NY senate passes same sex marriage

[TwoSevensClash]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/gay-marriage-legalized-new-york_n_884434.html

Gay couples and proponents of gay rights have a reason to celebrate tonight, as the New York State Senate has passed a bill that allows same sex marriage.
New York will be the sixth, and largest, state in the union to adopt gay marriage. The bill will take effect 30 days after governor Andrew Cuomo signs it into law.
The decision, which passed 33-29, was the culmination of weeks of contentious debate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/gay-marriage-new-york_n_881215.html) and negotiations between Governor Cuomo and the GOP-controlled Senate. After the bill passed in the Assembly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/new-york-gay-marriage-state-assembly-approves-bill_n_877889.html), it was unclear if the bill had secured enough votes to pass in the Senate. When a few notable undecideds joined the cause --including Republican Roy McDonald who famously defended his decision, saying "fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing" -- the scale in favor of gay marriage seemed to tip.
Even when governor Cuomo had secured 31 votes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/gay-marriage-new-york_n_877093.html) (32 are needed to pass the bill), the next hurdle was whether Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos would allow the bill to come to a vote on the Senate floor. But on Friday, after days of crafting religious protections into the bill, and seven hours of GOP leaders' backroom conferencing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/gay-marriage_n_880598.html), Skelos said the bill could come to a vote (http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/statement-senate-majority-leader-dean-skelos-same-sex-marriage-legislation).
The turning point in the debate came early when Republican Senator Stephen Saland threw his support behind the measure, being the 32nd senator to do so, clinching the support needed to pass the bill. "I have to define doing the right thing as treating all persons with equality," Senator Saland said, "I certainly am at peace with my vote."

Breaking...


Huzzah

[MattShizzle]

Good. Why should anyone be againt this? I'm not gay and my solution is to not marry another man. How does it hurt anyone else allowing them to marry each other? Nobody is going to force anyone to marry someone of the same sex.

[RichardAWilson]

New York Republicans aren't right-winged bible thumpers like Southern Republicans. However, I will state that it’s a sad state of affairs when an issue like this is still an issue in Washington. Marriage is a private matter and should be treated as such. I can’t think of a single reason why Marriage shouldn’t be legal for loving couples.

It reminds me of the era when Caucasians and African Americans found it hard to get married.

[Fulanito de Tal]

That's gay and awesome...like they are two separate things...damnit, I'm contradicting myself again.

[Rusty Shackleford]

huzzah indeed.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Why is this a good thing? The gays are taking away your freedoms.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Why is this a good thing? The gays are taking away your freedoms.
this isnt chit chat.

[Spawn of Stalin]

:lol: Lighten up. I was making a commentary on those who oppose gay marriage.

[Zav]

:lol: Lighten up. I was making a commentary on those who oppose gay marriage.
That particular argument of theirs doesn't make sense.:laugh:

Well, mates, this is one step towards a better future, to be sure, but will it trigger similar events elsewhere or will the more conservative states become agitated and refuse to budge on this or any other issue?

[RichardAWilson]

The Southern States will refuse to budge on this matter (I.E. Southern Conservatives are bible thumpers that will pander to the Southern Baptist Convention)

[Le Socialiste]

^ This. If anything, this will only cause the southern states to dig in, not loosen up.

[Reznov]

Then they'll get divorced in 5-15 years due to financial problems.

Welcome to equal suffering under capitalist exploitation, "gays".

[Le Socialiste]

Then they'll get divorced in 5-15 years due to financial problems.

Welcome to equal suffering under capitalist exploitation, "gays".


Regardless, why do you put quotation marks around 'gays'? :confused:

[La Comédie Noire]

Political emancipation is the appetizer to the classless dessert, but there are critics who see marriage as a hetero-normative institution.

Good job either way.

[Blackburn]

This is welcome news. I hope change starts occurring in Australia as well. Because like any good Lap Dog, we always follow the Master (USA).

[Revy]

A good victory, but gay equality cannot be won on a "state by state" basis. Like previous victories in civil rights, it must be won on a federal basis.

It would not last long in the nightmarish scenario where that homophobe bigot Tea Party wacko Michele Bachmann becomes President. She is in the latest poll, leading among Republicans. She wants to ban gay marriage on the federal level with a constitutional amendment, and she sees gay people as having "sexual dysfunction or sexual identity disorders".

[Olentzero]

I forget if Rhode Island is on board with it or not, but damn if that doesn't take care of pretty much the whole Northeast. Mid-Atlantic, your turn!

Have to agree with Revy, however good a development this is - there needs to be a federal marriage equality amendment. As it is now, marriages recognized in New York aren't recognized everywhere else in the US (like the deep South, for example) so gay and lesbian couples are still very much second-class citizens. I mean, what would the South have done if the Civil War ended with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being left up to the individual states to decide?

[RedAnarchist]

I forget if Rhode Island is on board with it or not, but damn if that doesn't take care of pretty much the whole Northeast. Mid-Atlantic, your turn!

This is the current situation in the United States -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/800px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png

Dark blue - Same-sex marriage
Light blue - Unions granting rights similar to marriage
Sky blue - Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights
Dark grey - Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized
Light grey - No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions
Pink - Statute bans same-sex marriage
Red - Constitution bans same-sex marriage
Dark red - Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Iowa, fuck yeah. My roommate is in walking-distance of getting a marriage license (too bad some of are not valid if you are in another state from the one you got it)

Maine use to allow same-sex marriages :(

Anyway, hooray to NY.

[Dr Mindbender]

I never thought i'd say this but that map looks depressingly red.

What do the 'stripey' categories mean?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I never thought i'd say this but that map looks depressingly red.

What do the 'stripey' categories mean?
It's simply a mix of what the two describe. Example:

Illinois is light blue and pink. There is a statute that forbids same-sex marriages, but there are civil unions which grant similar rights as marriage.

[thesadmafioso]

I wouldn't be so quick with the celebration, the right to marriage isn't necessarily something so open to praise. The symbolic value of this move is surely undeniable, but at the same the the policy of it still is rather questionable in regards to how progressive it actually is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss