Argument to point:

Right to licenses. Case before court marriage license.

If the case were about a liquor license, what would be the argument.

Case; 18,000 people got liquor licenses, during a five month window due to a loop hole, which allowed them to do so. There was an amendment to spell out that the law was never intended to allow businesses a right to have liquor licenses in that residential area.

The amendment is upheld in the State Supreme Court. Do the 18,000 businesses get to keep their liquor license? Absolutely Not.

When slavery was abolished, the slave owners who claimed to have good money for their slaves, this not get to keep them, and claim that they were entitled because they made their purchase prior to the abolition of slavery.

Another Argument by some gays:

"We are born this way. Who would choose to be this way and suffer discrimination and rejection from family members."

Consider it or reconsider it.

You were better off in the 80's, when gays declared that it was their sexual preference and chose. They chose the lifestyle, because it was a decisive chose about how they wished to live theri lives.

But, that is not your statement.

So, since you were born that way, prisoners can not decalre themselves straight but chose homsexual gratification while in prison. Consider that over 75% of prisoners engage in homosexual activity, and they had to be that way.

75% of criminals in prison are homosexual.

Gays represent 2% of the populus.

2% of the populus are responsible for 75% of the criminals in the penal system.

Maybe, you should go back to that chose argument.

Consequences? 95% of the Catholic priest pedophile child molestation cases were homosexual.

2% of populus homosexual.

No negative consequence? Gosh, that is an argument, I think not. Why not allow African Americans the right to classify themselves White.

Why should a man not be allowed to marry the four mothers of his children, and cause them to cease to be illegitament.

And has your founder of the Gay Rights movement, Harry Hay, says, why not allow homosexual men to engage in loving nuturing relationships with little boys.

But, as mrmagoo says, he just wants straights to choke on a cock. But to be fair, nothing that any gay or straight does in business, has anything to do with what he does in the bedroom. Isn't that your argument, dude.

Game Over..Ad hominem attacks. Thank You. :)

hey chris lee go choke on a cock. lifestyle my ass. who designs your clothes, furniture, cooks your food, makes the movies you watch and designs your weddings? we do. go back to the farm guy.

Chris Lee's an idiot. I've already gone 10 rounds with him on this and he simply can't think. He just repeats the same thing over and over.

It's amusing that the latest moves on gay marriage bring out all of these people who claim to have *nothing* against gays as people but insist on weaving these BS arguments.

Fact is, there is NO negative consequence to giving gays the title of marriage. People like Chris can't demonstrate one (that is not also based on the idea that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong.)

Fuck your semiotic, Chris. You are the signifier, and you represent stupidity.

Everyone gay or straight, good or evil, talented, dull, tall, short etc was brought into this world by a man and a woman bumpin' uglies. Marriage is not a mandate to reproduce, but society identifies ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as the preferred social unit, this is why a non-reproducing heterosexual couple is in alignment with the semiotic and a same sex couple is not.

If they let all the other gays stay married, they can annul Ellen Degeneris's marriage. That's the deal on the table.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights not equals US Constitution. Try again.

And it just goes to show how stupid the UN can be sometimes. Marriage is the entanglement of the absurd.

Marriage is not a right? Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says otherwise:

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the RIGHT to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

It's strange to be agreeing with Brown on anything.

We no longer teach the benefits of a Republic in our schools. Fascism, communism, and socialism were established in countries by majorities. A Republic protects the rights of individuals and the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Being free means letting others do things that you don't approve of.

While it's hard to refer to this kleptocracy as either a Democracy or a Republic, it clearly wasn't intended to be a democracy.

http://ewebsmith.com/gov/NotDemocracy.html

Why not call it a "marriage?" There are plenty of examples of same-sex marriage throughout history:

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage

AG Jerry Brown proves again his stupidity. He should be disbarred like Nifong. It's "please, sue my client" moment & it may open door to attempts to overturn many of the past propositions.

"(Constitution) never intended 'to put a group's right to enjoy liberty to a popular vote.' " Yeah, right. Judicial fiat & legislating from the bench are more reliable than trusting stupid voters with such decisions.

If it were only about the title I could care less, call it civil union, partnership, whatever. However it is that one word title that gives married people about half the taxes my partner and I pay in (and we have 2 kids to raise too), and that title gives a legal spouse the right to the soc security that we all pay in whereas my partner and our kids would get nothing if I died, that title gives a spouse right to life and medical decisions automatically - something that we had to pay a lawyer and come up with almost 100 pages of legal paperwork to create - which may be challenged by any state that chooses to do so, etc. I think they say there are over 1000 legal rights that come because of that one word "marriage" that do not come with the separate but equal word "partner" Churches can keep marriage (although I think the bible actually calls it matrimony) just give me and my family the same legal right as everyone else and I'm fine.

Marriage is for stupid people. I'm very glad that gay people want to be stupid too.

I am also for the right of gay people to commit suicide. But keep it illegal for straights. That way, gays will be more free. And then will always have one on them.

..beg your pardon. This IS just a simple matter of society deciding the MEANING of a title of recognition. It has nothing to do with a value judgement about a lifestyle or people's freedom to openly and with dignity live and love. I am a STAUNCH defender of anyone and everyone's right to a consenting adult relationship, but I am trying to address THIS particular social issue in a reasoned manner.

I'm pro-Gay Marriage but I do wonder why the only NY-centric aspect of this article is a brief sentence at the end of the article. You're very political, Jen. Got it. But as the "editor" of Gothamist, don't you think it's sort of your job to keep the site on focus?

When did Gothamist readers get to be such disgusting cretins?

In California, Supreme Court justices can be recalled by a popular referendum. That's what happened to an anti-death penalty justice who just wouldn't sign on any cases. The present justices better be aware that they ould be booted if they nullifiy Proposition 8.

I'm not thrilled with Obama's election victory but I abide by it as it was the will of the people and he won democratically.

For the moment it's still a democracy, but apparently the Gaystapo want a lavender dictatorship.