Comments on: New York Assembly passes gay marriage

By: drewski

drewski — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:01:38 +0000

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.

By: John Foward

John Foward — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:49:16 +0000

As a gay man I remember the Stonewall Riots back in 1969 (40 years ago) “THE FATHER OF MODERN GAY RIGHTS” – well I am only 23 years old, but I remember reading 2,000 pages of gay history from all races, religions, ages, disability, gender or gender idenity, sexual orientations, culture, jobs, color, creed, job status, marital status, family status, etc. I hope that the marriage bill passes all Houses and gets signed into law as a 40th aniversary gift to gay men and lesbians – and epecially to their children!!!!

We live in all countries of the world, we work in every profession, we contribute to society more-ways than one, we pay our fair share in taxes, we form long-term loving committed relationships and even have children (even some want the civil and legal right to marry) IT IS A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSITUTION OF AMERICA!!!

By: tjr

tjr — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:12:21 +0000

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.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:45:47 +0000

Well its about time New York step on the plate pass gay-marriage bill and hopefully the governor of New York will sign it to law.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:40:05 +0000

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.

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:08 +0000

Robert, as I said in a previous post, marriage equality legislation can only happen with the help of a few republicans in the state senate. I don’t see it happening so soon, but probably a lot later and hopefully before 2012. Otherwise, I’m not voting for Obama again.

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:37:46 +0000

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.

By: drewski

drewski — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:06:31 +0000

Randy, it’s the same point Lani Guinier made back in the Clinton days. She was politically crucified for it.

Canada’s ridings don’t come close to matching population, and they’re not automatically adjusted with the census (which is every 5 years in Canada). In theory, the Golden Horseshoe (Toronto) should have roughly as many seats in Parliament as all of Quebec, since populations are comparable, but this is not the case. If the ridings are of varying sizes (same happens in UK), then it’s all but impossible for popular vote to be truly reflected in legislature. Canada has a Conservative government which won less than 40% of the vote because the rest of the vote went to four parties that are center-left or left (Liberals, PQ [Quebec only], Greens and NDP).

Israel (like Italy) has elaborate accomodations built in for small parties. That’s why the right-wing Benyamin Netanyahu is back as PM, and why this government will almost surely fall within two years. Israel and Italy are both marked by constant government turnover, and the recent outcomes (Berlusconi back in office in Italy) make Bush’s “election” wins look almost legitimate.

In New York, this battle is helping to push a showdown within the party. Are the Dems going to allow bigots to use their religion as justification to enforce discrimination against others? Whether it’s religiously aggressive Jews in Brooklyn and Rockland County, or churchy blacks and latinos in Brooklyn and Queens, or wingnut Catholics from Long Island or the wilds of Upstate, does the state Democratic organization have the balls to lay down the law and say that equality is for everybody? They’re scared of the demagogues in their own ranks more than they’re scared of the voters. If all it takes is a few voices to change the system, we need to start playing their game and turn it against them.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:43:09 +0000

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.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:03:30 +0000

The marriage equality bill deserves a vote before the Senate.

The people of New York deserve to know where their so called leaders stand on this issue. The Senators need to stop being permitted to “not be accountable” by not acting.

At least if it is defeated, we know who needs to voted out and can direct our efforts accordingly.