Home > Opinion > Public Opinion: New York Gov. David Paterson Orders His State to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed Elsewhere. What Should Your State Do?

Public Opinion: New York Gov. David Paterson Orders His State to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed Elsewhere. What Should Your State Do?

Reader Comments
Back to article

I don't buy how various religious/politcal groups (who claim to speak for me--a non-Christian--and claim to speak for all Christians!) try to frame a simple truth into something complicated. It isn't complicated at all; it's quite simple: all Americans are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Period. That's it.
Part of me actually would like to see some diehard, intransigent evangelical group (like Tony Perkins and his 1950s Stepford devotees) try to make this an election year issue once again.
Why? Because it would finally exhaust the patience of the average American who can't afford to fill their SUV, can't sell their house anywhere near its former market price, (or now can't buy a house without spotless credit and huge down payments), can only fill their grocery cart halfway for the same amount of money, has a son or daughter or nephew or niece on their third tour of Iraq, and are afraid of getting a pink slip with every paycheck due to increasing lay-offs.
The self-appointed mothpieces for God will get their smug, stone-throwing as**s handed to them. It's about fricking time.

SolomonsJim of MD 8:06AM May 30, 2008

I can't imagine how gay marriages wouldn't contribute to society any less (or more) than other marriages. Or as Bob Barr, author of the Defense of Marriage Act, was once famously asked: 'Whose marriage are you trying to protect? Your first, second, or third?' (BTW- is there like a pre-marriage test where couples prove their union contributes to the rest of us? Not in my state nor yours.)
Do "we" have to accommodate "them"? Uh...yeah. In this country we treat all citizens equitably unless "we" can show that "they" MUST be treated inequitably.
There's a lot of rationalizing going on alright - rationalizing how logic or biology explain away our prejudices.

Jim Smith of KS 1:11AM May 30, 2008

The whole issue here is that the GLBT community want equal treatment under the law. Discrimination and civil rights are not something that is up for a majority vote; they are protected by our constitution and should be defended by our Supreme Court.
The marriage amendment that may be on the November ballot is blatant discrimination. It is no different than saying that blue-eyed people cannot get married, or left-handed people cannot get married. Why should lefties be allowed to marry if I find them to be morally wrong? If a majority of the population agreed with that blatantly discriminatory view, then we should be able to pass a law and not allow them to marry, right?
Can you see the fallacy of this argument? This is precisely what the CA Supreme Court said in their landmark decision. Civil rights are not up for a majority vote.

marc of WI 4:16PM May 29, 2008

A person's morals are his/her own. You can't and shouldn't force them on anyone else. As long as your morality or lack thereof does not infringe on someone else's rights or freedoms, you should have a right to express them. Could someone who is against gay marriage explain to me how two people of the same sex getting married will hurt them or their country in any way? And religious arguments don't apply. As much as some want to believe our country was founded on Christianity, it simply is not true. The founding fathers wanted separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, who penned the Declaration of Independence is known to have been a staunch supporter of religious freedom.
You have the right to your beliefs, as long as they don't subtract from my rights and my equality. A gay person who can't get legally married to the person he/she loves is being denied a right that heterosexual people take for granted.

of MO 3:58PM May 29, 2008

Moral issues such as gay marriage should be for the pubic to decide. Gov. Paterson should not presume to know what's best for New York in this regard and neither should any other public official. Their job is to seek out the best interest of the public.
Personally, I don't think gay marriages contribute positively to society. Just because a smaller percentage of people want it does not mean we have to accomodate them. It is illogical from a biological perspective and a lot of rationalization has occured for it to become acceptable. Alexander Pope referred to vice but I think the same idea applies: "Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace." Historically, numerous prosperous civilizations have embraced the vices of its people only to suffer internally. In a proverbial sense, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's (America's) back.

Kai of HI 3:30PM May 29, 2008

I have to say "IT IS WRONG"!! We as a country are sliding into a pit. We are losing our DIGNITY and VALUES. How can man think he can rewrite the BIBLE!! David Paterson and Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, CA should be ASHAMED!
Our Country was founded on christian values. We need to bring back those values. People need boundries and we have lost ours. Anything goes now and look at our country! I think we have lost our place as the #1 country in the world.
Same sex "marriage" is not right and should be between a man & a woman. We are slipping into another Sodom & Gamorrah which was destroyed because of homosexualty and other sexual depravities. Time will tell..............and the truth will be known.

Rita Lavelock of CA 2:07PM May 29, 2008