Proud of my governor.
I think our jr senator could learn from his honesty.
Posted by Same Old at May 29, 2008 10:42 AMTen years from now people will wonder what the big deal was.
And this ain't 2004. The constitutional amendment will probably fail, especially if a huge youth vote comes out for Obama.
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 29, 2008 10:47 AMlooks like it will fail, anyway. even arnold, who has twice vetoed bills legalizing gay marriage, has said he'll oppose a constitutional amendment banning it. and you're right- ten years from now, people will be embarrassed that this was even an issue in the 21st century.
Posted by Turkana at May 29, 2008 10:53 AM"Ten years from now people will wonder what the big deal was." ...(GV)
And a thousand years from now a non-godbot might openly get elected to public office!
If it failed in Arizona, it can fail anywhere.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 29, 2008 11:14 AMTurkana:
This is once again the stupidest thing to do by Democrats in an election year. This is what happened in 2004 that rallied the religious voters behind Bush against Kerry. That time it was the mayor of SanFrancisco who performed gay marriges making them national news and giving an issue to Republicans as what can happen in Democratic administration. Now it is the Governer of a major state doing it. This will definately rally the religious voter behing McCain even though they do not support him now.
What really the Democrats get by appesing the gays? Why bring gay marriage issue into forefront of discussion instead of Iraq, economy, and other issues that are hurting the Republicans? This is certainly a gift to Republicans who would love to make it as a big issue in the election to divert attention from real issues. It will be a tragedy if Democrats lose this election because of such stupidity.
Posted by suresh at May 29, 2008 01:18 PMwow, suresh. um- maybe just doing the right thing is the rationale? "appeasing the gays"???? wow!
Posted by Turkana at May 29, 2008 01:40 PMIn Arizona it was the republicans that got it put on the ballot again. It failed last time.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 29, 2008 06:04 PMI asked this question in a previous thread and received no answer: please provide one argument in favor of gay "marriage" that cannot be used to argue in favor of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage?
Posted by Bagley at May 29, 2008 06:44 PMand you still haven't answered my response: please provide an argument for republicans being allowed to marry that can't also be used to justify bestiality.
Posted by Turkana at May 29, 2008 07:13 PMI asked this question in a previous thread and received no answer: please provide one argument in favor of gay "marriage" that cannot be used to argue in favor of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage?
Posted by Bagley at May 29, 2008 06:44 PM
Oh Bagbrain, you're so ordinary....you should change hands before you hurt yourself......You're the argument against incest!
Posted by Goyo at May 29, 2008 09:54 PMsuresh, this ain't 2004.
We're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, gas is nearly $4/gallon, food inflation is awful, the economy sucks, over 80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and the GOP incumbent is well under 30%.
and bagless bagley is still pissed off that Blacks can marry Whites
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 30, 2008 10:13 AMSuresh, Paterson didn't pull this directive out of his ass. The New York Court of Appeals earlier this year recognized same-sex marriages performed in Canada as valid in New York, because there was no basis to deny them equal protection under the law. Paterson's simply putting that ruling into practice to the extent he is empowered to do so (i.e., by directing state agencies to recognize the marriages of their employees).
The CoA limited its ruling to Canadian marriages, but since it was based on equal protection, then there's no basis for not applying it to couples married anywhere that same-sex marriage is legal.
Posted by zuzu at May 30, 2008 02:15 PM