David Tyree is a moron

[Sterling84]

Wasn't there someone who called you un christian?

Nope. I not-called him Close-Minded. But I can see how you'd confuse the two terms. ZING!!!

[Gothamite]

Because the majority of blacks and hispanics (especially hispanics) are Christian. For them, it's a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.

And the majority of white people are Christian. Your point?

There is a higher concentration of christians among Blacks and Hispanics, and many of them, especially blacks, tend to align with more extreme wings of the church. There are many white people who consider themselves "Christian" but don't really believe the dogma (and no Ice_Cap, I am not talking about you).

Nonsense. Those people are Christians, as much as anyone else is.

"Christian" is a blanket term that describes hundreds of religious organizations with hundreds of different interpretations of what that term means. Some of those are socially conservative, some of those are socially liberal. There hasn't been one single Christian voice for hundreds of years, at least since Martin Luther took out his frustrations on a church door with hammer and nails.

Opponents of marriage equality would like you to believe that there are litmus tests, and opposition to equal rights for gays is one of those tests. That's why they claim their "religious liberty" to keep gays from being married is under fire.

In reality there are Christian churches who are eager to officiate gay weddings, but are prevented in doing so by law. Funny how the conservative churches forget to care about their "religious liberty."

[thespleenenator]

Nope. I not-called him Close-Minded. But I can see how you'd confuse the two terms. ZING!!!

[rams80]

The Democrats are the party of the middle? Really? Please explain, then, why wackjobs like Pelosi and Reid get a ton of media love while the "Blue Dog" Democrats are ignored.

Just because you identify with one party doesn't mean that party is somehow more enlightened than other parties.

Probably because there aren't too many Blue Dog Democrats left running around in the halls of power. They either retired, got voted/gerrymandered out, or crossed party lines in the interest of personal political survival. "Moderates" and Third Way Centrists died a bloody electoral death over the course of the 2000s.

--------------------------------------------------

I think one of the big reasons Democrats have dropped the "civil liberties" bit and adopted neo-con foreign policy is...Citizens United again. "Soft on terror" is this generation's "soft on Communism" and most Democratic politicians are (rightfully, to be fair) terrified of giving corporate donors that kind of ammunition to go after them with. Some Democrats have already admitted they voted a certain way because they saw the hundreds of negative anonymous campaign ads heading down the pipeline if they didn't.

[IceCap]

I'm not Christian. I'm Jewish.

Oh... well then...Shabat Shalom?

Shlishi Shalom

[Gothamite]

Well, Tyree sure seems to want to prove the thread title correct. He keeps saying moronic things:

"And in the sense where people do have strong Christian convictions, (marriage equality) takes away in a sense our religious freedoms because none of the things we believe essentially lines up with same-sex marriage."

So his "religious freedoms" require other people not to have rights? What about the "religious freedoms" of other churches like the United Church of Christ, which wants to marry its gay members but is prohibited in doing so by law?

Why isn't he standing up for their "religious freedoms"? Moron.

[IceCap]

Plus legalized same sex marriage wouldn't force churches that don't want to marry same sex couples to do so. So a church's freedom to not to perform same sex marriages would still be protected.

[Breakwood]

Plus legalized same sex marriage wouldn't force churches that don't want to marry same sex couples to do so. So a church's freedom to not to perform same sex marriages would still be protected.

EXACTLY! I get that there are people out there with religious beliefs that oppose same-sex marriage. Great for you. If you legalize same-sex marriage no one is forcing you to give up those beliefs. It only allows those people who want to get married to a person of the same-sex to do so.

This debate frustrates me to no end!

[Gothamite]

The fearmongering, demagoguery and outright lies coming from the other side is what frustrates me to no end.

We all know that there's no legitimate reason under the Constitution to ban marriage equality. So maybe it's not surprising that they would have to stoop so low.

Not surprising, but still frustrating.

[illwauk]

Well, Tyree sure seems to want to prove the thread title correct. He keeps saying moronic things:

"And in the sense where people do have strong Christian convictions, (marriage equality) takes away in a sense our religious freedoms because none of the things we believe essentially lines up with same-sex marriage."

So his "religious freedoms" require other people not to have rights? What about the "religious freedoms" of other churches like the United Church of Christ, which wants to marry its gay members but is prohibited in doing so by law?

Why isn't he standing up for their "religious freedoms"? Moron.

I brought this exact point to Tyree on twitter and he had me blocked!

I move that the title of this thread be changed to "David Tyree is an a$$clown"

[Gothamite]

Or at least a coward, without the courage of his convictions.

[Gothamite]

Bumping - tonight, New York stands with Michael Strahan, not David Tyree.

[slapshot]

So, I guess Tyree can keep his ring then, right?

[BlueSky]

The fearmongering, demagoguery and outright lies coming from the other side is what frustrates me to no end.

We all know that in my opinion there's no legitimate reason under the Constitution to ban marriage equality. So maybe it's not surprising that they would have to stoop so low.

Not surprising, but still frustrating.

FYP.

I'm happy for those that this ruling made happy. I understand those it doesn't make happy. The best time will be when it's resolved for good in whatever fashion and the country can move on.

[Gothamite]

Not my opinion - Justice Scalia's. Take it up with him if you don't like it.

Besides, I've posted that challenge for weeks, and nobody's been able to list a single legitimate, Constitutional reason. Not one. Awfully telling. I said at the time that I was willing to be convinced, yet opponents of marriage equality have come up blank.

So Scalia's opinion is looking a whole lot less like "opinion" and a whole lot more like "fact."

But I'd love you to prove me wrong. If there is a Constituionalky-valid reason to deny gay couples their fundamental right to marry, let's hear it.

[IceCap]

I'll leave this hear

*Not Safe For Work due to language*

[Cosmic]

from buffalonews.com: Grisanti, to the applause of spectators in the gallery, said he had reversed course in a clash between his beliefs as a Catholic and his professional insights as a lawyer.

"I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage," said Grisanti, who noted his years of opposition and campaign vows to oppose gay marriage.

"To those whose support I may lose, please know in the past I was telling you what I believed at that time was the truth," Grisanti said.

"I struggled with this immensely," he added.

In the end, though, he said, "I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, people of my district [and] across this state ... the same rights I have with my wife."

This comment from the buffalonews.com story also really got to me. It helps to personalize the debate when you realize that there are people who have been waiting for this literally for decades:

There are tears of joy in my eyes seeing New York State pass marriage equality into law. We live in a country of law, not religion (check US Constitution, First Amendment). For me, it is too late for this to mean much; my partner of 23 years passed away 3 years ago from liver cancer. But I celebrate for all gays and lesbian brothers and sisters in New York. It is a great day for love, for civil rights, and for equality. I salute Sen. Grisanti for his amazing speech on the Senate floor (I'm getting out my checkbook; you had our back, now we'll have yours).

The elephant in the room, though, is that this is not even on the federal radar. As wonderful as these state decisions are, only the federal gov't can grant federal rights. I saw something (from the GAO?) that said there are 1,138 federal laws pertaining to married couples. I feel like this has to come up to SCOTUS eventually, right? I know they pick the cases they take, but I feel like that's the only way it can get done federally. It will be BAD, though, when it comes up. I honestly think there will be people killed in protests. If you thought any of the state battles were nasty, the federal battle will be 50x (pun intended) worse.

That's for another day, though. Congratulations to all newly-engaged gay New Yorkers!

[Gothamite]

Yes, indeed. I myself know a couple.

I don't see marriage equality on the federal level coming through the Legislative. It will almost certainly come via the courts (which is probably as it should be).

I think Perry v. Schwarzenegger has pretty good odds to be that case. Either the 9th Circuit will rule that Prop 8's defenders lack standing, which I understand would result in marriage equality throughout the 9th, or they'll let the appeal progress, leading inevitably to SCOTUS.

And that's where it will get interesting. In his Lawrence

dissent, Scalia boxed himself in, saying that there was no longer a bar to gay marriage. As I said before, it will be interesting to see if the great champion of stare decisis believes in it when precedent's not on his side; if he's intellectually consistent, he has to vote against Prop 8.

This is where Prop 8's defenders did their cause so much harm. They couldn't mount much of a legal defense (calling only two witnesses, one of whom basically ended up agreeing with the Prop 8 opponents) that Judge Walker had very little choice but to issue a stinging rebuke. And that puts them in a hole for all appeals.

[Cosmic]

At this point, if SCOTUS did take a gay marriage case and ruled against equal rights, it would be the 21st century's Dred Scott case. The justices' opinions would be almost comical. The momentum has swung so far by this point... I really feel like it is only a matter of time.

[IceCap]

It takes some time to get a case all the way through the court system. It'll happen, just give it time.