Same Sex Marriage Legalized In NY

[SoulBlazerFan]

As many of you are probably aware, same sex marriage has finally been legalized in the state of New York, the law allowing for them to start marrying as early as next month.

Now, I'm not an opponent of gay marriage, I say, everyone should have equal rights, but thats not the reason I posted this, it's because of another issue I have read about it.

There are reports that say they didn't pass this law out of the kindness of their hearts. It's projected that, thanks to the legalization of gay marriage, NY expects almost 200 million in revenue over the next three years, as they expect thousands of same-sex couples to come to NY to have their marriages legalized.

I can't quite agree with this. I understand how important a change this is, but is change right when it's done with selfish reasonings? I don't honestly believe that some people changed their minds on the issue- it came down to money and, in the end, no matter what, money is a deciding factor everywhere, for just about everyone. 168 mil was the number I heard, and that's a lot of money for the government to work with.

I'm not saying this is the reason why it was voted in, but it seems this may have been a contributing factor. I think it's crap that, simply because of this money the expect, some politicians changed their tune. The news report I saw said one of the senators, whose name escapes me, ran on an anti-gay marriage for his position, and yet voted for it last night.

So, I guess my question is, do you think it's okay to pass a law into legislature if one of the driving forces is money, especially a hotbed issue such as this? Does it matter if it's a contributing factor so long as the law is passed? Discuss.

[Flamez]

Its been an issue here in Australia recently as well.

Grabbed a clip from one of the political shows here in Aust, they did a Gen Y special and thus the guest panel is all Gen Y.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeQJwSqKrns&feature

For those of you who dont know, Josh Thomas (the first guy talking) is probably one of the most influental people in Aust from Gen Y due to his weekly role on one of the most popular shows on TV here.

[psychokind]

So, I guess my question is, do you think it's okay to pass a law into legislature if one of the driving forces is money, especially a hotbed issue such as this? Does it matter if it's a contributing factor so long as the law is passed? Discuss.

German point of view: absolutely. Our constitution explicitly gives states and even cities/towns the right to make "laws" (it's something different for towns/cities) to earn money in certain ways. although this is a quite a wide interpretation, it's a form of competition between states.

that said, (gay) marriage in germany is a federal issue anyway and can only be regulated by the federal government overall.

we have civil partnership since 2001, and it's not likely to be extended to gay marriage in the near future. I personally don't care, as long as they don't want the church to acceppt gay marriage and as long as they don't get the same tax advantages like married people. and that's because gay marriage is not eligible like man and woman with their hope of a longe range relationship with children.

[Mantaray]

Got no problems with gay marriges. It's kind of mean to use that as an excuse for money but my guess is it was suggested to have the people against it to vote for it so they could get something out of it, too.

I just hope dating your own gender doesn't become the "thing" in the future where people would ridicule you for not dating your own gender or something. That would be crazy.

[psychokind]

I just hope dating your own gender doesn't become the "thing" in the future where people would ridicule you for not dating your own gender or something. That would be crazy.

would be awesome if it counts for gay men though so many leftover women (for my son(s))!

[Freedan]

Personally, I think the most important thing is that the law passed. Yes, their motivation wasn't "it's about time we stopped living in the Dark Ages", but at the end of the day, same-sex couples are getting what they want: the right to marry who they choose.

People opposed to it will piss and moan and complain until some other ridiculous issue catches their attention. After several years of this law not affecting any straight people in any conceivable way, they'll stop complaining so loud, and people may gradually become more tolerant of the idea.

So while the reason for the law isn't because they recognized the need for change, at least the law is there. Gay folks would do well to not rock the boat and start complaining about the reasoning behind it.

[Jason Tandro]

I can't quite agree with this. I understand how important a change this is, but is change right when it's done with selfish reasonings?

Ask the slaves who were freed 150 years ago if they mind the selfish reasoning behind a law being passed. Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves because he was a virtuous good-hearted man, he did it because he needed public support and the assistance of the now freed slaves.

I still see your point, but motivation doesn't really matter to me; actions are all the matter.

[tay120n64]

Can you think of a better reason for a state to legalize something than EXTRA REVENUE?

It's the strongest argument for any state to legalize it. I see no problem with it. Good on NY for legalizing it, and good on NY for increasing their revenue in a way that doesn't involve increased taxes (no one likes those).

[Flamez]

Ask the slaves who were freed 150 years ago if they mind the selfish reasoning behind a law being passed. Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves because he was a virtuous good-hearted man, he did it because he needed public support and the assistance of the now freed slaves.

If he wanted public support freeing the slaves was not a good move. Northerners where no better then southernes when it came to accepting african americans.

[Jason Tandro]

Ask the slaves who were freed 150 years ago if they mind the selfish reasoning behind a law being passed. Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves because he was a virtuous good-hearted man, he did it because he needed public support and the assistance of the now freed slaves.

If he wanted public support freeing the slaves was not a good move. Northerners where no better then southernes when it came to accepting african americans.

Not true at all. The North and even parts of the south were rich in the abolitionist movement. Maybe they didn't see african americans as equal but the idea of slavery was morally repugnant and it gave the north a moral high ground. If Jefferson Davis had freed the slaves at the beginning of the war then it would have simply been the issue of state's rights that separated the north and south, which would actually give the Confederacy the moral high ground.

[Flamez]

Ask the slaves who were freed 150 years ago if they mind the selfish reasoning behind a law being passed. Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves because he was a virtuous good-hearted man, he did it because he needed public support and the assistance of the now freed slaves.

If he wanted public support freeing the slaves was not a good move. Northerners where no better then southernes when it came to accepting african americans.

Not true at all. The North and even parts of the south were rich in the abolitionist movement. Maybe they didn't see african americans as equal but the idea of slavery was morally repugnant and it gave the north a moral high ground. If Jefferson Davis had freed the slaves at the beginning of the war then it would have simply been the issue of state's rights that separated the north and south, which would actually give the Confederacy the moral high ground.

I could debate you for hours on this Jason, but not the topic for it

[Fazermint]

The way I see it, it doesn't really matter what the reason behind it is. It's not like a revenue-driven government is something new, either. Gay couples profit, the government profits.