NY State Court of Appeals Actually Defers to Will of People

[Sam!]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669250/print/1/displaymode/1098/

The court ruled 4-2 that state law clearly restricts marriage to a union of a man and a woman, and that the people should have the final says through the legislature at this time. A court doing what it is supposed to! Amazing!

[prayercloth sis]

Praise God.

[Jesuslove]

Praise God.
The will of the people isn't always the right thing to do. If we went by the will of the people, slavery would have remained legal for many more years in some southern states, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and innerracial marriage would be illegal.

[Gandalf]

On the contrary, it was the will of the people that made those things happen. Womens suffrage was a grass-roots movement. Slavery was popular among Southern slave-holders, true, but it was their realization that the people in the rest of the country opposed it and had elected an abolitionist President that caused them to secede at all.

That judicial decision is quite encouraging - the judges did their job rather than trying to usurp power from the legislature.

[Sam!]

Maybe. But it's not the courts job to be the moral voice of the government. The fact is that slavery really was not in the spirit of the constitution (come on, the subjugation of an entire people because of their skin color does not equal freedom). Same with women's right to vote and bans on interracial marriage. Those are not in the spirit of the Constitution. It was also not the Supreme Court who overturned them.

However, the fact remains that a homosexual already has the same right to marriage that I do. A homosexual man may marry any woman who is not legally married. They are even permitted to raise a family with that woman.

Attraction is not what marriage is based on. Otherwise, we would marry lots of people. And if being "natural" made it right... well then it would be fine for me to sleep with lots of women besides my wife.

Homosexual people are not being oppressed or repressed by the government. I do not believe in the ban on gays adopting, but for the most part a gay man has the same rights I do. If the people of the state want to establish certain moral foundations that do not violate the civil or human rights of other people, the court needs to honor that.

I do not necessarily agree with sodomy laws. If I did, I would have to advocate for making fornication illegal too. I don't think it should be illegal to be gay, or that we should treat homosexuals as 2nd-class citizens. But let's not forget that we live in a democracy, government by the people. And let's stop discussing how homosexuals "need" the right to marry. They already have it.

[Jesuslove]

However, the fact remains that a homosexual already has the same right to marriage that I do. A homosexual man may marry any woman who is not legally married. They are even permitted to raise a family with that woman.
Would you want your daughter to marry a homosexual?
Attraction is not what marriage is based on. Otherwise, we would marry lots of people. And if being "natural" made it right... well then it would be fine for me to sleep with lots of women besides my wife..
I don't think homosexual relationships are solely based on attraction any more than heterosexual relationships are.
Homosexual people are not being oppressed or repressed by the government. I do not believe in the ban on gays adopting, but for the most part a gay man has the same rights I do. If the people of the state want to establish certain moral foundations that do not violate the civil or human rights of other people, the court needs to honor that.
Gays can't pass on personal property without incurring large inheritance taxes. Marriage grants over 1,400 rights which are not automatically assumed by homosexual couples.

[Gandalf]

Marriage grants over 1,400 rights which are not automatically assumed by homosexual couples.
And which are a recognition of the reality that the two become one flesh.

[Sam!]

Would you want your daughter to marry a homosexual?
1. I do not have a daughter.
2. Besides that, your question is irrelevant. Who I want someone else to marry has no bearing on what is right or wrong.
3. But since you asked... I would hope that my hypothetical daughter would be wiser than to marry an unrepentant sinner who has rejected scripture, tradition and reason and revised the definition of sin--a person arrogant enough to tell God was is sinful and is not.

I don't think homosexual relationships are solely based on attraction any more than heterosexual relationships are. This is really a topic for another thread...namely, the purpose of marriage.

Gays can't pass on personal property without incurring large inheritance taxes. Marriage grants over 1,400 rights which are not automatically assumed by homosexual couples.There you go again. My friend Gay Homosexualstein can in fact marry a woman, and pass on property to her with the same provisions that I have. When my wife dies, she cannot bequeath her estate to her best friend without a large tax penalty. That is not oppressive, repressive, or homophobic. Nor is it morally wrong.

Regardless, your opinions on gay marriage don't actually address the article, which was not posted to debate gay "marriage".

[bdfwinn]

Would you want your daughter to marry a homosexual?

I don't think homosexual relationships are solely based on attraction any more than heterosexual relationships are.

Gays can't pass on personal property without incurring large inheritance taxes. Marriage grants over 1,400 rights which are not automatically assumed by homosexual couples.

Here we go again:rolleyes:
Weak weak weak.
Bill