Comments on: Meanwhile in the Empire State . . .

By: GayPatriot » New Hampshire Recognizes Gay Marriage the Right Way

GayPatriot » New Hampshire Recognizes Gay Marriage the Right Way — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:39:49 +0000

[...] marriages, thinking that I might have something profound and original to say, but (in past posts on legislative recognition of gay marriage), I’ve pretty much said everything I have to say about [...]

By: The Livewire

The Livewire — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:21:27 +0000

#10, if by answer you mean ‘ignore’ then we agree.

I don’t have data on the NY vote, but it sounds like a good thing. unfortunately one war or another it doesn’t resolve the FFaC issues.

In the end, even if states to allow gay marriage, civil unions, or my pet name for ‘em ‘fred’ It’s going to be a federal issue.

By: sean

sean — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:48:49 +0000

“And it should not be made by a handful of judges who do not answer to the citizens.”

They answer to something called the Constitution…and that is why they do not answer to the citizens directly.

By: Cecil

Cecil — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:44:12 +0000

Praise to the NY Assembly for their vote. The passage was assured by the Democratic Party control of the body. But what now? A Republican Party Senate will not even allow a vote on the bill in the Senate. I am a conservative and a Republican, but frankly, sometimes the Democratic Party shines while the Republican Party stinks!

By: John

John — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:11:42 +0000

John, let me give you this much: The gesture would have been as equally maudlin and narcissistic, coming from a hetero couple,

Well, I can understand why in this case but it’s such a small thing that it truly doesn’t bother me.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:12:20 +0000

John, let me give you this much: The gesture would have been as equally maudlin and narcissistic, coming from a hetero couple

By: John

John — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:36:05 +0000

Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned TACT?

It does give the appearance of being drama queenish given the timing, but it’s not like such proposals haven’t happened or been announced in Congress before. In fact I recall 2 then-freshmen GOP Representatives who married back in the mid-1990s and their engagement was feted in speeches in Congress. It’s quite possible that this proposal in the NY Assembly was the idea of an excited partner happy to be able to propose getting legally married. I have a big cynical streak but that’s tempered at times with a wee touch of romance so I don’t have a problem giving this one a pass.

By: John

John — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:31:36 +0000

I hope the New York legislature’s move isn’t cynical. I hope they voted for gay marriage because they really want it.

If you are waiting for politicians to do something based on virtue and conviction, I suggest you don’t hold your breath in the meantime. Such is a noble ideal and there are of course some who do, but I suspect they are a tiny minority in both parties. No, it’s all about politics, power, special interests and money regardless of the issue. I really do not care what the personal reasons were of NY Assemblymen who voted for this bill, their action speaks far louder to me.

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:21:16 +0000

#2 – ILC, on the Drama Queen Scale of 1-10, it’s a 12. Clearly it is more important for him to be a gay legislator than to be a legislator for his constituency.

Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned TACT?

Regards,
Peter H.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:39:02 +0000

The problem when the CA legislature voted for gay marriage was that they did it as a wholly cynical fundraising ploy for the Democrats. The legislators did it knowing full well that their vote didn’t count, because there was no way gay marriage could happen in CA at that time, because (1) Prop 22 trumped them, and (2) Gov. Schwarzenegger had to veto their bill, knowing Prop 22 trumped them. A crucial margin of Democratic legislators were on record as being gay marriage opponents, who switched their vote only after being reassured it meant nothing.

I hope the New York legislature’s move isn’t cynical. I hope they voted for gay marriage because they really want it.

From the article – this struck me as rather drama queen-ish:

As the voting ended, openly gay Staten Island Democrat Matthew Titone rose with his cell phone in his hand. “I have my partner here on the phone and he just asked me to marry him,” Titone, only elected in March, told the chamber. “My answer, Madam Speaker, is yes,” said Titone to a round of applause.

To be clear: I wish Titone and his partner the very best. As part of that, I hope a great deal more holds them together, than political theatricality.

By: Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Meanwhile in the Empire State . . .

Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Meanwhile in the Empire State . . . — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:50:47 +0000

[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]

By: John

John — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:03:12 +0000

If what the papers say is accurate, it doesn’t appear this will get through the NY Senate unfortunately. Yet this is a step forward. As I’ve said before, I would prefer same-sex marriage be enacted through the legislature to avoid mini “culture wars” like we’ve seen on the national stage, but I’m not going to complain too loudly when it happens as it did in Massachusetts.