A distinction to be proud of? We think not.
Sheepshead Bay’s two state senators – Carl Kruger (D) and Marty Golden (R) – remain the only Brooklyn-area representatives standing against gay marriage in New York.
Of the nine members of the Brooklyn delegation to the State Senate, seven have publicly stated support for same-sex marriage rights, according to a survey by NY1. The majority of state senators from all five boroughs and Westchester support the bill, as do the majority of residents statewide, according to one poll.
And though the State Assembly passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in May, the Senate continues to put off responsibility in what is definitively the civil rights battle of our generation.
So what’s the hold up? Well, like the true leaders they are, 19 of the senators are shamefully keeping mum on the issue, hoping to stave off a hard vote indefinitely.
Kruger is a prime example of this. He’s refused to answer surveys on gay marriage for years. (Though he did slip in June, saying he opposed same-sex marriage. He’s since retreated back to his “no comment” stance.)
When Governor Paterson demanded a vote on gay marriage earlier this month, senate leadership balked in the face of an uncertain outcome. Kruger and the rest of the middling idiots succeeded in playing both sides, casting enough doubt that they were able to avoid taking a public stance and alienating voter segments.
In a pro-gay-marriage editorial, Brooklyn Paper pointed out that history has no patience for the wriggly worms who fail to rise up when equality is imperiled. “History has a particular contempt for politicians who don’t answer the call of the times, or, worse, remain silent when their voices are so urgently needed,” they write.
We couldn’t agree more. For our friends and family members, some of whom painfully hide their orientation because of this outward display of bigoted stupidity, we all suffer. Meanwhile Kruger and his ilk bully around a fractured Senate to satisfy their greedy appetites and inflated egos.
For Golden’s part, at least he has the spine to consistently go on record with his opposition. Like many Republicans, Golden stands against gay rights for religious reasons, stating marriage is between a man and a woman. But last we checked, this isn’t Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and the laws of our nation aren’t dictated by religious doctrine (and I thank God for that). Golden may be principled in his opposition, but applying antiquated notions to continue denying equality is hardly leadership. The ”master race” theory had many principled believers in Germany and Jim Crow America, too.
Sheepshead Bay’s senators better shape up. Their actions – or inaction – embarrass and shame us. It’s a black mark on the neighborhood and the borough. Instead of slinking in the background, they should pull up their britches and show some real leadership. This is Brooklyn, for chrissakes, not Pulaski!
Related posts
Print This
- View Comments
- Opinion
I think you made your point well. Can you tell me — where is Pulaski? Isn’t that a bridge somewhere?
I think its in Poland. Same Poland that the Revolutionary war general came from. That’s the guy the Pulaski Skyway ( a series of bridges in New jersey) is named after.
Even in the 21st Century a lot of people still have narrow minded attitudes about equality They want equality only as much as it benefits them. Extending their freedoms to those who are not like them is more than they tolerate.
Sadly, a number of conservative religious sects with large numbers in the area have very strongly made their opposition known both to their members as well as local politicians.
Pulaski is a very small town in upstate NY. It’s a bit north of Syracuse, and adjacent to Mexico.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=pulaski+ny&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Pulaski,+NY&gl=us&ei=rfIKS_7KNI7HlAe-46GFBA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q8gEwAA
The Pulaski Bridge connects Greenpoint with Long Island City. Named after Kazimierz Pulaski, the Revolutionary War fighter mentioned by Lisanne.
I don’t get the connection with backass politicians and Poland.
I forgot where NYC’s Pulaski Bridge went. But I did remember that the Skyway is considered a series of bridges.
Ned is referring to Upstate New York. That Pulaski I had no knowledge of previously. I do remember passing near Mexico once, and wondering how it got that name.
Boo on them. They need to be voted out of office ASAP.
Ned: Don’t you mean adjacent to Canada?
Pulaski is such a notable person that they named a lot of places, bridges, and skyways after him. So, it’s also a real place that is not exactly related to the notable person?
Atrhur, Mexico is a small town near Oswego. But yes, Pulaski isn’t far from Lake Ontario.
I didn’t realize this site had a political agenda. I don’t usually comment, but I was a frequent reader of this blog for the purpose of learning about current events in my neighborhood, and was disappointed at the assumption that everyone will share the opinion that this is a “shame” and “black mark on the neighborhood and the borough”. The shame to me is that tolerance doesn’t extend to people with different beliefs. (For the record, I am not religious.)
I don’t care to turn this into a debate about homosexual marriage because it’s not the place for it, nor do I expect anyone to care that *one person* who doesn’t follow the accepted doctrine has decided not to read this blog any longer. I just thought I’d raise my hand as one of the Brooklyn conservatives that aren’t supposed to exist – or maybe I’d better just move to Pulaski, by your terms.
Sorry, Arthur. I fell over my fingers typing that.
Anna, I believe that newspapers have commentary and editorials that contain opinions of both local and other interest.
The editor has the right to state his opinion. You have the right to disagree.
Anna M., hopefully the need to know more about the issues that affect Sheepshead Bay will keep you coming back. If it wasn’t for that, I would never read this blog!
Ned,
What’s wrong with being against gay marriage? I think you should know what a definition of marriage is.
Anna: The piece is labeled as opinion. Still, if you’re looking to consider my piece arguing that we ought to tolerate more people as intolerant, go for it. Also, being a conservative means you believe the government should interfere less in people’s lives. If you’re against gay marriage, you’re arguing the government must interfere more in your lives, and thus you’re a liberal.
Alex: There are many definitions of marriage. In this case, I believe the following: “Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship.” If you believe in the religious definition – that it’s a union between a man and a woman – than the government shouldn’t be mixed up with that and everything should be civil unions. It’s not the government’s job to sanction religious ceremonies.
And no, I don’t believe it’s okay to approve marriages between a man and a woman, but civil unions between people of the same sex. It’s just another example of separate but equal.
Whose definition? In general terms it’s a legal arrangement between two parties and the state. Traditionally those parties have been of the opposite sex. However, we live in a time where conventional definitions change, and out inclusions become many.
The marriage of two person of the same biological sex should not be of concern to others. If wish a marriage sanctified by a religious body, then have the clergy person do that ceremony. But as you would not consider the marriage of two individuals not of your faith to be invalid, you can’t by that extension of logic consider other forms of marriage, entered into with the same desire for legitimate and recognized union to be invalid.
That may be coldly logical, but this is an issue that requires one to think objectively.
Ned,
No sane society would ever encourage homosexual unions. The society that does promote that dies pretty quickly (purely demographical issues). Furthermore marriage is purely a religious institution.
Also by encouraging gay marriage, you will have more kids born out of wedlock. Statisticlly speaking kids born out of wedlock do substantially worse.
That’s just so called “on the surface” arguments….
Alex, you have no evidence to substantiate any of your assertions. And marriage is not a purely religious institution. If that were so then atheists would not get married.
As for an increase in out of marriage births because marriage rights have been extended in their inclusions, its apples and oranges. The two have absolutely no relationship at all.
Anyone who thinks that marriage is purely a religious institution is living in another century. I guess some people believe that we should go back to enslaving Negroes too while we’re at it right? I’ve heard the idea put forth that gay marriage will destroy the “institution”. It’s been destroyed many times over. The divorce rate in this country is appalling, women and men cheating on each other and endless so called “marriages of convenience”. There are those who get married and stay in a loveless, hateful marriage “for the children”. There are those who get married so they can get a green card. There are those who get married for money or political power. These same people think that gays are going to be far worse to the institution of marriage???? That’s crazy. They couldn’t be any better or any worse than heterosexuals who engage in the above descriptions. Why should anyone care what people do in the privacy of their homes and bedrooms? Why should we waste our time and minds on the subject?
Why?
Because some people don’t have a life and only gain gratification by meddling in the lives of others. Those people should shut the F up and go their merry little way. The rest of humanity can do without your greedy, grasping power mongering and bigotry.
Kruger and Golden’s personal views whether right or wrong ( and there are always gray areas when moral questions are at the forefront) are not the point here. Having representatives like these two, and Nelson and Recchia in the Council, and Velazquez in Congress, and Fidler and Hikind in the Assembly, are what you get, when the fact of the matter is that most of southern Brooklyn’s best and brightest have long ago left the streets that nutured them to make their sterling marks elsewhere ( i.e. Coleman, Deorio, Boxer, Norelli, Sanders, Della Femina, I could go on and on). You have to expect such mediocrities, when such a void is there, and the gap is only being filled by Asians and Slavs, who though they have certainly saved our Real Estate values, they have yet to become acculturated fully in the ways of our Democracy. The only hope we have is that if the Coney Island revitalization does take place, and the boom in the homeland continues, many of those best and brightest will feel the pull again of southern Brooklyn’s unique sunshine, and return to their homeland. Till then, welcome to the Age of Mediocrity!
Point taken. For the longest time successful people, and those on that road, have left southern Brooklyn in droves. Such people often wondered why some of us stayed. And yet they foolishly thought that everything would stay the same in their absence. Their parent got old, and were replace by new blood that had no emotional attachment to the past.
I had forgotten that Jerry Della Femina came from southern Brooklyn. I met him a couple of times in the early 80s. Very fascinating person.
Lisanne,
I have plenty of evidence to bakc up my assertions. There are gazillion studies to support my claims. You can not possibly tell me that children born out of wedlock do better than those born to a married couple. The more watered fown the families become (or their definition), the worse societies suffer.
PS. Vito, I cant not believe that someone would refer to Barbara Boxer in a positive connotation. Boxer is one of the more corrupt and scandalous senators.
Alex, if you can cite one study published in a peer reviewed journal that show a correlation between societal tolerance of homosexuality and irresponsible heterosexual behavior I’d be quite interested in reading it.
Alex: I’m in agreement with Lisanne here. There’s no correlation that’s ever been proven, and I’ve only heard such nonsense bandied about by hacks and political operatives pushing an agenda. There’s no science or statistics that show that homosexuality leads to societal decay. Nor does permitting gay marriage lead to an increase in homosexual behavior. Homosexuals will be homosexuals regardless of the law. And quite the contrary to what you’re arguing, the countries that do permit gay unions are amongst the most prosperous and stable in the world.
However, there are plenty of statistics that suggest bans on gay marriage and intolerance of homosexuality leads to higher suicide and depression rates among gay populations. There’s also plenty of “fake” marriages as closeted homosexuals feel pressured to live a “normal” life, get married and have children, only to see it all fall apart later on as they confront their denial (See: Jim McGreevey). So it could be argued that intolerance of gay marriages actually causes the divorce rates to climb, and – in the case of suicides – is a form of silent murder.
I don’t care what your personal definition of marriage is. I also don’t care what your personal views of homosexuality are. I’m sure you have good reason for it. But to push that on other people using state and federal laws is absurd and far more dangerous to society.
Ned,
I am a sexual liberterian, meaning as far as I am concerned you can be any orientation you want to be. My issue is pushing a perverse view of marriage on society. Your argument can be used for any condition of choosing, are you ok with beastuality/polygamy etc? Please do not bring up Jim McGreevery either, his issues go beyond homosexuality.
As I stated in my previous argument, if you think that children who have one parent are as successful (statistically speaking) as those who have two parents, you are in denial!!!
Alex: I never said anything about children with one parent. I also don’t see how it relates. In fact, it seems like a totally irrelevant argument. What the hell does gay marriage have to do with single parenthood? Sounds like a red herring to me.
As far as comparing homosexuality to bestiality… Jesus Christ, man. Have you no shame? You really think a dude having sex with another dude is the same as having sex with a horse or a dog? Adult humans can consent, no matter what gender. Animals can’t. It’s pretty crystal clear.
Re: pushing a perverse view of marriage. Again – the only thing I’m pushing is equality. I’m not telling straight people to go gay and get married. But you’re essentially telling gay people that if they want equal rights, they should be straight. That’s far more perverse. If you don’t agree with gay marriage, fine. Tell your kids not to be gay, and preach about it to whoever will listen. I really don’t care. But don’t make that decision for everyone else.
Ned,
You are the one who is trying to make a decision for other. For centuries marriage has been defined as somethign between a man and a woman. Who are you to change it? As far as raising children, what part of the argument of children raised by a married straight couple do not you understand? This is not Socieology 101 here; this is real life. I am sorry that you do not understand societal benefits of having marrige defined as an institution of one man and one woman. If a gay couple wants to live together, so be it. However please do not define it as marriage and do not entitle them to the same benefits.
Ned and Ray,
If I wanted to read left wing politics, I would read the huffington post. Thanks to you, I have removed sheepsheadbites from my bookmarks.
This was a good site when it was about the people and places of Sheepshead Bay.
John
ned next time you talk about homosexuals having sex try to talk about a dudette with another dudette. thanks.
I am pro-gay-marriage all the way, because I define marriage as a ritual to create kinship status between two people engaged in a loving and committed relationship.
That said, I can also understand that those people for whom religious doctrine is the #1 guide to what’s right and wrong will not necessarily agree with me. And I can respect that, because that just means we differ in opinion. I cannot legislate that the Catholic Church or the top-ranking rabbis of various Orthodox Jewish sects accept gay marriage– of course not! But I can advocate for acceptance of gay marriage in a civil context. I believe in the separation of church and state and as such, don’t see gay civil marriage as a threat to anybody’s religious views. But perhaps you disagree?
I would encourage those of you who suddenly want to stop reading Sheepshead Bites to bear in mind that getting OFF of Sheepshead Bites means you remove your opposing/dissenting opinions from Sheepshead Bites. Dissent is good. You should stick around if for no other reason than to educate the rest of us!
I would think that if I only visited sites with views that I agreed with 24/7 that my internet browsing would be quite boring and lack quality. I hope all keep that in mind in choosing whether or not to stop frequently this site which has proven to be a community asset.
Well, Alex got what he wanted. Gay marriage has been shot down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html?_r=1&hp
Darn, I was really hoping for the complete and total overnight decay of society.
Choice quote: “When I walk thru these doors, my bible stays out,” said Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who compared the law preventing same-sex marriage to laws that kept blacks and whites from marrying. “I believe there are certain moments here where we can benchmark our lives by the votes we took.”
I guess that there are probably a few who would like to go back to the days when marriage was a ‘sacred” institution and horrid things like miscegenation were illegal acts.
Apparently our society still has a long way to go. Its no wonder that more advanced nations look down upon us, with our guns and our prejudices.
Ned,
Even if you do not want to look at gay marriage from the religious perspective, look at it as purely business. It is good business from economical point of view for the government to promote (through tax incentives) large families. Amongst other things it increases the tax base. Hence it would pay off for the government to offer tax incentives for kids. The more dependents you have, the more you can deduct from your taxes.
Yes, 7 Billion people on this planet is not quite enough.
And more children mean expense for government. And it means that resources will be used more quickly. We are running out of oil, we will run out of natural gas. Maybe not in my lifetime, but possibly in yours, Alex.
Alex,
You need to understand something. No matter how much support the government gives Gays and Lesbians they will never outnumber “Breeders” to the point where our society becomes threatened in any way. Not even taking into consideration the Gays and Lesbians who want to pro-create despite being Gay.
The impetus to have a large family was a side effect of an Agriculture Based Economy that we had. The more kids you had the more people were available to work the farm, for free.
This is no longer the case.
Marraige as we know it needs to be split into two catagories. Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Religious Marriage should have no legal standing what so ever. If a Church refuses to marry gay people that’s fine, but they should lose their tax exempt status when doing so.
Every person, of every race and age and sex and orientation should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This means Gay Marriage.
Honestly dude, who cares if two gay people want to get married and live happy and fulfilling lives the same as any straight person. I think it’s pretty obvious you’re grasping at straws here trying to reason yourself out of a mental situation that is either too unpleasant for you to realize or too embarrassing to state outright: you don’t condone homosexuality or find it acceptable in public expression.
Alex,
“It is good business from economical point of view for the government to promote (through tax incentives) large families. Amongst other things it increases the tax base. Hence it would pay off for the government to offer tax incentives for kids. The more dependents you have, the more you can deduct from your taxes.”
That is the most absurd argument against gay marriage I have ever heard.
Maybe, just maybe, who knows, if gays were allowed to marry, and establish households with all the rights, respect and dignity of the str8s, there would be a major surge in adoption, which would in turn solve the abortion issue.
Government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for any two people who want them.
If you want to get married – go to the religious institution of your choice.
Of all the arguments you’ve made, that’s easily the most detestable. Slavery was excellent economically. Our government and our country’s influence never grew so rapidly as it did while we enslaved human beings.
It was also very good for the majority of Germany to seize the assets and end the lives of 12 million people, and to nationalize an industrial military complex to violate the rights of other sovereign nations.
Also, Lisanne is right. More people does NOT make economic sense. But let’s not go there. Instead, let me ask: how does allowing gay marriage mean a decrease in straight couples having children? People are gay and will be gay whether same sex marriage is legal or not. They have been for thousands of years and they’ll continue to be.
Alex, are you married? Do you mean to tell me that if your hypothetical gay neighbor got married to another man, that you would be so disgusted that you wouldn’t be able to make love to your wife and produce offspring? Will your marriage crumble because someone else you don’t know can marry a person of the same sex?
That’s a ridiculous notion. Unless, of course, you are a closeted homosexual teetering on the boundaries of coming out, and will only be encouraged to do so if the state legitimizes same sex marriage. Does that sound familiar, Alex?
… ::pause for dramatic effect::
Okay, Alex, I’m not really suggesting anything about you. But I’m making a point: the only way those arguments make sense is if that’s the situation, so maybe you ought to reevaluate your logic and try again.
Ned,
You are totally missing the boat here. I can not believe you are getting slavery involved here. Slavery was morally reprehensible for a number of reasons that I do not need to repeat. Your Germany argument is even worse. To BrooklynQ and Lisanne: that’s right smart governments promote good behavior through financial incentives!!! I am not promoting breeding welfare moms here.
I think his point is that right and wrong does not have economic motivations.
Thanks, Matt. You beat me to it.
In the spirit of full disclosure, Matt in DC is an ordained minister, and will be officiating my wedding.
Alex, we’re not even talking about welfare mothers here, though that suggestion has the tinge of eugenicism. When we start going there we are crossing over to having the government decide we should have children, a course that leads to places we simply don’t wish to go. After we limit the ability of the poor to have children (and in our current economic situation there are lots of poor people) who gets discouraged next? Or even worse, legislated out of the right to have children.
On a personal level I favor the notion of people having small families. But such decisions should be intelligent based, rather than forced upon society. Unfortunately, I suspect that the day will come when zero population growth will be the law in many countries.
Lisanne,
Again my argument is about smart governments promoting good behavior with financial incentives. The reason that I brought up welfare moms was to show the contrary point. Meaning bad behavior should NOT be promoted with financial incentives. (If a single woman is on welfare her welfare check should not increase if she decides to have more kids). I do not understand how that has anything to do with eugenics. She can still have as many children as she wants as long as the family is self sufficient.
The countries that will have a law of zero poulation growth are the ones that are going to physically and culturally die out but that is beyond the realm of this post.
Alex,
The problem with that is that it potentially endangers children that had no say as to whether they were born. However, there is a workaround which, while it won’t stop these women from procreating, it will take the children out of the system. Presently there supposed to be limitation on the time period in which one is eligible for financial support. Place limitations on the “Aid to Mothers With Dependent Children” program and then place the children in foster care. While foster care is not the best solution (that system needs a serious overhaul) it takes away any possible financial incentive to have children in these cases.
You’ll notice I said it has the tinge of eugenicism. I was sure that you were not advocating a eugenicist approach, but one of the problems with some solutions is that they can lead to other actions which cross that line. When that happens, the earlier allowance can be used as a legal precedent, which often leads to a revocation of the that policy.
Zero population growth exists in many countries not by public policy but merely by practice. Even in the United States there has been a trend towards smaller family units. A smaller amount of people competing for resources will keep prices from rising. The inherent problem, of course is that it has the effect of nulling the growth effect on business that comes from a larger consumer base. The counterbalance is that businesses become more dynamic as they have to innovate and promote better to sell their products and services.
[...] posts: Sheepshead’s Senators Stand Alone In Gay Rights Battle Kruger Slammed By City [...]
Lisanne,
In a developed economy (USA/Europe), zero population growth is never a good thing.
I can give you many many reasons but lets just stick to the Social Security issue. If there is going to be zero growth, who will take care of all retirees?
Europe has come around on this issue heavily by promoting (with very mixed results) population growth.
As I said before, I do not want to go deeply into this because this is a very long discussion. If you are interested, I suggest you check out Mark Steyn. He discusses many sociological/economical/political issues that currently/will be facing the west. You cna look into one of his books or plentiful lectures on youtube.
Alex,
The current problem with numbers of retirees was caused by the Great Depression , which was followed by World War 2. Practically an entire generation forstalled marriage or chose not to have to children because of the economic instability of the 30s, followed by the immediacy of World War 2. The end of the war brought the perception of prosperity (the economy didn’t really improve until 48′) there were a lot of marriages, and childbirth numbers were significantly higher than they had been for at least 15 years. This trend lasted for 17 years, and yes, it certainly did fuel an economy that was ready for expansion. Everything would have worked out fine save for the fact that many members of that generation, which we call the baby boomers, failed the earn the same real income (i.e; adjusted for inflation and factored in to consider changed needs) as their parents. This was often despite the fact they were better educated. Given that, as well as changed attitudes about the place of family in their lives, they tended to have less children than their parent did.
The earliest baby boomers will be retiring in a few years. Their retirements will not crush the system, in part because this has anticipated for some time now,and they have been contributing higher percentages of their incomes to FICA than their parents have. I could tell you that from experience, and when I was self-employed my FICA payments were considerable. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, it leverages as best it can the difference between contributors and recipients.
One can, by the simple omission of relevant data, *prove* that Social Security’s intake-outtake system is flawed, and will go bankrupt eventually. But I think its a rather complex scenario here. And as there will never be such the disparity between the numbers of retirees and the number of recipients again the soon to unfold scenario is unique.
Kruger and Golden are warned: protests are a-comin’ your way. Haters, come on out to counter-protest, too. Don’t forget to bring your white sheets!
Are these gong to be members of this community, or are they coming from all over?
Protests may make the participants feel like they’ve accomplished something but they aren’t going to do much to sway these politicians.
How about trying to get some support from the community organizations that have some influence with local politicians? Kruger in particular needs to know that there is some local support for this sort of legislation. Golden, OTOH is not likely to change his position under any circumstances.
The Framers of our Constitution risked their lives to protect religious liberty. A reference to our Creator is written in our Constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Framers found it necessary to add the first amendment to protect religious freedom. Even with these protections, more laws were created to uphold our religious freedom by requiring “reasonable accommodations” to religious people in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Today, religious citizens of the United States are now faced with a new adversary threatening to take away our religious rights. This comparatively new group was once referred by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, as the “Homosexual Agenda”.
This group lies to the public, claiming that they just want to be “married” just like everyone else, and that they don’t mean to harm anyone. The real truth is that they want to force the religious citizens of the United States to provide sinful accommodations to the homosexuals, such as a Church requiring to rent their space to a lesbian wedding, a Christian photographer required to take photos of a lesbian wedding, a NYC taxi driver required to watch homosexual activity in his own car, a social worker in ME prohibited from speaking freely, a lawyer barred from practicing due to his religious beliefs, a mayor in CA asked to resign, and the list is endless.
Our education is being attacked as well. At every chance possible the Homosexual Agenda is forcing religious students to believe that homosexual behavior is not sinful. They are forcing young children, as young as 2nd grade, to normalize homosexual behavior against the religious beliefs of the parents. They are manipulating the educational system by having public school teachers and college professors falsely instruct our students that people are born gay.
Civil unions is just a slick way to take away our religious freedom. This is the equivalent of saying we don’t have heart beat, we have heart tones. NJ recognizes civil unions, but not same-gender marriage, and the homosexual agenda was able to take away our religious freedom with civil union laws.
Our religious liberty is being attacked at all ends, and there is only one solution. Make same-gender marriage your number one issue and vote against it.
Sir
I’m not sure you understand the concept of freedom as it is applied to religion or an individual.
Allowing Gay’s to marry in no way shape or form attacks or otherwise maligns your freedom of religion. That particular right ends at your self. You may follow and preach whatever you damn well please, even hate if your heart desires it, thusly is the spirit of the First Amendment. If people choose to listen to your ramblings that’s their religious freedom. But at no point does the act of gay marriage infringe on you in any way. It doesn’t concern you or your community. The Church doesn’t have to perform gay marriages and the law shouldn’t force it, but The Law SHOULD recognize gay marriage as a legal entity.
The freedoms and equalities that make this nation so great apply to everyone (except illegal immigrants, not them). Our Constitution was designed to be a living and breathing document because our forefathers understood that as time passed it would have to change to reflect society.
To Marry in the eyes of the law is everyones right. If you want to deny someone religious marriage go ahead. If you’re that bothered by gays getting married then make a choice and move away. They’d love you in the south.
Quite simply,the constitution gives each person the right to believe and express that belief. It does not allow one individual to impose those values on others.
Thusly, if two individuals of the same legal sex wish to get married then there should be no legal objection. In fact the state should protect that right by legally endorsing it. Scalia should recognize that the constitution is a sacred document also. And that he is sworn to uphold its principles.