Buffalo Lesbian Marries complete stranger to prove a point~!

[JustineCredible]

BUFFALO, N.Y. - Even though a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated by the New York State Senate in early December by a vote of 38 to 24, gay marriage advocates continue their fight to marry.

In a symbolic measure, a same-sex couple applied for a marriage license at City Hall Wednesday. When they were denied, gay marriage advocate Kitty Lambert found a man she had never met and applied for a marriage license with him. She says she did it to prove a point.

"Our point is, for $40, I can come in and purchase a marriage license with a total stranger. But all these years with the same woman and I still can't get a marriage license. What is the senate thinking?" asked Lambert.

Lambert says she will not actually actually marry the man. She wanted to show that committed gay couples are denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Fighting for the right to marry - Buffalo.YNN.com

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5t233AUh8s"]YouTube- Kitty Lambert's Wedding[/ame]

 

[Zinc Route]

***** This wasn't exactly a Mr.Smith Goes to Washington" moment

 

[Winnb]

BUFFALO, N.Y. - Even though a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated by the New York State Senate in early December by a vote of 38 to 24, gay marriage advocates continue their fight to marry.

I sympathize with her. I do. But she has to know the gay marriage issue is all about the fact that many Christians in our country believe homosexuality is a sin. They believe being gay is a sin. There are people all throughout our nation who sincerely believe being gay is a choice. As if a man wakes up one morning and says "I'm tired of having sex with women, I think I'm gonna try a nice big juicy penis today!"

So I understand the point she's making with her protest and her "marrying a stranger", but she's trying to use logic to win an illogical argument. It won't work. The people she's trying to convince will never see her point.

 

[molten_dragon]

I get the point she's trying to make, but she's not doing a great job of making it.

 

[Hoplite]

I sympathize with her. I do. But she has to know the gay marriage issue is all about the fact that many Christians in our country believe homosexuality is a sin. They believe being gay is a sin.

They also dont seem to get that pushing religious laws into the secular sphere is a dangerous road to go down.

 

[OxymoronP]

Our point is, for $40, I can come in and purchase a marriage license with a total stranger. But all these years with the same woman and I still can't get a marriage license. What is the senate thinking?" asked Lambert.

The only thing she proved, was that she is an idiot with too much money to waste.

 

[Hoplite]

The only thing she proved, was that she is an idiot with too much money to waste.

I think she makes a fair point.

DOMA and similar acts are meant to, in the words of the Conservatives, "protect the institution of marriage."

Her point is that she can get married to a total stranger who she doesn't know and doesn't love but she isn't allowed to marry the woman she's loved for many many years and with whom she's had a lasting and stable relationship. How are these bans protecting marriage?

 

[Winnb]

They also dont seem to get that pushing religious laws into the secular sphere is a dangerous road to go down.

Well many so called conservatives have no problem pushing religious laws onto our society. As long as they're religious laws that fit their political ideology of course.

 

[OxymoronP]

Her point is that she can get married to a total stranger who she doesn't know and doesn't love but she isn't allowed to marry the woman she's loved for many many years and with whom she's had a lasting and stable relationship. How are these bans protecting marriage?

Because the state should only encourage behaviors beneficial to the state. A family structure of a man and women with a number of children who they can afford is the optimal situation the state should try and support. Giving benefits to couples with no children or couples with too many children they cannot support is counter productive. I have nothing against Gays being together, nor straights for that matter, but unless they create children in a responsible manner niether should be encouraged or subsidized by the State.

 

[Jerry]

BUFFALO, N.Y. - Even though a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated by the New York State Senate in early December by a vote of 38 to 24, gay marriage advocates continue their fight to marry.

In a symbolic measure, a same-sex couple applied for a marriage license at City Hall Wednesday. When they were denied, gay marriage advocate Kitty Lambert found a man she had never met and applied for a marriage license with him. She says she did it to prove a point.

"Our point is, for $40, I can come in and purchase a marriage license with a total stranger. But all these years with the same woman and I still can't get a marriage license. What is the senate thinking?" asked Lambert.

Lambert says she will not actually actually marry the man. She wanted to show that committed gay couples are denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Fighting for the right to marry - Buffalo.YNN.com

YouTube- Kitty Lambert's Wedding

The guy went along with it because she promised him he could watch :rofl

 

[Winnb]

Because the state should only encourage behaviors beneficial to the state. A family structure of a man and women with a number of children who they can afford is the optimal situation the state should try and support. Giving benefits to couples with no children or couples with too many children they cannot support is counter productive. I have nothing against Gays being together, nor straights for that matter, but unless they create children in a responsible manner niether should be encouraged or subsidized by the State.

No. None of that, and I mean none of that is the state's business. Whether people get married, have kids, stay single, whatever. The state should simply stay out of it.

 

[Jerry]

No. None of that, and I mean none of that is the state's business. Whether people get married, have kids, stay single, whatever. The state should simply stay out of it.

Well then gays shouldn't be asking for licenses :2wave:

The State already has nothing to do with gay marriages, so if it's non of the state's business, then gays have already won.

 

[Hoplite]

A family structure of a man and women with a number of children who they can afford is the optimal situation the state should try and support.

There is no proof of this being true.

Giving benefits to couples with no children or couples with too many children they cannot support is counter productive.

We arent talking about children.

I have nothing against Gays being together, nor straights for that matter, but unless they create children in a responsible manner niether should be encouraged or subsidized by the State.

Then why not provide incentives for adoption or having a child from donor sperm?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Because the state should only encourage behaviors beneficial to the state. A family structure of a man and women with a number of children who they can afford is the optimal situation the state should try and support. Giving benefits to couples with no children or couples with too many children they cannot support is counter productive. I have nothing against Gays being together, nor straights for that matter, but unless they create children in a responsible manner niether should be encouraged or subsidized by the State.

I disagree with that entire premise. Liberty means that you have the right to live your life the way you choose to so that your that actions do not impede another individual's ability to do the same. The only time the state should step in and restrict your right to live as and with you choose, is when your actions impede the rights of another, or there is an overriding social concern.

For example, kids are usually required to be vaccinated before attending public school because of the demonstrable overriding public concern resulting from the risk of communicable disease. In a free society, the state cannot arbitrarily deny state recognized privileges , such as marriage, to adults unless there is either an impediment to the liberty of others or an overriding social concern. The will of the people in terms of civil liberties is irrelevant because our constitution and entire legal framework is designed to protect the individual or minority from a tyranny of the majority.

So really, the only questions are:

1. Does allowing consenting gay and lesbian adults the privilege of a state recognized marriage impede the rights of others?

That argument cannot be reasonably made.

2. Is their an overriding social concern to allowing consenting gay and lesbian adults the privilege of a state recognized marriage?

Does it present a public health issue? No.

Does it present a public safety issue? No.

Would it result in increased pollution? No.

So, that argument cannot be reasonably made. Thus there is no reason not to allow them the privilege of a state recognized marriage.

 

[Winnb]

Well then gays shouldn't be asking for licenses :2wave:

The State already has nothing to do with gay marriages, so if it's non of the state's business, then gays have already won.

You must have forgotten that many states have decided to make gay marriage illegal. Some even passed an Amendment making it unconstitutional. Please explain to me how that equals the state not getting involved.

 

[OxymoronP]

There is no proof of this being true.

Of what being true?

We arent talking about children.

Thats what marriage is really about.

Then why not provide incentives for adoption or having a child from donor sperm?[

I dont think single parent or same sex couples should be encouraged to have kids.

 

[OxymoronP]

I disagree with that entire premise. Liberty means that you have the right to live your life the way you choose to so that your that actions do not impede another individual's ability to do the same. The only time the state should step in and restrict your right to live as and with you choose, is when your actions impede the rights of another, or there is an overriding social concern.

When did I say anything about restricting or punishing? I said encourage positive behavior, not make sanctions.

1. Does allowing consenting gay and lesbian adults the privilege of a state recognized marriage impede the rights of others?

Yes, since marriage has a definition it shouldnt be changed to make a minority happy. On the other hand Gay couples should enjoy equal rights under the law and just call their union something else. Marriage should not automatically give the people privilege, only marriage leading to a responsible household should be rewarded.

 

[Jerry]

You must have forgotten that many states have decided to make gay marriage illegal. Some even passed an Amendment making it unconstitutional. Please explain to me how that equals the state not getting involved.

Obviously the lady in the OP who used a stranger to apply for a license wasn't in such a state; and neither am I.

"The State" = whichever of the 57 states the speaker happens to be in at the time they make the statement.

There is no single over aching "state" in America. We call that government the "Federal" government, as distinguished from a "State".

So, if gays per-se don't want the state involved, then the lady in the OP has already won.

Your opposition to state involvement makes you appear to be anti-gay 'marriage, legaly speaking. What religious argument do you use to justify keeping legal rights away from gays?

 

[Hoplite]

Of what being true?

My bad, I mistook an opinion for a declaration of fact. Allow me to restate; why is a heterosexual relationship with children the optimal situation the state should support?

Thats what marriage is really about.

I dont see any basis for that at all, at least not in our modern times.

I dont think single parent or same sex couples should be encouraged to have kids.

Do you have any demonstrable reasons for feeling this way?

 

[OxymoronP]

My bad, I mistook an opinion for a declaration of fact. Allow me to restate; why is a heterosexual relationship with children the optimal situation the state should support?

With children they can afford.

Well society needs to keep its educated and working population high. So having a Male and Female with kids they can afford creates the optimal situation for a positive outcome. The reason for Male and Female is simple, kids need both a male and female influence in their life. A Grandmother and Mother is no substitute for a Father and Mother, a Father and Father is no substitute for a Father and Mother. Children need both a feminine and Masculine influence to be healthy and productive.

I dont see any basis for that at all, at least not in our modern times.

Humans are still humans, even though we have Ipods.

Do you have any demonstrable reasons for feeling this way

You really want me to prove something so common sense?

 

[Hoplite]

With children they can afford.

Then should we penalize heterosexual couples with children they cannot afford to support? Or heterosexual couples who fall into financial hardship from a job loss or illness?

Well society needs to keep its educated and working population high. So having a Male and Female with kids they can afford creates the optimal situation for a positive outcome.

I dont see any valid way to question the idea that this has already been achieved. We have a population of over 300 million people and knowledge and information is more readily accessible than ever before in human history.

The reason for Male and Female is simple, kids need both a male and female influence in their life. A Grandmother and Mother is no substitute for a Father and Mother, a Father and Father is no substitute for a Father and Mother. Children need both a feminine and Masculine influence to be healthy and productive.

Two points,

Firstly, on what are you basing this? I can point out numerous examples of people, myself included, who grew up with an absent father or mother and whom we could agree to call a well adjusted human being. There are numerous children of single parent families who grow up happy and healthy.

Second, what requires these gender influences to be parental in nature?

Humans are still humans, even though we have Ipods.

Our need to breed has arguably been satiated a thousandfold more than what it ever needed to be. Indeed our habitable spaces are currently straining to contain the population we have, encouraging childbirth seems to me to be a mistake.

You really want me to prove something so common sense?

Humor me.

If it's so common sense, finding a basis for it should be quite simple.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

When did I say anything about restricting or punishing? I said encourage positive behavior, not make sanctions.





Yes, since marriage has a definition it shouldnt be changed to make a minority happy. On the other hand Gay couples should enjoy equal rights under the law and just call their union something else. Marriage should not automatically give the people privilege, only marriage leading to a responsible household should be rewarded.

Marriage traditionally is a religious institution. What difference does it make what the state calls its end of it? Whether or not a church chooses to recognize that marriage would be up to the individual church. States have to be involved in marriage because of a whole host of legal reasons regarding children, property ownership, and so on, but for all intents and purposes a marriage to the state is a form of a contract. The state should not be in the business of legislating cultural norms for no other reason than its the cultural norm. The preservation of cultural norms is the domain of the church and other private institutions.

 

[OxymoronP]

]Then should we penalize heterosexual couples with children they cannot afford to support? Or heterosexual couples who fall into financial hardship from a job loss or illness?

I dont propose any penalties, just a lack insentives.

I dont see any valid way to question the idea that this has already been achieved. We have a population of over 300 million people and knowledge and information is more readily accessible than ever before in human history.

I said a population of educated and working.

Firstly, on what are you basing this? I can point out numerous examples of people, myself included, who grew up with an absent father or mother and whom we could agree to call a well adjusted human being. There are numerous children of single parent families who grow up happy and healthy.

I dont dispute your story, but the exception doesnt disprove the rule.

Second, what requires these gender influences to be parental in nature?

What do you mean?

Our need to breed has arguably been satiated a thousandfold more than what it ever needed to be. Indeed our habitable spaces are currently straining to contain the population we have, encouraging childbirth seems to me to be a mistake.

Look at Europe which is suffering serious demographic issues as a result of your kind of thinking.

If it's so common sense, finding a basis for it should be quite simple

Then i will get back to you with that and we shall take it from there.

 

[OxymoronP]

Marriage traditionally is a religious institution. What difference does it make what the state calls its end of it?

Exactly. If you call it something else with the same rights, the Religious groups wont try to fight it.

 

[Tucker Case]

Is it me, or does "Buffalo Lesbian" like some sort of PC code for "Bull Dyke"?