[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113086,00.html

NEW PALTZ, N.Y._—_The village's mayor was charged Tuesday with 19 criminal counts for performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

Jason West (search)_was charged with solemnizing marriages for couples who had no licenses, a misdemeanor under the domestic relations law, according to Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams.

Although West could face a maximum penalty of a year in jail, the prosecutor said a jail term wasn't being contemplated at this point.

The 26-year-old Green Party mayor said he will plead not guilty at his court hearing Wednesday and that he would still go through with his plans to marry as many as two dozen gay couples Saturday.

"I'm incredibly disappointed," West said. "Apparently, it's a crime to uphold the constitution of New York state."

West performed wedding ceremonies for 25 gay couples Friday, making him the second mayor in the country to perform_same-sex marriages (search). It also made this small college village 75 miles north of New York City another flash point in the national debate over gay marriage. More than 3,400 couples have been married in San Francisco and West has about 1,000 couples on a waiting list.

Absent jail, punishment for the misdemeanor could run from a $25 to $500 fine. Williams said he still did not know whether West performed the marriages of his own accord or after getting bad legal advice.

"If he's doing it sincerely out of a moral conviction and out of some naive misunderstanding of the law, then that would enter into the equation," the prosecutor said.

Williams said the misdemeanor complaint lists 19 charges_—_instead of 25 for the number of weddings performed_—_because police at the scene provided eyewitness accounts of only 19 ceremonies. He said more charges are possible.

With West vowing to go through with more gay weddings, opponents had hoped Williams would act to stop him. But he said he did not have the legal power to do that, only to file charges after the fact.

West said the prospect of further punishment does not deter him, adding that the newlywed couples inspire him.

"Just the looks on their faces, just the absolute joy of finally being able to be equal," he said. "That is the highest moral calling I could possibly imagine."

State Sen. Thomas Duane (search), a Manhattan Democrat and one of three openly gay state lawmakers, called Williams' actions "malicious."

"Does the Ulster County D.A. really want to put someone in jail for recognizing long-term relationships between people?" he said. "Does he really want to put in jail someone who recognizes same-sex families? Really, the Ulster County D.A. should be prosecuted for malicious prosecution, which is a felony in New York."

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
West said the prospect of further punishment does not deter him, adding that the newlywed couples inspire him.

good. people starting to sit in the wrong section of the bus. right on!

[OldManMac]

Kudos to the mayor!!

[fizzlemynizzle]

this is one of those things where civil disobedience is the way it gets dealt with.

[Mithras]

It is true that he may not have done his homework entirely though. He should have made an arrangement to have the licenses issued as well (with his county? not sure).

I guess San Francisco is unique in that they issue both the license and the certificate, is that right?

[IceBreaker]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Kudos to the mayor!!

double kudos to the mayor!

[Spliffdaddy]

Doing what you think is right - regardless of the law.

Sounds like Dubya.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:


good. people starting to sit in the wrong section of the bus. right on!

[tie]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Doing what you think is right - regardless of the law.

Sounds like Dubya.

I miss the connection. What are you referring to here? (Lying in order to go to war with Iraq? Letting Pakistan off for selling nuclear weapons to North Korea? Betraying an American spy?)

Anyway, right on.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Doing what you think is right - regardless of the law.

Sounds like Dubya.

yeah, and like jeffry dahmer. so what's your point?...nice spin anyway. try again. next...

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

It probably makes you a bit grumpy but that's what's happening, finally, even in the US. Only a mental Amish like yourself would frown on the use of buses.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
yeah, and like jeffry dahmer. so what's your point?...nice spin anyway. try again. next...

No Jeff always thought it was wrong, and did it anyhow. Talk about spin...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
It probably makes you a bit grumpy but that's what's happening,

No, I knew it would happen. I've been telling people for years.

The face was there because if I was a black man, I would have probably gotten upset over your comparison. It was 100% bogus.

Only a mental Amish like yourself

That shows the world how to treat people with Equality! You surely aren't a hypocrite. I don't care what anyone says.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Doing what you think is right - regardless of the law.

Sounds like Dubya.

Sooooooo....NOW you're saying Dubya breaks the law? Interesting. To what precisely are you referring?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Doing what you think is right - regardless of the law.

Sounds like Dubya.

I didn't know he was gay?

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
yeah, and like jeffry dahmer. so what's your point?...nice spin anyway. try again. next...

so gay marriage is akin to serial rape and murder?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No, I knew it would happen. I've been telling people for years.

The face was there because if I was a black man, I would have probably gotten upset over your comparison. It was 100% bogus.


That shows the world how to treat people with Equality! You surely aren't a hypocrite. I don't care what anyone says. [/B]

How about if you were a black gay man? Or a gay black man? Or a black man who identifies with the struggle for recognition the homo sexuals are seeking regardless of his own sexual preference or orientation?

Any black man who got upset over the comparison would also be a mental Amish like you. Proving yet again that discrimination or making distinctions on the color of a persons skin is a worthless distinction since it is what a person thinks not his color or race that makes him a either a bigot or a person who accepts equality for all.

You have halted or slowed down progress -on personal choice- but unlike the Amish who appear to limit that choice to themselves you seek to impose your choice on others. That wouldn't be so bad if the choice you make wasn't discriminating. Unfortunately it is discriminating.

I don't treat you with equality. You're someone to make fun of.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
How about if you were a black gay man? Or a gay black man? Or a black man who identifies with the struggle for recognition the homo sexuals are seeking regardless of his own sexual preference or orientation?

Any black man who got upset over the comparison would also be a mental Amish like you. Proving yet again that discrimination or making distinctions on the color of a persons skin is a worthless distinction since it is what a person thinks not his color or race that makes him a either a bigot or a person who accepts equality for all.

You have halted or slowed down progress -on personal choice- but unlike the Amish who appear to limit that choice to themselves you seek to impose your choice on others. That wouldn't be so bad if the choice you make wasn't discriminating. Unfortunately it is discriminating.

I don't treat you with equality. You're someone to make fun of.

I assume you support the rights of people to marry multiple partners, or children being able to give sexual consent, as well. I mean, you wouldn't want to be seen as discriminating against your fellow citizens.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I assume you support the rights of people to marry multiple partners

why not?

[osiris]

It's a technicality, but Ulster Country is quite conservative, perhaps the most right wing in NY State - the criminal charges are redneck overkill. But yeah, unlicensed couples being married (gay or not) is illegal.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I assume you support the rights of people to marry multiple partners, or children being able to give sexual consent, as well. I mean, you wouldn't want to be seen as discriminating against your fellow citizens.

I have no objection to a marriage between several adult partners if they enter such a marriage as equals and of their own free choice.

Children have rights of their own but they are not equal to adults. The age of sexual consent differs in various countries and I must say that I agree with those laws that give a child that has reached puberty certain extended rights beyond those granted younger children. That these laws are in place however and that they restrict even these older children from certain activities -including consensual sex under certain conditions that I have no intention to discuss here and with you- is not a bad idea in my opinion. If that makes my position inconsistent in your opinion, so be it.

Let there be no confusion though that there is no rational argument against gay marriage between consenting adults. These should be recognized under the law as fully equal to any other form of marriage. Hopefully with actions like those that are the topic of this board this equal recognition of gay marriage will soon be a reality.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No Jeff always thought it was wrong, and did it anyhow. Talk about spin...

okay, then like ted bundy...and he sure as hell didn't think what he did was wrong. once again...missing the point.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
so gay marriage is akin to serial rape and murder?

read what i was replying to, 'tard!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
How about if you were a black gay man? Or a gay black man? Or a black man who identifies with the struggle for recognition the homo sexuals are seeking regardless of his own sexual preference or orientation?

Homosexuals have never been forced into slavery. They have never had their own water fountains. They have never had to sit in the back of the bus.

They are hardly being treated like blacks were in this country years ago.

"OMG the country wont accept our relationships as being just as normal as heterosexual ones"

That is no way = what went on.

And as far as recognition goes. That isn't granted. No one is allowed to force the Government to accept their lifestyles as being ok™.

Any black man who got upset over the comparison would also be a mental Amish like you.

Silly

[b] Proving yet again that discrimination or making distinctions on the color of a persons skin is a worthless distinction since it is what a person thinks not his color or race that makes him a either a bigot or a person who accepts equality for all.

[b/]
Equality for all? Are you really wanting that? Or Equality for those you deem worthy according to your morals?

You have halted or slowed down progress -on personal choice-

Progress? That is highly subjective. Not all change is progress.

but unlike the Amish who appear to limit that choice to themselves you seek to impose your choice on others.

I do? Nonsense. Did I ever once say we should ban gay marriages entirely? No I never. Thanks for assuming though.

I think the states should have say, and the Gov stay out of it.

That wouldn't be so bad if the choice you make wasn't discriminating. Unfortunately it is discriminating.

Unfortunately you have no clue as to what you are talking about. BTW I bet you discriminate daily.

I don't treat you with equality. You're someone to make fun of.

Well you can try, but so far all you have done is promote silliness and make baseless accusations. WAY TO GO.

BTW you fighting for equality and the right to live the way you want to, and yet you tell me I am not to be treated in such a way.

What a hypocrite. I suggest if you want to PREACH equality and not being a bigot. You practice it as well. You'll be taken a bit more seriously then.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
I have no objection to a marriage between several adult partners if they enter such a marriage as equals and of their own free choice.

Children have rights of their own but they are not equal to adults. The age of sexual consent differs in various countries and I must say that I agree with those laws that give a child that has reached puberty certain extended rights beyond those granted younger children. That these laws are in place however and that they restrict even these older children from certain activities -including consensual sex under certain conditions that I have no intention to discuss here and with you- is not a bad idea in my opinion. If that makes my position inconsistent in your opinion, so be it.

That opinion is based on your moral judgment. Who are you to rape someone's happiness because of what you deem morally objectionable? Hypocrite.

Let there be no confusion though that there is no rational argument against gay marriage between consenting adults.

Oh there is, you just don't agree with it, therefore to YOU it's not rational.

These should be recognized under the law as fully equal to any other form of marriage. Hopefully with actions like those that are the topic of this board this equal recognition of gay marriage will soon be a reality.

See gay people don't just want to be married. They want to FORCE society into accepting homosexual relations as being just as normal as heterosexual ones.

This will never happen. People that still use common sense will never come to that conclusion.

So in the end, it's a lost cause I am afraid.

Sure you can put up a FRONT, but that is all it will be.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
okay, then like ted bundy...and he sure as hell didn't think what he did was wrong. once again...missing the point.

No I got the point, your comparison was just wrong.

And Bundy knew what he was doing too. He knew it was wrong. He just didn't care.

[macvillage.net]

Kudos to the Mayor.


Spacefreak. Your tireless argument just proves how hate filled and irrational you can be.

A child does not have all the legal rights of an adult. Hence the reason why they can't vote, drink, marry, rent a car, etc. They have a "guardian".

A child can gain their rights earlier through a court process. If the court feels the child is capable of handling that, and the guardian is not. ONLY in that case.


Your argument is completely irrational and has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

A child can not give consent before legal age. To do so, they must be legally an adult. There is a court process. Some go through it. Some don't.


The difference is that we need to protect children from harm. An adult can do what they want, provided they don't harm others.

The topic of children and sex is about abuse, and physical harm. Not rights.


Thanks for reiterating yet again how little of an argument there is against gay marriage.


I hear the black folks be trying to marry people as well.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Homosexuals have never been forced into slavery. They have never had their own water fountains. They have never had to sit in the back of the bus. [/B]

...and once again, missing the point. that seems to be the conservative rhetoric du jour, playing the fool in order to deny comparisons.

"...yeah, but it's not exactly like it, so you can't compare it at all!"

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I assume you support the rights of people to marry multiple partners, or children being able to give sexual consent, as well. I mean, you wouldn't want to be seen as discriminating against your fellow citizens.

Yes, I support that. We should be a propgresive nation, not one hung up on a fictionalized, picket-fenced, Christian God-fearing nation.

In Spain I can marry at 14, and in Muslim countries I can have four wives.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No I got the point, your comparison was just wrong.

And Bundy knew what he was doing too. He knew it was wrong. He just didn't care.

yeah right. pffff.

the comparison wasn't wrong.

if somebody goes against the law because of their personal beliefs, that doesn't neccessarily mean they are engaging in civil disobedience!

take your conservative rhetoric and shove it!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Spacefreak. Your tireless argument just proves how hate filled and irrational you can be.

Hate filled? Where are you getting this garbage? Why you guys love to project emotions onto people that are just not there is beyond me.

Your argument is completely irrational and has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

No it's very rational. I was talked down to because I supposably wanted to take happiness away from someone because of my personal moral beliefs. vmarks was showing how it's done daily without people having problems with it.

The difference is, some people see homosexual sex as ok, other don't, Just like some parts of the word sex with minors is ok, and in others it's against the rules.

Very good argument. One that the pro-side can't seem to knock, so that is why it's so venomously attacked.

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

See gay people don't just want to be married. They want to FORCE society into accepting homosexual relations as being just as normal as heterosexual ones.

How about those forcing our nation to be of a Christian centered one? I don't want that. I want a purely Secular Government, without ANY Politician spewing off their beliefs, and using that as a tactic for votes.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
...and once again, missing the point. that seems to be the conservative rhetoric du jour, playing the fool in order to deny comparisons.

"...yeah, but it's not exactly like it, so you can't compare it at all!"

So you continue to make poor comparisons one after another and then blame us for it.

Great . You'll go far with that I am sure.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Yes, I support that. We should be a propgresive nation, not one hung up on a fictionalized, picket-fenced, Christian God-fearing nation.

In Spain I can marry at 14, and in Muslim countries I can have four wives.

While I don't agree with you, at least I can respect your opinion.

Originally posted by Vpro7:
How about those forcing our nation to be of a Christian centered one?

Forcing? Our nation's laws are based upon Christian laws. I don't think that is forced.

BTW here is another hint, not everyone against this is Christian. I know, shocking isn't it.

I don't want that. I want a purely Secular Government, without ANY Politician spewing off their beliefs, and using that as a tactic for votes.

Politicians spewing their beliefs? I don't know about you, but I want to know what a politicians believes before I vote for him.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So you continue to make poor comparisons one after another and then blame us for it.

Great . You'll go far with that I am sure.

so far the only poor comparison i have seen here was made by mister "gumbleeder" himself.

and you thinking that my comparisons are poor is about as insignificant as christianity in the 21st century.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
so far the only poor comparison i have seen here was made by mister "gumbleeder" himself.

Of course, I wouldn't believe otherwise.

and you thinking that my comparisons are poor is about as insignificant as christianity in the 21st century.

Boy that was a good one. Wasn't silly at all.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Boy that was a good one. Wasn't silly at all.

kinda sux not being able to argue from a position of power anymore, huh?

once again. to the mayor!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
kinda sux not being able to argue from a position of power anymore, huh?

Anymore? When did I ever have power in here?

BTW, there is nothing to argue with you about. You made bad comparisons. People pointed that out. You got upset and started pointing fingers elsewhere. Probably a self defense mechanism.

And the original comparison is right. He was also showing how some are hypocrites. I guess it's ok to break the law as long as it suits YOUR personal moral beliefs. But no one else's!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW, there is nothing to argue with you about.

exactly, i was wondering why you even tried to start sh*t! i was right from the start...and unless your little retarded a$$ shows me where i was wrong, i guess it stands.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I guess it's ok to break the law as long as it suits YOUR personal moral beliefs. But no one else's!

WRONG!!! it's "okay" to break the law (actually we are talking about civil disobedience here) when other people don't suffer from the consequences, unlike when people break the law and harm is done. kinda like what bush did. capice? even a mental giant like you should be able to tell the difference.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
exactly, i was wondering why you even tried to start sh*t! i was right from the start...and unless your little retarded a$$ shows me where i was wrong, i guess it stands.

I already did.

Neither Dahlmer or Bundy thought what they were doing was right.

They knew they did wrong. They just didn't care. They were sociopaths.

So that makes your comparisons invalid, bunk, wrong. Whatever you choose to call it.

You used them to try to demean his point. It didn't work.

Now just bite the pillow before you embarrass yourself more.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
WRONG!!! it's "okay" to break the law (actually we are talking about civil disobedience here) when other people don't suffer from the consequences,

Yes but you don't see how others would suffer here. Others do.

unlike when people break the law and harm is done. kinda like what bush did. capice? even a mental giant like you should be able to tell the difference.

So you'd agree by NOT doing something which was causing even MORE people to be in harms way would be even worse right?

Of course it would.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They knew they did wrong. They just didn't care. They were sociopaths.

okay.

a) that's besides the point. i used it as an example to show that not everytime somebody commits a crime while they are of the opinion that they are "in the right" (maybe dahmer and bundy did, maybe they didn't, we'll never know) it amounts to civil disobedience (which was the point of the contention to start with).

b) you have no ****ing clue what they were thinking when they commited their crimes.

c) if you are too ignorant to tell the difference between commiting a crime and civil disobedience, then i guess there's no arguing with you.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes but you don't see how others would suffer here. Others do.

oh, do tell! very interesting. let's hear it fom mr. bible thump himself. how does gay people getting married hurt anybody? get outta here...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
oh, do tell! very interesting. let's hear it fom mr. bible thump himself. how does gay people getting married hurt anybody? get outta here...

Now were going to hear about how homosexuals steal babies from heterosexual couples, escape to San Fransisco, have a public sacrifice at a gay bath of the heterosexual child, they all have sex, and then eat the child's flesh, which was simmering on a hot stove.



Repeat from yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
okay.

a) that's besides the point.

No it's not. It's THE point.

I used it as an example to show that not everytime somebody commits a crime while they are of the opinion that they are "in the right" (maybe dahmer and bundy did, maybe they didn't, we'll never know)

Yes we do know because they have indeed have said as much.

b) you have no ****ing clue what they were thinking when they commited their crimes.

Yes I do, as I have read their written work, and their psychological evaluations.

c) if you are too ignorant to tell the difference between commiting a crime and civil disobedience, then i guess there's no arguing with you.

Who is arguing this? Are you just now trying to make up stuff to argue about? No one is arguing the difference between these two.

Your comparisons was off base. Just admit it.

There is a big difference between someone breaking the law or being "civilly disobedient" thinking they are doing the right thing..

And someone breaking the law knowing they are doing wrong and doing it anyhow.

If you'd like to continue say those to are a like by all means go right head. I wont be the one looking silly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
oh, do tell! very interesting. let's hear it fom mr. bible thump himself. how does gay people getting married hurt anybody? get outta here...

Some of us tend to believe any moral degradation in society hurts society. Weird thought process I know.. I know..

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No it's not. It's THE point.

no, it's not. i already showed you what the point was.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes we do know because they have indeed have said as much.
Yes I do, as I have read their written work, and their psychological evaluations.

again. besides the point.

and, btw, they could have lied about it.

the point was whether civil disobedience is the same as committing a crime where others are hurt. it's not. end of discussion.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Some of us tend to believe any moral degradation in society hurts society.

yeah, that's why they decided to wed homosexuals...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
no, it's not. i already showed you what the point was.

And you was wrong.

and, btw, they could have lied about it.

LOL I guess anything to try to make yourself look right huh?
This is known as grabbing for straws.
So you are saying they are SAYING they knew it was wrong, yet really didn't? Heh.

What a far far far stretch you got there.

the point was whether civil disobedience is the same as committing a crime where others are hurt. it's not. end of discussion.

Well if that is the point you were trying to get across, you surely did not with your poor comparisons.

BTW your point is highly subjective too. So you cannot state it as factual. You claim no one gets hurt, I see things otherwise.

So again, subjective.