Jul

7

NY To Ban Marriage?

July 7, 2006 |

That’s what one Dem is talking about. Since the courts won’t allow gay marriage then any “gay times” by straight weddings have to go. (HT Wizbang)

That’s what Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton (D-125th District) is proposing in the wake of the New York high court’s decision that the state constitution does not recognize same sex marriage.

“Let’s get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement,” she said.

The proposal Lifton supports would replace the word “marriage” with “civil commitment” in state laws, creating a legal contract she said would be accessible to everyone, while leaving the religious aspect of the union to religious institutions.

“Why should state government become a religious institution?” she asked.

Wizbang’s take?

Added: If this proposal were to pass, does that mean that a New York man will no longer propose marriage to a woman, but he will instead propose a civil commitment? Just imagine that scene: the man and woman are at a posh, romantic New York restaurant. He gets on one knee, presents her with a beautiful diamond ring, looks lovingly into his girlfriend’s eyes and asks, “will you enter into a civil commitment with me?”

You may think I’m being ridiculous, but considering how the PC crowd has had quite a bit of success removing politically incorrect language (Merry Christmas) and behavior (praying in public school or any mention of God in public school) from public life, the passage of a proposal like Ms. Lifton’s would give the PC thought police ammunition to work toward eliminating any mention of the word marriage from public discourse. Since marriage would no longer exist, the phrase “we’re getting married” would be labeled “outdated and bigoted,” not to mention meanspirited toward gay civilly committed couples because, as long as the term marriage was still used, it could cause them to feel like second class citizens. Instead the traditional institution of marriage would be relegated to people’s homes and churches, absent from public life.

This is coming to a head. Regardless of what the outcome will be there will be marriage. Churches will perform ‘normal’ weddings for those who want seal their commitment to one another before God and others. Then I guess that the lib churches will also perform similar weddings for ‘gay’ couples. Neither recognized by the state.

So be it… but something tells me it just isn’t about the marriage issue.


Comments

5 Comments so far

  1. Daniel J. Mount on July 7, 2006 6:01 pm

    What I can’t believe is that the libs are saying this with a straight face!

    “You say gays can’t marry, so we won’t let you marry either.”

    Never mind that since the creation marriage has been between a man and a woman. Polgyamy was the only deviation accepted as marriage, and I wonder how many liberals would accept it today.

  2. Tom Blumer on July 8, 2006 4:36 pm

    I see what Wizbang’s concerns are, but if gay marriage is forced into law by the courts, it may (emphasis may) be the least undesirable recourse.

    If straight and homosexual marriages are treated the same in the law, you can bet that every attempt will be made to force churches will be forced to conduct gay marriages against their will. A related example: In MA, Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption business because of their refusal to place kids with homosexual couples.

    If marriage is taken out of the legal realm entirely, I don’t see the “PC language problem” being serious. A not thought-through thought — itcould be overcome by saying “we are getting married in the xxxx church.”

    The BIG downside is that nonreligious people who don’t want to get married in a church would cohabit. The cohabit rate would go way up, as would the rate of kids out of wedlock, and all the statistically-found problems that go with all of that.

  3. Gere P. on July 9, 2006 1:51 pm

    Mr. Mount,
    You are part of the problem.

    By reading an article that describes one democrats idea you came to the conclusion that are liberals are saying it.

    Does that make you a logical political commentator?

    I’ll answer that for you: No.

  4. Daniel J. Mount on July 10, 2006 4:12 am

    Gere,

    I said “libs,” you assumed “democrats.” Does being a “lib” make you a democrat, or being a democrat make you a lib?

    Who is the one talking nonsense here? :)

  5. Steven J. Kelso Sr. on July 10, 2006 3:30 pm

    Follow the money. In addition to the government-forced acceptance and beautification of homosexuality, gays want the earn income tax credit and the deductions and the “employer paid” helth care.

    Overturn Western culture for 2% of the populataion?

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind