NY Senate Votes Down Same Sex Marriage

[Sinsear]

Story Right Here

Gov. David Paterson pledged to keep fighting for same-sex marriage in New York after the state Senate on Wednesday killed a bill that would have legalized the practice.
The bill had Paterson's support and had passed the state Assembly. Supporters predicted a close vote going into Wednesday's Senate debate. But eight of Paterson's fellow Democrats, including two members of the Senate leadership, joined a unanimous Republican caucus on the 38-24 vote.

For most of the year it was thought that this would not make it to the floor for a vote, as the former majority leader did not want to bring it about without the votes to pass it. The only Dem to speak on the floor against the bill wants it put out to a statewide referendum ala Maine.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bigots are everywhere and they vote so many who want to get elected go with the bigot program. How odd and perhaps appropriate that the people who oppose Gays are assholes.

 

[jonks]

The only person to speak against the bill on the floor cited religion as the reason to vote no. And frankly, that's the only reason there is. But it's not a legal reason. NY already recognizes same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions so the legislature clearly doesn't see same sex marriage as against public policy, else it would not recognize those marriages. It's a quick drive to CT for most NY'ers who want to get married. Seems pretty pointless to force people to make the drive out of state.

And thank god NY doesn't have a referendum process.

 

[Rainsford]

Same-sex marriage is going to face problems as long as the people who support it are less likely to change their vote based on this issue than the people who oppose same sex marriage. It's not really about the overall number of people on each side, it's about how LOUD they are, and how big of an issue it is for them. It's really a one-way wedge issue. Voting for same sex marriage, even if you are a Democrat, is taking a BIG political risk. The groups that oppose same sex marriage are incredibly vocal, well funded, and absolutely maniacal in pushing their issue. Similar efforts on the pro-gay rights side simply don't exist, at least not on the same scale. Pissing off the pro-gay people is a lot less risky than pissing off the anti-gay people.

Of course this is slowly changing, as evidenced by increasing popular support in places like California and elsewhere. Eventually the anti-gay folks will be just as vocal as ever, but a lot fewer in number. And as gay marriage becomes more and more acceptable among the population as a whole, voting AGAINST gay marriage will have the same effect on your political career as voting against interracial marriage.

 

[Rainsford]

Same-sex marriage is going to face problems as long as the people who support it are less likely to change their vote based on this issue than the people who oppose same sex marriage. It's not really about the overall number of people on each side, it's about how LOUD they are, and how big of an issue it is for them. It's really a one-way wedge issue. Voting for same sex marriage, even if you are a Democrat, is taking a BIG political risk. The groups that oppose same sex marriage are incredibly vocal, well funded, and absolutely maniacal in pushing their issue. Similar efforts on the pro-gay rights side simply don't exist, at least not on the same scale. Pissing off the pro-gay people is a lot less risky than pissing off the anti-gay people.

Of course this is slowly changing, as evidenced by increasing popular support in places like California and elsewhere. Eventually the anti-gay folks will be just as vocal as ever, but a lot fewer in number. And as gay marriage becomes more and more acceptable among the population as a whole, voting AGAINST gay marriage will have the same effect on your political career as voting against interracial marriage.

 

[Double Trouble]

The NY senate finally got one right....

 

[werepossum]

Same-sex marriage is going to face problems as long as the people who support it are less likely to change their vote based on this issue than the people who oppose same sex marriage. It's not really about the overall number of people on each side, it's about how LOUD they are, and how big of an issue it is for them. It's really a one-way wedge issue. Voting for same sex marriage, even if you are a Democrat, is taking a BIG political risk. The groups that oppose same sex marriage are incredibly vocal, well funded, and absolutely maniacal in pushing their issue. Similar efforts on the pro-gay rights side simply don't exist, at least not on the same scale. Pissing off the pro-gay people is a lot less risky than pissing off the anti-gay people.

Of course this is slowly changing, as evidenced by increasing popular support in places like California and elsewhere. Eventually the anti-gay folks will be just as vocal as ever, but a lot fewer in number. And as gay marriage becomes more and more acceptable among the population as a whole, voting AGAINST gay marriage will have the same effect on your political career as voting against interracial marriage.

I don't know that I agree with your first point. Gay marriage advocates are everywhere, from incredibly loud and well-funded homosexual rights groups to the ACLU's near-constant back-door (no pun intended) lawsuits to practically all of the media and Hollywood. Didn't the pro groups in California outspend the antis and still lost? Politicians don't vote for it because even in far lefty states like California and New York (which has, what, two or three Republicans in its whole Congressional delegation), a clear majority even of New York Democrat state senators oppose it. Only the politicians with the most left constituencies can actually push gay marriage (which actually should include New York, looking at the numbers.)

I do agree with your second point. Younger people don't have much fear of gays or much respect for marriage as an institution. I think certainly within a generation gay marriage will be the law of the land, although probably via the courts. But either way, sooner or later voting against gay marriage will be as politically poor judgment (and therefore scarce) as voting for it is today. I just hope we don't get some sort of "separate but equal" civil union crap. Two bodies of law immediately and inexorably begin diverging, and the whining and lawsuits and political discussion will never end. And frankly I'm really, really tired about hearing about how oppressed gay people are. Let's give 'em the right to marry whomever they wish and tell them to shut the hell up already. LOL

EDIT: Revised first paragraph per Jonks' corrections and a bit of research.

 

[jonks]

I don't know that I agree with your first point. Gay marriage advocates are everywhere, from incredibly loud and well-funded homosexual rights groups to the ACLU's near-constant back-door (no pun intended) lawsuits to practically all of the media and Hollywood. Didn't the pro groups in California outspend the antis and still lost? Politicians don't vote for it because even in far lefty states like California and New York (which has, what, two or three Republicans in its whole state senate?), a clear majority even of Democrats oppose it. Only the politicians with the most left constituencies can actually push gay marriage.

I agree with your first paragraph that gay marriage advocates are just as vocal and omnipresent at this point as the anti crowd is. However the NY Senate is essentially split 50-50 Republican-Democrat. Why did you think there's only 2 or 3 republicans in the state senate? They are NY Republicans, so they probably would fail the "10 things that make you a republican" whackjob conservative litmus test for conserviousity, but they are republicans nonetheless. Just like the pro-gun/pro-life Texas democrats are still democrats.
Your misunderstanding is probably what led you to think the clear majority of NY dems oppose same-sex marriage when they actually support by the overwhelming majority. The bill passed the NY Assembly 81-55.

 

[Robor]

Bigoted religious hypocrites :thumbsdown:

 

[werepossum]

I agree with your first paragraph that gay marriage advocates are just as vocal and omnipresent at this point as the anti crowd is. However the NY Senate is essentially split 50-50 Republican-Democrat. Why did you think there's only 2 or 3 republicans in the state senate? They are NY Republicans, so they probably would fail the "10 things that make you a republican" whackjob conservative litmus test for conserviousity, but they are republicans nonetheless. Just like the pro-gun/pro-life Texas democrats are still democrats.
Your misunderstanding is probably what led you to think the clear majority of NY dems oppose same-sex marriage when they actually support by the overwhelming majority. The bill passed the NY Assembly 81-55.

My bad, it's the US Congressional delegation from New York that is almost totally Democrat (two Republican Representatives.) You're right on the second issue as well; I thought no state's voters (outside of maybe Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts) supported gay marriage, but quickly checking Quinnipiac shows New York flipped in June and now supports it narrowly, and two-thirds of New York Democrats support it.

Okay, now I have no idea why they can't pass it.

 

[Genx87]

Damn red state hicks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Specop 007]

I'm so relieved the state of New York is in such great shape that they have nothing else to worry about than marriages......

 

[fskimospy]

I'm so relieved the state of New York is in such great shape that they have nothing else to worry about than marriages......

Legislatures can consider more than one thing at the same time.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm so relieved the state of New York is in such great shape that they have nothing else to worry about than marriages......

Better than those f*cktards worrying about the NYS budget. They'd only dig that hole deeper if they started paying attention.

 

[jonks]

I'm so relieved the state of New York is in such great shape that they have nothing else to worry about than marriages......

A GOP senator was quoted as saying something similar as part of the reason he opposed the bill. Which doesn't make much sense since it was already brought to the floor. Does it take longer to say Yea than Nay? In fact, the reasoning is backwards since now that they voted nay, the proponents are going to bring it back up for a vote next year and "waste" more time on it. If they really cared about saving time they'd just vote Yea and get it over with. New York recognizes out-of-state gay marriages already, so forcing couples to drive the 2-4 hours to CT or MA just to get married is kinda, um, pointless, from a public policy standard.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

D**n red state hicks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This made me LOL.

 

[Pens1566]

So whats the reason (non-religious of course) for voting against it????


/thread

 

[jman19]

I'm so relieved the state of New York is in such great shape that they have nothing else to worry about than marriages......

You mean how like Republicans use gay marriage as a red herring during election cycles rather than debating the real ills in our society?

 

[CitizenKain]

The NY senate finally got one right....

How badly are you upset about inter-racial marriages?

 

[werepossum]

You mean how like Republicans use gay marriage as a red herring during election cycles rather than debating the real ills in our society?

So you're saying that when Democrats use the lack of gay marriage as one of those social ills they are also full of shit? 'Cause I'm betting you're one of those people who thinks the Republicans have no good points, Democrats have no bad points (other than not standing up to Republicans), and government needs to seize and redistribute more of other people's money.

 

[OCGuy]

Redneck assho.......wait....

 

[OCGuy]

How badly are you upset about inter-racial marriages?

"how badly are you upset" that blue states cant get marriage equality for all?

 

[Jaskalas]

Marriage should not be equal, thus it should not be governed by law.

 

[Rainsford]

Damn red state hicks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has been my experience that "red state hicks" aren't just limited to actual red states. And for that matter, there are plenty of people in those red states that are intelligent and fair minded. Every political map that moves beyond overly simplistic "red state/blue state" distinctions shows that virtually every place in the country is a shade of purple...some red and some blue together.

I've met plenty of Texans that support gay rights, and plenty of Californians who don't. Bigots are bigots, no matter where they live.

 

[CitizenKain]

"how badly are you upset" that blue states cant get marriage equality for all?

Pretty upset. Why wouldn't I be? Unfortunately, even blue states are full of people who vote against gay marriage, and until they finally die of old age, this will keep happening.