Oh my: Gay marriage voted down in … New York; Update: 51% of NYers support gay marriage

posted at 4:41 pm on December 2, 2009 by Allahpundit

Not the way I would have voted, but that’s democracy for you. Good enough for Barack Obama, good enough for New York!

The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure…

In a debate that in many instances was cast in unusually personal tones, many senators delivered emotional speeches on the floor of the chamber, equating the struggle for gay rights to the civil rights movement or the battle women have waged for equality…

But State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said…

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

That boldfaced part is key. In California, legislators voted yes knowing that constituents who disagreed with them could register their displeasure in a referendum. [Update: Wrong. See below.] In New York, the only outlet for displeasure is to throw the bums out, which made the pressure on the senate more intense. As for why the final tally wasn’t close, I assume the same thing happened here as happened when the amnesty bill went down in flames two years ago: Once the voting started and it became clear that the numbers weren’t there, fencesitters started peeling off. It’s fascinating to think that even in NYS, there’d be eight Democratic state senators who think a no vote is safer for them than a yes. Good luck with fundraising next year, kids.

New York doesn’t even have civil unions, so expect that to be the next step to try to make amends. (Either that or a movement to, um, ban divorce.) The real significance of this, I think, is that with each new blue or bluish state that defeats a marriage initiative, it becomes marginally harder for the Supreme Court to do what I think it’ll probably do and agree with Ted Olson that straights-only marriage laws are a violation of equal protection. Kennedy is the swing vote, of course, and Kennedy has been sympathetic to federalist concerns in the past — albeit not when it comes to gays. But if even New York and California are unwilling to join the liberal consensus, maybe he’ll think twice. Or maybe it’ll have the opposite effect and encourage him to strike out in a “brave new consensus-forging direction” or whatever himself. You never know with Tony K!

Update: Like I said, good luck with fundraising next year:

According to a Marist College survey released Wednesday, 51 percent of people questioned said they favor legalizing gay marriage, with 42 percent opposed.

The poll’s release came just hours before the state Senate rejected the legislation, which had already passed the state Assembly. New York Gov. David Paterson said he would have immediately signed the bill if it had made it to his office…

The Marist survey indicates a partisan divide on the issue, with two-thirds of Democrats supporting gay marriage and a nearly equal amount of Republicans opposed. According to the poll there’s a geographic split as well, with 6 in 10 New York City voters supporting legalized same sex marriages, while voters in the suburbs and upstate are divided.

Even in NYC, it’s only 60/40? Manhattan broke 80/20 for Kerry in 2004, as I recall. Ah well. To comfort disappointed gay-marriage supporters, here’s the closet-emergence o’ the day from this morning’s Today show. What would Alex P. Keaton think?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: Ah, a silly error on my part up top. California’s legislature never voted to legalize gay marriage; it was the state supreme court that did it. The basic point about relative pressure on the two states’ legislatures stands, but sorry for the mistake.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

i have an urge to drive my truck through the front doors of the white house and get out of the truck and smack michelle obama’s ugly face, but i resist that urge because i love my freedom. i don’t resist my urge for other men because it is natural to me to be attracted to the male form. it is natural for me to want to “nest” with another man. it is natural for me to want to “cuddle” with another man.

when any of you who disagree with that start paying my bills, my taxes, feed me, and f-ck me, then i will gladly start dating women.

thank you!

Ghoul aid on December 3, 2009 at 10:35 AM

I doubt that 51% of New Yorkers actually support gay marriage. I suggest a considerable percentage of people answered that survey in a way that wouldn’t get them branded as “homophobes” by towering intellects like AP and Barney Frank.

SKYFOX on December 3, 2009 at 10:35 AM


“Your honor, it’s just too darn hard not to steal cars.”Akzed on December 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM


A rather unscrupulous comparison
blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I don’t see why, and you haven’t explained why, this is “unscrupulous.” We’re talking about suppressing urges. What’s wrong with comparing urges?

Akzed on December 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Akzed on December 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Re: MadCon’s response.

blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:40 AM

The only sin is that you chose PROM NIGHT.

blatantblue on December 3, 2009 at 10:34 AM

It’s just… *shudders* no words. blah.

Diane on December 3, 2009 at 10:41 AM

I don’t see why, and you haven’t explained why, this is “unscrupulous.” We’re talking about suppressing urges. What’s wrong with comparing urges?

Akzed on December 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM

I explained why. Stealing cars is illegal. Homosexuality isn’t.

MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:41 AM

The fact that Tiger had to release a statement and face scrutiny and condemnation (including self-condemnation) testifies to the fact that there is still an ideal in the heterosexual community… even in the immoral world of entertainment… that is not evident in the gay community.

mankai on December 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM

A couple of differences:
1.) Tiger might lose some advertisers and his apology is primarily an attempt to hold on to them. However, those advertisers are already unavailable to any gay celebrity, regardless of affairs or apologies.
2.) Gay families are a recent occurrence. Affairs are a bigger deal when they disrupt family stability.

I agree with your overall point that there are different attitudes toward monogamy, but there are some cultural reasons built into it.

dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Polls showed more than 51% of Mainers thought the definition of marriage should include a same sex union. How did that work out at the polls?

Rocks on December 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM

So this is you?

MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Last time I checked, I was not a male teen athlete. ha!

Diane on December 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Last time I checked, I was not a male teen athlete. ha!

Diane on December 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM

I know you. You can admit your addiction to looking at fully clothed women. Yes, in the movie, that’s his “porn”.

MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM

dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM

OK, let me phrase it a little differently. YES…civil unions do not cover all the issues. FIX THAT, its easier than changing the definition of marriage, and if all the gay community is really after is the same benifits of marriage that is much easier than a definition change which has been ruled on already at the federal level.

Koa on December 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

because it is natural to me to be attracted to the male form. it is natural for me to want to “nest” with another man. it is natural for me to want to “cuddle” with another man.

I am certain you believe that. Guess what? Nobody is suggesting keeping you from doing those things. ‘Gay marriage’ which doesn’t even exist is ‘Affirmative Action’ (special rights given to people who complain enough to the right newspapers).

ThackerAgency on December 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I know you. You can admit your addiction to looking at fully clothed women. Yes, in the movie, that’s his “porn”.

MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM

…ohhhhhhhh…It’s all becoming clear to me now.
Long morning.

Diane on December 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

LevStrauss on December 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM

For the millionth time, we understand that you’re very angry at this God that you claim does not exist, and by extension of anyone who does believe. For some reason.

Because you believe in … liberty? I guess?

Why I’m not sure, because as an Atheist you’ve got no reason to believe in any kind of transcendent moral good beyond that which is convenient or personally advantageous to you and no way to support the idea that YOUR MORAL UNDERSTANDING should control that of anyone else.

I swear, if there are plenty of know-nothing Christians then you’re the exemplar of the know-nothing Atheist. You can’t even bring yourself to deal with the existential crisis your own philosophers discuss or come to grips with the logical consequences of your belief system. All you do is glom on to whatever pop-morality fad happens to be in vogue today so that you can pretend to believe in something larger than yourself.

If you disdain Christian “fairy stories” you can’t even imagine the scorn I heap on fools who can’t be bothered to consider the implications of what they believe and live true to their own ideals. EPIC FAIL.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Ghoul aid on December 3, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Rock on Brother!

inevitable on December 3, 2009 at 11:40 AM

OK, let me phrase it a little differently. YES…civil unions do not cover all the issues. FIX THAT, its easier than changing the definition of marriage, and if all the gay community is really after is the same benifits of marriage that is much easier than a definition change which has been ruled on already at the federal level.

Koa on December 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

I agree with you that having states pass civil unions and having DC recognize them for the same tax and legal treatment as marriages is what makes the most sense.

There is likely a majority in the country that would support this approach. However, on both sides the battle seems to breakdown to a fight over whether cultural and religious institutions should be forced to view gay behavior as acceptable.

dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM

You can’t even bring yourself to deal with the existential crisis your own philosophers discuss or come to grips with the logical consequences of your belief system. All you do is glom on to whatever pop-morality fad happens to be in vogue today so that you can pretend to believe in something larger than yourself.

If you disdain Christian “fairy stories” you can’t even imagine the scorn I heap on fools who can’t be bothered to consider the implications of what they believe and live true to their own ideals. EPIC FAIL.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM

GEEKY HAWT. :)

Diane on December 3, 2009 at 11:48 AM

dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM

And there we agree. Now the other issue, culteral and religious acceptance or not. The gay community is making a mistake in trying to force acceptance and change an institution as old as man itself. …….and this is an aside, it puzzles me and makes me question wether the destruction of the institution of marraige is the goal, or simply the equal tax, insurance etc benifits are the goal.

Koa on December 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM

The Swiss have eyes, ears and a functioning brain. They acted before it was too late – as in Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.

markinvegas on December 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM

. i don’t resist my urge for other men because it is natural to me to be attracted to the male form. it is natural for me to want to “nest” with another man. it is natural for me to want to “cuddle” with another man.

when any of you who disagree with that start paying my bills, my taxes, feed me, and f-ck me, then i will gladly start dating women.

thank you!

Ghoul aid on December 3, 2009 at 10:35 AM

What does that have to do with marriage? No one is stopping you from doing that, and in these times no one cares. So what are you complaining about?

And…no you wouldn’t.

Itchee Dryback on December 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM

You have stats. Neat. I love statistics…

Diane on December 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM

I love ‘em too. There are additional polls, which have similar results, which you can search, at your leisure.

When the respondents of the two polls I shared were asked, which religion they practiced, they responded “Christian”. There ’tis.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Questions-Answers-About-Americans-Religion.aspx

http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/320

Please do not speak for this Christian.

sinsing on December 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM

I didn’t know people like this existed, even among conservatives.

Bruce NV on December 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Simple example: Couple owns a home and small business and has two kids. The house is paid for and owned jointly by the spouses. One partner dies.

For the straight couple the surviving spouse inherits the entire house and then tries to figure out how to raise the kids as a single parent.

For a gay couple the surviving spouse inherits the house, plus gets a tax bill for as much as 55%. Don’t have the cash? OK, sell the house in addition to figuring out how to raise the kids alone.

dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM

That is a problem with the tax code in general, not something truly specific to marriage. The same would happen to anyone who jointly owns something with someone. The solution is to clean out the tax code.

Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM

sinsing on December 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Um. So…did you assume that reading the statistics would negate my point? I’m saying I STUDY THEM. And I also know that adding those diverse groups together and assuming any/all of them share even a close worldview is naive. Not all who claim, LORD, LORD are of Him. There are plenty of people (*cough* clearly…) who think even the littlest thing makes one Christian, such as merely being born American. Again, read what I wrote. Check the culture against the scripture. Square that for me.

Diane on December 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM

That is a problem with the tax code in general, not something truly specific to marriage. The same would happen to anyone who jointly owns something with someone. The solution is to clean out the tax code.

Count to 10 on December 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM

There is a big difference between business partners and a couple that is operating a household together. When a couple pools its interest to own a house and a retirement nest egg it makes sense for the IRS to wait for both spouses to die before taxing.

I support changing the tax law, but it should be equal either way.

dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 3:35 PM

it puzzles me and makes me question wether the destruction of the institution of marraige is the goal, or simply the equal tax, insurance etc benifits are the goal.

Koa on December 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM

The government should operate like a utility, providing widely-needed services as cheaply as possible. The problem with the gay marriage question, is that gay groups want a government “seal of approval” while opponents want the government to endorse traditional values.

It would be better if the government wasn’t viewed as an authority on issues that should be decided by families and churches.

dedalus on December 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM

If you disdain Christian “fairy stories” you can’t even imagine the scorn I heap on fools who can’t be bothered to consider the implications of what they believe and live true to their own ideals. EPIC FAIL.

TheUnrepentantGeek


Give this Geek his own HA column!

leftnomore on December 3, 2009 at 4:31 PM

They don’t.
Only homosexual activists are behind forcing everyone to accept it and institutionalize it.

Jenfidel on December 3, 2009 at 7:14 AM

Now I can’t speak for the homosexual activists you speak of, but myself and most (if not all) of my gay friends could careless if you accept gay marriage or not. Or even us being gay for that matter. No one is forcing you to take part in a gay marriage or forcing you to be gay. It’s really quite simple, if you don’t like it, don’t take part in it.

Be gay, “love” who or what you want, be a member of NAMBLA, but keep it private please – civil unions are cool but no thanks to “marrying” multi-wives/husbands, sheep, little boys, etc. The creepy scenarious boggle the mind if this can of worms gets opened and don’t think other groups won’t complain about their “rights” also. Although, the gay activists are being very slick and underhanded in how they’re marketing this argument, I’m glad to see common sense and reason prevail and trying to force this on majorities that don’t want it isn’t working.

mozalf on December 3, 2009 at 7:46 AM

Ahh the same old slippery slope argument. Can you guys get another mantra? As I have said before, we are talking about humans who are of the legal age of consent; not children or animals. Read that a few times, maybe it will sink in.

XianProject on December 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Hey Enrique, let me tell you a little something dude. Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they agree with Gay Marriage and have Liberal Social views. AP may know what tweed clad Ivy League NYC dwelling metro males want but not what Nassau County registered Republican Openly Gay men living in Valley Stream think (my cousin and his ‘friends’) or little old ladies living in the Bronx on Hunt Ave think (my grandmother). And your brood statement is dumb because the man who gave me my ‘conservative’ schooling was a gay conservative man who graduated from USC Pharmacology School at the age of 16, was adopted, gave me my 1st ride in a Rolls Royce, hardcore Met opera lover, lived for Kings Hockey, owned his own pharmacy, hired me as a clerk in 10th grade, lived with his gay lover 15 yrs his junior, and was ADMAMANTLY OPPOSED to gay marriage. If not for this man, based on my friend’s politics, California education would have made me sound like you with your religious intolerance and stereotyping of groups of people like Progressives like to do saying the only people against it are religious. BS! none of the people described here went to Church on Sunday or carried a bible, or quoted biblical verses or gave a rats ass about the spiritual well being of the masses.

Moving Right Along….

Sultry Beauty on December 3, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Gay marriage always loses at the ballot box. Why is a “pragmatist” foisting it on the Party? Part of not imposing your morality on politics?

Chris_Balsz on December 4, 2009 at 12:34 AM

Ahh the same old slippery slope argument. Can you guys get another mantra? As I have said before, we are talking about humans who are of the legal age of consent; not children or animals. Read that a few times, maybe it will sink in.

XianProject on December 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Forty years ago you were talking a felony in every state…you can’t shout “slippery slope fallacy” when our opponents talk about gradual, eventual “progress” on the issue.

Chris_Balsz on December 4, 2009 at 12:37 AM

MadisonConservative is a real-life, personal friend of mine and my husband.
Diane on December 3, 2009 at 8:14 AM

If you’re his wife, why does he have a fiancée?
And are you the fiancée, the one who looks at porn with him?!?
In that you’re one bossy, angry and crazy b*tch, you 2 must make a real pair!

Jenfidel on December 4, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Heh…hee hee. Ah, you really are a nut. How long was that marriage, by the way?

MadisonConservative on December 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Not a nut–I deceived wife.
Almost every gay man I’ve ever known has tried “straight” marriage at least once.
And I’m not the first nor will I be the last lady to find herself in such a marital dilemma through no fault of her own.

Jenfidel on December 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Please do not speak for this Christian.

sinsing on December 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Diane, that goes double for this Christian, too.
You’re not my God and you don’t get to give me orders, either.

Jenfidel on December 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7