This is the right way to do it. The advocates presented their case. The people's representatives debated it, voted, and a law was duly passed. Done deal. Congratulations to the people of New York.

I'm happy for those who will now be able to marry and be recognized by the state. My pipe dream is that now their dream has (partially) come true they can direct their focus to things that really matter. But one takes good news where one can get it.

Of course, this isn't enough for Ms. Franke:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=1

There's just no pleasing some folks.

Now there will be other states up in arms about the possibility of having to recognize NY gay marriages, which NY will claim is required by Article IV of the COTUS. You know, the "full faith and credit" article that requires acts and licenses granted by one state to be recognized by the others -- e.g. drivers licenses and marriage licenses.

Of course, the People's Republic of NY has no trouble at all with not recognizing my Texas Concealed Handgun License (and neither does the People's Republic of California). In fact, PRNY and PRCA have both effectively repealed the 2nd Amendment of the COTUS. Both 'states' firmly believe they can pick and choose which parts of the COTUS apply to them.

@: "There are tears in my eyes as I type this. Tears of joy to know New York now is the home of marriage equality."
____________

While I won't re-list the concerns I have that keep me from supporting gay marriage, I will say without reservation that all of us, regardless of our opinion on this issue, should have compassion and understanding for those who want to commit themselves to their love in marriage.

I do also agree with Cousin Dave that this is an issue that should be decided by society, not by a judge (or a few judges) who think they know better than anyone else.

"Of course, the People's Republic of NY has no trouble at all with not recognizing my Texas Concealed Handgun License (and neither does the People's Republic of California)."

All that COTUS stuff only applies to the UNITED States of America, not the Confederate States of America. Go cry somewhere else.

Ha ha this is GREAT! I foresee straight guys marrying their pals for the financial benefits and to attract women who love to cheat with married men or who will work hard in the sack, thinking they're converting a gay dude.

This will be known as the 'beer marriage' since the money saved will be spent on beer, big-screen televisions and premium sports cable channels.

What I can't understand is why homosexuals can marry, but polygamy is still illegal.

Well, I can understand it, for personal reasons, not intellectual or ideological reasons, women are against polygamy. But it is a bias, just like being against homosexual marriage was and is.

"All that COTUS stuff only applies to the UNITED States of America, not the Confederate States of America. Go cry somewhere else."

That's an amazing statement of denial. Please think before posting next time, as many will not see that your comment was intended as satire.

"You get to allot your social security and tax benefits to ONE person of your choice. To limit you to any one person isn't discrimination. Everybody gets that one person. Beyond that, you're on your own."

Eh, my mother who is coming up on 65 gets the choice between her second husband or her first (my father). Apparently, my father ended up putting more in the SS piggy bank before he died and she'll get a bigger check by using his benefits.

The Goddess:
You get to allot your social security and tax benefits to ONE person of your choice. To limit you to any one person isn't discrimination.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
... except that the same lefties pushing gay marriage have already pushed for "equality" for Muslim polygamists - and throughout Europe they get benefits for ALL their wives and children.

Please Amy - stop your HATEFUL PREJUDICE against people who are DIFFERENT...

Considering that most gay couplings are forced open by compulsive promiscuity, it will be fun to watch all the palimony suits this law generates.

"You get to allot your social security and tax benefits to ONE person of your choice. To limit you to any one person isn't discrimination. Everybody gets that one person. Beyond that, you're on your own."

I think that's the key difference between gay marriage and polygamy. Applying marriage protections to gay couples is easy. Trying to navigate who gets what in a polygamous relationship is a little more complicated. I'm not criticizing or judging the practice, just observing the distinction.

And as a native New Yorker I would just like to add, woo-hoo! Eat your heart out Ben David!!! :-)

This is the right way to do it. The advocates presented their case. The people's representatives debated it, voted, and a law was duly passed. Done deal. Congratulations to the people of New York.

Well said, Cousin Dave.

I hate to support BOTU, but at the very least polygamy should be decriminalized. It's bizarre that a man can be married and have half a dozen affairs, all at the same time, without any criminal or other legal penalty, yet be sent to jail for marrying a second woman.

And we were celebrating this at the Gay Pride Parade and Festival in St. Petersburg today. I was greeting folks over at the Holy Spirit Ecumenical Catholic Church booth, and we were giving out free hugs. I have no idea how many people I hugged today.

We had fun with a lot of nice folks taking hugs from us. I was carnival barking the Church to passers-by. "Holy Spirit Ecumenical Catholic Church!" I yelled. "Gay and Catholic! Gay and Catholic! We tell ourselves we're going to hell!"

Then the same-sex spouse of our pastor (our pastor who was recently promoted to bishop, so I call his lover "The Bishop's Wife") tole me to stop saying that. So, I started saying, "Gay and Catholic! Gay and Catholic! Because there's more than one reason to go down on your knees."

When folks started laughing at that, I would say, appalled, "And just why do you think that's funny, sir! Just what are you thinking of? How dare you! PERVERT!"

While I hear horror stories about the outlandish and over-the-top conduct that goes on at Pride Festivals, there was nothing that I saw that was truly outrageous. There was an attractive young man who passed by our booth, who was wearing a pair of boxer-briefs, sneakers, and nothing else.

"Those shorts are awful!" I yelled to him. "Horrible! Simply dreadful!...Take them off THIS INSTANT!"

I almost thought he was seriously going to do it. But he didn't. Thank goodness. There are children at our festival. They got their hugs, too. When the parents gave them permission, of course.

Goddess:
Ben-David, for the uninitiated, is an Orthodox Jew who displays considerable homophobia here.
- - - - - - - - - -
Translation: I can't counter his arguments, so I'll try the base PC tactic of slapping a scary label on him...

Further Goddess:
I know committed gay couples who have been together for decades
- - - - - - - - - - -
... but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" - and you know NOTHING about whether these relationships were sexually open or not.

Data from gay meccas around the world confirms that compulsive, mutually exploitative promiscuity is the norm in the gay "community" - like the Dutch Ministry of Health study that found "married" gays in "committed" relationships had 12-20 sexual partners a year - most of those being different from the 12-20 partners the following year.

This goes all the way back to "The Male Couple" - the first study of gay relationships, which found similar patterns of compulsive promiscuity. The (gay) authors tried offered mealy-mouthed nonsense about "emotional fidelity" - yeah, right.

Amy, yeah, he does get tiresome. Unfortunately, it's also kind of tiresome that people feel the need to respond to him. He's not going to change his mind.

I'm with you BOTU

Here's a Libertarian stance: All men/women should be able to have as many husbands and wives as he/she wants.

"Considering that most gay couplings are forced open by compulsive promiscuity, it will be fun to watch all the palimony suits this law generates."

This is "fun" to you? Are you really another one of those religious fundamentalists who claim endless benefits of love and devotion if you believe the same way you do - but advocate savagery and terror to anyone who doesn't toe the line your group invented?

At least you recognize that promiscuity exists. I can't wait for a single syllable of yours that recognizes its deleterious effects.

So far, it appears that you think a straight man or woman may have sex with as many of the "opposite" gender (in quotes because I have shown you that gender is not binary) as they can sneak up on, but that if Elton John kisses his guy once, he should be shot for it. Not to mention for trying to set up long-term care for him.

It's easy to demonstrate how promiscuity is bad. It is not possible to demonstrate how devotion to another person is bad for the one reason of gender.

-----

Now, just how long did Jesus™ live? And it all that time...

...no women in his life?

Ben-David is the reason we have Pride festivals in the first place. So, if he objects to Pride festivals and the gay rights movements, like Dr. Frankenstein, he must contend with a monster of his own making.

Some people on this forum, thankfully, are more understanding. I'm not going to act like gay people have a peculiar lock on suffering, then snobbishly claim that no one else can possibly understand. I've seen different minorities do that sort of thing..."No one could possibly understand what it's like to be [gay/black/Jewish/female/white male/Deaf/whatever], unless they are [gay/black/Jewish/female/white male/Deaf/whatever]."

Never made any sense to me. We want acceptance, but then we insist that no one can possibly understand us. I don't believe it gets us anywhere. It doesn't unify us; it creates distance.

"You couldn't possibly understand..." Sure you could. Unless you don't want to. I'm not going to pretend that the discrimination experienced by gay people is better/worse than anyone else's. It's just different. We have our set that's unique to us. But I'd never suggest that anyone is so stupid as to not be able to imagine what it's like.

For homosexuals, what makes our experience unique (or at least rare) is being found out. What happens when we come out to our parents and friends? Well, it's kind of a crap shoot. Some could become our worst enemies. Some can be only slightly ickified, and if we're lucky, some are okay with it. The ones who claim they're okay with it, but aren't -- at least not yet -- are an outright scream.

I spoke to a lot of people at the St. Pete Pride Festival today. Some stories had me nearly in tears. Some couldn't believe that there was a Gay Catholic Church anywhere. One person told me, for instance, she was asked to leave a Catholic church. The word "Catholic" is supposed to mean "universal." Yeah, it's universal, unless you happen to be among the 5% that are homosexual.

Well, point of fact but jesus did hang out with a few hookers.

And while it may not be gay if its a three way, a thirteen way with only one woman most definatly is gay.

Plus how many times is he shown to be picking up long shoremen telling them to leave their wives and come 'fishing' with him for more men?

Have 22 husbands and 22 wives, for all I care. You get benefits, however, to apply to just one of them. -- Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at June 25, 2011 6:09 PM

In the real world -- I quite agree with this thought.

In the world as it should be: Why is the U.S. government even involved in the survivor benefits issue? Show me where it is written in the the U.S. Constitution that the federal government should even be involved in the outcome of the widow(s) and children in the many states.

Now there will be other states up in arms about the possibility of having to recognize NY gay marriages, which NY will claim is required by Article IV of the COTUS. -- TXCHL Instructor at June 25, 2011 4:56 AM

My level of respect for any governmental agency, state or fed, is deal with the drone, don't admit to anything other than your name, and even question why they need your address. My question is what size carbine to get -- 9MM, 7.62, or 5.56?

"This goes all the way back to "The Male Couple" - the first study of gay relationships, which found similar patterns of compulsive promiscuity"

It is interesting you keep bringing up these studies. But every single time I have asked you to PROVE that lesbians have just as high STD rate as gay or straight or married males you have FAILED. Don't you understand? Straight men are just as easy as gay men. My female friends have gone up to random straight men and asked them if they just wanna fuck. Their response? A big resounding YES. Women, when asked by random strangers if they want to fuck will make say a big resounding NO. So straight male morality is only based on the fact that women aren't as inclined for sex.

"Why is the U.S. government even involved in the survivor benefits issue?"

Simple: probate involves assets which cross state boundaries. End of question.

"My question is what size carbine to get -- 9MM, 7.62, or 5.56?

Look at what the professionals teach in Urban Rifle classes. See this Thunder Ranch page.

Don't pick a pistol round.

My question is what size carbine to get

If you planing on dying get any size carbine you want. You want to at least take a few with you your gonna need a few aks and full auto shotguns

Simple: probate involves assets which cross state boundaries. End of question.

That is solved by picking the jurisdiction that has the final adjudication of the estate. Then the inheritors and estate are responsible for all federal, state and local taxes.

AGAIN...I am against marriage privileging, but as long as there IS marriage privileging, the privileges should be available to all people.

I'm sorry for not clarifying my post. I'm arguing why should the Social Security benefit even exist. If a state wanted to have an SS system for the citizens of their state, that is very permissible. But by having it at the Federal level -- that now has the Federal Government interested in your personal financial affairs.

This is the same thing as the marriage, child, medical, and housing credits on your income taxes. Because the fed has an interest in your actions -- they have a say. Without that interest they wouldn't care. And if a state had a state level SS program -- the state then has a say in your family's affairs.

Where if you had a government's interest in your life only as far as they are responsible for the general welfare (as intended) why would they care who you are doing?

As I said -- "In the world as it should be" vs "In the real world".

So, if two straight guys live together for seven years, will they be considered "married" under common law?

It depends on whether the state recognizes common law marriage, and what the elements of CL marriage are. Seven years is a canard and has nothing to do with it.

"That is solved by picking the jurisdiction that has the final adjudication of the estate."

No, the solution, literally, was my statement.

Federal law controls the regulation of many transactions, among them the administration of probate when crossing a state boundary. Change the Federal law, the State must comply.

You might notice that dependent status ALSO determines eligibility for and exemption from Federal benefits and taxes - and Selective Service.

I find it odd that anyone complaining about Federal intrusion in our daily lives would fail to notice its extent when it is time to apply the law. I suggest in such cases that there is more to consider.

Now gays can be just as miserable as the rest of us. They will need a new label ‘cause the terms “married” and “gay” are incompatible.