Front and Center

Politics, society, and other random randomness

Gay Marriage Law Passed in NY. The Debate Continues.

Friday night, New York became the 6th state to legalize gay marriage.  There was lots of cheering and applause in the gallery of the NY legislature as the bill won passage by 4 votes.  This was the second attempt to pass same sex marriage legislation in the last 3 years, as a similar bill was defeated in 2009.  The difference?  Something I think will lead to more states passing same sex marriage in the future (and noted in a huffington post article:

As older New Yorkers passed away and younger ones with more tolerant attitudes took their place, the percentage of voters in favor of gay marriage kept on going up and up, from 37 percent in 2004 to 58 percent at the beginning of this month.

Granted, a large percentage of voters nationwide still oppose same sex marriage, the issue is one handled at the state level. I’m pretty convinced that as younger voters take up more space in the voting block, we will see the percentages of people in favor go up.

There are two noteworthy things about New York becoming state number six.  First, New York becomes the largest state to become a same sex marriage state.  Further, unlike the other 5, one doesn’t have to be a resident of NY to get married in NY.  So, not only should we expect to see a number of gays go to New York to get married, it wouldn’t be surprising to see a number of them actually move to the state and take up residence.

Of course, conservatives are already sounding the alarm.  Michelle Bachmann, who is currently one of the front-runners for the GOP presidential nomination (it is early, folks, so that doesn’t mean much), has said that though she feels it should be left up to the states, she would offer up a federal amendment that would ensure marriage would be constitutionally guaranteed as being between one man and one woman:

“Every time it’s going on the ballot, the people have decided to keep the traditional definition,” she said. “After all, the family is the fundamental unit of government.”

I respect that many oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds.  But I have yet to understand how such a stance is not hypocritical from the traditional conservative stance of fighting for individuality.

It seems as though its all about individual rights, up until it’s something conservatives don’t agree with.  Suddently, its all about “what’s best for the country.”  Many a time, especially in debates, conservatives will be sure to use the talking points most effective with the base:  the Bible says homosexuality is a sin; marriage is traditionally between man and woman;  a mom and a dad are best for child- rearing.  The arguments have some validity to them.  But the discussion usually stops there.  I would love to ask Rep. Bachmann exactly how two people of the same sex negatively affects her or her own marriage.  Then I would ask how advocating for a constitutional amendment–in essence creating something else to be officially enforced by the federal government–does not contradict a call for limited government.  Further, I’d ask if she (or others opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds) would advocate for a ban on divorce, since the Bible is pretty clear on that as well.

Bottom line, I’m sure that one can oppose religiously but recognize that the church and the state are two different things.  And in the absence of any substantial proof that society will end or the world will implode, there isn’t really a reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.

6 responses to “Gay Marriage Law Passed in NY. The Debate Continues.

  1. carl saxon June 27, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Hal I think where you fall short is when you ask how it affect her marriage. It my not directly affect my marriage but it does affect my child. I do not want him being taugh what is wrong is ok. Our society keeps lowering our standards. It doesnt directly affect me when some thug is walking through the mall with his pants down, but my child has to see it and maybe want to copy. Like I asked on FB yesterday. Who draws your line with morals, ethics, right or wrong?

  2. Marriageisonemanonewoman June 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    I agree 100 percent with Carl (as usual!!!). However, we have to see the kissing and crap going on in public whether there is a marriage or not. In no way should same sex be allowed , period!

    • Mark Bury January 10, 2012 at 3:02 pm

      You are a douche, plain and simple. People take something and define it to their liking and think that is the only way it should be. Wasn’t long ago a woman could not work for the same pay (Yea they’re still struggling with that to!), people believed women were meant to be in the kitchen, etc. That view today is seen as very wrong. These stupid views on same sex couples will also be proven wrong in short time.

  3. Courtney White June 27, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    As a parent it is your responsibility to teach your child what is and is not acceptable in your household and why you feel that way. At some point that child will grow up and develop his/her own opinions. Maybe they’ll mirror the teachings of their parents or maybe they won’t. How do you plan on handling it if they don’t agree with your initial teachings? Just a question.

    Regarding public displays of affection; I’d prefer not to see it all whether you’re gay or straight. I have no issue with gay marriage. I have an issue with people getting married before they’re ready or without truly knowing their future spouse.

  4. Courtney White June 27, 2011 at 1:50 pm


  5. HalFrontandCenter June 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Courtney, I agree with you most definitely. Even if its something we don’t agree with, we can teach our children that “you know, this is something I don’t agree with, but others feel differently.” It could be argued that if one wants to make something they agree with against the law just because they don’t want their kids to learn that its right means either 1)they are content to just let the schools teach the kids with no parental input or 2)they want their kids to be taught that “anything you disagree with, get it outlawed.”

    There is no constitutional right to not be offended.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: