New York Legalizes Same Sex Marriage

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Regardless of opinions on the issue, this will be an economic boom to the state as, unlike other states with similar legislation, there is no residency requirement in the New York law. One of the major sticking points was protecting those clergy members who oppose same sex marriages by not forcing them to convene over them.

 

[klein]

IT will become legal all across the US soon anyways, once that issue gets resolved in the Supreme Court.
It's a free country ! That's the ruling !

 

[menotyou]

I haven't read the text of the law, but the jist of it is fine with me. I never understood the big yank anyways. When I was a kid, my father and I raised chickens for the eggs. When you ordered them, they had a disclaimer that was something along the lines of 10% of the flock can't be guaranteed. I asked Dad what that meant back then.. He claimed he didn't know. Years later, we laugh about it. He was going to tell me there was a 10 % chance of each chicks digging chicks, or roosters humping roosters. We did get some. I just thought they were really friendly.

 

[klein]

That's a good one meno ! LOL

 

[trplnkl]

Regardless of opinions on the issue, this will be an economic boom to the state as, unlike other states with similar legislation, there is no residency requirement in the New York law. One of the major sticking points was protecting those clergy members who oppose same sex marriages by not forcing them to convene over them.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying any of this to start a debate on the issue of gay marriage.

Why will it be an economic boom? I realize that there will be a lot of couples come in to get married and thus spend money while they are there but will that actually translate into a boom? I can see an increase in hotel, eateries and local transportation, but a couple of days later the newlyweds are out of there and back home where their marriage licensees are useless for any legal means.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Perhaps I overstated it by using the word "boom" but there will be a financial benefit from this.

 

[trplnkl]

Perhaps I overstated it by using the word "boom" but there will be a financial benefit from this.

Fair enough and good for NY state, lately it's hard to criticize any attempt to legally boost the economy, even if it comes in short spurts at a time. I wonder is Mass experienced any kind of bump in economics when they passed their law? That also makes me wonder if the state's law makers passed this law because they thought it the right thing to do or for the possibility of economic growth?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Andrew Cuomo is trying to do all that he can to reverse our downward economic spiral here in New York so I am quite certain that the $$$ were a part of the decision. He is also going to start taxing the sale of cigarettes on Indian territories and I am certain will do the same with Internet sales.

I support the right of everyone to marry if they choose--it's not as though heterosexuals have done such a great job upholding the sanctity of marriage.

 

[trplnkl]

Andrew Cuomo is trying to do all that he can to reverse our downward economic spiral here in New York so I am quite certain that the $$$ were a part of the decision. He is also going to start taxing the sale of cigarettes on Indian territories and I am certain will do the same with Internet sales.

I support the right of everyone to marry if they choose--it's not as though heterosexuals have done such a great job upholding the sanctity of marriage.

Is it even legal to tax items sold in Indian territories? I'm not sure if what you are calling territories is the same as our reservations, but it is my understanding that federal taxes can't be imposed on sales on the reservations, so I figured that state taxes were off limits as well. Right now, in Texas, the price of a pack of cigs is almost half taxes, the % isn't as high with alcohol.

On the right to marry I have mixed emotions on that subject and do not buy the arguments given by gay rights groups. I do feel that same gender couples deserve all the same rights afforded to married couples. I feel that a legal (and as binding as a marriage cert.) contract for same gender unions would fulfill that goal.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Territories and reservations are one in the same and, yes, it has always been practice that these areas were tax free.

Would you have settled for a civil union?

 

[klein]

You live in "The Land of the Free" about time you prove some of it !

 

[trplnkl]

Territories and reservations are one in the same and, yes, it has always been practice that these areas were tax free.

Would you have settled for a civil union?

Yes, as a matter of fact I would have, but that really isn't the question IMO. To me the question is why will same gender couples NOT accept a civil union? What we have been hearing for years is they wanted the same legal rights of married couples, such as tax exemptions, sharing of privacy rights (as in hospital and health information sharing) and many other issues like those. A civil union would provide all that. "Marriage", whether we like it or not, is religion based and very few religions support same gender unions and say that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. How and why government got involved with marriage in the first place, I'm not sure. One other point that I have heard from gay rights groups is they want to be considered the same as "traditional" couples. Well, I'm sorry but they are not the same and never will be, this is a matter of fact determined by nature. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are less deserving of a loving relationship, just pointing out that it is not the same and there is no law that can be passed that will change that fact. Civil unions will indeed give them the equality that they claim to seek.

 

[trplnkl]

You live in "The Land of the Free" about time you prove some of it !

What orifice that out of and what the hell are you talking about?

 

[moreluck]

Marriage is between a man & a woman with procreation as the goal.
Civil Union is OK, just call it something else....Fusion, Melding, Linking, Coupling, etc

 

[tourists24]

Territories and reservations are one in the same and, yes, it has always been practice that these areas were tax free.

Would you have settled for a civil union?

Im not in favor of governments being involved in marriage in the first place. None of their business. But if we are gonna change it for any particular group then there should be no limitiations at all. Straight, gay, polygamous.... shouldnt matter

 

[klein]

Yes, as a matter of fact I would have, but that really isn't the question IMO. To me the question is why will same gender couples NOT accept a civil union? What we have been hearing for years is they wanted the same legal rights of married couples, such as tax exemptions, sharing of privacy rights (as in hospital and health information sharing) and many other issues like those. A civil union would provide all that. "Marriage", whether we like it or not, is religion based and very few religions support same gender unions and say that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. How and why government got involved with marriage in the first place, I'm not sure. One other point that I have heard from gay rights groups is they want to be considered the same as "traditional" couples. Well, I'm sorry but they are not the same and never will be, this is a matter of fact determined by nature. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are less deserving of a loving relationship, just pointing out that it is not the same and there is no law that can be passed that will change that fact. Civil unions will indeed give them the equality that they claim to seek.

Where do you think the churches are older, in Europe or in good ol'e USA ?
Yet Europe has same sex marriages, go figures, huh ?

 

[trplnkl]

Where do you think the churches are older, in Europe or in good ol'e USA ?
Yet Europe has same sex marriages, go figures, huh ?

Totally irrelevant to what I said. Europe does many things different than the USA for many different reasons. That does not change the facts.
Mind you, no where did I say the way it is done here was right or wrong, just why it is done that way. BTW, everything in Europe is older except for some changes they've made.

 

[klein]

Funny post from a guy with a pic of a manly stud as an avatar. When are you coming out of that closet, Weiner boy?

Wrong, I put that avatar up so meno would fall in love with me ! Just read above my avatar !

 

[The Other Side]

I'm not saying any of this to start a debate on the issue of gay marriage.

Why will it be an economic boom? I realize that there will be a lot of couples come in to get married and thus spend money while they are there but will that actually translate into a boom? I can see an increase in hotel, eateries and local transportation, but a couple of days later the newlyweds are out of there and back home where their marriage licensees are useless for any legal means.

You just dont get basic economics. Gay persons spend money on marriage preparations just like straight couples. ""I can see an increase in hotel, eateries and local transportation"" This is economic growth.

Gay persons live together and buy home furnishings, they just dont run around having sex. They pay bills, they rent housing, they buy houses, they buy groceries.

People will likely move to New York to take advantage of this law, thereby increasing the money spent in the state.

In any case, this new law is good for business. The religious freaks will come out of the woodworks now and stage protests to deaf ears and as Klein stated, this will be the way it is sooner or later in the U.S. anyways in time.

I dont see the problem with this anyways, homosexuality is no longer something to freak out over, its just the way it is for some people just like those in the south who date their sisters.

Peace.

 

[moreluck]

It really doesn't matter, marriage or not, they are still spending and decorating and dining out etc, etc. Maybe just not in N.Y..