Poll: NYers back same-sex marriage

[JulesMaximus]

Text

ALBANY - More than half of state residents want the legislature to legalize gay marriage with support strongest among young people, women, Democrats and independents, according to a poll released Monday.

Fifty-three percent of voters surveyed by the Siena Research Institute said the State Senate should adopt legislation recognizing same-sex marriage. The Senate has been the stumbling block to passage while the Assembly passed a bill in 2007.

Thirty-nine percent were opposed to gay marriage including a majority of Republicans, men, older voters, blacks and Hispanics. Eight percent didn't express an opinion.

On Long Island and the other New York City suburbs, support for unions between two men or two women split 51 percent in favor and 42 opposed.

"By a fairly significant margin, voters would like to see New York join with Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa and other states in allowing same sex couples marry," said pollster Steven Greenberg.

Asked about the poll numbers, Paterson said, "We didn't put out the bill because of what the polls would say. We put the bill out because there are 1,324 protections that people who are married receive ... We see it as an equality issue," he said in Cortland.

Paterson last week unveiled a legalization bill that mirrors the one introduced by then- Gov. Eliot Spitzer in 2007. However, four Democratic senators have stated their opposition and the 30-member Republican conference remains opposed. For the bill to pass the 62-member Senate, it must garner 32 affirmative votes.

The Siena poll also showed another decline in Gov. David A. Paterson's popularity. He was viewed favorably by 27 percent of voters and unfavorably by 63 percent. That's down from last month's 29 to 58 percent.

Asked who among the last four occupants of the Executive Mansion should be running the state, voters narrowly picked Democrat Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki, 39 percent to 33 percent. Paterson was backed by 8 percent and Democrat Eliot Spitzer by 14 percent.

Paterson also was trounced by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in a hypothetical 2010 primary, 11 percent to 64 percent.

In a general election match up, Cuomo defeats former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, 53 percent to 39 percent.

The poll of 682 registered voters, conducted April 13-15, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Good for New York! I'm glad to see some people in this country have some common sense.

 

[trooper11]

if the people of that state want it, then they should have a vote and put it into law. that is how it should go for every state.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: trooper11
if the people of that state want it, then they should have a vote and put it into law. that is how it should go for every state.

No, it should be allowed unless a law is put into place to ban it. And a law being put in place to ban it shouldn't be allowed because restriction of our rights should only occur when you can show valid harm from allowing people to exercise those rights.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: trooper11
if the people of that state want it, then they should have a vote and put it into law. that is how it should go for every state.

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

ok....then this article has no meaning and there is no need to poll anyone on it.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: trooper11
if the people of that state want it, then they should have a vote and put it into law. that is how it should go for every state.

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

Well, maybe we need to rewrite the equal protection clause.

Hey, I don't care what anyone else thinks, I believe that those who bear the burden of child-raising should be entitled to a few fringe benefits.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

Well, maybe we need to rewrite the equal protection clause.

Hey, I don't care what anyone else thinks, I believe that those who bear the burden of child-raising should be entitled to a few fringe benefits.

Yeah, we should rewrite the 14th amendment to add in 'except for those fags, screw them!'.

Gay people can raise children the same as straight people. People already receive fringe benefits for raising children in the form of dependent tax credits, etc.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: trooper11
if the people of that state want it, then they should have a vote and put it into law. that is how it should go for every state.

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

Well, maybe we need to rewrite the equal protection clause.

Hey, I don't care what anyone else thinks, I believe that those who bear the burden of child-raising should be entitled to a few fringe benefits.

Gay couples can raise children too. The benefits of marriage are hardly "fringe."

Then again, maybe marriage shouldn't be the governments business in the first place.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: Carmen813


Then again, maybe marriage shouldn't be the governments business in the first place.

The best point made thus far. I really doubt the founders wanted the government to be at the center of this debate.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Gay couples can raise children too. The benefits of marriage are hardly "fringe."

I think the point he was making was about goign through the trouble of actually having a child, but your right about the benefits.

 

[ericlp]

I think we should let Miss NY decide ... you know that's about as good as letting the people decide. Might as well just flip a frigen coin.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I think we should let Miss NY decide ... you know that's about as good as letting the people decide. Might as well just flip a frigen coin.

Well, it doesnt necessarily mean anything. I mean, look at California.

 

[RapidSnail]

A serious question: Why is it incorrect to believe that child raising should remain with those biologically capable of having those children?

I'm not going to vote against gay marriage, but what is the outrage against the protection of traditional child-raising? I don't care about legal, sexual/emotional unions, but I've always wondered if there was good reason why nature made it possible for only a man and woman to have a baby. One would think that there's more to raising a child than love, although that is extremely important. Aren't there also physical, psychological, and emotional necessities that can only be met by a mother (female) and father (male)?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: trooper11
if the people of that state want it, then they should have a vote and put it into law. that is how it should go for every state.

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

Well, maybe we need to rewrite the equal protection clause.

Hey, I don't care what anyone else thinks, I believe that those who bear the burden of child-raising should be entitled to a few fringe benefits.

So by your 'logic' guys who shoot blanks and barren women should be excluded. Brilliant.

As has already been pointed out same sex couples can raise children.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
A serious question: Why is it incorrect to believe that child raising should remain with those biologically capable of having those children?

I'm not going to vote against gay marriage, but what is the outrage against the protection of traditional child-raising? I don't care about legal, sexual/emotional unions, but I've always wondered if there was good reason why nature made it possible for only a man and woman to have a baby. One would think that there's more to raising a child than love, although that is extremely important. Aren't there also physical, psychological, and emotional necessities that can only be met by a mother (female) and father (male)?

1. "the protection of traditional child-raising" as you define it probably has nothing to do with protecting traditional families. I have never understood and will never understand why banning gay marriage/adoption is considered "protecting the family." How does allowing such things attack "traditional" families?

2. Nature also made it possible for women to bear children in their early to mid teens, while men are able to continue impregnating women most of their lives. Should we bring back 30+ year old men being given child wives?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Rather than starting a new thread:

Link



According to this article, NH is also moving forwards. That will leave only Rhode Island standing alone in the New England area.


This is progress - Yes, it is coming from the liberal ares or the country, but it should also provide momentum for CA to open its eyes.

Progress can then squeeze in from both coasts to get rid of the bigots.

 

[fskimospy]

Now gay marriage appears to be on the path to legalization in both Maine and New Hampshire as well, having passed both houses in NH, and the senate in Maine (with the senate being viewed as the tougher sell in Maine). There's no indication on if NH's governor will veto the legislation yet, but either way it would appear that the gaypocalypse that so many people feared is fast approaching!

I imagine we are only a few years away from mandatory gay marriage for all.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Rather than starting a new thread:

Link



According to this article, NH is also moving forwards. That will leave only Rhode Island standing alone in the New England area.


This is progress - Yes, it is coming from the liberal ares or the country, but it should also provide momentum for CA to open its eyes.

Progress can then squeeze in from both coasts to get rid of the bigots.

And Iowa.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: trooper11
if the people of that state want it, then they should have a vote and put it into law. that is how it should go for every state.

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

I support gay marriage, but I fail to find a one-line legal argument interpreting the 14th Amendment to be all that compelling, even if you did resort to italics. Try harder next time.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

Well, maybe we need to rewrite the equal protection clause.

Hey, I don't care what anyone else thinks, I believe that those who bear the burden of child-raising should be entitled to a few fringe benefits.

Yeah, we should rewrite the 14th amendment to add in 'except for those fags, screw them!'.

Gay people can raise children the same as straight people. People already receive fringe benefits for raising children in the form of dependent tax credits, etc.

Read cubby's post a little broader, and it offers no real argument against gay marriage. It's quite possible to grant people raising children 'a few fringe benefits', and still allow gays to marry.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
A serious question: Why is it incorrect to believe that child raising should remain with those biologically capable of having those children?

I'm not going to vote against gay marriage, but what is the outrage against the protection of traditional child-raising? I don't care about legal, sexual/emotional unions, but I've always wondered if there was good reason why nature made it possible for only a man and woman to have a baby. One would think that there's more to raising a child than love, although that is extremely important. Aren't there also physical, psychological, and emotional necessities that can only be met by a mother (female) and father (male)?

1. "the protection of traditional child-raising" as you define it probably has nothing to do with protecting traditional families. I have never understood and will never understand why banning gay marriage/adoption is considered "protecting the family." How does allowing such things attack "traditional" families?

Legalized divorce has done far more damage to 'traditional' families than gay marriage ever will, but I don't know of any significant group calling for repeal of that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Rather than starting a new thread:

Link



According to this article, NH is also moving forwards. That will leave only Rhode Island standing alone in the New England area.


This is progress - Yes, it is coming from the liberal ares or the country, but it should also provide momentum for CA to open its eyes.

Progress can then squeeze in from both coasts to get rid of the bigots.

And Iowa.

I do not know to which states it may be able to spread out from Iowa. MN or IL. MO is questionable in the near term.

If CA falls back into line, I can see OR and WA starting to rethink.
I could envision from NY heading south to NJ & DE

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no, it is allowed under equal protection.

Well, maybe we need to rewrite the equal protection clause.

Hey, I don't care what anyone else thinks, I believe that those who bear the burden of child-raising should be entitled to a few fringe benefits.

Yeah, we should rewrite the 14th amendment to add in 'except for those fags, screw them!'.

Gay people can raise children the same as straight people. People already receive fringe benefits for raising children in the form of dependent tax credits, etc.

Read cubby's post a little broader, and it offers no real argument against gay marriage. It's quite possible to grant people raising children 'a few fringe benefits', and still allow gays to marry.

I agree, in fact if gay marriage were legalized tomorrow our current laws would already do that through various child tax credits, etc. Cubby certainly meant it to be against gay marriage however or I sincerely doubt he would be calling for the retooling of the 14th amendment.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the survivability of bigotry depends on an acceptability of that bigotry in the culture one identifies with, and the range of ones cultural identification often grows as young people mature and acquire more exposure to the wider world and cultural trends out there.

It is easy to be a bigot when your family and its circle of acquaintances are bigots, but as one reached high school and college age and travels or develops outside cultural identities, one may reject traditional bigotries an uncool or backward, exposing one to shock or even insult that one displays such 'backward' traits. One has a chance, at that point, to question and decide how one is going to conduct ones life, as a modern growing wider culture player, or an insular old fashioned bigot. The course of action may depend on just how much one feels oneself and enjoys the feeling of being an idiot. If one has been deeply programmed to enjoy being a member of a clique of assholes, one may stay in the fold, but it is quite common, I think, at this point for the more awakened and inwardly independent to evolve.

 

[Sinsear]

It's not going to pass here in NY right now because they don't have enough votes in the state legislature to get it passed.