ALBANY, N.Y. — New York lawmakers rejected a bill Wednesday that would have made their state the sixth to allow gay marriage, disheartening advocates already stung by a similar decision by Maine voters just last month.
The New York measure failed by a wider-than-expected margin, falling 12 votes short in a 24-38 decision by the state Senate. The Assembly had earlier approved the bill, and Gov. David Paterson, perhaps the bill's strongest advocate, had pledged to sign it.
New York also doesn't allow civil unions, but has several laws, executive orders and court decisions that grant many of the rights to gays long enjoyed by married couples.
The vote comes after months of delays and arm twisting of lawmakers sympathetic to the bill but representing conservative districts. It also follows a referendum in Maine that struck down a gay marriage law before it took effect.
Immediately after the vote, gay rights advocates chanted: “Equal rights now!” Many said they weren't surprised by the decision. Most, including Paterson, said they at least wanted a floor debate and vote.
Senate sponsor Thomas Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and the Legislature's first openly gay member, vowed not to give up his life's goal.
“I'm like a dog with a bone,” said Duane in his closing remarks on the floor, when defeat was becoming clear. “I wouldn't let go of anyone … Because I don't give up. I don't know how to!”
Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect Jan. 1.
Story continues below
“It's certainly disappointing,” said Richard Socarides, a 55-year-old Manhattan lawyer and resident and former President Bill Clinton's senior adviser on gay rights issues. “I'm surprised that it was not closer. We'll have to take a hard look at what went wrong.”
Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn, challenged lawmakers to set aside their personal religious beliefs. He asked them to remember that once even slavery was legal.
“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out,” Adams said.
“That's the wrong statement,” said gay marriage opponent Sen. Ruben Diaz, a conservative minister from the Bronx. “You should carry your Bible all the time.”
Diaz was the only opponent among the 38 to speak. Eighteen senators gave impassioned speeches, often about family members who survived the Holocaust and discrimination and would want gays to be equal under law.
Taegan D. Goddard is the founder of Political Wire, one of the earliest and most influential political web sites.
Goddard spent more than a decade as managing director and chief operating officer of a prominent investment firm in New York City. Previously, he was a policy adviser to a U.S. Senator and Governor.
Goddard is also co-author of You
Won - Now What? (Scribner, 1998), a political
management book hailed by prominent journalists and politicians from
both parties. In addition, Goddard's essays on politics and public
policy have appeared in dozens of newspapers across the country,
including the Washington Post, USA Today, Boston Globe, San Francisco
Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and Christian Science
Monitor.
Goddard earned degrees from Vassar College and Harvard University. He lives in New York with his wife and three sons.
PRAISE
“There are a lot of blogs and news sites claiming to understand
politics, but only a few actually do. Political Wire is one of them.”
– Chuck Todd, NBC News political director
“Concise. Relevant. To the point. Political Wire is the first site I check when I’m looking for the latest political nugget. That pretty much says it all.”
– Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report
“Political Wire is one of only four or five sites that I check every
day and sometimes several times a day, for the latest political news
and developments.”
– Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report
“The big news, delicious tidbits, pearls of wisdom — nicely packaged, constantly updated… What political junkie could ask for more?”
– Larry Sabato, Center for Politics, University of Virginia
“If I were on the proverbial
desert island and had only one web site to access, Political Wire would
be it.”
– Dotty Lynch, CBS News political consultant
“Taegan Goddard has a knack for digging out political gems that too
often get passed over by the mainstream press, and for delivering the
latest electoral developments in a sharp, no frills style that makes
his Political Wire an addictive blog habit you don't want to kick.”
– Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post
“Political Wire is one of the absolute must-read sites in the blogosphere.”
– Glenn Reynolds, founder of Instapundit
“I love Political Wire. It is a one stop shopping site for all the political information I need. It makes me sound brilliant so naturally I like it!”
– Dick Morris, political consultant
“I rely on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire for straight, fair political news, he gets right to the point. It's an eagerly anticipated part of my news reading.”
– Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.
D.C. Council OKs Gay Marriage
by Maia Spotts
category:
Marriage Equality
Published
December 02, 2009 @ 01:35PM PT
I suppose if anyone would understand the plight of the gay American, it would be a D.C. citizen. No voting representation in the Senate, a delegate in the House given some, but not all, of the same powers, everyone working hard for the country without the benefits of full citizenship. Taxation without Representation is imprinted on their license plates. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the D.C. Council asserted the limited power they have and voted yesterday to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. They feel our pain.
It is a bold step considering the decidedly unChristian threats being made by the Catholic Archdiocese of D.C. to stop all social services it provides in the capitol if gays are granted the right to marry. Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese, is hopeful that a “religious freedom” loophole can be added to the bill, presumably to allay the fear that the Archdiocese would have to accept gays as anything other than an abomination.
Other religious leaders, like those behind Stand4MarriageDC, continue to push for a ballot measure to decide the issue, despite repeated initiative rejections from the D.C. Election Board. The Election Board asserts that using the ballot to strip a person of an already granted right would violate the D.C. Human Right's Act, an anti-discrimination measure passed in 1977. We could have used some of that logic last year in California…
Fortunately, it's not just the council in this corner and the crucifix in the other. A brave throng of religious leaders in support of same-sex marriage have formed the D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality. Running on the platform that “wherever love is present, God is also present” the group is steadily growing in numbers. You can read their declaration (and sign it if you're a religious leader in D.C.) here. It's shaping up to be a real Battle of the Bishops.
The good news is that, despite claims by those in objection to the proposition, D.C. hasn't burst into flames, the homeless are still being fed and society continues to be (relatively) stable. With another vote in two weeks, followed by Mayoral and Congressional review — the bill is projected to pass without much government objection — we won't start seeing gay marriages in D.C. for at least another two months. So stay tuned.
(Photo courtesy of kevindooley's photostream on Flickr)
Updated, 2:59 p.m. | The Senate has voted against the gay marriage bill, 38 to 24.
Updated, 2:35 p.m. | The voting has begun. Senator Adams, the first to vote, voted yes.
Updated, 2:35 p.m. | The debate is closed after a long, rambling, emotional speech by Senator Duane, the longtime champion of the legislation. He offered a lengthy list of thanks to his colleagues, spoke a bit about his relationship with his partner and made a final push to lobby for votes. “I may grab a few arms and not let you go, because I don’t give up — I don’t know how to,” he said.
“There is never a good time for civil rights — it’s never, ever the right time for civil rights, I know,” he added. “But the paradox is it’s always a good time to be on the right side of history.”
He ended by saying: “So I’m an older gay, but I know with your help and your support today — today, not a do-over, not a we-should-have — today. Soon, I’m going to be a married gay.”
But the speech by Senator Duane, who was cited by nearly every speaker for both his advocacy and for his example, has been at times bizarre, with him jumping from point to point on subjects like his emotions throughout the process, his favorite people, hypothetical situations, and in great detail about historical examples of oppression, for which he repeatedly entreated his colleagues, “Wouldn’t you want a do-over?”
Updated, 1:56 p.m. | Supporters continued to control the microphone, reciting the same themes of civil rights, separation of church and state, and drawing on their personal experiences as they talked about the importance of the bill. The level of emotion and personal references was remarkable for members of a body that, when it is functioning, tends to deal with the dry mechanics of governing the state.
“History has time and time again proven that extending civil rights further make our nation more whole more complete,” Senator José M. Serrano said. “No one should be subjected to less rights than anyone else,” he added.
Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson talked about her brother, who was gay, and who left the family because of their parents’ inability to accept his sexual orientation. It was a topic, she said, that she had never before discussed publicly. She said her brother decided to spend the rest of his life in France, where he could live more openly.
Senator Daniel J. Squadron, who said he was the most recent member of the Senate to get married, said that the experience increased his already firm support for same-sex marriage. “It was the most moving and powerful experience I’ve ever had in my life,” he said. “It was an experience of great joy for me, for my wife and for our families.”
The powerful emotions underlying the day broke briefly to the surface during the comments of Senator Liz Krueger, who choked up several times during her brief comments. “I’m a woman and a Jew, so I know about discrimination,” Senator Krueger said, catching on her words. She said that she believed that each senator probably had his or her own experiences with discrimination and that the bill was meant to ensure equal treatment. “I don’t understand how anyone can vote no.”
Updated, 1:27 p.m. | Several senators — including the last two speakers, Diane J. Savino and Pedro Espada Jr. — have expressed wonderment that they are discussing a rare bill for which the outcome remains undetermined in a legislative body famous for working out the votes before anything is brought into public.
Senator Savino continued to say that she had never been able to maintain a relationship of the length or quality of Senator Duane and his partner, who has been cited so far by a number of his colleagues. It was a deeply personal comment about what is clearly a deeply personal issue to the senators. “This is a relationship that I envy, that all of us should envy,” she said. “And all they ask for is to be treated fairly and equally.”
Speaking earlier, Senator Espada began his comments by saying his support for same-sex marriage was not echoed by his constituents. “If this vote was taken in my district today,” he said, “same sex marriage would fail.” He urged senators not to cave to ignorance “or pander to that in our communities.”
Updated, 1:18 p.m. | Again, returning to the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination — a comparison that has been cited repeatedly — Senator Kevin S. Parker read aloud a list of legal rights currently denied to same-sex couples. He said he spent too much time fighting against racial discrimination not to fight against discrimination of gay couples.
Updated, 1:10 p.m. | Senator Jeffrey D. Klein spoke next about his personal experience of a friend who had been disowned by his own parents after coming out as gay. When the man died, his partner of 25 years did not have many of the same rights that he would have if the couple had been married, from inheritance to life insurance to sitting at his deathbed. “This is an issue of fairness and it means so much to people we love and respect,” Senator Klein said.
Updated, 12:50 p.m. | Senator Eric Adams just finished speaking in favor of same-sex marriage, casting it as a civil rights issue. He began, like Senator Díaz, by reading aloud the names of states, in this case of states that had allowed slavery. He said many of the “same comments” used to support restrictions on same sex marriage were previously used to support restrictions against interracial marriage. “They used religion,” he said. “They said it would destroy the institution of marriage.”
Just before him, Senator Eric T. Schneiderman spoke in favor of same-sex marriage as well, describing the bill as not about morality or religion, but fundamentally about equality. “You can’t legislate morality,” he said. “But you can legislate justice.”
Senator Schneiderman read aloud from the Declaration of Independence. “Every generation is called to stand up to participate in this work of making the words of Thomas Jefferson ever more true,” he said.
Original Post | The New York State Senate began debating the gay marriage bill on Wednesday, in anticipation of a vote later in the day.
The sponsor of the bill, State Senator Thomas K. Duane of Manhattan, spoke first. Mr. Duane, who is gay, said the bill would allow him equality in the state. “Madam Speaker, this legislation would merely provide me and tens of thousands of other New Yorkers with equal rights in New York state,” he said. “It would make me equal in every way to everyone else in this chamber.”
State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. was the second speaker. He 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.
He said that 31 states had prohibited gay marriage and that in the few that allow it, the decisions were made by politicians and judges, not voters. “If you put this issue before the voters in a referendum, the voters will reject it,” he said.
The Washington, D.C., City
Council on Tuesday approved a first reading of a bill to legalize gay marriage
in the nation's capital.
The measure, passed in an 11-2
vote, must be approved in a second vote in two weeks in order for the bill to
be sent to Democratic Mayor Adrian M. Fenty for his signature. Fenty has
expressed support for the measure.
The bill would be subject to a
30-day congressional review period before becoming law. If the measure were
approved, the District of Columbia would join five states in allowing same-sex
marriage.
Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz
of Utah, the ranking member of the subcommittee that has oversight over
district laws, said the bill would be difficult to derail in Congress with Democrats
who support homosexual marriage in the majority.
“I think traditional marriage is a winning issue, but the Democrats right
now have the House and the Senate and the presidency, and they will be using a
lot of procedural things to actually block such a vote in the Congress,” Chaffetz
told CBN News Tuesday. “I want to be realistic and I want to be optimistic, but
our ability to actually overturn this in the Congress is going to be very
limited.”
A cross-section of faith leaders
known as the Stand4Marriage DC Coalition have for months been petitioning to
put marriage to a vote. But last month the District of Columbia Board of
Elections and Ethics rejected their petition for a citizens' initiative seeking
to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The coalition filed suit in
Washington, D.C., Superior Court to reverse the board's decision. Gay marriage
bans have passed in all 31 states that have put the issue to a vote.
“To deny the people their
fundamental right to vote on such an important issue as the definition of
marriage in our society is simply appalling,” said Bishop Harry Jackson,
pastor of Hope Christian Church in suburban Washington and chairman of the
Stand4MarriageDC Coalition.
Marion Barry and Yvette M.
Alexander were the only city council members to vote against the bill. Barry,
who earlier this year supported same-sex marriage, said he opposed the bill
because his constituents reject gay marriage, the Washington Post
reported.
“I stand here today to
express in no uncertain terms my strong commitment to the gay and lesbian,
bisexual, transgender community on almost every issue except this one,”
Barry said.
He said the council should have
authorized a referendum on the issue.
Council
member Harry Thomas Jr., who supported the bill, said he had to stand up “for
the least of those among us” even though many of his constituents also oppose
same-sex marriage, the Post reported.
While not formally involved in
the Washington, D.C., marriage battle, more than 150 Christian leaders issued a
joint declaration last month reaffirming their opposition to abortion and gay
marriage, and pledging to protect religious freedoms.
In a 4,700-word document called The
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, the leaders said
they will not “bend to any rule purporting to
force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the
equivalent or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality
and immorality and marriage and the family.”
Signatories include 15 Roman
Catholic bishops, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Princeton
University professor Robert George, National Association of Evangelicals President Leith
Anderson, and a host of seminary leaders and pastors.
Another 150,000 people signed on to the document
within a week after its release.
I watched the Obama speech. As a side note, he sounded like a
school marm. His reputation as an inspriational speaker should
take a hit. What a boring lecturing speech.
I will hope against hope that this will work. I don't know what
he or Petreus knows. So I can't honestly say it won't work. I
don't know. I do, think there is a way for this to work out for
him.
You have to remember that a war gives Congress an inordinate
amount of power over domestic issues. The President has to go
along with Congress on domestic issues if he wants support for a
war. That is what happened to Bush. I know several people who
know who have told me that Bush would have loved to have stopped
the Republican Congress from stealing and would have loved to
have vetoed some of those spending bills before 06. But, he
couldn't because he needed Republican support for the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama is in the same position today. He can't tell the left wing
of his party that the healthcare bill is complete crap and that
cap and trade will destroy the economy and then expect them to
support him on Iraq and Afghanistan. But, he can't walk away from
either one and be the guy who lost the wars.
If he were able to at least make it look like he was ending the
war in Afghanistan before 2012, that would give him the freedom
to stand up to the left wing of his party. He could tell them
that he ended the wars and that if they didn't like him running
to the center on domestic issues, go vote for the war mongering
Republicans.
He could really do this if, hopefully, the Democrats get killed
in 2010. That would eliminate Pelosi and Reid tying him down.
With the leftwing humbled by a horrible election and afraid of
the Republican bogeyman again, he coule work with a Republican
Congress, cut taxes and spending and perhaps get the economy
turned around.
If he could do that and dodge a bullet by healthcare and cap and
trade failing (both of which would prevent the economy from
recovering and do long term damage to the Democrats), he could
probably sail to re-election in 2012. Hell, if there were no
chance of the Dems retaking the Congress, I wouldn't care if he
were re-elected under those circumstances.
A coalition of Californian gay rights groups have said they are determined to get gay marriage back on the ballot next year.
Jo Hoenninger of Restore Equality 2010, said: “This is a movement for equality. Harvey Milk didnʼt wait for research.”
This week, the state's largest grassroots gay advocacy group withdrew its support for the 2010 campaign.
Courage Campaign, based in Los Angeles, said it does not believe the movement currently has enough leadership or financial support to be successful in the next 12 months.
The group said campaigners should wait until 2012 instead.
Gay marriage was briefly legal in California but was overturned by the state's voters in November 2008, who approved a measure called Proposition 8 to ban it.
Hoenninger, chair of the interim executive committee for Restore Equality 2010, said: “Harvey Milk didnʼt wait for research. He hit the streets year after year. We honour his memory by gathering signatures now so our rights can be restored in 2010 not at some later time when it might be an easier struggle.”
She added: “We appreciate the research work done by the Courage Campaign. The results to date – that one-to-one conversations are the most effective way to change hearts and minds – show that it is all the more important for us to continue to have the conversations necessary to gather the signatures for 2010 repeal of Proposition 8 .”
A statement from Restore Equality 2010, which is working in coalition with Love Honor Cherish, said that 80 per cent of Courage Campaign's supporters wanted to seek repeal of Prop 8 in the next year.
Courage Campaign suggested that recent defeats, such as in Maine, and voter polls showed that more time was needed for success.
Equality California warned in August that raising the money needed to fight Proposition 8 next year could be difficult and advised campaigners should wait until 2012.
Hoenninger concluded: “We know this a tough battle, but we are up for the challenge and fully expect those who disagree with us to respect our volunteers.”
Those fighting for repeal in 2010 need to collect one million signatures to place the proposition on November's ballot.
In other states that allow gay marriage, such as Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts, the right has only been granted through the courts or legislature. It has never been granted by voters.
So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it's not like you're going to find much of this reported in the MSM. 1. Australia's Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second …
Google is closing a loophole that allowed people to read large numbers of articles on subscription-based sites without paying for them.
Cocktail waitress Jamie Grubbs tells the new Us Weekly she had a steamy 31-month affair with the embattled golfer.
