One Step Closer To Marriage Equality In New York? Doubtful
>
Neutrality or cowardice puts you in bed with the bigots and haters
Last night the New York State Assembly passed a same-sex marriage bill. It's sort of a mixed bag. The good news is that it passed by a wider margin this year than it did last time (2007)-- 89-52 as opposed to 85-61. The bad news is that it doesn't matter much because, although 5 Assembly Republicans went along for the ride, there isn't one single Senate Republican who will-- and a Senate Republican is what's needed in light of the fact that there is a viciously homophobic sociopath, a Democrat, Rev. Ruben Diaz, who is determined to kill it.
Despite intense pressure from New York's Conservative Party-- they're threatening to strip their endorsement from any Republican who votes for equality-- "two Republicans spoke on Tuesday about why they dropped their opposition to granting same-sex couples the right to marry. Three Democrats who voted no in 2007 switched their votes to yes."
“There’s that little voice inside of you that tells you when you’ve done something right, and when you’ve done something wrong,” said Fred W. Thiele Jr., a Republican who represents the Hamptons. “That vote just never felt right to me. That little voice kept gnawing away at me.”
Mr. Thiele’s district overlaps with the Senate district of Kenneth P. LaValle, whom gay rights advocates consider to be among the half-dozen or so Republicans open to a yes vote.
Assemblywoman Janet L. Duprey said a lesbian couple who live on her street helped change her mind.
“They are asking only for equal protection under the law,” said Ms. Duprey, a Republican whose district along the Canadian border in the North Country overlaps with the Senate district of Elizabeth Little, another Republican who gay rights supporters believe is within reach.
“They deserve no less than to have the same rights and ability to share their love,” Ms. Duprey added.
Bob Reilly, a Democratic assemblyman whose district includes parts of Saratoga and Albany Counties, apologized to colleagues for voting no in 2007 before voting yes on Tuesday.
Opponents of the bill condemned same-sex marriage as a moral outrage and an affront to religious institutions in New York. Some, like James N. Tedisco, a Republican whose district includes Schenectady and Saratoga Springs, drew comparisons to polygamy.
“I think you can see the kind of slippery slope we’re going down here,” he said. “What I see here is individuals trying to change the definition of a longstanding institution called marriage to fit into their agenda.”
You can see why Tedisco was defeated in his bid for a congressional seat in a district with 70,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. He was also stripped of his party leadership position by a GOP wondering if it isn't time to move a little closer to the mainstream.
Monday the NY Times ran an interesting feature on Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, the bill's chief sponsor (and the brother of Rosie O'Donnell. It talks a lot about the strategy for passing the bill, but from a very personal angle. I wonder if Obama realizes there's a great deal on animosity starting to build up against him in the gay community-- fueled today by Donald Trump and Carrie Prejean comparing her bigotry and homophobia to his stand-offish/your're-on-your-own position.
Labels: New York, Ruben Diaz Sr., same-sex marriage
3 Comments:
Talk about bigots. Gays have always been bigots in the worst way. They don't want free and open discussion, they dont't care about normal behavior or existing laws or constitutional rights just getting their way of life legitmized and forcing everyone to accept their choices as normal. Sorry, most people don't want to give the gay special acknowledgement.
Normally I take down comments from morons and bigots in order to discourage them from coming back on the site and wasting people's time. But we'll leave your comment up so normal DWT readers have something to laugh about today. By the way, can you expound a little on how the Jews tormented the German volk before WWII?
The desire for equal treatment under the law can hardly be called bigotry. But no, I will never acknowledge the argument for denying equal rights of “just because”, or “God said so”, or “that’s the way it’s always been” as valid arguments. You’re going to have to try harder. Did you also oppose race based civil rights 40 years ago for the same reasons? Because many people did. It’s just not right, and people are starting to realize that. It's not the first time I've been called a bigot for this argument though. Actually, the first time I was called a bigot was when I told an old high school acquaintance that his opposition to same sex marriage under the law was wrong, and ultimately didn’t matter because the tide is turning and the majority of people will very soon demand these equal rights, regardless of if those people are gay or straight. I don’t require “special” acknowledgement, just equal protection under the law of the Constitution of the United States of America. Further, anonymous, I don’t see what business it is of yours. If you want to keep your head in the sand, by all means, do that. But to say that I have no hospital visitation rights for the man I’ve monogamously spent the last 15 years with is offensive. To say that if one of us should die, the other has no rights to the estate on the same level as a married couple. To say that if one of us were to die, the survivor would have no legal rights to plan and hold a funeral for the person that means the world to him, that is beyond reprehensible.
Post a Comment
<< Home