Gay Marriage Officially Legal In New York State

That meens they had gay sex and liked it :P

Sodomy is unlawful in many places in the US. I'm curious if NY state or any of its municipalities still have laws prohibiting this on the books. AFK google search.

If not for your link I doubt I'd ever have actually bothered to find out what sodomy means. So yeah... *** are illegal huh.

Sodomy laws nationwide were struck down in 2003. Just because states keep them on the books does not make them enforcable.

Good stuff. The Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence_v._Texas appears to establish that laws prohibiting sodomy between consenting adults of any sexual orientation are unconstitutional, with few exceptions:
Yay for equality, and learning something new today.

Edit: Mogue beat me to it.

This makes me so happy :)

I'm all happy for the people of NY, But what needs to happen, is drop the same sex marrage or gay marrage.

As long as you call it same sex marrage it's no different then civil union. You're labelling it different.


Just call it marrage for all.

This is a true triumph for human rights. Sexy, sexy human rights.

Hot damn.

Personally I'd rather see marriage as a term dropped and "civil union" adopted. Marriage has always had religious implications and for those who wish to adhere to such archaic principles, so let them, but otherwise it is no different than any other legally recognized civil union.

i love it too.
i posted it on facebook.

I logged into facebook just to post it XD

Yay! I was so excited to hear bout this. I was reading tweets all night long. Heading to NYC in a few hours for NYC PRIDE. It's gonna be a blast! <3 WORLD PEACE!

That's what Connecticut did. It didn't make anyone happier. The church still flipped out.

That's some amazing news. ^^-

BUMP THIS...

I love how people (and for disclosure I'm straight and an observing Catholic) decry the fall of civilization and abhor how government is meddling with respect to the sanctity of marriage.

Nevermind the government has always had the right to define what marriage is for legal purposes because of all the attendant civil right attached to "married status."

I love what CT did, and wish it were adopted nationally in that everyone who wants to be "married" according to some civil or religious ceremony and have that marriage ceremony recognized by the state get's a CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATE. It's the sanest course of action, cuts through the semantics of the word marriage and treats everyone equally since everyone whould get the same piece of paper conferring upon them the same legal rights.

Leave marriages to the church's, synagogues, mosques, temples, and shrines. Relegate that word to the religious nuts, and render it meaningless in the legal sense.

The only word that should matter is union, because 2 hearts are united... but that's my long held belief...

Precisely.

People on both sides of the fence are in essence arguing over the meaning of a word. What that word means, what that word doesn't mean, the rights to use the word. Are you kidding me? Ugh. Human language has and will become increasingly inadequate as a communication means in this age of exponential information growth. What I don't understand is, why don't most people realize this already? Marriage has failed the test as much as the word atom, so why not adopt something more appropriate?

All right! :)

yes sadly. i live here in California. We legalized gay marriage in 2008. and it has been back and forth due to prop 8 and 22, currently CA allows same sex marriage as of Jun 22. If u happened to get married in CA "while its legal" and then the state makes it "illegal," CA still recognizes it.

Actually, total tangent here. The etymology of the word "marriage" is completely non-religious based. It derives from archaic french and latin. maritus(latin verb) = to join. -age(old french)= the process of. the actual word "marriage" came about way way after the judaic-christian ceremony. Churches, synagogues, mosques and temples etc had been performing the ceremony before the term marriage was even coined.

Dunno if you all have seen this yet so I thought I'd post it, I think it's pretty great!

Rainbow Colored Empire State Building

The argument isn't over the word. Or homosexuality. Or religious doctrine. Or the institution of marriage itself.

It's about whether or not churches should continue to have absolute authority over the definition of a secular set of over 3500 legal rights and protections that make up the most important civil institution in most people's lives.

The arguments against same-sex marriage all come down to this. If it passes, it sets a dangerous precedent for religious groups and the politicians beholden to them, as it demonstrates that their most vocal opposition is no longer seen as having supremacy over civil law in much of the public perception.

Ur so right. Reuters posted this article today about "Same-Sex Divorce" kinda interesting/sad what same-sex couples have had to go through thus far.

New York marriage bill paves way for same-sex divorce

http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson996.html

If you want to boil things down to their primary components, yes, the issue is whether or not to abolish religion as mankind's single greatest existential threat. I wasn't going to take that bridge. I'm still rather reluctant in doing so.

I mean, speaking of problems in general, once that's solved the only thing on the horizon really is how to expand past this star system before it becomes uninhabitable.

Practically though, not only will such broad sweeping generalizations aggravate most people, but it's really missing the point. Human beings, being hierarchical beings, having hierarchical thought, have hierarchical problems. What I see is people are saying yes gay marriage, no gay marriage, and the same people, which is to say both parties, are ultimately arguing over nomenclature. Gay couples want both to be married and be able to call it marriage as if there was no difference. The opposition wants sanctity behind the word "marriage". I can't see this as any more than a semantic debate.

Surely there are implications behind these arguments, such as the churches power over, well, anything, but most people are largely unaware of the less obvious intricacies and devoutly preach either way for or against it simply because that's what they believe. That is the argument I wished to address. It seems like changing the word entirely would be the best solution.

I've read into what Connecticut did and it doesn't seem to be what I'm suggesting. Unless I'm reading something wrong, it seems they legalized civil unions (which of course will not sit well with either party) and that was eventually overturned to allow marriage completely. Again, the semantic nonsense contained in the prior sentence should infuriate any rationally minded person.