving in 1967?

Was overturning Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws legitimate or not?

Peter Hoh said...

What's next for my side?

Liberty.

phx said...

There's way too much anger in the world on all sides. A process of negotiation, civil discourse and compromise are more important to me than almost any of the ideological positions I adhere to.

I speak only for myself.

Chuck66 said...

Oh, I forgot, one more thing.

If a store owner gets involved in politics, he/she is fair game. If a corporation/business gets involved in political/social causes, they are fair game.

In California, the anti-Prop 8 crowd found out where pro-prop 8 people worked, and tried to get the businesses closed.

So if a dishwasher at a restaurant gave $50 to pro-prop 8, the gay crowd tried to get the restaurant closed.

Those are the kind of tactics your side uses.

You don't try to change minds, you try to use force and just nasty tactics.

Revenant said...

Actually an activist judge invented a new right to gay marriage. Prop 8 was in response to that. Not a legitamete change in the law.

You're correct that an "activist judge" was responsible for gay marriage being legal in California. The fact remains that it was legal, and thus Proposition 8 was an example of the religious right using force to strip people of a right they possessed.

I'm also amused at your invocation of "legitamete change in the law". The Illinois Human Rights Act under which the B&B owner is being sued was "a legitimate change in the law", passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Yet you complain that no activist judge stepped in to throw out the lawsuit -- and further complain that the people who exercised their legitimate legal rights are somehow guilty of forcing their will on people.

Funny stuff.

CachorroQuente said...

But what if some racists invent a new civil right to wear Nazi uniforms and to burn crosses.

You already have the right to wear a Nazi uniform -- go for it. As for burning crosses, you can do that too, if you want, though there are some restrictions that the Supreme Court has addressed within the recent past.

Now, if you do decide to prance around in a Nazi uniform, you should expect to be discriminated against because of it, and that's all fine and legal. As pointed out earlier, you can discriminate against people for just about any reason so long as it's not specifically proscribed. You could, for example, probably discriminate against people named Chuck, and why wouldn't you? Discriminating against people named Latoya probably wouldn't work out so well.

This whole thing was pretty much settled back about 50 years ago. The United States, and the individual states, have the authority to outlaw discrimination which is based on certain classifications. You may disagree with some (or all) of the classifications that are chosen, but those classifications are arrived at through the democratic processes that we have in place, they are constitutional, and you're just going to have to live with them. It doesn't really break me up that photographers, cup cake makers, and commercial party hosts, all of whom are engaged in public commerce, can't discriminate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, and homosexuals. Those are the rules and if someone desires to engage in business with the public, they have to follow those rules. Don't like it? Either suck it up or do something else. Hard cheese, as they say.

Revenant said...

Oh, I forgot, one more thing.

How to spell?

phx said...

Chuck66: You're globalizing. You're also saying in effect "All righteousness is on my side. All injustice is on yours."

Nobody gets to say that in these battles and keep their credibility.

Chuck66 said...

This time I really do have to go, but discuss amongst yourselves, you say you can't discriminate against Catholics, yet in Mass. Catholic charities is banned from setting up adoptions for the sole reason of being Catholic.

Chuck66 said...

Rev, WEAC never taught me how to spell. Talk to the union if my disability bugs you.

Chip S. said...

Hmmm. They don't have same-sex marriage in France, but that didn't prevent this.

Palladian's way may well be the only feasible way.

CachorroQuente said...

yet in Mass. Catholic charities is banned from setting up adoptions for the sole reason of being Catholic.
That's not true. They haven't been banned from the adoption business, there has been no government action taken against them. The Catholic Charities of Boston unilaterally decided to get out of the adoption business because they didn't want to comply with the law.

Bender said...

"are Althouse and Meade really married"

Whether they are or are not married, by their respective natures, they are certainly ontologically and logically capable of marriage.

It was a yes or no question, Bender. As in: are they married, yes or no?


Revenant -- why don't you just bother read what I already wrote immediately after that. It fully answers the question.

"from what I have read, I would suppose that they are married, although it is not within the sacrament of matrimony"

What part of "they are married" do you not understand?

Christopher said...

Chuck,

Actually, iirc, they closed after they were forced to consider gays as potential parents for the kids; they refused and shut down.

So while they weren't forcibly closed because they're Catholic, in order to operate they had to violate a deeply held belief. Close but not quite close enough to violate the free exercise clause.

Revenant said...

you say you can't discriminate against Catholics, yet in Mass. Catholic charities is banned from setting up adoptions for the sole reason of being Catholic.

You're lying, Chuck.

Christopher said...

But that really is the fear many people have regarding this isn't it?

Comply with a deeply held religious belief or comply with the law.

Peter Hoh said...

Christopher, if you are taking money from the state, is it not reasonable to expect that one will have to comply with the state's rules?

Bender said...

There is no "fear" Christopher. We are assured of that happening. It has ever been so since the beginning.

Revenant said...

Revenant -- why don't you just bother read what I already wrote immediately after that. It fully answers the question.

I did. You're weaseling:

"from what I have read, I would suppose that they are married, although it is not within the sacrament of matrimony"

Translation: they're married, but they're not married.

Pick one.

What part of "they are married" do you not understand?

The part where you turn around and say they aren't within the sacrament of matrimony.

You claimed earlier that legislatures have no authority to decide what is or isn't a legitimate marriage. So if they aren't married in the eyes of God and the legislature has no power to overrule God, exactly how are they "married"? In the eyes of Martians?

Revenant said...

Close but not quite close enough to violate the free exercise clause.

It isn't even close.

Now, if the legislature carved out a special exception saying that Catholics are allowed to be homophobes but nobody else can, THAT would be a first amendment violation. Insisting that everyone participating in a government program adhere to the same standards and practices, however is not.

Chip S. said...

if you are taking money from the state, is it not reasonable to expect that one will have to comply with the state's rules?

This is the EZ Pass version of the road to serfdom:

1. The government takes your money through taxes, then graciously allows you to get some of it back by "taking money from the state."

2. The government enacts all manner of rules, sometimes through narrow majority rule, and often by regulatory or judicial diktat.

3. The government steadily reduces the realm of individual conscience and choice, finding its justification in the argument quoted above.

Pardon me if I call bullshit on that.

Fred4Pres said...

Wait, then what have all those people in Wisconsin been going on about?

I hope that was a rhetorical question Palladian!

Peter Hoh said...

Chip S., sorry if my casual use of pronouns threw you off.

Catholic Charities received money from the state of Massachusetts to run adoption services.

Somehow, I don't think the state was taking money from Catholic Charities and then giving it back to Catholic Charities to run adoption services.

You might argue that if Massachusetts were a low tax, low social spending state, then Catholic Charities would have had enough money to run adoption services through donations alone. Perhaps.

That is fodder for another thread.

In this thread, the decision by Catholic Charities to stop offering adoption services was offered up as an example of discrimination against Catholics.

Chuck: "yet in Mass. Catholic charities is banned from setting up adoptions for the sole reason of being Catholic."

Catholic Charities had been using state money to provide adoption services, with money from the state. Not wanting to play by the state's rules, Catholic Charities stopped providing adoption services with state money.

This does not strike me as unreasonable. Nor does it seem to be evidence of discrimination.

Nor of encroaching serfdom.

Christopher said...

Peter Hoh,

Were they taking money from the state? And if so how much (was it significant)? I ask this simply because this happened so long ago that my memory is fuzzy.

Either way the govt. can regulate the hell out of adoption agencies, and it is reasonable. It is also reasonable to refuse to do something which violates your fundamental beliefs, and there was no way the Church was going to comply.

Hell, beyond even the "can they? can't they?" discussion you have to realize that in forcing the Church out of the adoption business the govt. was removing one of its best allies. So they achieved "equality" and in doing so hurt themselves.


But either way that was not the point of my statement. I was merely stating that one of the primary fears is that people will be forced to choose between their faith and the law. As has been pointed out there are cases of this beyond even the adoption issue.

Chip S. said...

@Peter Hoh,

As you know, the argument about "taking state money" is used all the time in discussions of all sorts of policies. It's always objectionable.

I do agree that the direct payment for services rendered presents a different sort of case, but I don't agree that the state acted in a neutral manner toward Catholic Charities. Here's why:

Massachusetts funds numerous providers of adoption services. It may even provide some adoption services directly. As long as the non-Catholic providers can handle all the same-sex couples who want to adopt, letting CC specialize in heteros' adoptions does not reduce the services available to same-sex couples at all.

Therefore, I can see no motivation for the state's action other than hostility toward those whose most deeply held beliefs differ from the officially sanctioned state view. I find that reprehensible, irrespective of my own views on marriage, same-sex or otherwise.

Alex said...

Shame on those 29 Republicans who voted their gay-hatred.

Bender said...

The part where you turn around and say they aren't within the sacrament of matrimony.

You really don't have even the slightest clue as to what a Sacrament is, do you, much less the Sacrament of Matrimony?

Are either of Meade or Althouse Catholic? Were they married in the Catholic Church?

To my knowledge, no, they aren't and they weren't.

Every marital union in the Sacrament of Matrimony is a marriage, but not every marriage is within the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Don't parade your ignorance like a badge of honor.

Peter Hoh said...

I may be wrong. I'm no longer certain that Catholic Charities was using state money as part of the funding for its adoption services.

I remember reading about this at the time that it happened. My attempts to refresh my memory are stymied by the Boston Globe's paywall.

This looks like a good source, but I feel that it doesn't quite answer all my questions.

There's one line that hints at a contract between the state and Catholic Charities. I don't know if that's a funding contract or not.

The primary issue seems to be the state license.

And it seems that there was a dispute between the bishops and the lay leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston, who had voted to go along with the state non-discrimination requirement.

It was the bishops who forced the decision to stop providing adoption services, not the state, though the legislature's refusal to grant an exemption seems to have played a role in forcing the bishops' decision.

United Way money seems to play a role, too. It appears that the United Way would have balked at funding an adoption agency that was allowed to discriminate against gay couples.

Alex said...

Whatever happened to morality? Sodom & Gommorah, thus it is in New York state.

Bender said...

You know, all of the legal benefits accruing to marriage can be accomplished by other laws, e.g. tax law, estate law, contract law, etc.

But a major reason for the push for "same-sex marriage," perhaps the the number one reason, since the legal benefits can be provided in other ways, is for societal approval, so that everyone has to agree that such couples are "married."

Well, they're not getting that agreement or acknowledgement. They are not getting that assent.

Of course, they will try their thuggish tactics to try to force everyone to approve, and no doubt many of weak conscience will fold, but not everyone will so readily embrace a lie for truth.

Alex said...

But a major reason for the push for "same-sex marriage," perhaps the the number one reason, since the legal benefits can be provided in other ways, is for societal approval, so that everyone has to agree that such couples are "married."

Exactly. This was never about taxes or hospital visitation. This was about societal stamp of approval and basically an IN YO FACE to religious conservatives.

They just declared WAR on anyone who believes in traditional values.

Eric said...

Somehow, I don't think the state was taking money from Catholic Charities and then giving it back to Catholic Charities to run adoption services.

Much of that money was taken from people who don't think gay couples should be adopting children, though.

He's right. Government social services of all types crowd out private charities that used to do the same thing. The higher taxes enacted to pay for it leave people with less money to donate to charities they support.

Peter Hoh said...

Eric, 1.2 million came from the United Way, which did object to the idea that the adoption agency could discriminate. And the board of the agency had previously voted to accept the new state guidelines. My guess is that the board was made up of significant donors, too.

Revenant said...

1. The government takes your money through taxes, then graciously allows you to get some of it back by "taking money from the state."

That argument would work better if the Catholic Church didn't have non-profit tax status.

Revenant said...

Are either of Meade or Althouse Catholic? Were they married in the Catholic Church?

Oh, so there are different definitions of marriage depending on which religion you belong to?

Just a little while ago it seemed like your were claiming there was an objective standard for what constituted marriage.

Chip S. said...

If the United Way or the state or anybody else wants to ensure that same-sex couples are able to adopt, then they should be sure to direct a sufficient amount of their funding to adoption services that do place adoptees with same-sex couples. How does this translate into defunding or actively preventing the provision of adoption services to hetero couples by agencies that specialize in that?

It does not make sense as adoption policy. It only makes sense as heavy-handed social engineering.

Chip S. said...

That argument would work better if the Catholic Church didn't have non-profit tax status.

First of all, as I've already said, that argument addresses a fallacy that's deployed always and everywhere by statists.

Second, as regards this case, you apparently want to make tax-exempt status for religious activities conditional on the particular beliefs of those religions.

Go ahead and propose that.

Revenant said...

Much of that money was taken from people who don't think gay couples should be adopting children, though.

Can you point to a taxpayer who isn't forced to pay for things he disagrees with?

The argument being presented here is "government forcibly extorting money from people to pay for Catholic-approved adoptions = good; government forcibly extorting money from people to pay for Catholic-disapproved adoptions = road to serfdom". That doesn't really work.

Peter Hoh said...

Chip, we are arguing about something where we know too few facts.

I don't know the percentage of adoptions in Massachusetts run through Catholic Charities of Boston.

Nor can I figure out how much of their funding came from the United Way or if any came from the state. The article I cited earlier talks about Catholic Charities fulfilling their "contract obligations to the state," but doesn't explain the nature of those obligations.

What I do know is that the lay leadership of the agency voted to continue providing adoption services without discriminating against same-sex couples.

Apparently, they had already been providing some adoption services to same-sex couples. According to an excerpted article in the Boston Globe, In the past two decades, agency officials placed 13 children with same-sex couples, a tiny fraction of 720 adoptions completed by them during that time.

This provides some evidence that the state was not suddenly forcing the agency to facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples. They had already been doing this.

Revenant said...

First of all, as I've already said, that argument addresses a fallacy that's deployed always and everywhere by statists.

Yes, you did say that.

In case you're wondering, what you just did there is called the guilt by association fallacy.

The truth of the matter is that you have no problem with the state forcing people to fund things you like. It is only when the state is forcing people to fund things you dislike that you start saying "uh oh, statism!"

Second, as regards this case, you apparently want to make tax-exempt status for religious activities conditional on the particular beliefs of those religions.

I neither said that nor said anything that could be interpreted that way.

Chip S. said...

Nothing illustrates the limits of your understanding more effectively than your inability to state opposing arguments coherently.

Peter Hoh said...

I never thought of Revenant as a statist.

And while he can speak for himself, the insinuation that he is interested in making "tax-exempt status for religious activities conditional on the particular beliefs of those religions" is not supported by anything he wrote.

Peter Hoh said...

I see he already spoke for himself.

Chip S. said...

I see he already spoke for himself.

Yes. He also spoke for me, equally illogically.

I realize it's late, and people are tired, but this is absurd. Or is it really true that neither of you knows that the phrase "road to serfdom" is a reference to a fairly well-known book on the general topic of economic and political liberty? That is to say, it's a metaphor. And saying that I feel free to deploy that argument often because it's commonly used by statists is not the same thing as saying that everyone who uses it is a statist. "All A use B" does not imply "all users of B are A," as long as we're swapping lectures on logic.

Rev's invocation of the Church's tax exemption in the context of this discussion clearly suggests that as long as it receives said exemption it must tailor its activities to the latest social engineering efforts of the state or cease those activities. You cannot seriously argue that conditionality of tax exempt status on beliefs (and their consequent actions) is an unwarranted inference.

Then there's this:
The truth of the matter is that you have no problem with the state forcing people to fund things you like,

which is a statement with no factual basis whatsoever. It's a cheap rhetorical trick.

I've said what I have to say on this subject. Peter, it was a useful exchange.

CachorroQuente said...

Shame on those 29 Republicans who voted their gay-hatred.

Yes, shame on those Republicans whose position on this question is identical to Barack Obama's.

CachorroQuente said...

There have been suggestions that there is some deeply held religious belief that would prevent the Catholic Church (and Catholic Charities) from participating in adoptions when the prospective parents are homosexuals. What is this belief and what is the religious basis for it?

edutcher said...

Peter Hoh said...

What's next for my side?

Liberty.


No, regimentation and retribution for any who don't see it the Lefty way.

Lefties don't believe in liberty for anybody; our way or we'll make your life a living Hell.

edutcher said...

PS No fan of Santorum, but I'm betting the Lefties will implement, or will try to before the country comes to its senses, what he predicted after Lawrence v Texas.

My guess is polyamory is next.

Anything to destroy the family.

NYTNewYorker said...

"Now, will they stop bitching?"

No, the bitching won't stop because legality is not really the thing here.

It's acceptance, that's really what they want and until every single mind on the "opposed" side is made right, the bitching will continue.

But you can't legislate what's in someones mind can you?....no you can't.

Pogo said...

I'll believe it's the law when the Muslims submit.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@shouting

"That the New York legislature spent its time on this is probably just another reason to leave... not out of moral indignation... but because this is how they choose to spend their time.

Sorta like Nero fiddling while Rome burns."

EXACTLY the point.....exactly.

The Crack Emcee said...

Good morning - this is bullshit.

Time for coffee. Bye!

Peter Hoh said...

Pogo, I have no idea what you mean by "when Muslims submit."

Mosques won't be required to provide space or clergy for same-sex weddings -- just like the Catholics.

By what means might Catholics have to submit to this law in a way that Muslims won't have to submit to this law?

ken in sc said...

I am pretty sure Abraham and Sarah did not have a marriage licence. I am certain Abraham and Hagar did not have one.

Bender said...

Oh, so there are different definitions of marriage depending on which religion you belong to?
Just a little while ago it seemed like your were claiming there was an objective standard for what constituted marriage.


I can only conclude that you are purposely being obtuse.

Trooper York said...

"By what means might Catholics have to submit to this law in a way that Muslims won't have to submit to this law?"

Well the thing is that the Muslims might cut off your head. Haven't you been reading the papers pally?

Revenant said...

Or is it really true that neither of you knows that the phrase "road to serfdom" is a reference to a fairly well-known book on the general topic of economic and political liberty?

Yes, Chip, I got the reference. The difference between us is that I've actually read the book and understand it.

Hayek would have nodded at this situation and said "see, this is what happens when the government gets involved in adoption. The government should get out of the adoption business".

You, on the other hand, look at it and say "hey, the government is taking money from non-churches but not giving enough of it to the church to handle adoptions. OMG road to serfdom".

Revenant said...

Well the thing is that the Muslims might cut off your head. Haven't you been reading the papers pally?

I would love to see a newspaper article about a New York Muslim cutting off someone's head over gay marriage. Have you got a URL?

Peter Hoh said...

Trooper, are Muslims in New York working to make alcohol illegal, or do they accept that alcohol consumption is legal in New York?

Trooper York said...

Peter Hoh said...
Trooper, are Muslims in New York working to make alcohol illegal, or do they accept that alcohol consumption is legal in New York?

The differance is Peter is that nobody tells them they have to have an open bar in the mosque. I imagine they want to be left alone to practice their religion. Do you think they will be?

I don't.

Not right now. Not today. But sooner rather than later the goal post will move.

Peter Hoh said...

Trooper, I am quite confident that the state will not require churches, mosques, or temples to perform marriages that they don't want to perform.

If the state did that, I would take to the streets to protest.

I see no precedent for this scenario you imagine. The First Amendment provides ample protection for churches, mosques, and temples.

Trooper York said...

Peter the example of plural marriage in the Mormon splinter sects is the relevant example here.

The government has criminalized a marriage ceremony. Everybody thinks it's a great idea. They have laws on the books, that marriage of more than two people a time is a criminal offense. Everybody thinks that's a great idea. They took the children of people in plural marriages away. Everybody thinks it's a great idea. I mean those religious fanatics must be abusing those kids right? How many people where in the street to protest that? How did the constitutional protections of freedom of religion help those people who feel that plural marriage is a sacrament?

Now I think one wife if more than enough for any sane man but if they can do that than they can do anything they want. You see this will not end here. Not by a long shot.

David said...

"Good"? Insane.

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. It is like a martini made with orange soda and yogurt. Wrong ingredients.

veni vidi vici said...

My balls have been marinating in red wine in a martini glass since I read the news.



wv: "lobills" -- I wish.

veni vidi vici said...

Seriously, nice that they voted it rather than the legislature pussing out and having the courts do their work for them.

Jana Banana said...

Just in time for the Dems to expire bush's marriage tax credit! Cha-Ching! More money for the divorce lawyers and courts.....you watch more financially unstable states follow suit. It's a revenue goldmine :) I say get government out of ALL marriage and attack this from behind (excuse the pun) by mandating insurers must accept partners and medical rights and wills as well. But what do I know right?