Get out the spotlights and get ready to shine them! There’s nothing like a high profile court case to highlight the oppressive, intolerance of Maggie and her Republican-controlled legislature.

And people think it’s just high taxes and the lack of jobs keeping people away.

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/County+appealing+marriage+ruling/

Well, if the county loses at the state’s highest court, then Maggie will have finally done something positive in her tenure - she’ll make the law of this region requiring recognition of same sex marriages the law for the state of New York. The highest court can’t consider the case unless there’s an appeal from the decision. So, in a weird way, I think that she’ll be doing some good here.

Same sex marriage is an interesting item that really turns on the word “marriage” . Most of my conservative friends (including me) have no real opposition to civil unions, but are not in favor of gay marriage. Various societies have recognized for thousands of years that marriage consists of a male and female. We figure they must have known something.

Civil unions - fine; Getting benefits for your partner at work - fine; adopting children - fine; just don’t call it a marriage.

Elmer…the question I have is WHY DO YOU CARE if gay people are married. Why do you care so much about a word? Isn’t a healthy and happy person more important than a word and a definition?

Marriage is already a very diluted concept. If people go by the “till death do you part” thing, then heterosexual marriage is meaningless as long as the divorce rate is over 50% and all.

If same sex marriages are illegal, and those people denied benefits based on the “marriage is between a man and a woman” theory and most people base their opinions on their personal dislike for GLBT individuals, then it should carry across the board.

Take the case of Stephen Minarik and Renee Davison-Forgensi. She was married with children. He was married. They left their respective spouses and married each other. They both violated not only their vows with their previous spouses, but with their church and their God.

If the definitions are going to be based on those rules, then they should both be denied benefits as well. If the first contract of marriage was good enough to be violated, then the second is worthless, right Elmer?

We should force people to stay together and remain married so that they can have the benefit of benefits. Let’s bring this “holier than thou” theory home where it belongs. Heck, under those laws, many elected officials would be ineligible for benefits including the Magster herself, who walked out on a marriage with 2 children for a BBD.

Let’s take committment and marriage to the same level that those people who sit in judgement of others do. Deny them all. Been divorced? Too bad. Third marriage? Triple whammy. Married with children out of wedlock? No benefits for you! Let’s only reward those who are so perfect with the benefit of benefits. Heck, maybe in time we can start colonies where we can put all of these undesireables in. That way we can drive past in our station wagons full of children and point out the monstrosities of society that have been created. That way we’ll never be forced to have OUR children repeat those sins.

Then once we have the system down to a controlled one, we can get even more finite about who we want to care for and about, and who we don’t. We can put the drinkers in one colony, the smokers…maybe we should put them to death. Swear on occasion? Not in my back yard!

Then we can work towards having a perfect little society that all of those “sinners” can look at and envy. Not to mention all the money we’ll save on the benefit costs of elected officials. That alone could be enough to pay off the Medicaid bill for 27 of 50 states.

Maggie could be a local pioneer along with Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Instead she prefers a Hilter approach to things

Speaking of health…isn’t it true that married people are happier and healthier than unmarried people? Wouldn’t it therefore be more cost effective to promote marriage and happiness for all?

I forgot, we’re talking about repressed Republican who deal in fear and unhappiness…

I’d like to see Maggie’s divorce decree. Wouldn’t it be special if the court ordered her to pay her ex-husband’s benefits? That would mean that the taxpayers of Monroe County pay for her ex, in addition to her current BBD…

Wonder what John Auberger thinks about the matter

Elmer, I see some of your points. Here’s what I would say in reply:

1. On the use of the word marriage, I think this is what inevitably comes from using words with religious connotation in the context of government laws. A civil union and a marriage are the same in the eyes of the state. Probably the state shouldn’t use the word “marry” at all. The point here is that a gay couple should have the same rights to see visit each other in the hospital, own property together, and son on as heterosexual couples.

2. Regardless of whether same sex marriage/civil unions are “right” or “wrong”, I don’t see why Maggie needs to waste taxpayer money fighting a battle she can’t win. At its core, that is probably what bothers me most about this. It is not any kind of principled stand. It’s just a cheap political ploy…and one that probably won’t even work.

Let me expand on this second point: this is just another example of government wasting its time and our money on things that it just shouldn’t be involved with. Flag burning amendments to the constitution, ballot measures banning gay marriages/civil unions, Congressional hearings about steroids, nonbinding resolutions praising or condemning everything under the sun…all this garbage needs to stop.

We have enough real problems that we don’t need to invent new ones to spend time on.

Exile -
Point 1 - agreed
Point 2 - I agree also, but …….. politicians see a need to represent their “base”. It cuts both ways - See this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/vermont-town-to-vote-on-a_n_83443.html

or this one:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/31/18476174.php

Things such as National Grape Week and National First Aid Month are dumb and a waste of taxpayers’ money

Local governments, whether it be a big place like Rochester or a little place like Campbell should stick to local issues. Gay marriage, Marine recruiters and arresting Bush or Cheney are not the types of things they should be concerned about.

I do get amused when I think of Battleboro Vermont. Imagine the surprise on Andy’s, Barney’s and Gomer’s faces when 3 helecopters drop out of the sky to protect the President

Just in case someone gets confused, this is not some backhanded way to support Bush, I would have said the same thing about any President.

I think the Hitler comment is perfectly appropriate in this circumstance. It was in reference to the difference between people who fight for the rights of people, such as Susan B. and Frederick Douglass and those who work to oppress, suppress, deny and otherwise try to deny the rights of certain groups in society.

Elmer and Tom, sorry to be hopping into the middle of this discussion, but Elmer, your comment made at 16:32:17 yesterday is nearly exactly on point to the question the Supreme Court of the US decided in Brown v. Board of Education. Why wouldn’t those “negro” kids in Alabama be happy with a school that grants them a similar education?

Except in this case they would have equal rights - health care coverage for a civil union and for a marriage would be exactly the same for all employees of one company. This wasn’t the case in racially segregated schools. The schools for blacks in most cases were very inferior to those of whites.

Compromise -
Some of you folks have no desire to compromise.

Gay Marriage - I offer you everything you want except the name, and you offer me unconditional surrender.

Abortion - I offer you everything and just want some parental notification, and you offer me unconditional surrender.

If two sides are to work together, there has to be give on both sides.

Just the type of answer I would expect from you

[...] there will be a protest of Maggie Brooks’ cynical ploy to demonize gay voters — and waster taxpayer’s money — for her own political gain [...]

[...] documented the ways in which the Monroe County GOP uses racism, homophobia, and xenophobia as political tools. The Politico is reporting that the national GOP fears it will [...]

Great stuff people. What bothers me is Brooks’ suggestion of a financial consideration in the discussion. That being said, wouldn’t slavery still be alive today if we were to judge our laws on financial grounds? There were plenty of financial gains in slavery. Brooks speaks what she speaks, as a financial controler she may be good. However, with regards to a person that has influence towards a society movement Brooks does not embrace equal rights.

I am not suggesting that Brooks supports slavery, rather I am suggesting that Brooks speaks a hard line toward her party’s beliefs. In short, decisions based solely on financial considerations do not solve social issues. Ronald Reagan and the republican party were unwavering in their efforts to ignore the AIDS epidemic despite evidence to the contrary. So, the decisions of the republican party towards gay marriage do not surprise me (that’s right gay marriage, it is what it is). Ultimately the effect on every person around this globe would be nothing if gay marriage would be the norm. What I mean is; we would all wake up, go to work, collect a paycheck and support our economy. Sure there are plenty of gaps in my statement that people can fulfill with their support or garbage; but long story short, that is it people. Gay marriage ultimately would not effect you in the least.

The worst thing that could come from gay marriage is that we have a better place to live, and isn’t that what America is about?

[...] Executive Maggie Brooks is running around like the sky is falling over porn in the library and domestic partner benefits, distracting voters away from the real issues. It’s The Grand [...]

[...] a terrific opinion piece in the Brighton-Pittsford Post about Maggie’s new anti-gay initiative: It’s been said so many times that the message is beginning to sound like a broken record: If the [...]

[...] the public forum listening to, who else? The public. The big issue on many people’s minds is Domestic Partner benefits. We’ve reported on this ongoing saga several times here, here and here to list a few. The [...]

[...] that matter). Here are but a few highlights.  Announcing Maggie appealing a court decision with tremendous debate in the comments section on the definition of marriage.   Writing about Governor Paterson wasting [...]