Being away from the densely populated boroughs at the times gave some perspective on the matter – New York state is comprised of many right-leaning Jesus freaks. As Politico points out, the glee with which this bill was accepted in New York City is not present in more rural towns across the state. Even those who’s job it is to accept same-sex marriage will cling to their bible and seemingly nonsensical sense of repulsion to the act of same-sex relations.

A woman who works as a town clerk refuses to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs and, what she apparently believes is, her freedom to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If a police officer chooses to not help a person based on their race or if a school does not allow a student to enter because of his or her gender it would be very clear it would be because of ignorance and bigotry and such action would be met with fervent rebuke.

However, religion is like a drug that retards the user from being able to act with logic and reason. This woman and many like her see themselves as being above the law that they were hired to uphold. While discrimination of race and gender of course still exists but those who commit these acts are rarely as self-inflated as proclaiming that they are just in their decision to do so.

Obviously, the majority of New York state is at least tolerant of homosexuality if not entirely in support of equal rights. (Does anyone else feel that the discussion of whether some people should be granted the same rights as every one else based of some arbitrary characteristic is depressing?) And, I am not suggesting that those who do not live near New York City are bigots. What I am suggesting is that religion allows communities to feel justified in openly expressing revulsion towards homosexuality.

I suggest that those who feel that they cannot do their job as a result of a conflict with the legal rights of others and their own religious views should quit. The state does not make room for religious intolerance. If you want to exercise power to exclude others then perhaps a move to a different state is in order.

What was the very last pornographic establishment on West 42nd St., Peep-O-Rama is returning as an exhibit showcasing the transformation of Times Square, reports The New York Times. Headed by the Times Square Alliance, button operated peep show booths and a fully restored glowing neon sign have been placed in front of a visitors center located between 46th and 47th street to welcome patrons inside where they can survey many other symbolic New York icons such as the New Year’s Eve ball.

Despite the new and old attractions found within the visitors center, the building itself may be just as much of an attraction as anything else. The visitors center is located in the Embassy Theater which was designed by architect Claire Weisz and was designated a landmark in 1987. Providing those who enter (or just gawk at the booths from the sidewalk) a glimpse into the history of this renowned area, the visitors center promises to have an enlightening collection for tourists and locals alike.

To read more about the reinvention of Peep-O-Rama, please follow the link to The New York Times.

Some points of evidence presented by “witnesses” (many of whom are very well known in the sector of politics) argued that it would be wrong for the council members to vote for the amendment simply because it would be a detriment to the reputation of both the council as well as to the individual council members. As with the majority of the points given from either side, this was an attempt to imply that democratic principles were aligned with a particular opinion on the matter. This was a reoccurring theme; it was the democratic duty of the council members to allow the people of New York to vote, or it would be entirely dishonest of the council members to vote on a law that directly enforces their own jobs, or it is simply the role of the council to vote on matters such as this one. Almost every point dealt with the integrity of the council as it was and as it will become.

Some witnesses made a predication that could not be avoided and is something that was definitely on the mind of the council members who remained undecided up to that point – the threat of the public. This prediction was that the support for the amendment that would, in a sense, give representatives a chance to be in office for a longer period of time would, ultimately, be a detriment to his/her political career. This is, of course, because the voters will inevitably retaliate if the amendment is passed and this can come from two different ends: first, and foremost, from the New Yorkers who simply are against the amendment and, second, from New Yorkers who are dissatisfied with this issue being handled in the government offices rather than in the form of a referendum. Therefore, if a particular council member did vote for the amendment, it might be the very reason he/she will not have the opportunity to hold office in the future. And, according to some polls here and here, I feel that this may actually be something to be weary of. In some cases, people were in favor of extending the term limits but only if they were the ones to make the decision through a referendum and a slight majority of people were, in fact, opposed to the extension of term limits altogether. Thus, those council members who did vote for the amendment did so knowing that his/her decision on this matter might decide the chances for the next election.

One question proposed during the debates is whether or not it is ethically proper for the council to be the ones to make the final decision. Those were opposed to the amendment declared a conflict of interest to be a major issue since this amendment would directly affect the very people casting the vote. The council members are, in a sense, voting to keep their own jobs. This may be interpreted as a possible ground for asserting that a conflict of interest exists but I would disagree. It is not the case that all representatives (such as the mayor) will necessarily be in office longer due to this vote – the vote merely expands the possibility for someone like the mayor to stay in office by giving him/her the choice to run for a third term. This brings the debate to a main point given by witnesses who are for the amendment: that an increase in the possible term limits expands the freedom of the public. It serves us better to have the option of electing a candidate we feel is most qualified for the job three times in a row rather than to limit the representative to an arbitrary number of years in office that we might fee is too short. And as I have mentioned previously, there is also a danger in voting to extend term limits due to public opinion on the matter. For these reasons, the argument for a referendum due to the conflict of interest of the council members has little motivation.

When Mayor Bloomberg initially called for this amendment, he defended his position and his tactics by pointing out today’s economic crisis. He claims this meltdown must be handled by those who are more experienced – It is the conditions of candidacy that are calling for council members with experience to remain in office to better serve the people. But, I have to ask, aren’t the people who are standing in line to lead this city good enough? How can we trust in the more experienced to endure through these times if we couldn’t trust them to keep us out of this position. New York, like the nation, has an increasing problem debt and house foreclosures are becoming more common in almost every borough, and, after seven years, the World Trade Center has yet to be rebuilt. New York may perhaps be in need of new and younger people to be making decisions. (After all, isn’t that the mindset for the current Democratic nominee for the presidential election?)