I Love NY! NY passes SSM bill

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Neither mundane or pointless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=NY-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-GMA-062411-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click


Way to go New York! I haven't seen the bill but I hear there are a number of opt out clauses, but another state has moved in the right direction.

[Lakai]

Sweet. Mr. Cuomo is a stand up guy. And so is Roy McDonald (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/new-york-gay-marriage_n_878358.html).

What do you mean by "opt out clauses"?

[Sampiro]

You'll regret it when Joe Pesci becomes Mrs. Robert DeNiro next month.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Sweet. Mr. Cuomo is a stand up guy. And so is Roy McDonald (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/new-york-gay-marriage_n_878358.html).

What do you mean by "opt out clauses"?

Religious folks don't have to perform these marriages (which is fine) and some service providers (banquet halls etc) don't have to provide services. I heard that was in some version of teh bill, don't know if it remained or what else got put in, but that's the idea.

I'm very pleased with Cuomo and McDonald. Very stand up.

[mnemosyne]

From the article:

The new coalition of same-sex marriage supporters also brought in one of Mr. Cuomo’s trusted campaign operatives to supervise a $3 million television and radio campaign aimed at persuading a handful of Republican and Democratic senators to drop their opposition and support same-sex marriage.

Was that the same campaign that led to the creation of this Sean Avery ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGGH3M9NKBI)? Because...screw them for making me have any respect for Sean Avery*.

But otherwise, Congratulations New York!


Although his "give me a call" (http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/05/sean-avery-ready-to-support-any-hockey-player-willing-to-come-out-of-the-closet/)statement kind of led to some respect too....

[Oakminster]

About damn time. Way to go, New York!

[MsWhatsit]

The Empire State Building has gone rainbow. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/empire-state-building-celebrates-gay-marriage)

So awesome. There are people singing at Stonewall. I think I am verklempt.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

The Empire State Building has gone rainbow. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/empire-state-building-celebrates-gay-marriage)

So awesome. There are people singing at Stonewall. I think I am verklempt.

Nice! I am giddy over this.

[Balance]

About damn time. Way to go, New York!
Damn straight!

Wait, that didn't come out quite right... :D

And yes--props to Roy McDonald, and everyone else who put petty politics aside to do the right thing. I probably disagree with Mr. McDonald on most things, but he's won a lot of respect from me, first with his press statement and now with his vote.

[gaffa]

Religious folks don't have to perform these marriages (which is fine) and some service providers (banquet halls etc) don't have to provide services.
Yeah, I don't see that lasting very long, other than VFW halls and the Knights of Columbus. Everyone else it going to look at it from a simple economic perspective. Seriously, this is going to be a huge boon to the New York wedding business. And Gay Pride Day is going to be INSANE (especially as it is an event well known as a serious and sober occasion).

[etv78]

Welcome to the club NY!

[Gorsnak]

Congratulations, and welcome to our less and less exclusive club.

[missred]

Kudos, NY!

Forty-four to go. :)

[diggerwam]

Good Job. What state is next?

[panache45]

I'm so proud to have been a New Yorker for 25 years.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Good Job. What state is next?

Well, I grew up in NY (check)
College in MA (check)
Lived in CA (check, sorta)
Live in CT (check)


So, I went to grad school in PA and post doc in MO- so one of those, perhaps? :)

[Hello Again]

The Empire State Building has gone rainbow. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/empire-state-building-celebrates-gay-marriage).
That's really cool. I think about the fact that someone stopped whatever they were doing to change it up at 10:30 on a friday, and it kinda warms the cockles of my cold, cold heart, ya know?

[MeanOldLady]

I do know. My cold, dark little heart has a little bit of warmth inside of it right now after seeing that photo.

[Munch]

Good Job. What state is next?

I believe Illinois is on their way.

[sparky!]

I was very happy to read about it this morning. Way to go NY!

This is one of those issues where almost everyone you know (and doesn't vote) is for it, but a few (active) morons are against it. BTW, those same morons would probably be against race equality, women voting and stopping of blood letting if alive during those periods.

[pbbth]

You'll regret it when Joe Pesci becomes Mrs. Robert DeNiro next month.

If I weren't already a supporter of gay marriage I would be now for no other reason than to see a Joe Pesci and Robert DeNiro wedding.

[Annie-Xmas]

Eventually (and I hope it's soon) the Feds will realized that there is no legal reason why same sex couples cannot be married.

In a very bizarre book I read against the idea, the author claimed that the majority of people don't want gay marriage, the majority of gays don't want to be married, yet gay marriage will destroy marriage as society knows it. I cannot reconcile those three opinions.

[RealityChuck]

Yeah, I don't see that lasting very long, other than VFW halls and the Knights of Columbus. Everyone else it going to look at it from a simple economic perspective. Seriously, this is going to be a huge boon to the New York wedding business. And Gay Pride Day is going to be INSANE (especially as it is an event well known as a serious and sober occasion).This August -- the first full month after the law goes into effect -- will probably have more marriage licenses issued than in any month in the history of the state.

There's also the tourism angle: you don't need to establish residence to marry in New York.* There's a one-day waiting period. I can imagine people flying in to NYC for a weekend to tie the knot.

*Reports I've seen are contradictory, but most say you do in Massachusetts.

[sparky!]

I know more divorced people than married-never divorced.

Sanctity of marriage my ass.

I've known lots of lesbians in my life. Know what? Some were nice and some were complete assholes- just like normal people *shock*.

No law should get between two people who love each other.

[levdrakon]

The Empire State Building has gone rainbow. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/empire-state-building-celebrates-gay-marriage)

So awesome. There are people singing at Stonewall. I think I am verklempt.

Shiny! :)

[gaffa]

This August -- the first full month after the law goes into effect -- will probably have more marriage licenses issued than in any month in the history of the state.
Any bets on how long before the first gay wedding magazine is launched?

This is as close to a jobs bill as any state can pass. Flowers, clothes, hall rental, catering, cake - these are things that produce local jobs. I'm pretty sure that was an angle Cuomo used to get the Republicans on board.

I just checked. Already happened (http://bondmag.net/magazine/).

[Sampiro]

If I weren't already a supporter of gay marriage I would be now for no other reason than to see a Joe Pesci and Robert DeNiro wedding.

I'll show you a caterer and a florist who by God better get everything right if they know what's good for them.

[Simplicio]

That's really cool. I think about the fact that someone stopped whatever they were doing to change it up at 10:30 on a friday, and it kinda warms the cockles of my cold, cold heart, ya know?

I'm guessing it was set up for the Pride parade on Sunday, and they just turned it on early. Still a nice gesture though.

[Baker]

Next on the list sure won't be Kansas, not with Gov. Brownback in office. The state is already regressing on abortion, with legislation for further restrictions and more frequent inspections on clinics. It's possible that we may be left without a single licensed provider of abortions if they come down too hard on the ones already there.

[gaffa]

Next on the list sure won't be Kansas, not with Gov. Brownback in office. The state is already regressing on abortion, with legislation for further restrictions and more frequent inspections on clinics. It's possible that we may be left without a single licensed provider of abortions if they come down too hard on the ones already there.
The Planned Parenthood clinic now in Kansas City, KS will just re-locate across the state line to Kansas City, MO. Frankly I was shocked to find that they were on the Kansas side.

[Knorf]

I believe Illinois is on their way.

I suspect WA isn't too far away also.

[whiterabbit]

I'm in Idaho. If it goes state-by-state I fully expect it to be the next-to-last holdout -- the last being Utah. (Oh to see the looks on the faces of the LDS leaders on that day...it might make the wait worth it...) Come on Feds, let's cut this state-by-state shit out!

That being said, I'm very happy about New York. Very.

[MsWhatsit]

Ohio has to repeal a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage before we join the ranks.

It will happen, though.

[Cyberhwk]

Ohio has to repeal a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage before we join the ranks.
WA too I believe. We've probably got a majority, but amending the state Constitution requires 2/3 of both houses then a majority ballot measure. I don't think even we have 2/3 yet.

[Knorf]

WA too I believe. We've probably got a majority, but amending the state Constitution requires 2/3 of both houses then a majority ballot measure. I don't think even we have 2/3 yet.

Nay. WA's anti-gay marriage law is only a statute, not in the constitution. The law sadly was upheld as "constitutional" by the state supreme court in 2006.

[Mississippienne]

I'm in Idaho. If it goes state-by-state I fully expect it to be the next-to-last holdout -- the last being Utah. (Oh to see the looks on the faces of the LDS leaders on that day...it might make the wait worth it...) Come on Feds, let's cut this state-by-state shit out!

That being said, I'm very happy about New York. Very.

No, no, the last holdout will be Mississippi. I would seriously be astonished to see MS legalize gay marriage in my lifetime (I expect to see it happen Federally at some point, but on a state level, I think MS will be dead last).

[Cyberhwk]

Nay. WA's anti-gay marriage law is only a statute, not in the constitution. The law sadly was upheld as "constitutional" by the state supreme court in 2006.
Then the hell are we waiting for? If all it takes is a straight majority (so to speak), we could take 2 Dem defections in the Senate and 7 in the House without a single Republican vote. And I may be wrong again but aren't west side Republicans pretty much elected on fiscal issues? Meaning there could be pro-marriage GOP votes to be had?

[appleciders]

WA too I believe. We've probably got a majority, but amending the state Constitution requires 2/3 of both houses then a majority ballot measure. I don't think even we have 2/3 yet.

Nay. WA's anti-gay marriage law is only a statute, not in the constitution. The law sadly was upheld as "constitutional" by the state supreme court in 2006.

You may be thinking of Oregon. We enacted that a few years ago, and I think that it requires a supermajority or a double majority (for referendums, that means that you need 50%+1 of the vote, plus 50%+1 of the voting public must actually vote, which never happens except in election years) to do it. It's a shame; we're pretty progressive in many other ways, but the redneck vote in the eastern part of the state balances out Portland in that respect.

[Knorf]

Then the hell are we waiting for? If all it takes is a straight majority (so to speak), we could take 2 Dem defections in the Senate and 7 in the House without a single Republican vote. And I may be wrong again but aren't west side Republicans pretty much elected on fiscal issues? Meaning there could be pro-marriage GOP votes to be had?

You would think so.

Maybe it'll happen. I wonder whether Gregoire would sign it though. I can't tell her form a Republican most of the time.

[OttoDaFe]

You would think so.

Maybe it'll happen. I wonder whether Gregoire would sign it though. I can't tell her form a Republican most of the time.You obviously haven't been following the newspaper comment sections, where "Queen Christine" and "Demonrats" are favorite topics.

Anyway, I don't think she'll get the chance. Next year the Leg has a short session, which will be primarily devoted to stuffing more fingers in the fiscal dike. Which is not to say that non-fiscal matters can't be considered, but I would be kind of surprised (though pleased) if SSM makes the cut.

And I have a sinking feeling Rob McKenna (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/15/rob-mckenna-on-gay-marriage-part-2) will be the next gov, which means at least another four years — unless an SSM measure passes with a veto-proof majority, which I can't see happening without Eastern Washington finally following through on its perennial threat to secede*.

In any case, it would have to get past Tim Eyman to take effect.

*That's a joke, son. I think.

[Knorf]

You obviously haven't been following the newspaper comment sections, where "Queen Christine" and "Demonrats" are favorite topics.
I avoid that sort of thing, out of a desire to protect my brain.

Anyway, I don't think she'll get the chance. Next year the Leg has a short session, which will be primarily devoted to stuffing more fingers in the fiscal dike. Which is not to say that non-fiscal matters can't be considered, but I would be kind of surprised (though pleased) if SSM makes the cut.
I'm sure you're right.

And I have a sinking feeling Rob McKenna (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/15/rob-mckenna-on-gay-marriage-part-2) will be the next gov, which means at least another four years — unless an SSM measure passes with a veto-proof majority, which I can't see happening without Eastern Washington finally following through on its perennial threat to secede*.
Noooooooo! Please don't do that to those of us who have to live out here!

In any case, it would have to get past Tim Eyman to take effect.
Fuck that guy. Anyway, he's from the west side, no?

[Hari Seldon]

I don't understand this need to exempt religious organizations from "having" to marry gays. Has the Catholic church asked to have an exemption from marrying divorced people? Or non-Catholics for that matter? That's really grasping at straws to oppose. I understand that only a handful of Republicans (and all but one Democrat) supported it.

Interesting op-ed piece opposing the bill in the Times a day or two ago. This woman works for Columbia U. (she didn't say in what capacity) and was opposed because Columbia gave her SO spousal benefits, a special deal for same-sex couples and not open to opposite -sex couples. She didn't want to marry her SO but didn't want to lose those benefits, so she opposed the bill. Sad.

[MaxTheVool]

Well, I grew up in NY (check)
College in MA (check)
Lived in CA (check, sorta)
Live in CT (check)


So you're the one spreading the gay. And here I always thought those conservatives were just being paranoid...

[Ulf the Unwashed]

I don't understand this need to exempt religious organizations from "having" to marry gays. Has the Catholic church asked to have an exemption from marrying divorced people? Or non-Catholics for that matter? That's really grasping at straws to oppose. <snip>

This really isn't about exemptions; it's about moving the goalposts, about trying to raise any argument that might conceivably fly, sensible or not. One state senator whose district is near here said he was undecided and might very well vote for the bill. Then he said he wasn't sure if the religious exemptions were strong enough. So they revised the bill to provide more protection. So then he said...he'd vote against it. Hard to believe it wasn't his intention all along.

As for the Catholic church (as an institution; I don't intend to include every Catholic or even every Catholic priest in this statement), it has been grasping at straws since day one of this. This is a heavily Catholic area, and I hear a lot that Catholics' religious freedom is being curtailed because "they are denying us our belief" that marriage is between one man and one woman. Grasping at straws indeed.

Then there was this gem, a quote that appeared in the paper this morning from the vicar of the county where I live:

"It is regrettable that in order to extend rights to gay and lesbian couples the meaning of marriage had to be redefined."

You know, they could've avoided it if they had, oh, even 10 years ago urged that legislators pass a bill allowing civil unions that were just as strong as marriages. That would have extnded the appropriate rights without redefining marriages. Funny, though: I don't remember the Catholic Church leading this charge for some reason...or supporting it when it was suggested...or reacting in any way other than "over our collective dead bodies."

Oh well. I'm still thrilled with the results here.

[Cyberhwk]

And I have a sinking feeling Rob McKenna (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/15/rob-mckenna-on-gay-marriage-part-2) will be the next gov, which means at least another four years — unless an SSM measure passes with a veto-proof majority, which I can't see happening without Eastern Washington finally following through on its perennial threat to secede*.
I think he'll be a reasonably strong candidate, but I just can't get past the simple fact that, if the state GOP couldn't unseat Murray in the climate they had in 2010, how do they take the Governorship in 2012.

[Knorf]

I think he'll be a reasonably strong candidate, but I just can't get past the simple fact that, if the state GOP couldn't unseat Murray in the climate they had in 2010, how do they take the Governorship in 2012.

Jay Inslee should prove competitive. [/hijack]

[Annie-Xmas]

NJ Governor Chris Christie has statedd that he will not sign a SSM bill into law.

Everybody hates you anyways, Christie.

[Marley23]

I don't understand this need to exempt religious organizations from "having" to marry gays.
They wanted to make sure that they couldn't be sued if they refused to marry gay couple or host gay weddings, for example. I agree that sooner or later, organizations like this will either change their mind for economic reasons or become irrelevant anachronisms. It's annoying that the compromise was necessary, but it got the law passed and it'll be worked out in time.

[levdrakon]

How on earth can a religious org get sued for not marrying gays, unless they're using government funded facilities or something?

If I'm Catholic, can I sue the local synagogue for not performing my wedding? How is that supposed to work?

[Marley23]

How on earth can a religious org get sued for not marrying gays, unless they're using government funded facilities or something?
The Knights of Columbus could be sued for refusing to let gay couples rent their hall for a ceremony and reception, for example. Or so it was thought.

[feppytweed]

No, no, the last holdout will be Mississippi. I would seriously be astonished to see MS legalize gay marriage in my lifetime (I expect to see it happen Federally at some point, but on a state level, I think MS will be dead last).

I wholeheartedly agree. Mississippi and Alabama will fight this tooth and nail for the end of time. I don't think it'll ever become a federal law/statute/amendment, but rather an issue left up to the states.

[Hypno-Toad]

I first saw this on the TV at the gym and the CNN close captioning made the following freudian slip: "When word that the bill had narrowly passed spread, separations broke out all over New York." I thought, "Wow, it really did destroy marriage. And quickly!"

[Rodgers01]

Interesting op-ed piece opposing the bill in the Times a day or two ago. This woman works for Columbia U. (she didn't say in what capacity) and was opposed because Columbia gave her SO spousal benefits, a special deal for same-sex couples and not open to opposite -sex couples. She didn't want to marry her SO but didn't want to lose those benefits, so she opposed the bill. Sad.

Not quite - she didn't oppose the bill, and in fact supported it. She just thought that there should be a "menu of options" available to all couples (gay and straight) as ways to legally recognize their relationships, rather than making everyone choose the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage. IMHO she may or may not be right, but it seemed like kind of a peevish thing to raise when she did. (Her piece ran before the final vote, and could have been - and clearly was, in this case! - interpreted as a gay person being anti-gay marriage.) Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=2).

This is one of those issues where almost everyone you know (and doesn't vote) is for it, but a few (active) morons are against it. BTW, those same morons would probably be against race equality, women voting and stopping of blood letting if alive during those periods.
Well according to at least one of them, the pro-SSM crowd...

...is not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power. (Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270518/gay-marriage-libertarians-and-civil-rights-george-weigel?page=2)).

Yeah. Crazy.