These are important civil rights Jamie. If you want more info check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Can't put on the ballot. New York State does not have voter referendum.
At least Spitzer is talking about going through the legislature rather than over it this time. This might get is re-elect number up to twenty-six percent.
"These are important civil rights Jamie."
- Charlotte 11.16.07 - 9:46 am
No, it isn't, Charlotte, though you have a right to your own opinion and your own closed mind.
I would agree that civil unions are a civil right. Marriage is a religeous institution. It is the Church's brand, so to speak. Govt has nothing to do with it. Church - State, where have I heard that?
I like the idea of gay marriage; but damn, it really shouldn't be linked to governmental corruption and drivers' licenses for illegal aliens!
I mean, talk about cooties!
By the way, I am all for the tax code to strike the word marriage and include some kind of civil union language so high earner (most of them) gay couples can enjoy paying the kind of taxes on the second income I do. Good thing I like my job.
My wife earns enough to put the first dollar I earn into the top earner tax bracket. more than 50% of my income goes to taxes. This is calculated by redoing our taxes with just her income, then adding mine to see the difference, which is the only real way to do it. I am sure that many gay men would fall into the same situation.
The real problem is that mentioning marriage in the tax code violates church state.
Just like using drivers licenses as proof of citizenship on the border or to vote in federal elections violates federalism.
Driver's license for illegal aliens, an internet tax right before Christmas and now Gay Marriage as Priority Number 1.
I've got to wonder if Elliot Spitzer and Brittany Spears are having the same sort of bad reactions to some prescription or over the counter medicine. Neither one of them used to do this kind of wacky stuff before but suddenly now both of them are acting like the king and queen of crazy town.
Marriage is not a civil right any more than any other licensed activity is
You think he has any political capital left? I don't.
JWF,
Keep up the heat, you're doing a great job.
Not that it will matter to some here, but saying something like "church state" as if the two words can never exist in any manner in proximity is part of an orthodoxy of liberalism that is based entirely on ignorance.
Marriage may have a religious component, most religions attach special significance to it as a convenant and set of promises, with moral implications, but marriage is nevertheless a social construct, important for society.
It was always believed -- and has been repeatedly demonstrated scientifically in the modern era -- that marriage best ensures a safe, stable environment for the rearing of children. It likewise contributes in demonstrable ways to the cohesion of communities and their institutions.
Believe it or not, that's why very sensible people codified in tax law various tax benefits that would encourage and strengthen marriage as an institution.
Such laws are no more unconstitutional than laws enacting welfare, prohibiting drug abuse, drinking while driving, etc.
The constitution actually states that the Government shall not establish official religion, in normal, non-PC times interpreted to mean an official state religion that accures benefits to some citizens but not others, and infringes on freedom of worship and freedom of religious expression.
(Those are the other mentions of religion in the constitution, something rabid and poorly educated (or disingenuous) advocates often want to ignore.)
The people most apt to sling that phrase around make glib reference to church state, as if that's all that needs to be said, and betray their ignorance of the constitution. (Not surprisingly.)
The State (Government) has every reason to want to encourage its citizens to participate fully in a religious and spiritual life as their personal and private consciences allow.
Only in the intellectually and mentally unbalanced atmosphere of today's political correction do we see activist courts, motivated by political agendas, seeking to declare any appearance of religious artifact in government or the public square a "violation" of the "separation of church and state."
Whatever. Not buying it. Codifying marriage comes under establishment, clearly. You can argue that it has been grandfathered in, fine. If the govt hadn't mixed its nose in it, gay marriage would be a total non issue. Just as if the federal govt never accepted driver's licenses at the border in place of a passport, driver's licenses would be strictly a state issue.
Not that it will matter to some here, but saying something like "church state" as if the two words can never exist in any manner in proximity is part of an orthodoxy of liberalism that is based entirely on ignorance.
---
Boy, Jeff Nuding. You are an ignorant shithead.
The establishment clause is in the Constitution because, for example, in Colonial times it was legal to hang Quakers for practicing their religion. Go to the Massachusetts State House. A Quaker woman was hung there in 1640 for being a Quaker. The colony and later, State, of Rhode Island was created by Roger Williams as a refuge for people in Massachusetts who refused legal edicts to be Puritans under penalty of death or whipping or jail.
Read a fucking book.
Commenting by HaloScan
