Wait and see how the vote plays out. Wait and see who comes up with what justification for bigotry–and there’s no debate, this is bigotry. Let’s see who’s predictable, who’s surprising, and how much work we have to do. Coming to a vote will be progress.

Speaking of which…does anybody wonder if maybe the real reason Malcolm Smith didn’t/doesn’t want a vote on this is because it’s easier to get gays to vote Democratic when the vote keeps not happening? Oh, that’s those bad Republicans–vote for us and we’ll support you. We see that the Senate Speaker is just as prepared to shut us out as was his GOP predecessor. Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, then yanking it away? Lucy is the Dems, Charlie Brown is gays.

Watch for the religious excuses. Watch for my-oppression-is-worse-than-your-oppression. Watch for obfuscation and double-talk. And as you’re doing this, take names. Go back and read up on these people. Get a good look at them, because chances are good that you can find some sort of scandal around them. Or as a woman once said of the first child to inquire on the source of a fart: A skunk smells its own hole.

The governor of NY will sign it into law, the bigger question is if it will get to his desk. The Senate in NY has quite a history of killing progressive legislation.

The best time for this to pass is now despite the lack of votes. It will not be taken up in 2010 an election year and gay-friendly Governor Paterson’s poll numbers are tanking so he is unlikely to be re-elected. This means Rudy Giuliani could be the next governor if he decides to run and there is no way he will sign a same-sex marriage bill.

I’m glad that this bill is being voted on. Talking about equality and giving it the attention it deserves can only be a good thing. It’s important to know what side people are on, and why. I’m keeping my hopes up for the Senate. I believe it’s possible.

Drewski, I fully agree with you. The Dems don’t have the balls or courage to take on the conservatives within its ranks. The problem with the NY marriage equality bill is that it needs a small number of republicans to see its passage. I doubt if that will happen. Few dems are brave enough to go against the religious bigots because if they do, then they’re accused of bashing and disrespecting religion just like when we bash them in retaliation for all the lies and hate they spread about us to deny us full equality. Religious constituent votes are more important to Dems than our rights. They always have been. The two party system really doesn’t work that well. We definitely need a strong third, maybe a more powerful Green party for instance to make a difference, perhaps make it fairer and work better for everyone. Aside from one or two things, I don’t see much difference between centrist democrats and pseudo moderate republicans if there is such a thing in their party. Its the same old crap every four years. So far, I’ve not seen much change happening even though its 127 days into this administration, change that was part of the campaign Obama led. Take the health care reform as an example. Under this reform, not everyone is going to be covered, mostly affecting the 46 million American who have no coverage. Some of those won’t be covered. So the notion that this will be universal health care is absurd, it won’t be if everyone isn’t covered and no single payer system in place. I am a Green who voted for Obama in November 2008 just to get rid of the previous regime. I’m very disappointed to see this same man renegging on his health care reform under a single payer system aside from his opposition to same-sex marriage.

The first-past-the-post voting system where the person with the highest vote automatically wins, sometimes without even getting a majority of the votes, tends to support the two-party result in the US (four parties in Canada). This means that party affiliation doesn’t really mean much. So you get moderate Republicans like Specter was, and conservative Democrats like Diaz in New York. Much of the democractic world uses fairer systems like single-transferable-vote or mixed-member-proportional (no, not a set of sex toys). When smaller parties have a realistic chance of democratically electing people, that frees candidates (and voters) to speak and vote their conscience more often, and enfranchises more of the electorate, because they know their votes aren’t worthless just because someone else is “supposed to win”. The US’s biggest long-term problem isn’t economic or environmental. It’s enfranchisement. The Republicrats and Democans have a lock on power, are largely interchangeable, and there isn’t anything you can do about it. What percentage of conservatives liked W? What percentage of liberals liked Clinton? Or did they all just hate the other guy more? Are your interests really being represented? W gave the conservatives foreign nation-building and a then-monstrous deficit. Clinton gave the liberals DOMA and the end of welfare. Something’s broken.

Marriage Equality in New York will be here sooner or later. Democrats now control the upper chamber for the first time probably since Lincoln’s day, and in 2010 I fully expect the Republicans to be redistricted into oblivion.

There are many of us who are against Malcom Smith introducing it on the senate floor this year because of the lack of votes to pass it. Gov. Paterson thinks it should be decided this year. I for one take Paterson’s side. Even if it fails, then we’ll know who we have to go after when election time rolls around. Apparently there are 8 votes not 5 that are needed to get it through the senate including republicans. The reality is, its not going to be easy in New York State. Our opponents are already mobilizing including the newly installed Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan.