equality blooms with spring - Page 26 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-13-2009, 01:18 PM   #376
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:21 AM
on it's way in New York. the Senate is considered more conservative, though.



Quote:
N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill
By JEREMY W. PETERS

ALBANY — The State Assembly approved legislation on Tuesday night that would make New York the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage — a pivotal vote that shifts the debate to the State Senate, where gay rights advocates and conservative groups alike are redoubling their efforts.

In a sign of how opinion in Albany has shifted on the issue, several members of the Assembly who voted against the measure in 2007 voted in favor of it on Tuesday.

The final vote was 89 to 52, including the backing of five Republicans.

Supporters of the bill aggressively sought new votes, particularly from Assembly members whose districts lie within Senate districts where a senator’s vote is believed to be in play. As a matter of strategy, same-sex marriage advocates said that they hoped to use those votes as a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically.

“The margin of victory and the balance of where the people come from who voted for this is broadening,” said Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Democratic assemblyman from the Upper West Side who led the effort in the Assembly to gain support for the bill. “The state is demanding that we provide equality, and that’s the message here.”

As the Assembly prepared to vote on Tuesday, advocates on both sides of the issue were gearing up for campaigns to sway undecided senators.

Gay rights groups, led by the Empire State Pride Agenda, will begin the first phase of a statewide advertising campaign on Wednesday. The first advertisement is a 30-second television spot featuring a woman from Cicero, N.Y., just outside Syracuse. She explains that she would like her two daughters — one who is a lesbian, one who is straight — to be treated equally under the law. It will be broadcast in the Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo areas.

The campaign’s organizers are planning more commercials in other cities across the state in the coming weeks, with an emphasis on areas where senators are believed to be on the fence.

“This is about putting a face on the people who are affected by this,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the pride agenda. “Marriage equality should not be a political issue. It is too important; it affects too many people.”

Conservative religious organizations were mobilizing as well. In the hours leading up to the Assembly vote, lobbyists for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group that has sued the state for recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, were holding meetings with lawmakers.

“Certainly we want to keep the pressure on,” said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, legislative director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. Mr. McGuire’s organization is planning a rally in Albany for its supporters in June, and he added that he would continue meeting with senators in the hope of persuading them to vote against same-sex marriage.

“We all understand — both sides of the issue — that this fight is going to continue in the State Senate,” he said.

The Conservative Party is also applying pressure: it has threatened to strip its party affiliation and its ballot line from any politician who votes for same-sex marriage.

“We can’t look the other way,” said Michael R. Long, the party’s chairman, who added that he had informed the Republican leaders of the Senate and the Assembly of his threat to take away the Conservative ballot line — which in some elections can mean the difference of thousands of votes — from anyone who votes yes on the bill.

“We’re going to work as hard as we can in the next few weeks,” he said. “We intend to do everything we can possible with phone calls, memos, press releases, having our members call senators.”

Despite the conservative pressure, two Republicans spoke on Tuesday about why they dropped their opposition to granting same-sex couples the right to marry. Three Democrats who voted no in 2007 switched their votes to yes.

“There’s that little voice inside of you that tells you when you’ve done something right, and when you’ve done something wrong,” said Fred W. Thiele Jr., a Republican who represents the Hamptons. “That vote just never felt right to me. That little voice kept gnawing away at me.”

Mr. Thiele’s district overlaps with the Senate district of Kenneth P. LaValle, whom gay rights advocates consider to be among the half-dozen or so Republicans open to a yes vote.

Assemblywoman Janet L. Duprey said a lesbian couple who live on her street helped change her mind.

“They are asking only for equal protection under the law,” said Ms. Duprey, a Republican whose district along the Canadian border in the North Country overlaps with the Senate district of Elizabeth Little, another Republican who gay rights supporters believe is within reach.

“They deserve no less than to have the same rights and ability to share their love,” Ms. Duprey added.

Bob Reilly, a Democratic assemblyman whose district includes parts of Saratoga and Albany Counties, apologized to colleagues for voting no in 2007 before voting yes on Tuesday.

Opponents of the bill condemned same-sex marriage as a moral outrage and an affront to religious institutions in New York. Some, like James N. Tedisco, a Republican whose district includes Schenectady and Saratoga Springs, drew comparisons to polygamy.

“I think you can see the kind of slippery slope we’re going down here,” he said. “What I see here is individuals trying to change the definition of a longstanding institution called marriage to fit into their agenda.”

Some supporters insisted the bill was, in fact, nothing earth-shattering.

“We do nothing revolutionary or extraordinary today,” said Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County.

The electronic display in the Assembly chamber that listed the bill number and a brief description suggested as much. It said, “Relates to individuals ability to marry.”
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 01:35 PM   #377
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:21 PM
Quote:
“We do nothing revolutionary or extraordinary today,” said Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County.

The electronic display in the Assembly chamber that listed the bill, “Relates to individuals ability to marry.”
for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 05:29 PM   #378
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:21 AM
On the topic of formal changes to the definition of 'family' and their effects...

There's currently a slew of articles out there about the latest CDC data showing that some 40% of US births are now to unmarried women. An article in the Times had an interesting comment:
Quote:
Out-of-wedlock births are also rising in much of the industrialized world: in Iceland, 66% of children are born to unmarried mothers; in Sweden, the share is 55%. (In other societies, though, the phenomenon remains rare—just 2% in Japan, for example.) But experts say the increases in the United States are of greater concern because couples in many other countries tend to be more stable and government support for children is often higher. “In Sweden, you see very little variation in the outcome of children based on marital status. Everybody does fairly well,” said Wendy Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “In the U.S., there’s much more disparity.”
We've discussed it before, but it's such an irony, that the aspirations of many gay and lesbian couples to form stable households based on the commitments of marriage get framed as a "threat" to marriage and become the focus of the self-appointed "defenders of marriage," while meanwhile a manifestly far larger number of heterosexual parents don't even consider marriage-based families important to theirs or their children's lives to begin with. Wake up--people who clearly share your regard for the value of committed marital relationships to society, to children, and to couples are NOT your enemy. I'm not sure all these unmarried parents actually intend any disrespect to marriage either, but if you're looking for a fire to fight, may I suggest that you've been looking the wrong way altogether.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 05:32 PM   #379
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Wake up--people who clearly share your regard for the value of committed marital relationships to society, to children, and to couples are NOT your enemy. I'm not sure all these unmarried parents actually intend any disrespect to marriage either, but if you're looking for a fire to fight, may I suggest that you've been looking the wrong way altogether.



but that would involve acknowledging the fact that heterosexuals and their relationships are not innately superior and of greater worth to homosexuals.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 06:11 PM   #380
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:21 AM
It involves acknowledging that mutual commitment, maturity, and discipline are what actually make stable relationships and families work. I'm not an innately superior parent or partner or citizen, I'm not Premium Grade Select anything; I've organized my life around certain priorities and commitments to specific individuals and I intend to honor them, that's all. That won't magically follow from mystical masculine-feminine yin-yang alchemy any more than it will from starry-eyed infatuation or a fairytale wedding ceremony.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 06:33 PM   #381
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I'm not an innately superior parent or partner or citizen, I'm not Premium Grade Select anything;


well, no, not at least compared to other heterosexuals.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 07:07 PM   #382
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:21 AM
I understand and agree with your point, but I do think that questioning these underlying assumptions about the role of gender in "stable" families is necessary also. Otherwise it's too easy to fall back on the old, "Oh I don't judge gay people's relationships, I've known some wonderful gay couples blah blah blah, I just think the main reason why marriage is important is because of children, and children need a mother and a father." What children need is the consistent presence of responsible, mature adults who put the child's welfare first and are mutually committed to working together to make that happen. And two such adults are better than one, though one can work too with the right support from others.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 07:35 PM   #383
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
On the topic of formal changes to the definition of 'family' and their effects...

There's currently a slew of articles out there about the latest CDC data showing that some 40% of US births are now to unmarried women.

Wake up--people who clearly share your regard for the value of committed marital relationships to society, to children, and to couples are NOT your enemy. I'm not sure all these unmarried parents actually intend any disrespect to marriage either, but if you're looking for a fire to fight, may I suggest that you've been looking the wrong way altogether.
Hey, Dan Quayle did almost 20 years ago and... what a shock, he was called anti-woman, vilified, ridiculed and told to mind his own business. The out-of-wedlock birth rate then, by the way, was 30%.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of the breakdown of the black family in 1971 when their illegitimacy rate was around 25%. Now it's nearing 75% with higher rates in the inner cities. And with that comes the pathologies of drugs, gangs, crime, high drop out rates and sadly wasted young lives.

Two things. First, proof of the folly of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal theory. Sorry, but there are always costs to irresponsible behavior. You can try and prevent such behavior in the first place (and risk being called a hater, a fascist and or just mean) -- or pay for the damage they wreak later.

Second, proof that all opposition to same-sex marriage is not based in hate and homophobia. Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

We were right about the first two.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 07:43 PM   #384
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Hey, Dan Quayle did almost 20 years ago and... what a shock, he was called anti-woman, vilified, ridiculed and told to mind his own business. The out-of-wedlock birth rate then, by the way, was 30%.

We were right about the first two.
I think you totally missed the point here.

The social studies that indicate that children born to single mothers in Scandinavia do not fare worse than those born to married couples indicates that there are other, significant social factors at play in the U.S. rather than your relatively simplistic view.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 07:55 PM   #385
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Second, proof that all opposition to same-sex marriage is not based in hate and homophobia. Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

We were right about the first two.


for you to connect the plight of single mothers in the inner-city to two gay men living in Newton, MA, is absolutely, 100% based in hate and homophobia.

one has nothing -- nothing -- to do with the other.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 07:56 PM   #386
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.
Which are what if I may ask?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 08:08 PM   #387
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

We were right about the first two.
And what have social conservatives done to support single-parent families?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 08:14 PM   #388
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Hey, Dan Quayle did almost 20 years ago and... what a shock, he was called anti-woman, vilified, ridiculed and told to mind his own business. The out-of-wedlock birth rate then, by the way, was 30%.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of the breakdown of the black family in 1971 when their illegitimacy rate was around 25%. Now it's nearing 75% with higher rates in the inner cities. And with that comes the pathologies of drugs, gangs, crime, high drop out rates and sadly wasted young lives.

Two things. First, proof of the folly of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal theory. Sorry, but there are always costs to irresponsible behavior. You can try and prevent such behavior in the first place (and risk being called a hater, a fascist and or just mean) -- or pay for the damage they wreak later.

Second, proof that all opposition to same-sex marriage is not based in hate and homophobia. Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.

We were right about the first two.
Oi... I wouldn't even know where to start with such a post.

"First, proof of the folly of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal theory."

This isn't a complete thought, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

"Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage."

Really? How many conservatives do you know that are pushing for stricter divorce laws? Tell me one.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 08:21 PM   #389
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Most conservatives have been, and remain, just as outspoken about the threats to society and traditional marriage that out-of wedlock births and high divorce rates pose as we are about the future potential consequences of redefining marriage.
No, you haven't, because the former is just lip service, whereas you're bringing the instruments of law to bear on the other. You've done nothing at all to actually PREVENT unmarried or divorced heterosexuals from becoming or remaining parents. Of course any such efforts would have ethically unconscionable results, and when it's heterosexuals we're talking about you're able to see that.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-13-2009, 09:48 PM   #390
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
And what have social conservatives done to support single-parent families?


Strengthened "deadbeat dad" laws.

Argued for school vouchers so the children of single-mothers can have the type of education our president's children have.

Removed the marriage penalty from the tax code to disincentify divorce for strictly financial reasons.

Built child credits into the law to help low income families including single-parent households.

With Bill Clinton reformed welfare in an attempt to end the cycle of dependency which is the underlying cause of the problem.

Not to mention private organizations and churches that conservatives give their time and money to that help single-mothers.

What we're not keen on doing is just throwing money at the problem and calling it "compassion."
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com