Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 101
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriagePage 5 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
You do not have rights, you have privileges and your government can taken those away at anytime.


That is false. This country was founded on the declared belief that certain truths are self-evident. One of these is that each individual is endowed by his creator with certain "inalienable" rights.

When most Americans still thought the United States was worth teaching schoolkids about, in hopes they'd be inspired to help preserve it, the high school Civics teacher would have explained the doctrine of natural rights and the Declaration of Independence, in which Jefferson expressed it for the ages, on about the third day of class.

The notion that we all get our rights from our government is a statist lie, designed to get Americans used to thinking government is their master--as it is under Communism and Fascism. I'm never quite sure if the leftist nonsense I read all the time is the result of malice toward the U.S., or just plain ignorance.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 102
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 9:35:01 AM
"That is false. This country was founded on the declared belief that certain truths are self-evident. One of these is that each individual is endowed by his creator with certain "inalienable" rights"

"inalienable rights" do not apply to corporate fictions, they apply to individual people under common law. Persons are not people. You can however be your person's "administrator/ceo", a very powerful position.

UNGRIP (Full Length Movie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tScuHwVtRcY

T4TT - EXCLUSIVE... Dean C. Clifford - Both Sides of The Story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2pMJyIikCk
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 103
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 9:37:18 AM
stray cat

can you tell me if thats why liberals love calling folk nazis?

is it because they go home at night and dress up in an ss uniform
and get the missus and bairns to call them obersturmmbahnfuhrer?

i think its because some liberals are really repressed nazi pervs, why else
would they have an obsession over a regime that lasted 12 years?

they seem to love telling others what to do

vlad dracul (who would look more like herman goering than rheinhard heydrich
if he was a repressed liberal perv that is)

auf weidersein
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 104
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 9:57:59 AM
Our governing is meant to be our defender of rights for all. Conservatives have consistently opposed expanding rights to women, abolishing slavery, equal rights and voting rights for blacks, and now slashing rights after 9/11, war on womens rights, war on the rights of association via unions, the war on equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgenderd citizens,their war on voting rights, and repeal of the 14th ammendment to allow for apartheid again. Some have gone so far as to call for jail time, hard labor and sumary execution of OWS protesters. Liberals have long been the champion of rights for all.


COULTER: on OWS protesters..."Of course if it does, just remember the lesson from my book: it just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good."

Jimmy...just look at the hypocrisy of the Nazis of the far Reich.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201101200037
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 105
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 10:05:20 AM
Liberals have long been the champion of rights for all.


Statism is Dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

On March 16, 1950, a decade before the Canadian Bill of Rights became law, Diefenbaker, then a Saskatchewan MP, told a public forum why such a law was needed. Individuals' freedoms of religion, press, speech and association are threatened by the state, he said. A Bill of Rights was needed to take a "forthright stand against discrimination based on colour, creed or racial origin." [11]
In 1960, as Prime Minister, Diefenbaker successfully introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The problem is of course there is a difference between individuals and persons.You will seldom see the word individual in statutes and when you do it has very often been redefined in the definitions section of the statute.

The Canadian bill of rights applies to individuals (natural persons) not artificial persons/corporations eg JOHN DOE( from the Canadian law dictionary)
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 10:49:51 AM
EP

i read the link and i have to say that my take on it is
that they are using the same smear tactic liberals use.

now personally anyone can call me what they like, as i said
any ist, ism or ophobic tis water off a ducks back.

if i get called a nazi its because the smearer thinks that by
saying that to me i shall shut up as no one wants to be labeled nazi

but i wont shut up and the smear of nazi, fascist and all the other
pc stasi smears are now redundant. the terms have been used so
often they are meaningless.

but if fox pisses liberals off by using the nazi smear they are only
doing what liberals do all the time mate, so in my opinion liberals
should stop their shrieking and learn that if you are big enough to
dish it out then at least be big enough to take it back

and frankly its laughable when liberals complain about denying folk
rights.
they are the prime exponents of banning everything they do not like

but hey its nearly xmas over here so crack a beer open and say
here's tae us, whae's like us?

yuletide/xmas salutations to the folk over the pond that i like
and may their next shyte be a hedgehog to those i dislike

mctoodle and mcpip
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 107
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 6:59:42 PM
Ok, so it seems I DO have a "right" to fly and to drive!
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 108
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/24/2011 7:07:27 PM

and frankly its laughable when liberals complain about denying folk
rights.
they are the prime exponents of banning everything they do not like

So with respect to individuals rights what have those liberals been banning?


Also how can that be a justification of refusing someone the same rights as someone else because of the way they where born?
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 109
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:05:53 AM
What makes you think you have a right to drive?


Read the earlier posts. EVERYTHING is a right now. I might not even file a flight plan next time. I have a "right" to fly regardless of what I do!

AND I'm covered by that whole "the pursuit of happiness" thing, since I'm very happy when I fly!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 110
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/28/2011 10:44:26 AM
Now, YOU might think you know what Jefferson meant by "the pursuit of happiness"


Yes, I think I do--and so do most people who have looked into it. It's generally agreed that Jefferson substituted "the pursuit of happiness" for Locke's "property" because he didn't want to suggest that anyone was entitled to have property. And "happiness," in 1770's English, was used not so much in the sense of joy or elation, but of good fortune or prosperity--there's an element of chance, as related words like "perhaps" and "happenstance" suggest. Jefferson was saying that our "inalienable" natural rights--i.e. rights we have from birth and that government can't unfairly take from us--include the right to live, to be free, and to pursue our fortunes. We have a right to go for the brass ring--not to the ring itself.

The Supreme Court has never doubted that traditional marriage is a fundamental right. But it has never even suggested there's a fundamental right to same-sex or polygamous or incestuous marriages. That wouldn't even pass the laugh test. For a right to be "fundamental" under the Court's test, it has to be deeply rooted in our traditions and culture. If a right's not fundamental, a state law that restricts it won't violate 14th Amendment due process as long as it's rationally related to a legitimate government interest.


when that right is being WITHHELD from those adults on a state level due to an arbitrary standard.


There you're getting close to the reasoning the Court would probably use if it ever held same-sex marriage was a constitutional right--that a state has no legitimate interest in requiring each marriage to apply only to one man and one woman. A law that doesn't serve any legitimate government interest is arbitrary, and arbitrary laws violate the due process guarantee. In 2003, the Court gave a preview of this reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas, where it struck down a state sodomy statute.

There are several ways Congress could (and should) rein in overreaching federal courts--making laws which reverse the effect of their decisions, impeaching judges for reasons other than corruption, etc., withdrawing courts' jurisdiction over certain subjects, and so on. And a President could refuse to enforce a Supreme Court decision--it's been done. I don't think Mr. Gingrich's comments about these things have been lost on the Supreme Court, and that's a good thing.
 unYOUsual
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 111
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/29/2011 5:49:58 AM

but it stands to reason that any given individual could see a particular "state" (as it were) of happiness (marriage) being withheld from him or her (and him and her alone, as a type) as a destruction or violation of what one could easily presume to be a natural right.
The Constitution has been perverted by a partisan Supreme Court throughout the years...If we want to adhere to the Constitution then we should look at things as they were when it was written...Marriage was between a man and woman, this was the norm the framers felt no need to allow gays and lesbians and what not to married as it wasn't an issue in their day...Trying to say that Gays have a right to marriage is BS until it written into Law they have no "Right"."Rights" are those given to us..just because you are gay or lesbian doesn't mean you should be entitled to any additional "Rights" based on your sexual preference..Unfortunately the Courts are being pressured by advocacy groups to undermine the founding principles of America..Question is why should Gays and Lesbians get the right to marry? what good does that bring to America? How does Society benefit? People can't even decide if Homosexuality is Genetic or choice, if it is choice then all people should be able to marry whoever or whatever they want regardless of age or species if they "Choose" to be in a relationship with it or them...cousins,brothers,sisters,moms, Dads, kids, animals,1 wife husband 20,500 why not?


due to an arbitrary standard.
What is a Society without standards,don't think that marriage between a man and women is arbitrary..it has worked for thousands of years...
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 112
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/29/2011 6:26:52 AM
With all due respect and IMO regardless of historical norms at the time unYOUsual you have made a fundamental if not willfully deceitful mistake when it comes to Constitutional interpretation.

There is no express discrimination against homosexuals or anyone else put into the consitution for a reason. Our money is entrusted to "God," not Christ for a reason. "The founding principles" of America are grounded in inclusion, not exclusion. The Separation of Church and State is the conrnerstone of "Freedom of Religion" despite how many deceitful posterior orifices try and suggest otherwise.

Gays and lesbians are not asking for anything "special," they never have and any critical thinker knows that. They are asking for equality, and as consenting adults there isn't a lawyer alive that will ULTIMATELY EVER be able to argue the 14th Ammendment and others do not apply to consenting adult homosexuals.

As people that want to truly be Americans we must embrace inclusion however much it conflicts with our religously institutionalized prejudices. We can stand at the door of our church and forbid something all we want to, but in public the predjudices of majorities do not supercede the basic, equal rights of minorities. Real Americans NEVER try and inject the Consitution with discrimination, period.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 113
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/29/2011 10:40:03 AM

I don't think that those advocating against gay marriage are any different from those advocating against interracial marriage--it's bigotry, pure and simple.

That may be overstating it a bit. I've confessed in this thread that I was opposed to gay marriage at one time. Now this may well have been bigotry on my part - I certainly don't feel I'm immune to less noble motives. But I don't think it was. It was a change, and I'm pretty conservative by nature - I don't trust change.

Once we had it here, my opinion did a complete 180. It really only affects people who love each other and want to get married.

I think if you automatically assume that opposition to gay marriage comes out of bigotry, you kind of force people into a corner and you're likely to strengthen their views. People get awfully defensive when you start calling them names like that.

There are lots of strong arguments for gay marriage. Those who are homophobic aren't going to be swayed by them; those who aren't won't be persuaded by calling them bigots. I think it's important to work the logical arguments.
 Viper1E
Joined: 11/30/2011
Msg: 114
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/29/2011 11:31:53 AM
The question is not and should not be whether or not gays or lesbians are entitled to "additional" rights--which gays and lesbians are not asking for. It is whether and/ or why they should be DENIED rights. To deny a right is a very different thing than to add an "additional" one.


Of course it is, and should be..

It's not a new thing. I had a friend in college that was paid 25k by a Saudi family to marry their daughter, so she could become a citizen. Today, they would call that "marriage fraud".

But if he were paid the same amount today to marry their son, there would be groups lining up to defend the "marriage".

Homosexuals always had the same right(s) as anyone else. They've always been able to marry the woman of their choice. Now they want the "additional" right to marry anything they want.

What's most ironic, is while they fight for THEIR right to what they want, they want to slam the door on the people like the Stuebings, or polygamists.

Hypocrite much? I guess some "love" is just a little more "equal" than others..

They better watch out, someone might confuse them for straight..

 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/29/2011 11:43:16 AM

the ONLY reason gays' right to legal marriage is withheld is because some people don't like the idea of gays being married.


That's probably true. But since when is the fact the majority of a state's voters consider something immoral not a valid reason for outlawing it? Most laws, especially criminal laws, are based in moral beliefs. State marriage laws also discriminate, on moral grounds, against groups of more than two people, against couples who are brother and sister, or closely related cousins, in which one or both persons is younger than a certain age, and so on.


That's it pure and simple--just as, in days gone by, it was illegal in many states in this country for blacks and whites to marry each other--again, because some people didn't like the idea of it.


The argument based on Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision that said a state law against interracial marriage was unconstitutional, has been made before. It doesn't wash. The holding in that case was based on the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. It's obvious that the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws apply to state laws which discriminate against blacks. It's anything but obvious that they also apply to state laws which discriminate against homosexuals.


The question . . . is whether and/ or why they should be DENIED rights. To deny a right is a very different thing than to add an "additional" one.


What is the source, if any, of homosexuals' right to marry each other? As I said, the Supreme Court doesn't even pretend that's a fundamental constitutional right. State laws restrict the freedom of all sorts of people to do all sorts of things, without violating the Constitution.

In fact the very nature of most laws is to discriminate against some act or some specified group of people. Voting is as fundamental as any right we have, and yet any state that wants to can completely deny it to even the most intelligent, informed, and mature 17-year-old.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 116
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 10:56:55 AM
Viper,

With all due respect homsexuals are not asking for the right to marry "anything" they want to, they are demanding the equal right to marry another consenting adult of their choice that happens to be of the same gender, something the Consitution in NO WAY forbids. As to polygamy: If the insitution were not riddled with sexual abuse and pedophilia more of us might be a little less "hypocritical" as you say. With higher minimum ages for marriage and better assurances of ultimate consent it would be hard to argue against polyamorous unions. However I would suggest the total number of spouses could not be entitled to any more total dollar amount of government and other benefits than an individual would be.

The only polygamists I know of arguing for "equal" rights are from cultures ripe with the abuse I mentioned above. When they stop wanting to marry children then there will be a discussion.

It appears several of you like to argue that because there is no allowance for homosexual marriage in the Consitution that the Consitution prohibits it. In this life of ours there is never prohibition of ANYTHING unless it is expressed articulately and definitively. Those of you that want to live in a theocracy will have to find it elsewhere for the burden of being citizens of this Constitutional Republic is that the Consitution can NEVER be applied selectively however much of some of you want it to be.

"Long live the Republic; Let Freedom Ring!"
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 117
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 12:47:15 PM
something the Consitution in NO WAY forbids . . . several of you like to argue that because there is no allowance for homosexual marriage in the Consitution that the Consitution prohibits it.


You have to know how the pieces move before you can play chess--and you don't. Of course nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage. Why would anyone expect it to?

Marriage has always been and remains almost entirely a matter of *state* law. The question is not whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage, but whether anything in it prohibits states from preventing it. If you think something does, exactly what is that thing?


In this life of ours there is never prohibition of ANYTHING unless it is expressed articulately and definitively.


If you say so. In any case, state family codes articulate definite requirements for marriages. They define marriage so as to include only agreements between one man and one woman. In that way, they discriminate against same-sex couples. But they're not alone.

State marriage laws also discriminate against couples in which the prospective partners are too closely related; couples in which one or both of the partners is already married, or is too young; and groups of more than two partners. Other state laws may also make some of these forms of marriage crimes, e.g. bigamy and polygamy.


the Consitution can NEVER be applied selectively however much of some of you want it to be.


Your comments show *you* are the one who wants to make the Constitution say or do whatever you think it should. You can't be bothered with little details like which part of it really authorizes or prohibits what, or even with the basics of the federal system it creates. Makes your call to "let freedom ring" ring a little hollow.


Those of you that want to live in a theocracy will have to find it elsewhere


Ah, once more--the old theocracy canard that refuses to die. Yes, you're right about those would-be theocrats. They'll have to lump it, just like they've always had to ever since 1791. Unless, that is, some state had established its official church, as states could do until 1947. In that case, anyone who wanted could have lived under a sort of local theocracy by moving there. All those backward American Gothic types, with their Bibles and pitchforks, will just have to go on gnashing their teeth because they can't use federal laws to carry out their homo-hating crusades.

But the fact the First Amendment has, for 220 years now, made it impossible for the U.S. to be a theocracy doesn't mean state laws can't be based in moral beliefs. In fact most state criminal laws are--and those moral beliefs in turn are often grounded in religious tenets. Or maybe you think state laws against burglary and embezzlement and robbery are unconstitutional because they're ultimately based on the religious commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 118
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 3:13:45 PM

But the fact the First Amendment has, for 220 years now, made it impossible for the U.S. to be a theocracy doesn't mean state laws can't be based in moral beliefs. In fact most state criminal laws are--and those moral beliefs in turn are often grounded in religious tenets.

So what are the moral grounds for not a letting a guy marry a guy or a girl marry a girl?

If anything I would see it as immoral not to do so, as it is basically telling someone sorry you came out the way you did, but because of something that is completely out of your control we will have to take away the same rights as other people have.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 119
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 4:00:17 PM

So what are the moral grounds for not a letting a guy marry a guy or a girl marry a girl?


If a majority of voters in a state believes it's immoral for homosexuals to marry each other, that majority should be able to enforce that belief by law, as long as the legislature could have concluded that the law was reasonably related to some legitimate government purpose. They don't have to justify their moral views on homosexuality to anyone else.

It's been accepted everywhere in this country, from the beginning, that regulating public morality is a legitimate purpose of government. If it's not, I can't see any basis for laws against incest, adultery, prostitution, bestiality, polygamy, public drunkenness, nudity, and so on.


If anything I would see it as immoral not to do so, as it is basically telling someone sorry you came out the way you did, but because of something that is completely out of your control


Whether you think homosexuality is immoral is not relevant. Neither is whether you think it's beyond a person's control. That is your opinion only--it is not even close to being a fact established by scientific evidence.


we will have to take away the same rights as other people have.


A 17-year-old's age is completely out of his control. And yet a state law can flagrantly discriminate against him purely because of age. Just imagine, depriving someone of a fundamental constitutional right because of something that's out of his hands.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 120
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 4:20:22 PM

Whether you think homosexuality is immoral is not relevant...

So why is it not relevant?

As you stated - "...If a majority of voters in a state believes it's immoral for homosexuals to marry each other, that majority should be able to enforce that belief by law, as long as the legislature could have concluded that the law was reasonably related to some legitimate government purpose..."

So wouldn't how someone thinks make it relevant?




Neither is whether you think it's beyond a person's control. That is your opinion only--it is not even close to being a fact established by scientific evidence.

Really, do you have some scientific data to support that it is not?

Also are you saying that you chose not to have sex with other men not because you are not attracted to them, but only because you choose not to?




A 17-year-old's age is completely out of his control. And yet a state law can flagrantly discriminate against him purely because of age. Just imagine, depriving someone of a fundamental constitutional right because of something that's out of his hands.

Non sequitur.
 Moidodyr
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 121
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 9:23:29 PM
Rebellion against God is out of control,Lev 18:22.That's sad for America :(
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 122
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 9:51:05 PM
Really? Leviticus? I gotta say, that may not be where you want to go for your arguments. Leviticus forbids cotton/poly blends; lets me sell my youngest daughter into slavery; says that menstruating women have to be in a separate room. Not to mention what it says about bacon wrapped scallops.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 123
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 10:18:46 PM
Also are you saying that you chose not to have sex with other men not because you are not attracted to them, but only because you choose not to?


Some do. My close friend is a prime example of that. She turned gay because she got tired of being abused by men. People can become gay for more then one reason. Some choose to become gay for the reasons as mentioned above. I don't think one can point to a single reason why certain people are gay. It's a very complex issue with no one answer behind it, but i think the more advanced medical science becomes the more we will be able to really know the reasons behind why certain people are gay.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 124
view profile
History
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/30/2011 10:29:50 PM
Our experiment with democracy has always struggled with how to contain the tyranny of the majority. Cafeteria constitutionalists have always defended the constitution in doing their tyranny of the majority in upholding slavery, denying rights to minorities and women, and now consensual sexual inclination/behavior.

"If a majority of voters in a state believes it's immoral for people with red hair to marry each other, that majority should be able to enforce that belief by law, as long as the legislature could have concluded that the law was reasonably related to some legitimate government purpose. They don't have to justify their moral views on people with red hair to anyone else."

"It's been accepted everywhere in this country, from the beginning, that regulating public morality is a legitimate purpose of government. If it's not, I can't see any basis for laws that support stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath, worshipping other gods, cursing their parents, not being virgins on their wedding nights, being accused of being a witch or sorcerer, committing adultry, stubborn and rebellious sons, being the children of former enemy nations, laying with a woman during her period, and many other biblical laws."

"Whether you think being born with red hair is immoral is not relevant. Neither is whether you think it's beyond a person's control. That is your opinion only--it is not even close to being a fact established by scientific evidence."

Looking forward to the scientific evidence that helps us understand why so many anti-gay conservatives end up coming out of their own closets or get busted in toe tapping incidents.

Thank all the gods, we have rebelled against the bible and theocracy as long as we have.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
 Moidodyr
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 125
NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage
Posted: 12/31/2011 7:48:49 AM
First of all,America is of the people,by the people,and for the people,not by activist judges.Above all fearing Who God is very important.Stop looking at ceremonial Kosher laws that were scapped by Jesus in The New Testament.Focus on moral laws like Leviticus 18:22 is protected in The New Covenant by Romans 1:26-32,1 Corinthians 6:9-10 dealing with gays,drunks,criminals,remarried divorcees,whores,etc.Also Jude 1:1-10,2 Peter 2:12-13(natural brute beasts).Anger of God against decaying nations,Psalm 5:5,7:11 and Romans 9:13.
No more of my discussions in this topic thread.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > NY becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage