equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A ridiculous question demands a ridiculous response.

And another point goes flying over someone's head...

[Irvine511]

New York Senate Set to Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By JEREMY W. PETERS
ALBANY — The State Senate debated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, but the outcome remained uncertain with people on both sides of the debate conceding they did not know how the vote would play out.

By clearing the path for a vote, Senate Democrats have removed the last remaining obstacle for a debate on the same-sex marriage bill, which has never been put to a vote in the Senate despite repeated efforts by gay rights advocates.

But Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, do not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support.

In a debate that in many instances was cast in unusually personal tones, many senators delivered emotional speeches on the floor of the chamber, equating the struggle for gay rights to the civil rights movement or the battle women have waged for equality.

One of the bill’s sponsors, State Senator Thomas K. Duane of Manhattan, who is gay, said the bill would finally give him something that as a New Yorker he has never enjoyed.

“This legislation would merely provide me and tens of thousands of other New Yorkers with equal rights in New York State," Mr. Duane said. “It would make me equal in every way to everyone else in this chamber.”

Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat who represents Manhattan’s Upper East Side and another of the bill’s sponsors, said her grandparents came to the United States to escape persecution against Jews. As a Jew and a woman, Ms. Krueger said her decision to support same-sex marriage was easy to make.

But State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx 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.

Senate Republicans said Wednesday morning that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill, but it was not certain whether those votes would be enough to offset the handful of Democratic no votes that are anticipated.

“There may be a few, that’s very possible,” said Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton, the deputy Republican leader who said he will vote against the bill. “Everybody’s feeling is get it on the floor and let’s vote it up or down. It’s been talked about enough. Let’s get it done. I think it’s going to be very close.”

Ms. Krueger said before the debate began that she was optimistic the bill would pass, but added, “It depends on whether Republican votes are delivered.”

If the legislation passes, New York would become the sixth state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal or will soon be permitted. If it fails, New York would become the latest state where gay rights advocates have made considerable progress only to see their hopes dashed.

Last month Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a referendum. The Maine State Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex unions earlier this year, but opponents of gay rights gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Last year, California voters repealed same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court said that gay couples had the right to marry.

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

If the measure passes on Wednesday, it would probably become law quickly and would be nearly impossible to reverse.

The State Assembly has already approved the legislation, and Gov. David A. Paterson has said he will immediately sign the bill once it makes it to his desk.

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday, the Assembly voted 88 to 51 to allow same-sex marriage. Though the Assembly has already passed the bill twice, a quirk in New York’s legislative code required the Assembly to pass the bill again before the governor can sign it.

As the vote approached — Senate officials said they expected it to take place in the afternoon — advocates on both sides of the debate were pushing ahead with a last-minute effort to shore up support.

“We’re working it as hard as we can,” said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and who supports same-sex marriage. “It feels very good right now. It feels like its going to happen. But this is an issue where some people don’t want to declare themselves until the last minute. And I think, believe it or not, I think there are one or two people who are really still torn.”

Demonstrators on both sides of the issue were relatively scarce in the Capitol on Wednesday. A small group of Orthodox Jews gathered outside the Senate chamber, one of them holding a sign that read “Gay Union/A Rebellion Against the Almighty.”

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, N.Y., said he traveled to Albany to remind the Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and they have to reckon with his rules and his law.”

As John L. Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, walked into his office on Wednesday morning, he flashed a thumbs-up to same-sex marriage supporters standing a few feet from the protesters. But Mr. Sampson acknowledged he did not know how the vote would turn out.

“I’ve got my work cut out for me,” he said.

if something doesn't happen soon, these people might get the idea that they're a real family.

[INDY500]

What does that remind me of? Oh yeah...

[Irvine511]

you're the people he was mocking.

[diamond]

Martha,

Your marriage is legitimate based on you and your husband's gender, that's an automatic qualifer-no getting around it.

That I support GCUs, they too could become married only after one elected to a have sex change operation.

<>

[Irvine511]

and the NY State Senate rejected the measure 24-38. bummer.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by diamond

Your marriage is legitimate based on you and your husband's gender, that's an automatic qualifer-no getting around it.

but if they have no children, why does their gender matter?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you're the people he was mocking.

Hollywood... mock traditional values? I refuse to believe that.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Hollywood... mock traditional values? I refuse to believe that.

are there some traditional values that should be mocked?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

are there some traditional values that should be mocked?

are there some traditional values that should be defended?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

are there some traditional values that should be defended?

are you answering my question with a question?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

are you answering my question with a question?

are you opposed to Socratic questioning?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

are you opposed to Socratic questioning?

why do you avoid the direct questions presented to you?

[diamond]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

but if they have no children, why does their gender matter?

Because marriage is based on the uniting of 2 opposite genders.

<>

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by diamond

Because marriage is based on the uniting of 2 opposite genders.

<>

why?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

What does that remind me of? Oh yeah...

Wow, twice in one page...

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

why do you avoid the direct questions presented to you?

why do you consider a contradictory answer to be avoiding the question?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Because marriage is based on the uniting of 2 opposite genders.

<>

Has this not changed? The dictionary argument is weak...

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

Has this not changed? ..

maybe in your head, but not to most people.

<>

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by diamond

maybe in your head, but not to most people.

<>

Right, but changing the definition doesn't do anything to heterosexual couples. They're still married, they still all have the rights they had when they were married.