Marty

Congratulations! This is a bellweather!

andrewd

Gallaghar gloated that this proves there hasn't been a cultural shift on gay marriage, but these hateful, hollow 'victories' are tiny compared to what would have happened if these votes had taken place 10, 15, 20 or more years ago. The more the concept of gay marriage - even when it is being voted down - stays in the headlines, the more it seeps into the consciousness of the young. Most people who vote today have spent most of their lives without the vaguest notion of gay marriage. Those voting in the future will see it as a perfectly ordinary concept, even if it's not currently legal where they live. And one thing is certain: gay people, their families and their supporters will NEVER give up. NEVER. You cannot legislate people and their rights to equality out of existence. So, the more it's rejected, the more you will hear about it.

Your Worst Nightmare

That's right, bigots....Keep preaching your hatred and intolerance while you hide behind your bibles.

This is far from over.....

ConservativeNY

Rare are the times in which I am proud to be a New Yorker. But I am now!

Chairm

AndrewD said: "Most people who vote today have spent most of their lives without the vaguest notion of gay marriage."

Today it remains a vague notion. Perhaps you can make it more precise?

* * *

Marriage is a winner. So is NOM. So are the people of New York who stood down the hawkers of gay identity politics.

Jerome

Legislatures and voters are not known from a historical perspective for granting minority rights.

"We the people have a right to our opinions and can vote to take them away at will. "

Our trump card is Judge Walker... Everything hangs in the balance starting January 11 2010 for us. May the religious liberties of the Episcopal, Unitarian, Reformed Jew, Quaker and Buddhist be protected by the US Supreme Court!

Jerome

New York is just another example of two wolves and lamb voting on what they are having for lunch. All that was accomplished in New York and Maine is a that a few wolves walked away with fatter bellies.

That may be democracy, but justice and liberty will start to take place for the minority in Judge Walkers court room.

Sailormoon

even if gays get married the child will always be from a broken home because one of his "parents" will not be biological. Try explaining to a child that his real biological parent gave him up in a sperm bank like cattle. A child has the right to his biological mother and father. There are studies out there that suggest that a child not conceived out of love will never feel loved through their lives. That explains all the depressed people we have today. Just like religion shouldn't be forced down a child's mind, so shouldn't alternative lifestyles be forced down a child's mind. A child born into a non traditional family has no choice. who care right?

Matthew

What amazes me is the lack of intelligence in you people that argue against gay marriage. Do you think that gay people are just going to go away, because if that's your intention you are sorely mistaken. They've existed since the dawn of man and they will exist after all you selfish, sad people have gone to your pathetic graves. Your lack of understanding that marriage is a civil issue and not a religious one astounds me. You don't even appreciate the rights that you have while trying to deny hard working, loving, tax paying americans the same rights you take for granted. So let me repeat this ,this is not about your belief in fairy tales, this is about all citizens having equal protection under the law, you know like it says in the constitution you all like to throw around but have obviously never read. Gays and lesbians have been getting married in Massachusetts for 5 years now and yet families are still standing, straight people are still getting married and half the time divorced and god has not come and destroyed the state. So, what again are you afraid of, because if nothing you predict has come to pass, that makes you nothing more than bigots who will take responsibility in the next life for the lives that you have destroyed in this one. You all have a lot of blood on your hands.

Samantha

Congrats!

The people of all the states that have voted have shown that we share a common core belief about marriage and thats why this wonderful organization and the work you do is so needed.

Jennifer

Actually, there are a number of cases in Canada and Europe and even in the US where people have been fined and persecuted if they do not agree with homosexuality.
If people are religious or even care about freedom of religion, they will not support gay rights legislation. I'm happy about this legislation in New York. I hope that all of the good liberal people out there will realize what is really at stake and it's not just about "love".
Name-calling is not really a convincing argument. People calling us "bigots" and "homophobes" doesn't really convince anyone of anything.

Laura

Legalizing homosexual "marriage" would not help the unfortunate children exploited by their homosexual "parents". It will, however, encourage more homosexual "parenting".

Homosexual "parenting", which, by design, deprives a child of his or her mom or dad, is inherently selfish and cruel. To make matters worse, pedophilia consitutes an important part of homosexual culture, making these children particularly vulnerable to sexual molestation.

Erin

Hey guess what?. Gay people will always have kids regardless of the marriage equality.
Why do you people turn a blind eye to pure evidence that children are just as well adjusted than kids born into a straight family. GEEZ.
Ok - you don't want gay marriage, but LAURA...why must YOU be so ignorant about gays and pedophilia, and if you are so passionate about this, then go find a board that supports your silly opinion which CAN'T and will never be backed up by anything. Comments like Laura's are showing all of your true colors. Gay marriage has been legal for FIVE years now...It's not going away. Hardheads!

Chairm

For emphasis:

1.
Gay marriage inevitable? Don’t believe the lie!

2.
Up until the last minute, Sen. Tom Duane was assuring everyone that he had the votes to pass the bill. But when push came to shove, New York legislators listened to their constituents and soundly rejected same-sex marriage.

3.
This great victory will reverberate up and down America, putting the fear of God -– and of the American voter -- into the hearts of weak-kneed and weak-willed politicians everywhere.

* * *

The SSM campaign may well prove to be the catalyst for a resurgence of respect for the core meaning of marriage throughout the country. Reaffirming the foundational social institution is among the first steps toward empowering future generations to overcome the nonmarital trends of the last few decades.

Elected representatives have a problem that the SSM merger cannot solve for them. That problem is the goal of re-election. In the realworld of wins and losses, NOM is making strides in demonstrating to politicians across the spectrum that marriage is a winner and that the merger is a loser.

Already leading lights of the SSM campaign are stepping back and reconsidering "civil union". That, too, would be a merger under a different name and unacceptable. But the momentum is shifting toward the solution that has long-existed and has been well-utilized.

The provisions for designated beneficiaries is not an imitation of marriage and is not accessible only on the basis of a nonmarital sexualized type of relationship. This solution is contract-based and fits the SSM argumentation that stresses the SSM would be a contract between consenting adults. It is a solution that is protective, rather than a preferential status, based on the vulnerabilities that families experience outside of marriage. Especially those with children.

Afterall, according to the SSM argumentation presented, repeatedly, in the comment sections here -- by SSMers -- protecting children outside of marriage is a supposed concern of the SSM campaign. Thus, the existing solution fits that well, too.

There is zilch that an SSM-merger can do for children that adoption and other provisions cannot do far more directly. And there are plenty of gaycentric agencies out there catering to one-sexed scenarios -- be they lone individuals or twosomes -- in which persons of the gay identity group are recruited. Likewise, there are agencies in the adoption realm and in the "donor" sperm/ova realm whose businesses are aimed at that particular identity group. Once, again, the SSM campaign can recalibrate itself away from attacking the core of marriage and, instead, dealing with the solutions that already exist.

Each of those bits and pieces of the SSM complaint can be addressed on merit and demerit. There is no need for SSMers to continue to deny what marriage actuallys for the sake of camoflauging what SSM actually would be.

Cheers to NOM and to the elected representives of NY who listened to reason. Cheers to the marriage supporters who made them listen and act on reason.

Chairm

Affirmation of the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage does not outlaw the non-marriage category of which SSM is a subset.

The marriage law does not "force" children to be born out-of-wedlock.

Society, in our legal system, has extended the marital presumption of paternity -- based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation -- to unwed scenarios. The imitation is less effective, but not due society being anti-child.

Of course, the sexual basis for the presumption of paternity -- within marriage and outside of marriage -- is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements.

Adults in one-sexed scenarios (lone individuals or twosomes or moresomes of the same sex) choose to segregate fatherhood and motherhood. They do so before the child is conceived and so they cannot excuse their choice and their behavior by citing the best interests of children-yet-to-be-concieved. They choose and act in the best interests of themselves. They choose to create these children for domestic arrangements which are either fatherless or motherless by design.

Outlawed? Nope. But nonmarital nonetheless.

So, Kevin, you can stop hyperventilating and breathe easier.

What is it about the lesbian scenario, in your view, that makes it superior and worthy of special status? Is it the lesbian sexual behavior alone?

If not, then, do the Grandmom/Mom twosomes deserve a license to SSM, too? Or two female straight friends raising children together? Maybe if they used "anonymous donors"?

There have been court cases, in which a pair of lesbians insisted that the father is indispensable to the well-being of the child he fathered (through sperm "donation") with one of the women. Does that mean the three deserve a license to SSM, too? Sexuality is irrelevant to SSM, anyway, according to you Kevin.