State Senator Greg Ball has been casting a wide net looking for opinions on the SSM bill under consideration in New York and it turns out that, where it matters most, people are opposed to redefining marriage by a wide margin, as Politico reports:
"In Ball’s district office, he said, calls and letters are running about 60-40 in favor of a no vote."
(BTW, Sen. Ball has asked people to tweet their opinion of how he should vote, so let's make sure he hears from all of marriage's defenders, here's a sample tweet: @ball4NY. Let #NewYorkers vote on #marriage. Vote against the #SSM bill.)
This 60% figure closely mirrors the recent polling conducted by ADF showing that 63% of Americans believe in 1M1W marriage.
Thank you to all of our local supporters in New York who have been hitting the phones and writing letters. Let's not let up now!
30 Comments
Vote to save our marriage between man and women!!
Don't you people understand that you cannot vote on people's civil rights? Do you want to put slavery to a vote?
Sexual desires do not constitute rights, Jack. If legalizing SSM makes natural family values the moral equivalent to slavery in the eyes of the state, then that is all the more reason to oppose it.
If a group is “a minority” based on a physical trait like hair color, the law requires equal treatment. We do not vote on that.
But if a group is “a minority” based on a behavioral trait, the law does not require equal treatment or equal acceptance of the behavior. We can vote on
that.
Men who have sex with men (MSMs) represent "a behavioral minority" and so society is not obligated to accept the behavior as equal.
Gays try to get around this by claiming their behavior is not “what they do” but its “who they are.”
That concept is “a legal novelty” and not an established point of law. Law presumes behavior depends on freedom of choice unless the person is not in control of their faculties.
But even if we suppose gays cannot help what they do, that alone would not make the behavior fit for public approval.
Whether or not the behavior is "fit" for public approval is measured by what the behavior does and not whether it can be helped or not.
Besides, the US Supreme Court has rejected the claim that same sex marriage is a civil right in Baker v. Nelson.
So, it is not a civil right from that perspective either.
Since its not a civil right, the people can vote on it.
We can vote to elect a different USA President, why can't we vote on Rights? Where in the Constitution does it say all people have a Right to marry whoever they love?
Strange we don't believe in slavery, but we also don't believe people of homosexual behavior should be able to dictate their value system. It's a phantom social class - who knows who they are?
Exactly, Conservative NY! Sexual desires to marry someone of a different gender or race do not constitute rights. Glad someone can see that.
if that's the case, then heterosexuals shouldn't marry, conservative ny. and that slavery comment is too much.
ConservativeNY: Brilliant! Exactly if traditional sexual ethics are tantamount to slavery America is in deep deep trouble!
PS What about a person who is say an atheist but just really prudish about sex, is she also a slave owner? Redefining marriage will also eliminate any notions of sexual ethics.
@Jack
Don't you people understand that you can't simply redefine marriage to fit your views? I'm still waiting for you SSM advocates to prove to me that SSM marriage is equal - which is what you assert - to marriage, until then you have no grounds to claim you're fighting for equality.
Why is it that same sex-enthusiasts love to trumpet in polls that show majority support for their depravity, but when far more truthful polls present a far different picture they always lash out at democracy?
Nothing says hypocrisy quite like the liberal agenda.
Yup, Randy. If you don't want to take the ultimate poll that actually means something, then stop relying on polls to support your case. Otherwise, let's take the vote and see how inaccurate your biased polls really are.
If a group is “a minority” based on a physical trait like hair color, the law requires equal treatment. We do not vote on that.
But if a group is “a minority” based on a behavioral trait, the law does not require equal treatment or equal acceptance of the behavior. We can vote on
that.
Men who have sex with men (MSMs) represent "a behavioral minority" and so society is not obligated to accept the behavior as equal.
Gays try to get around this by claiming their behavior is not “what they do” but its “who they are.”
That concept is “a legal novelty” and not an established point of law. Law presumes behavior depends on freedom of choice unless the person is not in control of their faculties.
But even if we suppose gays cannot help what they do, that alone would not make the behavior fit for public approval.
Whether or not the behavior is "fit" for public approval is measured by what the behavior does and not whether it can be helped or not.
Besides, the US Supreme Court has rejected the claim that same sex marriage is a civil right in Baker v. Nelson.
Jack, slavery WAS put to a vote. It's called the 13th Amendment. Duly ratified by the States in 1865.
Where do you think 'civil rights' come from anyway? Moses on Mt. Sinai?
Well, then... it would seem that since religious conviction constitutes a "behavioral trait", we can strip religious protection laws from the books. You see how that logic works out?
There are laws protecting religious liberties in this country for all major and minor religions... religion is obviously not innate or inborn.
If Christian men and women, for example, feel compelled to discriminate in the workplace because I am in love with a man, I should therefore be able to, if given the opportunity, refuse to hire or fire based exclusively on religious beliefs alone. They are, after all, "behavioral traits".
RJS: "Well, then... it would seem that since religious conviction constitutes a "behavioral trait", we can strip religious protection laws from the books. You see how that logic works out?"
Yep, you're exactly right. Well, except for that pesky little thing called the First Amendment. Good luck getting that one repealed!
Bman,
Can you concede a little bit on your post? I am a gay man. By that I mean I possess (and have since puberty possessed) both an emotional and physical attraction to the same gender. I so happen to be in love with another man. He is the most important person in my life and I would gladly sacrifice of myself for his safety and well being.
To have that reduced to "behavior" because others would judge and belittle me (such as Randy, who reduces my love to "depravity") is both deeply offensive and very very personal.
I am lucky enough to live in Boston where my boyfriend and I can (and will) gather our friends and family together and celebrate our love for one another, become husbands to one another, and form a family. Sometimes, however, I feel as though the amount of hostility and adversity the two of us face, particularly outside of the Boston area, is akin to the Salem witch trials where, even though we are good and honest, hardworking men, we are targeted with such hostility and even violence that we experience a guilty until proven innocent mob.
You can accept, then, why gay men and women are leery when it comes to being open and honest around Christian men and women. There is a long history of discrimination and violence we face simply because we love and we love in a way that some religions preach is "against the very fabric of nature".
Note of point: I am not an atheist. I do not, however, believe that a divine being would give me this wonderful, beautiful capacity to love and then turn around and say that I will burn for eternity for loving.
I digress. My love for my boyfriend and eventual husband is way beyond behavior. There is not a single part of me that looked at him the first time we met and chose to feel how I do.
You talk about men who have sex with men. Funny how you fail to mention women who have sex with women. What about men who love men? Can you still play the behavior card there?
Regards,
RJ
Marty,
I would much rather see the first amendment rewritten to the point where we don't have such a separation between majority and minority religion in the public square.
Right now - as things are currently - I feel as though the government is adhering to and establishing laws based on the precepts of the religious beliefs of the majority while walking all over my own religious beliefs. It's a double slap of both maltreatment of my government against me and mine (based on my sexual orientation) followed by a quick kick against my own religious beliefs. I don't negate that Christian men and women face religious persecution and discrimination in the world. No. That would be foolish. Instead, I also recognize that Christian men and women deal out a fair amount of religious persecution and discrimination against others.
Best wishes.
I am tired of gays and their supporters comparing what the Black race experienced with what they are trying to change.
You cannot compare a race to a sexual orientation.
Marty, I would follow up with you, but NOM seems to be blocking my comments. It's a shame. Every comment I make is the epitome of respect and fair discussion. If you care to discuss further, go to my blog. I do not moderate comments there.
Wes,
To a greater degree, black men and women obviously experienced much more adversity. It is because they couldn't hide the fact that they were black.
At the same time, here are some things I've experienced:
1. Denied a job specifically because I was gay.
2. Verbally harassed multiple times in public by use of "very clever" pejoratives.
3. Physically assaulted once because of my known sexual orientation.
4. Car vandalized with pejorative scratched in side.
5. Received electronic death threats and online harassment due to sexual orientation.
It's a far cry from what black men and women - or racial minorities in general - have experienced in America.
It is still similar.
they come and go here sometimes... some get flagged i think, no idea why.
RJS: "Well, then... it would seem that since religious conviction constitutes a "behavioral trait", we can strip religious protection laws from the books. You see how that logic works out?"
Which brings us to the reason why same-sex enthusiasts are so deeply opposed to the freedom of religion. The 1st amendment renders religion immutable under the U.S. constitution' thus placing same-sex activists at a disadvantage right out of the gate. Same-sex enthusiast desperately need suspect class status in order to have a fighting chance against the source of our freedom.
“We have our freedom because of our faith; we do not have our faith because of our freedom.” George W. Bush
My argument applies equally to religious behavior as well.
Indeed, the reason polygamy is not legal is because religious protections did not protect that particular behavior.
Things like love and belief would be subjective and outside the reach of the law, which is why all religious belief is protected.
An objective behavior, however, is within the reach of the law.
Whether its protected or not depends on the merits of the behavior, and not the subjective traits of the doer.
Bman,
I wrote a response to you, but NOM moderators have not approved it. It is on my blog if you're interested. I guarantee everyone that my blog is very PG-13 and has an open comment policy. It responds to your use of the term "behavior" and how that reads as being very belittling to me.
RJS: I wrote a response to you, but NOM moderators have not approved it. ...
Some of my posts show up right away and some show up hours later.
There appears to be an automated process that gets triggered and someone in the back office has to moderate the post and release.
One flaw with system seems to be post which appear later do not always make it to the rss feed, especially when they are backdated to the time they were originally submitted.
So, I'll wait a while to see if your post appear here later..
I went to your blogsite but there seems to be no structured argument to answer.
You variously declare "subjective feelings" you have, but I already addressed the "subjectiveness" issue in my previous post.
I explained that even religious belief, which is subjective along with love, could not make a behavior (polygamy) fit for public approval, and that pubic approval of a behavior stood on its own merits.
To people who want to legalize polygamy, their feeling for their partners makes polygamy more than "a behavior" to them. But government cannot publicly approve polygamy based on those feelings.
That same standard would apply to men having sex with men. The behavior cannot be approved to the public based on the declared feelings of the participants. The behavior must be judged on its fitness as a model for children to adopt when they are older.
RJS I see your point, but consider it a scapegoat to say that opposition to SSM is a religious idea.
Clearly it is for many, but that's not all it is either. For myself (in addition to my religious beliefs) I have questions such as:
1. Don't children need and deserve both a real mother and a father, regardless of either parent's "sexual orientation"?
2. Are men and women really so equal that we can speak of them as a "family" even when segregated? Is separate really equal when it comes to husbands and wives, mothers and fathers?
3. Knowing what we do about science and human behavior, is it really in our best interest for the State to encourage and reward "families" that are founded on gender bias and segregation, rather than the kind of biological integration that Mother Nature clearly intends for humankind?
4.Certainly it's no accident, and no injustice, that every single one of us is the direct result of the union of one man and one woman (regardless of orientation)... is this not a suitably inclusive place to base our collective definition of "family"?
Questions questions...
Respectfully, a question for RJS:
You said, "There is not a single part of me that looked at him the first time we met and chose to feel how I do." If that man happened to be your own biological brother, would you still expect the govt. to issue you a marriage license?
And, if there happened to be 2 such men with whom you fell in love, would you expect the govt. to issue all 3 of you a marriage license?
IE., how do you define the eligibility requirements for marriage, such that 1) there is a clear distinction between marriage and all other human relationships, and 2) the requirements do not discriminate by such factors as religion, race, sexual orientation, politics, etc.
Finally, if you agree that marriage should be altered to include same-sex couples, how will this affect consanguinity laws, and paternity law, in marriage, in general?
All choices have consequences. What are the far-reaching consequences of SSM?
Thank you.
You said, "There is not a single part of me that
Great points Daughter of Eve.
If marriage law is about "feelings" then "every" form of marriage known to mankind would have to be legalized.
To RJS @ post#20:
Those things happened to you by choice. We are responsible for our actions and conduct. Blacks cannot change the color of their skin but you can change your sexual preference.
If you insist on behaving a certain way then you must accept the consequences.