swavay, you sly puss with your wry raillery and binary
badinage. you’re a funny guy- funny like your epaulets,
smarty pants (emoticon here).
you make a compelling argument for minding the kiddies.
i totally disagree with anyone whom might contend that
you are less than ingenuous and maybe fruity.

It is encouraging to see some rationality enter into politics
regardless of the extortion involved.  Let the Republicans be
damned with wanting to impose on everyone their internal conflicts.

As posted on another related forum:
There is no good reason the marriage act ought to be ?given up to
the narrow definition of the irrationality of religions. ?It is a secular
legal commitment first then religions wanted to ?give sanction to
preserve and guarantee loyal membership.  In ?order to marry,
religiously or not, in this country, a legal marriage ?certificate must
be bought from the state and signed by the ?marrying authority, be
it a religious clergy, or a secular judge, ?or justice of the peace. Both
institutions, religion and secular ?societies, are interested in repro-
duction and the rearing of children ?in a more stable environment. 
The first to insure many members,?the second to insure survival of the
species.  It also has to do with the ?taboo of incest and the subliminal
understanding how interbreeding ?corrupts a gene pool. Anthropologist,
Claude Levi-Strauss’s “The ?Elementary Structures of Kinship,” is very
revealing of the development ?of marriage as an organizing social
principle.  Also he theorizes how ?marriage between families
strengthened tribal unity.

To marry is a formal transitive verb meaning to combine one thing with ?
another.

Encyclopedic definition:  Marriage is a social union or legal contract ?
between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which ?
interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are ?
acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or ?
subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a ?
wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

    That lofty fellow and cosmic thinker, George Bernard Shaw said, ?
“When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most ?
insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required
?to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting
?condition until death do them part.”  Notice he did not say that those
two people need to be a man and a woman.  I agree with George on ?
this.  Marriage puts more of a guarantee on certain legal rights for the ?
married individuals such as rights of inheritance, property rights, ?
medical rights, custody rights, all those rights enjoyed by the ?
man/woman married arrangement.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant and bullshit to argue that the courts will
become clogged with same sex spouses who wish to dissolved their
marriages or fight over similar issues as do different-sex spouses. 
Homosexuals are people with the same rights as all people.

The insurance companies will be up in arms now they have to insure same sex spouses.

Yet again, Andrew Cuomo is showing that he may well be the most effective governor in the United States.  As bozos like Christie, Walker, Perry and Scott, find that treating the other party always like it’s an enemy only makes you enemies, AC is expertly manipulating the GOP in Albany to get done what needs to be done in NY. He may actually put NY’s house in financial order.

Meanwhile, here in NJ, Dumb-Ass Christie can barely get ANYTHING done.  He’s finally found out that unless he works with Trenton’s Dems all he does is piss people off.

So while Cuomo’s had an amazing first year in office, Christie’s first 2 years have been a dismal failure.

Divorce lawyers across the nation are smiling and celebrating in sweet anticipation. $$$$$$$$

Homos are about to learn the essence of the old adage… ‘be careful what you wish for.’

And then there’s the inconvenient truth that rich Wall Street Republicans (That’s three strikes! How come those people aren’t in jail?) got on board to put the measure over the top.

This issue brings out my old mantra- Government should not be in the marriage promotion business, they should be in the safe-homes-for-children business. Why should government care one way or another about living arrangements between (or among) childless adults?

Blackspeare- If the government only cared about child rearing, we could dispense with all those survivorship/benefit laws aimed at “marrieds” per se.

I totally disagree with the religious-right’s contention that gay households corrupt children (unless those gays preach a bunch of left wing hooey of course )

Not so fast.  The law will be challenged in court and the judge will put a stay on this
law.  And like California a referendum will be put on a future ballot to amend the
state constitution.

Using the word “marriage” is a call to arms for those opposed.  The problem has always
been the legality of “civil unions.”  If “civil unions” had the force of law that
“marriage” has then there would be no problem——the LGBT community would gladly accept
the concept of civil union.

Also, there’s another problem and that is spousal/survivor benefits and there are a
host of entities oppose to gays getting the force of law ingrained in marriage because
of financial considerations.

Yiiiipppppeeee!  Makes you proud to be an Amerikan. Who cares if our legislators can’t do anything to stimulate the economy , or get us out of a perpetual state of war- gays can now marry in New York!