Open Thread Mondays: Faba Asked For It


by on Jun 27th, 2011

First of all, a big thank you to Cupcake Kings for throwing Sheepshead Bay’s first annual cupcake eating contest on Saturday – and for inviting Sheepshead Bites to include a rep and sponsor the event. Good times! Look for video and photos later.

And another thank you to Elaine and Brian Timmins of the Deep Creek Yacht Club, who invited Sheepshead Bites on board their beautiful 39-foot sailboat, the Calico Jack, to participate in the annual Blessing of the Fleet. We’ll have some very special coverage of that later this week.

Now, Faba asked for it. Very obnoxiously, I might add. But, he asked for it nonetheless. So, today’s topic of discussion?

Gay marriage is now legal in New York. Go!

Related posts

Tags:

  • http://www.facebook.com/ChaChaLici0us Rita Mitrofanov

    i am proud of new york to legalize gay marriage! i feel that just because people are gay, doesnt mean they shouldnt be entitled to same rights as those who are straight. sexual orientation shouldnt stop two people who love each other to commit to each other in the same way that everyone else does! and for those of you who are homophobic, gay people have absolutely no reflection on your personal life, they do not interfere with your daily lives so leave them be! GO NY!!!!

  • Anonymous

    My thought on gay marriage is very simple: you have a right to do anything you want as long as it does not interfere with lives of others.
    So if 2 guys want to hold hands under chuppah and promise to limit asshole fingering to significant others sphincter, I’m all for it. Hell, you can marry a pillow if that makes you feel better, doesn’t change my life one bit.
    So mazel tov homosexuals! Now I wonder if gay marriages will last longer than straight…

    Also this is perfect time to post this:
    His name is Dick Heart :)
    http://i.imgur.com/qmnu9.gif

  • Andrew Kent

    I, too, am proud of New York, Governor Cuomo, the entire State Legislature, and all of the people involved in what happened Friday night. This was truly the democratic process at work, and it was handled with intelligence, collegiality, and dignity. At a time when so much of what passes for political discourse has become a blood sport, New York has distinguished itself, not only as a standard bearer for social justice, but as a stellar example of what government, and governance, should be about.

    Religious leaders like Archbishop Timothy Dolan and State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., who opposed the same-sex marriage bill for religious reasons, should ask themselves: What if the sectarian groups attempting to influence marriage legislation were Muslims or fundamentalist Mormons demanding the legalization of polygamy, which, after all, has a much older tradition than same-sex marriage? Do we really want the public policy of our pluralistic society dictated by denominational doctrine over which there is no universal agreement?

    We are a nation of laws, not the magical thinking and ancient folklore of religious movements who believe that their marching orders come from God and not the U.S. Constitution. What impressed me about the vote on this momentous bill was that people of faith, many after praying for guidance, voted their consciences, even if their votes were inconsistent with the theological tenets of their own belief systems. Yes, their decisions were guided by an inner sense of right and wrong, perhaps instilled by the ethics and morality of their religious upbringings, but they understood that the separation of church and state protects the faithful from government intrusion as much as it protects the faithless, as well as the rest of us, from the intrusiveness of religious beliefs we may not share.

    Marriage Equality legislation is about rights, not about a lifestyle or behavior. That question has already been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas and in the hundreds of sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws that have been enacted both before and since. Rights are the business of government, as they are enforced by the rule of law. What individual religions do or don’t do is their own business, generally free from government interference. It’s a case of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and rendering unto god what is God’s. What part of this do Archbishop Dolan and Senator Diaz not understand?

    • Andrew Kent

      My biggest concern about the new legislation is that many same-sex couples may rush into marriage, not so much because they want to form life-long bonds, but because they can. Marriage is a complex tangle of legal and financial obligations that do not benefit each partner equally and could come back to bite one or the other should things not work out.Many heterosexual couples have lived together for years without marrying, and some of these couples first begin to have problems once they do marry, although perhaps it’s because they tied the knot in order to save an already troubled relationship. But this law will be an absolute boon to those same-sex couples who have lived together for years, and even decades, without the legal and financial protections that married couples enjoy.This law is a win-win situation for everyone, and especially for divorce lawyers, who have aggressively lobbied for its passage.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        Your concerns are borne out by what has happened in other states where gay marriage has become a possibility. It is the downside of all freedoms and rights, people have to use them responsibly. In religious institutions prospective couples are often interviewed before the clergyperson agrees to perform the marriage. Some suggest premarital counseling because they see potential problems. Perhaps it falls upon the leadership of the GBLQT community to encourage a counseling infrastructure for gays and lesbian couples as well.

        Yes, marriage is sometimes a last resort for failed relationships. But even in seemingly healthy ones counseling is a good idea, it might solve problems that the two parties believe they can handle, but realistically cannot unless they are psychologically prepared to do so.

      • http://www.njluxurymotors.com Arthur Borko

        Gay’s rushing to get married just because they can? The horror! The divorce lawyers are sure happy about that!

    • http://www.nedberke.com Ned Berke

      Okay, I get to be the cynical one today.

      I really wish it was an example of politicians bucking religious pressure and “voting their conscience.” And I REALLY wish it served as an example of true democratic process.

      However, what was different about this vote from previous same-sex marriage votes in NYS was this:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/nyregion/donors-to-gop-are-backing-gay-marriage-push.html

      The vote was bought. The pols voted their wallets, not their conscience. Unfortunately, that’s NYS’s “democratic process” at work.

      • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

        ned, you should listen to no agenda :) i do the cover art for them a lot. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2011/06/27/no-agenda-show-adios-mofo/#respond

      • Andrew Kent

        I’m not naive enought to think that the vote was entirely altruistic.  I think the New York Republicans who risked their Conservative endorsements to do what they claimed to know in their consciences to be the right thing knew which way the wind was blowing, both socially, politically, and financially. Had the bill been defeated, and if gay and pro-gay megabucks helped unseat just a few of the bill’s opponents, the bill’s next incarnation might not have all the negotiated religious exemptions.And there’s no question thaqt contributions buy votes, although contributions will not ensure the jobs of politicians who lose their voter base or the support of their party’s leadership.  If anyone came out of this with cleaner hands it was Carl Kruger, who, already on his political deathbed, does appear to come out of this with cleaner hands than he had just a week ago.Politics has been referred to as both the science of alternatives and the art of compromise.  Because, as Tom Duane suggested, everyone appears to have come out of this a hero, at least to their supporters, this is one legislative accomplishment in which I’d prefer to overlook all the palm-greasing, arm-twisting, and behind-the-scenes sausage-making that brought it about.

        • Andrew Kent

          P.S., how do I proofread and edit my already posted posts without posting through Disqus?  My spacing and paragraphs get messed up when I post this way.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            Discus is acting funky today. Double space paragraphs. That’s working for me at the moment.

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            You have to throw the Discus..

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            If the Disqus refuses to stay in one place then Ned is definitely going to throw the Disqus,

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            Discus is acting funky today. Double space paragraphs. That’s working for me at the moment.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        I’ve given this a lot of thought, and the answer is “yes and no”.

        It’s harder for progressives to raise money. Those who support forward-looking legislation have their groups, but their groups never get the kind of generous donations that groups that exist to keep this status quo. Change is a great galvanizer, and in many instances pushes people to the right.I always remember what Phil Ochs said. “In America there are many shades of political opinion. But the shadiest of all are the liberals. Five degrees to the left in good times, ten degrees to the right if it affects them personally”.

        There was support for the bill, but I believe it was a softer support than the energy which motivated the bill’s opposition.

        OTOH, the conservative financial support is looking for something tangible in return. Government funding for groups that serve their segment of the community, and a very focused attention paid to their agenda. The first is more difficult to pay off given the poor revenue streams. The second becomes a monkey on their back. There’s comes a time when even politicians start to resent having to play Quasimodo.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        I’ve given this a lot of thought, and the answer is “yes and no”.

        It’s harder for progressives to raise money. Those who support forward-looking legislation have their groups, but their groups never get the kind of generous donations that groups that exist to keep this status quo. Change is a great galvanizer, and in many instances pushes people to the right.I always remember what Phil Ochs said. “In America there are many shades of political opinion. But the shadiest of all are the liberals. Five degrees to the left in good times, ten degrees to the right if it affects them personally”.

        There was support for the bill, but I believe it was a softer support than the energy which motivated the bill’s opposition.

        OTOH, the conservative financial support is looking for something tangible in return. Government funding for groups that serve their segment of the community, and a very focused attention paid to their agenda. The first is more difficult to pay off given the poor revenue streams. The second becomes a monkey on their back. There’s comes a time when even politicians start to resent having to play Quasimodo.

      • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

        Darned straight. Most of them looked around, figured out which vote will enable them to keep their jobs, and went with it.

  • Doobieman

    With all the bilions of dollars that are going to be spent by people in this state and from all over the country [New York] has no law preventing others to come here  & get married. what a shame that all the religious crazys won’t be getting any of this money.ha ha bite youe noses/

  • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

    its not legal yet! another 27 days or so to go! anything can happen ;P (dont forget, dont ask dont tell is still in effect, gays still can not serve openly in the military) 

    I am NOT proud of NY for doing this. i would be if NY did it for it being a just cause. The only reason they legalized it is to make $$$ this law was passed out of greed, not for any other reason.

    NY has some of the highest taxes in the USA. Getting married makes the state a bunch of $$$

    Also, i lost 10$ on a bet. i didnt think it would pass.

    now all NY needs is marijuana to be legalized! 

    PS: I think i will enjoy the growth of the gay community in ny, they are usually more nice than the heteros! 

    • Anonymous

      “PS: I think i will enjoy the growth of the gay community in ny, they are usually more nice than the heteros!”

      Yes they are until they rape you in prison….

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        Those are not REAL homosexuals. Some men adapt to their surroundings in ways like that.

      • RomanM

        Spoken from true experience?

      • http://twitter.com/stefamafone Mos Stef

        Oh, because straight men never rape anyone. That’s why 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted… by gay men? Give me a fucking break.

        • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

          Mos Stef i get raped a few times a week by women… girls sexually assault me everywhere i go! also, don’t take faba so seriously ;P

        • Anonymous

          Oh I’m sorry, I can not be concerned with women getting rapped, I have my own ass to worry about :)

          Greatest motivation for straight men to not commit crime is prison rape. I’m terrified of it!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=195100291 Randy Contello

      uhmmm SENATE took out dont ask dont tell in december… openly gay are allowed in the military now

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html

      • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

        dont be a sheep, that shit never went through! 

        ”
        The repeal will not take effect for at least 60 days while some other procedural steps are taken. In addition, the bill requires the defense secretary to determine that policies are in place to carry out the repeal “consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.”
        ”

        if you say you are gay in the military right now, you will be kicked out.Also, Obama and Hillary Clinton are both huge evil lying assfaces. I hope they both get blown up by robots…

  • http://www.flickr.com/knightmare6 Knightmare6

    The real shame is it ever having been prevented in the first place. Marriage is a civil contract, when performed by the government, not a religious institution. Even as a religious instiution, which religion, as some do allow homosexual marriages. Still the point is the U.S. Constitution prevents any law being passed which does or does not favor religious laws, views and agendas. By allowing the government to perform marriage, it instantly became a non-religious contract.

    People against homosexual marriages brought up ridiculous arguments against allowing homosexual marriages, from saying ancient societies didn’t have them (they did) to homosexuality being against nature (it isn’t). It’s just sad it took money to finally bring it about.

    The hypcritical part is the various religious leaders blasting it, while they hide the actions of the child-abusing religious heads and the followers practicing the same hate they seek to avoid.

    • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

      Man, “marriage is a CIVIL contract”,  you wouldn’t know it from the couples I know!!!!

  • Anonymous

    About damn time….

  • Anonymous

    regardless why this bill went through, bought or cry of the conscience, whatever,  i’m just glad that it did.

    this is a question of civil rights. we dont deny inter-racial, inter-ethnic, inter-religious couples to get married, why should we deny this? two people want to make a commitment (whatever their reasons are) why should there be a law against it?

    last i checked there is a separation between the state and the church. and if i dont practice Christianity, why should i abide by their rules?

    But really, its about damn time.  i don’t understand why new york wasn’t the leader in this movement. IOWA! got this law passed first! bumble-f**k-potato-growing-middle-of-nowhere IOWA! wtf?

    • http://www.flickr.com/knightmare6 Knightmare6

      The problem is we think we are New Yorkers, but we forget that the more conservative folks are upstate and in the far East of Long Island, and that they are also New Yorkers. Within the confines of NYC we are very open, but we forget we aren’t the world, just the center.

      • Anonymous

        sometimes , just like with the anti-slavery movement, civil-rights movement, you need to drag the conservative bigots by their ears in order for them to understand what is the right thing to do.

        what happened in nys, whatever the reasons, was one small step while dragging those said bigots to do what is the humane thing to do.
         

        • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

          Yeah. Good thing there’s no such thing as a liberal bigot.

          • levp

            True.
            ‘Cause if there are any, they lose the right to call themselves Liberal:

            “Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

            Key words being “equal rights”.

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            Now I see, they’re a real special group, not a single bigoted bone in their body… And I didn’t think God made perfect people! So when I listen to Charles Barron say he’d like to slap white people sometimes, I’m not listening to a liberal?

            By the way, that’s a real “old” definition you trudged out of wikipedia. We’re talking about John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

            By wikipedia’s definition, today’s liberals aren’t liberals, see the item “free trade” for example. You okay with globalization of the job market?

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            Wondering when PETA is going to push for legalized marriage between man and dog…  Actually I’d be against that, but man and cat, well, I’m a cat lover

            http://www.brucebrodinsky.com/cats.html

          • http://www.flickr.com/knightmare6 Knightmare6

            You’ve got Kentucky and Tennessee… marriage isn’t legal there, but beastiality is… Whatever floats your boat…

          • levp

            1. If a white person (or a green person) violates me in some way, I reserve the right to reciprocate by, among other things, slapping that person.  It’s liberalism, not pacifism.

            2. Furthermore, liberals are neither against free and fair elections, nor against property rights.  It’s liberalism, not Communism.

            3. Lastly, as a computer analyst, I am very much against globalization of the job market. In other words, I am talking here about social – not economic – liberalism.
            Corporations, despite recent Supreme Court decisions, are not persons, thus different rules apply to “free trade” as opposed to “free elections”.

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            you’re a computer analyst? No wonder we clash. I was a software developer! Blast you, give me some decent specs for once! :)

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            So, I have the right to slap a random Muslim person, because a whole lot of them are bent on destroying the Great Satan? That’s what you’re telling me here. I think you’re guilty of “selective” prejudice here yourself.

          • levp

            Where do you see “random” in my post?
            If a specific Muslim abuses you specifically, you have a moral (not legal) right to slap that specific Muslim.
            Is this clear enough?

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            Now I see, they’re a real special group, not a single bigoted bone in their body… And I didn’t think God made perfect people! So when I listen to Charles Barron say he’d like to slap white people sometimes, I’m not listening to a liberal?

            By the way, that’s a real “old” definition you trudged out of wikipedia. We’re talking about John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

            By wikipedia’s definition, today’s liberals aren’t liberals, see the item “free trade” for example. You okay with globalization of the job market?

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            We tend to define bigotry in a somewhat narrow context. Bigotry is defined too often merely as a form of destructive hatred. But in actual terms bigotry includes any attitude of intolerance. Would that we could all be free of any feelings of non-acceptance towards that which we disdain, or find fault, But we are not perfect people, none of us. Liberals will tend to try harder to be fair but even we are flawed at times. The Glen Becks and the Sarah Palins are, to our minds, incapable of intelligent discourse. Admittedly, I can fall into the trap of narrow thinking too. And I do try to avoid following through on my forays into self-serving pigeonholing. 

            Granted, a significant number of the people or groups we might might demonize are busy demonizing others. But to be fair, Glen Beck, as an example, is capable of expressing a cogent and fair-minded sentiment on occasion. And Sarah Palin, I’m sure she has some redeeming quality. I just haven’t found evidence of it yet.

          • levp

            Agreed.

            Which is why I don’t say: “I just hate [insert right-wing personality here]!”
            I don’t hate anybody. But I am not a pacifist, and should Ms. Palin make good on her promise to “don’t retreat, instead reload”, I reserve the right to do the same.

            I hope this day never comes, though.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            There are a lot of fleeting thoughts which I would never express. I have, on occasion, met people I felt had no redeeming qualities. Nevertheless, it is what they do that concerns me in the main, not the totality of their person.

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            Wow. I guess this is the difference between free speech and “hate speech”. If I post the same exact words directed towards Barack Obama, I”m accused of all sorts of racism, hate speech, threatening speech, and I’d venture to say that the post might just be pulled.

            One of my major resentments of liberalism, displayed right here. Nobody raises an eyebrow about the implication of shooting Sarah Palin. But threatening to shoot a liberal icon (or one of the appointed protected groups) brings out all sorts of protest.

               I already was lectured on another forum as to why “Shoot George Bush” is freedom of speech and “Shoot Barack Obama” is hate speech. Simply amazing. The dude launched into this involved sophistry which made little or no sense, but he sure did convince himself!

                  You guys actually DO believe in selective freedom of speech. Nat Hentoff was right1

          • levp

            Excuse me, but this is nonsense.
            “Instead reload” are Ms. Palin’s words, not mine. If Obama would say something like that, you would be morally right to respond in the same way. But he hasn’t, Ms. Palin did. With “crosshair” targets for Dem congresspeople on the map on her web site. So there.

            Remember also “Second Amendment remedies”? That wasn’t me or Obama either. That came from Tea Party’s Sharon Angle from Nevada. I’ll provide a link when I get to work.

          • levp

            Links I promised:

            Shot Congresswoman Was In Sarah Palin’s ‘Crosshairs’
            http://gawker.com/5728545/shot-congresswoman-was-in-sarah-palins-crosshairs

            Palin tells followers to ‘reload’ and ‘aim for’ Democrats
            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/24/palin-gun-imagery-attack-democrats/

            What Are Sharron Angle’s ’2nd Amendment Remedies’ to Harry Reid and a ‘Tyrannical’ Government?
            http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/06/what-are-sharron-angles-2nd-amendment-remedies-to-reids-oppression.html

            And now a special one:

            GOP congressman laughs after being asked ‘Whose going to shoot Obama?’
            http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/gop-congressman-laughs-after-being-asked-whose-going-to-shoot-obama

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

            He did say something like that, but of course it went unreported. He said about campaigning the following: “if they get a knife, then we get a gun”….

               Still, I don’t get the utter hatred that’s brought into the discussion. I don’t have the venom towards, say, Nancy Pelosi, or Obama. I just think their ideas are not in the best interests of this great nation and are terribly incorrect.

                  But the hatred I hear towards conservative politicians coming from so many liberals, well, I think there are other issues there that go beyond the political discussion, and I won’t bring them into this one.

            I’ve spoken my last word on this thread. I think to continue such discussions dilutes the purpose of this site at this point.

          • levp

            Links, please, or it didn’t happen.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        More conservative folks are all around us. We don’t currently live in a liberal environment. not any more.

  • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B ex Eminem

    I don’t understand how gay people can be married. Happy people are not married

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

      Marriage is a good thing, for other people.

      This is a healthy way of looking at it.

    • http://twitter.com/nicktherat Nick the Rat

      nice pun :P

  • Anonymous

    I am SO happy it passed — not gay, but it was the right thing to do.

  • Barkingspider7

    I am also glad that it was passed.  I am not gay either, but my attitude is if 2 people love one another, why can’t they be together.  They are not hurting anybody.