Marriage shot down in NY Senate :-(

[EXPAT]

Marriage bill in New York goes down in defeat in the NY Senate a few minutes ago. 24-38

[+ Lucky]

Gay marriage is definitely proving to be a hard road to take. Yet voters continue to support gay candidates. A 26 year old gay Asian man was just elected mayor of Campbell, CA, a town of 38,000 in Northern California.

 

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/12/01/ba-low_0500908095_part4.jpg Campbell's new mayor - young, gay, Asian

 

"This is not work for me. This is something I enjoy." - Evan Low

[AdamSmith]

...Have we been sold a bill of goods on how to conceive the issue of same-sex marriage?

 

Marriage being an institution administered by each state, the position has gotten going that says each state should make its own determination about same-sex marriage.

 

But all past civil-rights advances I can think of had to be won at the federal level. Whether from the executive, the Court, or the legislature.

 

If past civil-rights measures had been put to the state ballot box, as same-sex marriage is undergoing now, would their progress have been much different from this new issue?

[NYTomcat]

...Have we been sold a bill of goods on how to conceive the issue of same-sex marriage?

 

Marriage being an institution administered by each state, the position has gotten going that says each state should make its own determination about same-sex marriage.

 

But all past civil-rights advances I can think of had to be won at the federal level. Whether from the executive, the Court, or the legislature.

 

If past civil-rights measures had been put to the state ballot box, as same-sex marriage is undergoing now, would their progress have been much different from this new issue?

 

Absolutely not any different. Do we really think the populace of most states would have voted for the civil rights acts, or desegregation at the time. Its going to be a long road with many equal civil union acts before gay marriage is accepted. unfortunately even then its going to be a handful of states with others still dissenting. And people complain we have an activist supreme court -- give me a break.

 

Its rare that I say this, but Im ashamed to be a NYer today. Time to circulate a list of those nay sayers, voting time is never far off

[KMEM]

AS & NYTomcat-

 

You are both correct. What can and should we do about it?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Guest zipperzone]

AS & NYTomcat-

 

You are both correct. What can and should we do about it?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

I don't want this to sound as if I am gloating. But what can you do about it?

 

Move north over the border. Not only can you marry whomever you please, your medical insurance costs will drop to $54 per month.

[KMEM]

I don't want this to sound as if I am gloating. But what can you do about it?

 

Move north over the border. Not only can you marry whomever you please, your medical insurance costs will drop to $54 per month.

 

Will I still be able to come south for the winter with all my Canadian friends? Like from September to June?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[rickp]

NY Senate Roll Call

 

Here's who voted for and against gay marriage in the state senate. Ruben Diaz (D- Bronx) was the ring leader for the opposition; so if you know any voters up there he really must be stopped.

 

 

FULL ROLL CALL

 

* Eric Adams (D) — YES “This is about love.”

* Joseph Addabbo (D) — NO

* James Alesi ® — NO

* Darrel Aubertine (D) — NO

* John Bonacic ® — NO

* Neil Breslin (D) — YES

* John DeFrancisco ® — NO

* Ruben Diaz (D) — NO “Sen. Smith, it is better to keep your word.”

* Martin Malave Dilan (D) — YES

* Tom Duane (D) — YES

* Pedro Espada (D) — YES

* Hugh Farley ® — NO

* John Flanagan ® — NO

* Brian Foley (D) — YES

* Charles Fuschillo, Jr. ® — NO

* Martin Golden ® — NO

* Joseph Griffo ® — NO

* Kemp Hannon ® — NO

* Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D) — YES

* Shirley Huntley (D) — NO

* Craig Johnson (D) — YES

* Owen Johnson ® — NO

* Jeffrey Klein (D) — YES

* Liz Krueger (D) — YES

* Carl Kruger (D) — NO

* Andrew Lanza ® — NO

* Bill Larkin ® — NO

* Kenneth LaValle ® — NO

* Vincent Leibell ® — NO

* Tom Libous ® — NO

* Elizabeth Little ® — NO

* Carl Marcellino ® — NO

* George Maziarz ® — NO

* Roy McDonald ® — NO

* Hiram Monserrate (D) — NO

* Velmanette Montgomery (D) — YES

* Thomas Morahan ® — NO

* Michael Nozzolio ® — NO

* George Onorato (D) — NO

* Suzi Oppenheimer (D) — YES

* Frank Padavan ® — NO

* Kevin Parker (D) — YES

* Bill Perkins (D) — YES

* Michael Ranzenhofer ® — NO

* Joseph Robach ® — NO

* Stephen Saland ® — NO

* John Sampson (D) — YES

* Diane Savino (D) — YES

* Eric Schneiderman (D) — YES

* Jose Serrano (D) — YES

* James Seward ® — NO

* Dean Skelos ® — NO

* Malcolm Smith (D) — YES

* Daniel Squadron (D) — YES

* William Stachowski (D) — NO

* Toby Ann Stavisky (D) — YES

* Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) — YES

* Antoine Thompson (D) — YES

* David Valesky (D) — YES

* Dale Volker ® — NO

* George Winner ® — NO

* Catherine Young ® — NO

[seaboy4hire]

I don't want this to sound as if I am gloating. But what can you do about it?

 

Move north over the border. Not only can you marry whomever you please, your medical insurance costs will drop to $54 per month.

 

Yes move to another country like a coward when there is much needed work to be done here in the United States. I don't think so. Nothing will be changed by people moving north of the border. If anything that would bring great joy to the christians. I can't speak for anyone else but I personally don't want to give them that joy. I will not run, I will not move and I sure as hell wont be going back in the closet! But for those who are lazy enough to move up north, don't let the door hit you where the dear lord split ya!

 

Hugs,

Greg

[BewareofNick]

As long as there are conservatives, there will be opposition to same sex marriage.

 

Conservatives were the ones opposing civil rights legislation (Strom Thrumond and the Dixiecrats) in the 50's and 60's.

 

It's going to take some "activist" judges (those who oppose conservative stupidity) to give gay people the equal rights afforded to us by the Constitution.

 

Opposition to gay marriage is unAmerican.

[NYTomcat]

Thanks for the list rick P. I know two of these guys. One I have to congratulate for having some balls and one I have to smack. Alright people you want to know what to do. Toss there asses out. Give too the opposition, give time if you don't have money. That's what it takes. I actually helped get one of these fools elected (admittedly he was better than the other guy it was a Rep vs Conservative race) but that doesn't mean we can't find another guy to chuck him out. Local senate races turn on very little. Its not national. a little help and a little money can carry the day very easily. Its grass roots and then hold them to it.

 

I agree seaboy, while I love Canada's position, im not leaving a fight just cause its hard and long. Hell, I thought we all liked it hard and long!!!

[uwsman2]

serious politics

 

Several state legislatures have voted affirmatively for same-sex marriage - Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine, California. (In Maine, a referendum took it away; in California, the governor vetoed it, then we won a lawsuit, then a referendum took it away.)

 

The NY State Assembly has passed the marriage equality bill three times.

 

So that means same-sex marriage is something that we can win legislatively at the state level. It just takes lots of work on several levels. One level is the public education level. Ultimately, legislators have to feel that they can safely vote for it, and that requires moving the numbers on public opinion polls, which requires lots of public discussion and education. Another level is direct lobbying of politicians. We had lots of that this time around, but ultimately it doesn't get you over the finish line if you haven't moved the public as well -- and as Maine shows, sometimes if the lobbying moves the legislature out ahead of the public, you can't keep the victory.

 

And, here is where it gets really hard and requires lots of money and group and individual effort, you have to find people to run against those who are unpersuaded and work like the devil to get them elected. Every Democratic senator who voted against us on this needs to have a primary opponent next year. (If some of them win their primaries, I'm not going to advocate supporting a third party candidate or a Republican in the general - every single Republican in the Senate voted "no" on this, so replacing an anti-gay Democrat with an anti-gay Republican gets us nowhere, since it may help give Republicans control of the chamber, in which case we wouldn't even get the thing out of committee to the floor.)

 

So, next year all this angry energy needs to be channeled into political activity! Those who voted against us need to be held accountable.

[+ Lucky]

From the NY Daily News:

 

New York now joins a list of 31 other states, most recently Maine, to shoot down gay marriage.None of the Senate's 30 Republicans voted for the measure.

Of the 32 Democrats, 24 voted for it, eight against.

 

 

 

***

 

Now, can those gay republicans tell me once again why they favor that party?

[Guest DuchessIvanaKizznhugg]

Of interest....

 

The Editorial / Insight section of the Toronto Star has a DARTS AND LAURELS feature and in Saturday's paper, they gave a Dart to the

New York State Senate: For remaining firmly rooted in the past century. The legislative body this week voted decisively (38 to 24) against legalizing gay marriage. Reasoned Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Republican leader, "I just don't think the majority care too much about it (gay marriage) at this time because they're out of work; they want to see the state reduce spending, and they are having a hard time making ends meet."

It wasn't immediately clear how banning gay marriage would help anyone make ends meet.

[AdamSmith]

AS & NYTomcat-

 

You are both correct. What can and should we do about it?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

KMEM, let me offer a reply that risks getting this worthy thread banished to the Politics forum: One thing we could do is, as a public, turn a bit deafer ear to the punditocracy when they decrie "acvivist judges." Is it possible to imagine that the Framers' vision -- as understood by Marbury et seq -- might actually be right? That is, for the bias to be toward a strong assumption of judicial correctness -- rather than toward a reflex that the judiciary is very likely "overreaching" -- when we attempt to interpret, and socially digest and enact, unpopular rulings or those that don't reflect the prevailing electorate sentiment? It seems to me that "unelected judges" were structured so precisely because that was the condition that would let them render justice, rather than serve mob sentiment of the moment. Mob sentiment being perceived by the Framers as very nearly as dangerous a risk as the tyranny represented by George III.

 

Sorry, I went off into diatribe. Not against you or any poster; just against my conception of a viewpoint whose ignorance and danger, as I perceive it, is unbearable.

[KMEM]

AS-

 

NP about the "diatribe". We seem to have a dichotomy of philosophy here (in the US). On the one hand, we have a number of judges who are appointed and some who are appointed. You seem to be thinking that appointed judges will serve their conscience only which might be thought to be to the benefit of everyone. On the other hand, we have some whose opinion is that elected officials must pay attention to the will of the people because they can be turned out at the next election, if not before. Unfortunately, it often doesn't seem to work out that way. We have the Supremes who seemingly are one way when appointed and then become another way afterwards; sometimes many other ways as their very long possible careers stretch into philosophical eternity. We also seem to have elected officials who ignore what the people want or, sometimes, over react in favor of what people want, even when not in their best interests.

 

The bottom line seems to be that we need fair minded people whether they be elected or appointed AND we need the WILL of the people or at least their sentiments to be on "our" side. Where are those people and how can we best promote them?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[AdamSmith]

AS-The bottom line seems to be that we need fair minded people whether they be elected or appointed AND we need the WILL of the people or at least their sentiments to be on "our" side. Where are those people and how can we best promote them?

 

KMEM, your summary of the facts seems accurate. But your question at the end presupposes a problem which I don't quite grasp from your exposition. Where is the evidence that the way things are, judicially today, is not about as good as the Framers' system could produce?

 

Then, if that's the case, where is the evidence that the current system could, pragmatically, ever be morphed into something better?

 

I don't have any answers. Just noting that, from your framing of the question, you seem to believe inherently that the current order has definite problems, which definitely could be corrected, and which would be worth the risks knowable and unknowable of attempting to fix.

 

P.S. Edit reflection: The constitution more and more looks to me designed to acknowledge that sound governance is an average over time of manifold disparate pulls toward somewhat narrow individual interests if not toward outright abuse. It does not seek to quash those energies altogether, only to rein them in and, as someone said, "set the knaves to watching the knaves."

[KMEM]

AS-

There doesn't seem to be any thing fair about the "system" is my only point. Perhaps I should say there is nothing "superior" about the system I have always maintained that the only way to have fairness is to BE fair. Therefore to make the system superior we need superior people, if they exist in this sense.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[AdamSmith]

AS-

There doesn't seem to be any thing fair about the "system" is my only point. Perhaps I should say there is nothing "superior" about the system I have always maintained that the only way to have fairness is to BE fair. Therefore to make the system superior we need superior people, if they exist in this sense.

 

Got it. Then we differ there. I believe the old saw that our greatest treasure is our government designed by geniuses to withstand being run by idiots.

[KMEM]

Got it. Then we differ there. I believe the old saw that our greatest treasure is our government designed by geniuses to withstand being run by idiots.

 

I have no argument with your interpretation but I have to comment, if only it were so.

 

Best regards,

KMEM