The marriage law does not "force" children to be born out-of-wedlock.

Society, in our legal system, has extended the marital presumption of paternity -- based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation -- to unwed scenarios. The imitation is less effective, but not due society being anti-child.

Of course, the sexual basis for the presumption of paternity -- within marriage and outside of marriage -- is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements.

Adults in one-sexed scenarios (lone individuals or twosomes or moresomes of the same sex) choose to segregate fatherhood and motherhood. They do so before the child is conceived and so they cannot excuse their choice and their behavior by citing the best interests of children-yet-to-be-concieved. They choose and act in the best interests of themselves. They choose to create these children for domestic arrangements which are either fatherless or motherless by design.

Outlawed? Nope. But nonmarital nonetheless.

So, Kevin, you can stop hyperventilating and breathe easier.

What is it about the lesbian scenario, in your view, that makes it superior and worthy of special status? Is it the lesbian sexual behavior alone?

If not, then, do the Grandmom/Mom twosomes deserve a license to SSM, too? Or two female straight friends raising children together? Maybe if they used "anonymous donors"?

There have been court cases, in which a pair of lesbians insisted that the father is indispensable to the well-being of the child he fathered (through sperm "donation") with one of the women. Does that mean the three deserve a license to SSM, too? Sexuality is irrelevant to SSM, anyway, according to you Kevin.

It doesn’t seem to be sinking in: outlawing same-sex marriage does nothing to stop same-sex parenting! Why is this so hard for you people to comprehend! All you’re doing is forcing the children raised by same-sex couples to be born and raised out of wedlock!!

If a lesbian gets pregnant with sperm that some guy sold to a sperm bank with the specific proviso that he NOT be revealed as the donor, and that lesbian raises the child with a helpmate, that is, a partner/lover, exactly how is that worse than a single straight woman raising a similarly conceived child alone???

1.
Gay marriage inevitable? Don’t believe the lie!

2.
Up until the last minute, Sen. Tom Duane was assuring everyone that he had the votes to pass the bill. But when push came to shove, New York legislators listened to their constituents and soundly rejected same-sex marriage.

3.
This great victory will reverberate up and down America, putting the fear of God -– and of the American voter -- into the hearts of weak-kneed and weak-willed politicians everywhere.

* * *

The SSM campaign may well prove to be the catalyst for a resurgence of respect for the core meaning of marriage throughout the country. Reaffirming the foundational social institution is among the first steps toward empowering future generations to overcome the nonmarital trends of the last few decades.

Elected representatives have a problem that the SSM merger cannot solve for them. That problem is the goal of re-election. In the realworld of wins and losses, NOM is making strides in demonstrating to politicians across the spectrum that marriage is a winner and that the merger is a loser.

Already leading lights of the SSM campaign are stepping back and reconsidering "civil union". That, too, would be a merger under a different name and unacceptable. But the momentum is shifting toward the solution that has long-existed and has been well-utilized.

The provisions for designated beneficiaries is not an imitation of marriage and is not accessible only on the basis of a nonmarital sexualized type of relationship. This solution is contract-based and fits the SSM argumentation that stresses the SSM would be a contract between consenting adults. It is a solution that is protective, rather than a preferential status, based on the vulnerabilities that families experience outside of marriage. Especially those with children.

Afterall, according to the SSM argumentation presented, repeatedly, in the comment sections here -- by SSMers -- protecting children outside of marriage is a supposed concern of the SSM campaign. Thus, the existing solution fits that well, too.

There is zilch that an SSM-merger can do for children that adoption and other provisions cannot do far more directly. And there are plenty of gaycentric agencies out there catering to one-sexed scenarios -- be they lone individuals or twosomes -- in which persons of the gay identity group are recruited. Likewise, there are agencies in the adoption realm and in the "donor" sperm/ova realm whose businesses are aimed at that particular identity group. Once, again, the SSM campaign can recalibrate itself away from attacking the core of marriage and, instead, dealing with the solutions that already exist.

Each of those bits and pieces of the SSM complaint can be addressed on merit and demerit. There is no need for SSMers to continue to deny what marriage actuallys for the sake of camoflauging what SSM actually would be.

Cheers to NOM and to the elected representives of NY who listened to reason. Cheers to the marriage supporters who made them listen and act on reason.

I am left bewildered.

How can you people be so...cold? Out of all the posts here I only saw ONE that made a decent argument. I see a lot of posts that use the word "God" and almost all of them are devoid of compassion or understanding that is so vital to the ideal of God.

I also see the word "children" being thrown around a lot. Let me tell you that I was born into a heterosexual family and my father CHOSE to leave. Not even extending me the curteousy of leaving when I was too young to remember him but rather when I was seven. On my tenth birthday he told me to never call him again.
My family was hetero. I thought, by your folks' reasoning, that I was suppose to have a happy, whole family?
My point is that a child being born by artificial insemination to a gay couple has just as much chance to be happy and whole as any other child. Born into a hetero family. The only exception being all of you teaching your kids that there's something wrong with little Timmy or Erica cause she's got two mommies or daddies. It will be those kids that are taught intolerance that will pick on and socially ostricize kids with gay parents.

And please stop making the child sound like he or she was robbed of some "right" to a mom and dad. On the case of adoption, that child was already given up by their blood parents. In the case of A.I. I'm sorry to sound lewd but some guy ejaculated into a cup for money. It's not that the male was forced to give up his sperm so that a gay couple could rob his would-be offspring of a mom/dad lifestyle.

Overall, I just feel bad for the majority of you. It must be so hard to to fight with such anger and insecurity against a minority of people seeking civil rights. I don't say that to be snide, I genuinely feel bad for you.
I hope someday you can find it in your heart to stop being so cold and fearful of gay couples. Please try and remember that gay people have married. The world didn't end and children/hetero families weren't broken apart and torn asunder.

Not sure if its true or not. But it could be up for vote next Thursday.

Homosexual "parenting", which, by design, deprives a child of his or her mom or dad, is inherently selfish and cruel. To make matters worse, pedophilia consitutes an important part of homosexual culture, making these children particularly vulnerable to sexual molestation.

yet you are willing to take away the right of children to have a mother and a father? Only your wants matter? How convenient for you.

The people of all the states that have voted have shown that we share a common core belief about marriage and thats why this wonderful organization and the work you do is so needed.

With all the misinformation and disinformation out there, too few people understand that militant feminist lesbians are behind this gay marriage push as they spread their hatred and distrust of men and their divisiveness throughout society.

The lesbians love to say that they "recognized" or "realized" they were lesbians when they were older, implying that they had always been lesbians, even if they had been earlier married to men or had children with them. But this is patent nonsense. People are evolving their whole lives (Christians should all understand this) and these lesbians were heterosexuals who evolved into lesbians because of their experiences, which usually involved a seduction and conversion at some point. And the seduction-conversion experience will happen much more frequently in a society that is accepting of lesbianism, particularly a society which holds it to be equal to heterosexuality, a status that would be conferred by the legalization of lesbian marriage. Actually, in militant feminist circles, lesbianism is considered to be vastly superior to heterosexuality.

The increasing rates of conversion of women and girls into lesbianism might not be so frightening and disturbing if it did not put us on a path of increasing and irreconcilable conflict in the future, as the great majority of men will not readily become homosexuals or accept loneliness, many will become mentally disturbed and violent without having women in their lives, and many will be willing to do almost anything to restore traditional male-female relationships. Also, the male-female bond is the basic building block of human society, and as it is weakened feelings of human solidarity, empathy, and common purpose and social harmony will significantly decrease and lead to the creation of a much more violent, chaotic, hateful, vicious, and dangerous society.

But with New York's great victory, the hope still lives! Maybe the US can avoid the catastrophe that would surely follow from widespread acceptance of lesbian marriage and the accompanying misandry.