Victory in New York

New York’s Republican-controlled state Senate voted 32-29 late Friday night to bring gay marriage to New York.

As I blogged a few days ago, “What’s going on in the New York marriage struggle shows why winning over Republicans (even just a few!) matters greatly.”

Only a handful of GOP state senators voted for the bill, but the GOP majority leader allowed the vote to come to the floor. We’re still a ways away from the day when national congressional GOP leaders would allow something like DOMA repeal to receive an up or down vote in the GOP controlled House, but New York shows that with some effort, enough Republicans can be moved to advance gay equality in a real and substantive way.

More. The role played by rich Republicans, to the dismay of some. And no immediate response from the GOP presidential contenders, perhaps because of the complete absence of a “judicial tyranny” argument for conservatives. Now we can ask supposedly Tenth Amendment-style Republicans, “Do you think the federal government should overrule the governor and legislature of New York?”

Furthermore. Michele Bachmann speaks, and she’s gotten it exactly wrong. She supports Tenth amendment state rights to set the laws they want to set, and she supports using Congress to override state decisions that she doesn’t agree with. From Fox News:

the Minnesota congresswoman said it’s also up to the states to decide whether they permit same-sex marriage. … She added that it’s not a contradiction to pursue a federal constitutional amendment that would trump state law…

And 2+2=5.

More still. Maureen Dowd writes critically of the president:

Obama’s reluctance to come out for gay marriage seems hugely and willfully inconsistent with what we know about his progressive worldview. And it is odd that the first black president is letting Andrew Cuomo, who pushed through a gay-marriage bill in Albany on Friday night, go down in history as the leader on the front lines of the civil rights issue of our time.

But for the president, “the fierce urgency of now” applies only to getting checks from the gay community, not getting up to speed with all the Americans who think it’s time for gay marriage.

Yet more still Conservative columnist James Taranto writes in the Wall Street Journal:

the overwrought expressions of anger and despair from people who style themselves champions of traditional marriage have the feel of scapegoating. It isn’t the fault of gays that marriage is in dire straits.

And David Boaz calls Republicans to account on federalism and states rights.

35 Comments for “Victory in New York”

  1. posted by David on

    WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT

  2. posted by KipEsquire on

    Yes, because New York Republicans (e.g. Pataki) are such a representative sample of the national GOP.

    See also, “New York Conservative Party.”

  3. posted by Jorge on

    Don’t forget NYC Mayor Bloomberg. He lobbied the Senators, and his megabucks may cushion the axe the Conservative Party chairman wants to take to those Republican supporters. Bloomberg’s administration also had a hand in the fact that this occurred legislatively rather than judicially, as it appealed the case from NYC.

    *siiiiiigh* Felt my headache lift a bit with the news. Maybe it will last. I’m glad that this year, at least, the campaign was peaceful and didn’t turn into a hate fest.

    Finished a thank you letter for the State Senator (who gave a great speech in 2009), a letter for the State Assembly, a letter for the governor, a letter for the mayor. And setting some money set aside to buy a BIG poster for the Gay Pride Parade Sunday. Picked that day to hide in a Catholic church and I’m sticking to it.

  4. posted by Tom on

    As the Washington Post put it: “The bill’s passage was viewed as a milestone nationally because it was the first time a GOP-controlled chamber has approved gay marriage. ”

    I agree. It is the first crack in the wall of massive resistance.

    Now the hard work begins. Gays and lesbians have anl obligation to protect the four Republican state senators who voted for marriage equality. NOM has pledged to put a million dollars into campaigns to defeat the four Republican state senators, and to level the playing field, we need to raise a million dollars for their campaigns.

    I told IGF some months ago that I would make a financial contribution to the re-election campaigns of any Republican state legislators who voted for marriage equality. I just made contributions to two of the four state senators involved, and I will make contributions to the other two as soon as I find their campaign websites.

    Please do likewise. And if you live in the districts of any of these senators, now would be a good time to get politically active.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Yes, I suppose we can’t rest on our laurels on that. Could become an “Osama bin Laden is dead, let’s go home” moment if we’re not careful.

      According to media reports, the supporters include James D. Alesi (first Republican supporter), Roy McDonald (early supporter) Mark J. Grisanti (the freshman, actually campaigned in opposition to the law then changed his mind), and Stephen M. Saland (the one who was said to be undecided). I like the New York Times’s online article on this.

      You know, it’s not just the State Senate leader Skelos who deserves credit for allowing the vote. In 2009 the Democratic majority allowed the up or down vote that was defeated. We needed that to happen. It is nice to see this issue be the crack in the armor of that institution.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Yes, because these Republicans are likely to be facing primary challengers next year because of this vote.

  5. posted by Jay Denton on

    Congrats New York. More marriage equality. GAYS are human too. we sdeserve the same rights !!!

  6. posted by Herb Spencer on

    When making those contributions to gay supportive GOPers, please do so directly to them or thru Log Cabin Republicans. Neither The Victory Fund nor Human Rights Campaign should be rewarded for trying to sweep these 5 courageous Republicans under the rug – and all GOPers would to well to avoid their imminent blandishments. No GOPer – gay or straight – needs these outfits, or any other Democratic fundraising entity posing as a gay rights group, and no GOPer should want to have anythinig to do with them. See, “The Little Red Hen,” generally.

    • posted by Jerry on

      I would rather people contribute directly to those Republican supporters directly rather than through any organization. Contribute by check by snail mail. Yeah, yeah, I know it’s soooooo inconvenient. The thing is you can address the the candidate directly, and identify yourself as gay or gay supportive and this particular vote is why you are giving him monetary support.

    • posted by BobN on

      Uh… those “five courageous Republicans” were, until this vote, quite correctly swept under rugs, HRC’s or anyone else’s, as they had previously ALWAYS voted against SSM.

      If any of them were pro-gay on any other issue, I haven’t seen that noted anywhere.

      As for your suggestion that gay Republicans use gay Republican channels to funnel their contributions, I say yay! Maybe more pols will start listening to you guys if the checks get bigger. I would, however, note that you don’t mention GOProud in your suggestion. I suspect that’s a good thing.

  7. posted by Jay on

    The vote was 33 to 29 (not 32 to 29). 29 of 30 Democrats voted in favor. 4 of 32 Republicans voted in favor. Glad to have the 4 Republicans on our side, but the hero of the moment is not the Republican Party but Governor Cuomo. I would happily support Governor Cuomo for President. He is a “fierce advocate” who actually advocates fiercely.

    • posted by Jerry on

      Agree with you completely on this one. I think it’s likely that Cuomo will be the nominee in 16 unless Hilary Clinton changes her stance between now and then.

  8. posted by Jay on

    Another hero is the group FightBackNewYork. They challenged Democratic lawmakers who voted against marriage equality in 2009 and a few Republicans as well. They succeeded in knocking off several of the opponents and put the fear of God in others. The Republicans were not eager to have more money thrown into campaigns against them, especially in some of the Long Island districts where there are large majorities in favor of same-sex marriage. While Republicans in those districts did not vote in favor of marriage equality, they let the bill come to a vote in order to get the issue behind them. We win by having a well-thought-out campaign to hurt those who oppose equal rights.

  9. posted by Tom on

    So are the gay and lesbian Republicans on this list going to support a Republican presidential candidate who opposes marriage equality and DOMA, and says that he/she will work for the FMA — Michele Bachman, for example — this time around, or not?

    If so, maybe the first folks that we should be “winning over” is you …

  10. posted by Tom on

    Oops, should read “… opposes marriage equality and supports DOMA, and says that he/she will work for the FMA …”

    That’s the question, really. Why are we mooning on and on about “winning over Republicans (even just a few!)” to make gains if the end result is that gay and lesbian Republicans are going to support candidates who have vowed to undo the gains?

    • posted by Herb Spencer on

      However posed, I’ve never supported Bachmann, will not in the future, and view her as nothing more than an Anita Bryant redo, sans the juice.

  11. posted by Jorge on

    And no immediate response from the GOP presidential contenders

    What? Not even Santorum?

    • posted by Jerry on

      It does seem strange that he’s too busy to exude fecal matter. Maybe he didn’t have enough lube.

      • posted by Jorge on

        I was asking a serious question. That was not called for.

  12. posted by Tom on

    I think that the time has come for the President to make the statement that he supports marriage equality, to stand up and say “I believe you are equal …”

    Candidate Obama’s careful dodge with respect to civil unions didn’t bother me in 2008. I’ve been involved in enough campaigns to understand political necessity, and candidate Obama and the other Democratic candidates that year were, by making strong statements in support of “legally equivalent” civil unions, moving the ball forward, considering where the Republican Party took the country in 2004 and 2006.

    But 2012 is not 2008. Times have changed.

    President Obama is the President of the United States, not a candidate for the office.

    The country is coming to accept marriage equality, and recent polls suggest, for the first time, that a majority of Americans now believe in marriage equality.

    Marriage equality is no longer the death star issue it once was, when Republican politicians cynically calculated that they exploit fear and reap votes from a “faggot, faggot” strategy, regardless of the fact that Republican politicians continue to deploy “faggot, faggot” in states like Minnesota in 2012.

    In 2012, the American people — the better angels of our nature, anyway — would welcome the statement “equal means equal”, whatever life may remain in “faggot, faggot” for Republican politicians.

    A statement by President Obama in favor of marriage equality would be a very significant development in our struggle for equality, as significant as President Johnson’s “We Shall Overcome” speech to Congress in 1964 was for the African-American civil rights movement.

    Yes, it would cost him votes. But there is a time when men have to pay a price for freedom, equality and justice.

    I want to hear President Obama make that statement. So do thousands upon thousands of others who have fought in the trenches for the last forty years, little by slowly changing the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans.

    We want to hear it. But the ones who need to hear it are the young gays and lesbians, the kids who are being harassed in our schools and churches, and, more often than anyone wants to think about, kicked out of their homes.

    President Obama can tell our kids “It Gets Better“, and his voice was an important addition to that effort, but it is time for the President of the United States to say, clearly and firmly, without calibration, “I believe you are equal …”

    • posted by BobN on

      “President Obama is the President of the United States, not a candidate for the office.”

      Exactly, which is why his call for equal federal recognition of same-sex couples, either in SSMs or CUs, is far more relevant — and helpful — than getting involved in the divisive battle over the form of union taken by any particular state.

      I think I will live long enough to get federal recognition. I’m not so sure, barring a SCOTUS decision, that I will ever be considered “married” in Mississippi. That would be a better outcome than not getting federal recognition.

  13. posted by Mary on

    I want to congratulate the gay community and its allies on their win in New York. I am on the other side of this issue, but glad that at least someone is happy with last Friday’s outcome. Although you may not believe it most of us on the right DO see you as human beings and have tried to understand how this issue looks from your side of things. I regularly read Towleroad and other gay sites and have learned a lot about the gay community and its views. I especially enjoy reading Jonathan Rauch because he at least makes an attempt to understand that all people opposed to the gay rights agenda are moral monsters filled with “hate.” I hope the moderators of this site will not prevent me from posting here in the future. I believe that dialogue between opposing sides can be constructive if done respectfully. Best wishes to all.

    • posted by BobN on

      Just to get an idea of how human you see us, how do you feel about civil unions? Federal recognition?

    • posted by Jorge on

      And that is relevant how, BobN?

      Do you not take the Catholic church at face value when it says that gays are deserving of God’s full love and society’s full compassion, and yet is also against every single legal recognition of gay relationships? You should.

      • posted by BobN on

        No, Jorge, I most certainly do not take the Church at its word, because I know how — let’s see… how to put this — recent this benign framing is. Having grown up in the parochial schools, I heard no love and compassion. Don’t even get me started.

        I’ll reconsider my opinion of the Church when they issue an apology for 1500 years of oppression.

        • posted by Jorge on

          I’ll reconsider my opinion of the Church when they issue an apology for 1500 years of oppression.

          Obviously you’ve cut a few classes!

          Not trying to get you started. Just trying to keep it honest: it’s useless for someone trying to look at the other side of things to have a conversation with someone filled with such anger that he must put orthodoxy conditions on that conversation.

          I’ve changed my mind. If that were true, I probably wouldn’t be talking to you.

          • posted by BobN on

            “Orthodoxy conditions”? Oh, puhleaze. I no more expect a real apology — along the lines of the apology to the Jews for centuries of antisemitism — from the Church in my lifetime, or the next generation’s or the one after that, than I expect Martians to land at Plymouth Rock. Granted, there are things they could do short of that that might get me to believe their words today are at least sincere. But as it stands today, you’re foolish to take them at their word. Just look at what they do abroad.

      • posted by JohnAGJ on

        Unless we are having a theological discussion or seeking to ensure that their religious freedoms are protected, why should I even care what the Catholic Church – or any other church/religious faith – has to say about CIVIL marriage? This is the United States not Vatican City, and we are governed by a secular constitution instead of Canon Law. So frankly, it’s none of their damn business.

  14. posted by Tom on

    I notice that David Frum has come over, kind of, anyway.

  15. posted by Tom on

    … the overwrought expressions of anger and despair from people who style themselves champions of traditional marriage have the feel of scapegoating …

    Well, that’s something that marriage equality in New York hasn’t changed. The reason is simple, to my mind: The “champions of traditional marriage” have never been interested in traditional marriage. The arguments about “the institution of marriage” have been bogus from the beginning.

  16. posted by Jorge on

    I get tired of some of the hypocrisy tacks against gay marriage opponents, but few of these people avoid the trap of being against gay marriage while doing nothing to fight for marriage. Most people who do avoid the trap do so by making opposition to gay marriage a low priority. I think only the Catholic Church avoids the trap by trying to make other issues an even higher priority.

  17. posted by Mary on

    Jorge, I agree with you completely. When I was working with the Christian Right in the 1980s’ I was always amazed at the emphasis they put on school prayer instead of far more important issues like divorce and illigitimacy. I knew that eventually this mistake would catch up with us. Yes, the conservative movement is guilty as charged on this one. Sad to say. However, a conservative movement that put more emphasis on improving heterosexual marriage would still be just as strongly against SSM. Would liberals really be mollified by the intellectual consistency? Just sayin…

  18. posted by Mary on

    BobN, I expected the subtle hostitlity you’re showing. When one ventures into “enemy territory” this is par for the course. No, I don’t support civil unions or federal recognition. I support job rights and housing rights and the right of gays to have a subculture that mainstream society will tolerate and even show some respect to. I would decide other gay rights questions on an individual basis. There is still a lot I don’t know about the history of the gay rights movement so I can’t say “how far back” I’d take things. But I wouldn’t go back to the pre-Stonewall days. Most likely the early 1980’s. Trying to be honest here.

    I expect you’ll tell me to take my right-wing homophobic ass elsewhere….but I hope I’m wrong about that!

    • posted by BobN on

      I can’t imagine what is “hostile” about asking a forthright — and important — question to ascertain your assessment of our humanity. You see no reason for government to recognize our relationships. I’m sure you see that as a policy issue. To us, at least to many of us, it means dying alone. It means losing our homes. It means unequal treatment in pensions and inheritance. It means separation of couples by national borders.

      Far be it from me to tell you where to take yourself, since I’m hardly the host here, though I will agree on your posterior-al diagnosis. To block relationship rights of all kinds is homophobic.

      As for taking us back to the 80s, you realize we were still criminals in many states at that point, don’t you?

    • posted by BobN on

      As for your right-wingedness, you’re hardly in “hostile territory” here. I’m the odd man out, politically, around here.

      P.S. You’re gonna luv ND! He’s just the sort of gay person you’d like.

Comments are closed.