New York, New York

In case you missed it, New York legalized same sex marriage tonight. It was a close vote that hinged on insuring the religious freedom of churches to not perform or recognize gay marriages if they didn’t want to. But in the end, four Republican senators showed the political courage that the President seems hesitant to show.

It was fairly remarkable event, covered heavily on twitter and the blogs and with the live TV feed — normally watched by about a hundred people — drawing over 40,000 viewers. I think the reason so much attention focused on it was because this really breaks the issue open. The third largest state in the union, with a Republican-majority legislature, has now jumped on the SSM wagon. It’s impossible to portray this as judicial activism. And impossible to turn back the tide.

I’m actually glad to see it. Gays are not going away and marriage — or at least civil unions — is the conservative way, as long as the religious liberty protections are kept. If gays start getting married, buying houses, starting business and paying taxes, we might just make conservatives out of them.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Yeah good point (made by Hal as well). This is a good example of how to grow your base.

    From Hal’s link:

    With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

    “I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

    Good on him. Obviously has some balls.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Rann

    It’s impossible to portray this as judicial activism.

    Give somebody time, they’ll figure out a way to do it. At the very least there will be a thread of “I heard same sex marriage was legalized in New York, without checking on how this happened I will immediately assume ACTIVIST JUDGES!” that will retain some momentum just from the meme getting passed along.

    “Activist judges” is always a good dodge for having to actually address the issue. It actually happens occasionally, which gives it some validity, but it’s also been turned into an effective scare phrase by both parties, so that when someone sees it in relation to some issue it’s like a cue to start getting huffy.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Seattle Outcast

    Since nobody else seems to ask, I’ll do it: Why are churches even involved in marriages?

    I mean, sure, let them have their little ceremony, whatever the fuck it is, but that’s a wedding. Marriages are legal instruments governed by the state (why the state is even involved past the point of just keeping records is another good discussion), and turning that shit over to religious groups seems, at best, a borderline decision.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT

    I am more suspiscious of the law makers that waited until late on a Friday night – when the news cycle basically ends – to do this Rann, than the call for activist judges, since I doubt judges were involved in the voting process in Albany. I don’t know about you, but politicians don’t pass things they think are a slam dunk late Friday night.

    Me, I am with WV that it is a state’s decision to make, and that the people of that state’s will be folowed. Of course, if you look at this issue in particular, the will of the people hasn’t really factored in at all as they simply ignore it when its not what they want. The people of NY hopefully got what they wanted. If not, well then they can seek redress. If it lands in courts, then we can talk about activist judges ot not. until then, judges are not a factor.

    Thumb up 0

  5. balthazar

    Actually I think it should be reverse. Marriages happen in a religious setting. Then you file the paperwork for a Civil Union. The Civil Union is for whomever wants todo it, gay or straight.

    Thumb up 0

  6. HARLEY

    The government should have no power over marriage, at all t, if churches want to get involved, its their call.
    I dont give a rats ass, who wants to get married, that is their business, i dont see how the government should have any authority over it.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Section8

    Exactly, the only point for the government to be involved is because it’s a contract, and if disputes arise then there is a contract to go by, but should be limited to the two parties involved. That’s the government end of it, otherwise it is a ceremony, and a symbolic union, and whatever religious beliefs or non beliefs that go along with it. Unfortunately the government has decided it should butt in on from other angles such as healthcare and other benefits so now certain legal perks come with the title.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    If gays start getting married, buying houses, starting business and paying taxes, we might just make conservatives out of them.

    WTF?
    Even in the backwoods of Mississippi gay people have been allowed to “… buying houses, starting business and paying taxes” and vote their hearts content for as long as I can remember.

    Thumb up 1

  9. Kimpost

    Married?

    I think what Hal’s trying to say is that when you (conservatives) fully accept homosexuals and their life style choices as equal to yours, then, and only then they’ll be likely to vote with you guys (in any significant numbers).

    The same goes for liberals of course, but like it or not, today liberals are considered the lesser evil between the two. “At least Obama doesn’t hate my homosexuality, even though he’s too much of a coward to embrace our marital rights publicly. Santorum on the other hand more or less openly states that our lifestyle is wrong.” How many Republican presidential candidates supports the Federal Marriage Amendment? If I remember from the latest debate, I think most of them did.

    No, if I was a homosexual conservative I would probably hold my nose while voting democrat. Certainly so, if I lived in a state where gay marriage wasn’t yet allowed. First acknowledge my right to pursue happiness under the same premises as heterosexuals, then I’ll ponder over economic policy and foreign affairs.

    Thumb up 0

  10. loserlame

    New York is the place where countless immigrants were forced to doff their deep, rich, ancient cultures to become Americans, leaving their golden pasts beside the door. They were made wretched and homeless, then tempest tossed by a lady with conquering limbs astride from land to land; mother of excess, her shores teeming with pompous refuse, imprisoning the light of heart, torching twin cities and towers.

    New York Gals
    (Burl Ives)

    Shipmates listen unto me.
    I’ll tell you in my song
    of the things that happened to me
    when I come home from Hong Kong.

    Chorus:
    To me way, Sandy, my dear Annie. Oh, you New York girls, can’t you dance the polka?

    As I walked down to Chatham Street, a fair maid I did meet.
    She asked me, please, to see her home. She lived on Bleecker Street.
    Now, if you’ll only come with me, you can have a treat.
    You can have a glass of brandy and something nice to eat.

    (Chorus)

    Before we sat down to eat, we had sev’ral drinks.
    The liquor was so awful strong, I quickly fell asleep.

    (Chorus)

    When I awoke next mornin’, I had an achin’ head.
    My gold watch and my pocketbook and the lady friend had fled.
    Now looking ‘round this little room, nothin’ could I see
    but a woman’s shoes, an apron, which now belonged to me.

    (Chorus)

    Now dressed in the lady’s apron, I wandered most forlorn
    ‘Till Martin Churchill took me in and he sent me round Cape Horn.

    Nothing wrong with wearing an apron, gringo….

    Thumb up 0

  11. loserlame

    As discussed elsewhere, by legalizing marijuana, etc. too, New York could, in theory, become a teeming global village like Amsterdam, the greatest city I’ve ever experienced. Legal prostitution, legal drug trade, minors drink alcohol, all folks come as they are, every one steeped in ancient European culture. They even have green energy, using windmills…. Amsterdam is everything the US is not. Just gaze at it in rapt awe of how all things should be.

    New york was number one on Allah’s Hit List, but thats bound to change soon……

    Thumb up 1

  12. Mississippi Yankee

    Every single time this issue has been put up for vote,statewide, amongst it’s citizens it has failed. And that includes California.
    FULL STOP

    I treat a persons sexuality the same as I treat their religion, if it feels good, go for it. Just don’t do it in the streets… it frightens the horses and the children.

    Now go check out the in your face (no pun intended) Gay-Pride parade in NYC today

    Thumb up 2

  13. CM

    Every single time this issue has been put up for vote,statewide, amongst it’s citizens it has failed. And that includes California.
    FULL STOP

    An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage.[1] In 2011, Gallup,[2] ABC News/Washington Post,[3][4] and CNN/Opinion Research[5] polling data showed that a majority of Americans approve of same-sex marriage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

    That’s obviously national, not state-wide.

    States in which polls showed majority support for gay marriage in recent years include Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York,[45] New Jersey,[46] New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia, and some polls have shown majority support in Hawaii, California, Oregon and Washington.[citation needed]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Regional_differences

    This suggests that in 2010 it had greater than 50% support in 17 states. And, significantly, even in the states where support is the lowest, it’s at least 10% higher than only 15 years earlier.

    Thumb up 0

  14. loserlame

    Amsterdam

    Jacques Brel (French singer)

    In the port of Amsterdam
    There’s a sailor who sings
    Of the dreams that he brings
    From the wide open sea
    In the port of Amsterdam
    There’s a sailor who sleeps
    While the riverbank weeps
    With the old willow tree
    In the port of Amsterdam
    There’s a sailor who dies
    Full of beer, full of cries
    In a drunken down fight
    And in the port of Amsterdam
    There’s a sailor who’s born
    On a muggy hot morn
    By the dawn’s early light
    In the port of Amsterdam
    Where the sailors all meet
    There’s a sailor who eats
    Only fishheads and tails
    He will show you his teeth
    That have rotted too soon
    That can swallow the moon
    That can haul up the sails
    And he yells to the cook
    With his arms open wide
    Bring me more fish
    Put it down by my side
    Then he wants so to belch
    But he’s too full to try
    So he gets up and laughs
    And he zips up his fly
    In the port of Amsterdam
    You can see sailors dance
    Paunches bursting their pants
    Grinding women to paunch
    They’ve forgotten the tune
    That their whiskey voice croaks
    Splitting the night with the
    Roar of their jokes
    And they turn and they dance
    And they laugh and they lust
    Till the rancid sound of
    The accordion bursts
    Then out to the night
    With their pride in their pants
    With the slut that they tow
    Underneath the street lamps
    In the port of Amsterdam
    There’s a sailor who drinks
    And he drinks and he drinks
    And he drinks once again
    He drinks to the health
    Of the whores of Amsterdam
    Who have promised their love
    To a thousand other men
    They’ve bargained their bodies
    And their virtue long gone
    For a few dirty coins
    And when he can’t go on
    He plants his nose in the sky
    And he wipes it up above
    And he pisses like I cry
    For an unfaithful love
    In the port of Amsterdam
    In the port of Amsterdam

    Straight Amsterdam sailors still better than New York’s.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    I treat a persons sexuality the same as I treat their religion, if it feels good, go for it. Just don’t do it in the streets… it frightens the horses and the children.

    Now go check out the in your face (no pun intended) Gay-Pride parade in NYC today

    I checked it out online. Looks awesome. Heaps of fun and happy people. A great day for New York.

    The First Presbyterian Church of NY is on 5th Ave & 12th St., which is on the Pride Parade route. What I couldn’t fit in the picture are the congregants passing out water and the huge welcome banner, complete with triangles. I don’t believe in god, but I do believe in humanism, and it put a smile on my face.

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/

    There don’t appear to many women or horses running away from scary gays.

    Thumb up 0

  16. loserlame

    Brel worked on the song at his house overlooking the Mediterranean at Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, the house he shared with Sylvie Rivet, a publicist for Philips; a place she had introduced him to in 1960. “It was the ideal place for him to create, and to indulge his passion for boats and planes. One morning at six o’clock he read the words of Amsterdam to Fernand, a restaurateur who was about to set off fishing for scorpion fish and conger eels for the bouillabaisse. Overcome, Fernand broke out in sobs and cut open some sea urchins to help control his emotion.”[2]

    Thats how real men love men.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    “I learn tonight that the annual gay-pride march is on this very Sunday; perhaps there will be a louder, more in-your-face contingent there. But here, tonight, I see neither the face of anarchy, nor that of a nascent “North Korea.” I see smiles on young people — and also, on some quiet senior citizens who are actually old enough to remember Stonewall 1969.

    And speaking of 1969, here’s a little bit of perspective. In 1969, Spain was a conservative religious republic, led by the legendary Generalissimo Francisco Franco; and New York City was already Babylon-on-the-Hudson, well on its way to being the crime-sex-drugs-porn-and-atonal-music capital of the world. If I had said to you then, “Forty years from now, one of these places will allow homosexuals to marry each other with the blessing of the state” . . . well, let’s just say you would have made a lot of money if you had bet on Spain.

    Spain did it in 2005, six years ahead of the Empire State; and now we have it here in ol’ Babylon. I call it Babylon affectionately; let no one question, on this night, my patriotism as a citizen of the state of Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt, and the Marx Brothers,”

    – Michael Potemra, in a fair and moving post, at NRO. I repeat: NRO.

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/yglesias-award-nominee-2.html

    Thumb up 0

  18. Mississippi Yankee

    Ok, then let’s have state referendums. You see polls are not votes.

    It’s a states issue, if wasn’t we’d be trying to add a new amendment to the Constitution. That’s how a Constitutional Republic works. So please spare me that rant MmOk?

    New Poll: Would you like to be richer, younger and better looking?
    See how that works?

    Allow me to repeat:

    Every single time this issue has been put up for vote,statewide, amongst it’s citizens it has failed. And that includes California.
    FULL STOP

    Thumb up 1

  19. loserlame

    I checked it out online. Looks awesome. Heaps of fun and happy people. A great day for New York.

    So gay people are, in fact, more fun to be around, naturally gayer than heteros if and when heteros allow them to be? I dunno, ihat sounds a bit like the European definition of “stereotyping” to me….

    Ima check if they’re not also more naturally sensitive to environmental ussues….

    Thumb up 1

  20. CM

    Ok, then let’s have state referendums. You see polls are not votes.

    Is there any reason to believe they would be any different? Have referendums taken place on the issue with quite different results?

    It’s a states issue, if wasn’t we’d be trying to add a new amendment to the Constitution. That’s how a Constitutional Republic works. So please spare me that rant MmOk?

    The White House: “The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens. The process in New York worked just as it should.”

    New Poll: Would you like to be richer, younger and better looking?
    See how that works?

    I don’t see how that analogy works. It’s impossible to be richer, younger and better looking (and who would say no?!). It wasn’t impossible to allow same-sex marriage.

    Allow me to repeat:

    Every single time this issue has been put up for vote,statewide, amongst it’s citizens it has failed. And that includes California.
    FULL STOP

    True, although it can’t be far away (judging by the changing attitudes in polls, and the close votes in places like Maine, it’s fair to say that it’s inevitable). Rights have been extended via voting, e.g.

    Referendum 71 (R-71) was a vote held in 2009 in which the people of Washington state confirmed Senate Bill 5688, a law extending the rights and obligations of domestic partnership in Washington. The Bill was approved 53% to 47%; this marked the first time in the United States that voters had approved a state-wide ballot measure that extended LGBT relationship rights,[1] although Arizona voters had previously rejected a ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions in 2006 (only to pass civil-unions-neutral Proposition 102 two years later).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Referendum_71_(2009)

    Thumb up 0

  21. Kimpost

    I actually agree with you. When polled people tend to become a bit more politically correct, than at the ballot box. It’s not a huge gap, but it’s there. That’s why I love it when politicians tell their constituents to go f–k themselves by passing a bill based on their individual convictions, instead of what their base actually wants them to vote for. Sometimes leaders need to lead.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Mississippi Yankee

    The White House: “The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens. The process in New York worked just as it should.”

    In New York the vote was conducted by politicians. And when a measure passes by one vote I have a tendency to smell agenda tainted money. Why wasn’t this issue voted on by the people of New York state?
    This outcome may or may not have been the same if everyone had received a vote, we’ll never know. This, of course, was the whole point of my original comment.
    To date individual voters say NO, state legislators say YES. On the other hand ya can’t even wipe you ass with polls.

    Thumb up 2

  23. AlexInCT

    Heh, I would love to see the methodology of those polls. Reality is CM that every time this has gone up for a vote that it was voted down, and then it ended up in court where the judges ruled against the people of the state on the grounds that gays were being denied the same rights. The problem as I see it is that gays already have not just the same rights as me, but quite a few more (hate crimes?), and yet what we really have is a request for t a new right. All under the guise that they are being discriminated against. I would have a lot more respect for the gay movement if they were at least honest about what the real fight is about anyway – and it isn’t that they don’t have equal rights under the law, that’s bogus – instead of pretending that they are still victims. Gays have not been victims for a long time now despite the heavy effort to paint it that way. And no, just because some people see more harm in changing the definition of marriage – an institution that because of government involvement already has been turned to shit – to suit gays, doesn’t mean they are victims. Especially when there already have been compromises and laws that have basically given them every single benefit and protection under the law as other citizens have, except the title of marriage they so desperately still pursue so they can stop feeling stigmatized about their lifestyle.

    Thumb up 0

  24. AlexInCT

    Very well said Kimpost. Methinks that a lot of these polls on these kind of issues are skewed by people that given a chance to vote in private would not live up to what they say when they are asked in public.

    Thumb up 0

  25. JimK

    Especially when there already have been compromises and laws that have basically given them every single benefit and protection under the law as other citizens have, except the title of marriage

    That is a gross mis-characterization of the issue.

    1. It is in no way as simple for a gay couple to get the same rights AS EASILY as a married straight couple gets automatically. Ergo: In any state that has not legalized gay marriage, the status quo is state-sponsored discrimination based on sexual orientation. Period. End of argument. It’s prima facie. Straights get a license, sign and submit it with the correct signatures and BANG: legal rights are altered. Gays? In states without gay marriage? Yeah good fucking luck getting ALL the shit straight people get even if you have reams of legal paperwork spelling it all out.

    2. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TITLE. It’s ALWAYS been about getting all the benefits of marriage without the added hurdles of having to draft contracts and special wills and STILL being denied basic rights of partnership, like property rights, rights of survivorship, medical decisions, simple visitation of a hospitalized spouse, etc.

    Gay people deserve to be able to fill out the same form as straight people and get EXACTLY the same legal benefits from joining into a union, and until they can have it with the exact same level of ease as a straight couple, the government is discriminating.

    Lastly: any simple majority can vote to remove the rights of another group. THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT, MORAL OR JUST. I could give some pretty obvious examples, but we all know how that discussion goes. Suffice it to say, a majority of one group voting to strip another group of rights that are enjoyed by the majority is, to me, the exact kind of thing that courts should be preventing.

    Thumb up 2

  26. CM

    I don’t really understand that. Only one person is asking them, it’s not someone they know and usually it’s over the phone. The don’t have their name published alongside their opinion.
    I guess the proof is in the pudding, as always. Have there been referendums on this issue which have had markedly different results from polls asking the same question?

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    JimK seems to have covered the substance of your post Alex. The only thing I would ask is why you think the polls are flawed (on what basis?).

    Thumb up 0

  28. loserlame

    So tell me why they’re called “gay” to begin with, hm? and do they protest this stereotype a lot? I encountered my share of prejudice and hatred as an American overseas. Why is stereotyping Americans less evil than assuming gays have better taste in fashion than straight folks? Done so in the nicest way, of course, as you feel a natural kinship with repressed minorities based on your place of birth?

    Thumb up 0

  29. AlexInCT

    1. It is in no way as simple for a gay couple to get the same rights AS EASILY as a married straight couple gets automatically.

    What you fail to point out is that married couples don’t automatically get the all sorts of right either, Jim. They have to get married and have that marriage blessed by the state to qualify for a lot off them. Even then, there are many things that are not a given and require extra work to get.

    Ergo: In any state that has not legalized gay marriage, the status quo is state-sponsored discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    Even when they created the legal equivalent – the civil marriage – like we have in CT? Also, replace gay marriage with whatever other minority’s sexual orientation/preference, and see how you feel about your comment that it’s discrimination plain and simple. BTW, not just states, but corporations, people, and enitities discriminate on other criteria all the time. Sometimes discrimination has a good purpose/reason. Be careful arguing nothing can be discriminated against.

    Period. End of argument. It’s prima facie.

    I disagree.

    Straights get a license, sign and submit it with the correct signatures and BANG: legal rights are altered

    .

    Where did you get married? Because I got married over 22 years ago in NY, and I had to do a blood test, and jump through hoops, for the state not the chruch, to qualify. It was crazy. And considering how many people mess marriage up, maybe it should be a lot harder to get married. Not made eaiser for everyone? Just saying.

    Gays? In states without gay marriage? Yeah good fucking luck getting ALL the shit straight people get even if you have reams of legal paperwork spelling it all out.

    My uncle lives in texas, and he had no problem getting everything don. You would think Texas would be considered very gay unfriednly if you go by what people believe.

    2. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TITLE. It’s ALWAYS been about getting all the benefits of marriage without the added hurdles of having to draft contracts and special wills and STILL being denied basic rights of partnership, like property rights, rights of survivorship, medical decisions, simple visitation of a hospitalized spouse, etc.

    My “old queen” of an uncle (his words and he says them with pride) disagrees. He in fact points out most gay guys that claim they really care about marriage are frauds since being gay is about freedom and rocking the establishment. I may be remiss in believing a gay guy that’s honest about this stuff, I guess.

    Gay people deserve to be able to fill out the same form as straight people and get EXACTLY the same legal benefits from joining into a union, and until they can have it with the exact same level of ease as a straight couple, the government is discriminating.

    Absolutely. as long as their state agrees with that. But me, I would prefer the state – the United States that is – got out of the business of sanctioning marriages completely.

    Lastly: any simple majority can vote to remove the rights of another group. THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT RIGHT, MORAL OR JUST.

    Nobody voted to remove anyone’s rights. They are voting to allow people NEW rights that currently are not afforded by society for a reason, Jim. You may think that reason is simply discrimination or that people hate homosexuals, but old societies looked down on the practice and ended up considering it deviant behavior for a reason. In fact, many still do. You can rail against that all you want, but until you can address & correct that human perception that it isn’t a bad thing for society, I seriously dislike the fact that it just gets rammed down our throats. Right or not. The decisions get made by humans, and one day they will ram down something we all don’t like and we will have no recourse to address that.

    I could give some pretty obvious examples, but we all know how that discussion goes. Suffice it to say, a majority of one group voting to strip another group of rights that are enjoyed by the majority is, to me, the exact kind of thing that courts should be preventing.

    Except, the right never existed in the first place, under the law, so they are not stripping anyone of anything. If what you want to argue is that society has denied gays their rights for a long time, I might be there with you, to some degree, but I find little to compel me to buy this argument that the majority is stripping the minority of a right, when that minority never had that right period.

    Thumb up 0

  30. AlexInCT

    Read Kimpost’s point about how people will say one thing when polled and on the spot for fear of being labeled a bigot, homophobe, or whatever, then vote differently when they have the anonymity of a vote to not allow it. Even more of more importance I guess would be the fact that opinion matter little when you tell the guy on the phone you are for it, but then don’t bother going to the polls to register your approval.

    Thumb up 0

  31. AlexInCT

    I don’t really understand that. Only one person is asking them, it’s not someone they know and usually it’s over the phone. The don’t have their name published alongside their opinion.

    Did you pay attention to what happened after the California vote where gay marriage was defeated for the umpteenth time and the gay movement retaliated? Somehow they had all that information you claim above isn’t available. I can understand people choosing to just play it safe when called and polled. The hassle of saying you are not for it is not worth it.

    I guess the proof is in the pudding, as always. Have there been referendums on this issue which have had markedly different results from polls asking the same question?

    Again, look at California. You would figure that with the way California is portrayed as ultra gay friendly that they would have passed gay marriage decades ago. And yet, it has been shot down every damned time they voted. Maybe all the people that are pro gay marriage can’t be bothered to vote so that explains it? What conviction.

    Thumb up 0

  32. loserlame

    The anonymous Internet – places like youtube – reveal how the Earth’s Good People Loving the Good Things the Good Earth Provides think and act when allowed to be themselves: “drink piss nigger fag die BONO IS GOD”

    Thumb up 0

  33. loserlame

    I see. Spain went from being a mini-America to a place where gays want to live, and its obviously because the US’ Xtian Bushian influence has dwindled since Gorbi single-handedly brought the Wall down.

    The German wiki entry for “same sex marriages” for some completely mysterious reason includes a comparison to US states:

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichgeschlechtliche_Ehe

    In den folgenden Ländern und Teilgebieten von Ländern wurde die Ehe für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare geöffnet:

    Niederlande (2001)
    Belgien (2003)
    Spanien (2005)
    Kanada (2005)
    Südafrika (2006)
    Norwegen (2009)
    Schweden (2009)
    Vereinigte Staaten
    Massachusetts (2004)
    Connecticut (2008)
    Iowa (2009)
    Vermont (2009)
    New Hampshire (2010)
    District of Columbia (2010)
    New York (2011)
    Mexiko
    Mexiko-Stadt (2010)
    Portugal (2010) (in Portugal ist jedoch die gemeinsame Adoption von Kindern weiterhin verboten)
    Island (2010)
    Argentinien (2010)


    What I can see from this Internet = wholly true statistic is just how many eons Europe is ahead of the US, culturally, death to the US. 3 years difference is eons in terms of culture.

    Anyway, how about them Russkis, the heros of the Cold War?
    Wheres Germany? They’ve been voting Green/Left for decades, now?

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    Nowhere did I say that anything is unavailable.

    What is the hassle involved with answering a certain way on a telephone poll? How is the hassle determined by what answer you give? I assume polls are conducted by polling companies, and the people calling don’t provide opinions or reactions to opinions.

    Anyway, with respect to Cal, it seems the voting on Prop 8 in 2008 DID reflect what was shown in some polls.

    In a poll taken one week after the 2008 court decision, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 54% of respondents supported an amendment to the California constitution to ban gay marriage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#Polling

    The vote in Prop 8 was 52%, so almost identical.

    Since 2008 support for gay marriage seems to have increased in the polling. So I guess the only way we’ll know for sure is if they have the chance to vote again. If the previous anti vote holds up, the polling was wrong.

    Again, look at California. You would figure that with the way California is portrayed as ultra gay friendly that they would have passed gay marriage decades ago. And yet, it has been shot down every damned time they voted. Maybe all the people that are pro gay marriage can’t be bothered to vote so that explains it? What conviction.

    Or perhaps the portrayal wasn’t accurate. That’s what the polling results in that wiki link would indicate.

    When you say “every damned time” I assume you’ve referring to Prop 22 in 2000 and then Prop 8 in 2008. Any others?

    Thumb up 0

  35. CM

    Read Kimpost’s point about how people will say one thing when polled and on the spot for fear of being labeled a bigot, homophobe, or whatever, then vote differently when they have the anonymity of a vote to not allow it. Even more of more importance I guess would be the fact that opinion matter little when you tell the guy on the phone you are for it, but then don’t bother going to the polls to register your approval.

    I’d like to see some good evidence which shows a clear disparity between polling and voting.

    If the voting is alongside general voting (i.e. an election), the issue of ‘not turning out’ on the issue doesn’t exist. Or least the excuse disappears.
    if it isn’t at the same time (such as Prop 22 in March 2000 which appears to have been an ‘initiative’ vote not alongside anything else) then that might suggest that the anti-gay marriage people feel more strongly about it then those that either ‘fine’ with gay marriage or simply don’t care enough either way. What I mean is that I can certainly see a situation where a conservative religious person would say NO on the phone and would also go and vote NO. Whereas someone who is ‘fine’ with gay marriage would probably say YES on the phone, but they don’t feel strongly enough to actively go somewhere to vote for it.

    That might explain why the Field Poll was so wrong in 2000 (53% against gay marriage, as opposed to the vote which was 61%, with only a 53% turnout). It seems that back then the people against gay marriage held a monpoly on really giving a shit.

    Thumb up 0

  36. Kimpost

    I believe that I have seen studies of the phenomena, but a quick Google didn’t help me much. I’ll have to look further.

    Didn’t we have a related discussion during the 2008 presidential on the old MW forum, but on race? I believe that the difference between polling and voting records in that regard even has a name attached to it (after a black politician losing in spite of winning in the polls).

    Racism, bigotry. I think they share the same underlying mechanisms. And if you hold such views, you might be somewhat inclined to lie when polled. Even when it’s supposedly anonymous, it’s still a direct question asked by another human being. It’s easier to base your vote on gut feeling in the privacy of a voting booth.

    I’m not saying that the gap is huge, but I think it does exist. If it turns out that I’m wrong, then that would be excellent.

    Thumb up 0

  37. loserlame

    I’d like to see some good evidence which shows a clear disparity between polling and voting.

    lol, theres this noble movement, wikileaks, that promises to better the world via absolute transparency. How can I be sure they don’t get their hands on a list of phone numbers and publish them, for the greater good of all mankind, bar none?
    I voted for free and universal health care. Where is it? in Libya, bombing children dead for oil.

    I’d say there is a old and oft-proven disparity between American’s words and deeds, so theres little reason to trust any of their polls.

    Thumb up 0

  38. loserlame

    Next up for New Yorkers are adoptions

    Sit Elton and Furnish have been together since 1993 and were joined in a civil partnership December 21, 2005 the first day civil partnerships became legal in the United Kingdom. While the media has often referred to the UK unions as gay marriage, they are technically/semantically not marriage.*

    The media is currently reporting that Sir Elton and his partner are “married,” and have used that language in the past. During the 2008 Prop 8 election Sir Elton famously said:

    ” I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word “marriage,” I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships”.

    End of story

    ir Elton, 62, wed Furnish, 48, in a civil partnership ceremony in 2005 after 12 years together.
    Feeling broody: Elton with a child at a Ukrainian orphanage last year; his attempts to adopt the boy failed
    Feeling broody: Elton with a child at a Ukrainian orphanage last year; his attempts to adopt the boy failed. Zachary is the first child for both of them.His middle name Levon is the title of a song from Sir Elton’s 1971 album Madman Across The Water.
    While the surrogacy came as a surprise to fans of the couple, the pair have previously made their wish to become fathers known.
    They first attempted to adopt an HIV positive child from the Ukraine last year, but were rejected because of Sir Elton’s age and the fact that the country did not recognise civil marriages.

    Everywhere on earth but the goddam uptight US… phone polls .. resolutions… amendments… Prop 8…

    Thumb up 0

  39. Kimpost

    You’ve got to help me out here, because I’m struggling to find anyone here suggesting that same sex marriage is allowed everywhere except in the US. Super-liberal Sweden didn’t allow same sex marriage until quite recently, which indicates that we are just as bigoted as the next guy.

    I don’t see anyone – again, here – suggesting that it isn’t so, yet you go on and on and on as if people were.

    Thumb up 0

  40. loserlame

    Lack of same sex marriage in the US seems to captivate and bother Euros more than any other countries’ bigotry, as usual. You go on and on and on here (nowhere else) about what the US would need to do to please you if, when, etc:

    No, if I was a homosexual conservative I would probably hold my nose while voting democrat. Certainly so, if I lived in a state where gay marriage wasn’t yet allowed. First acknowledge my right to pursue happiness under the same premises as heterosexuals, then I’ll ponder over economic policy and foreign affairs.

    Hailing them as revolutionary, miraculous, watershed, enlightening etc. events more special than ordinary marriage is putting undue pressure on them.
    When the honeymoons over, these marriages will survive or fail, just like normal ones, too. No? And if and when they don’t, are you going to blame the old Uncaring Society? Yes?

    Thumb up 0

  41. AlexInCT

    I’d like to see some good evidence which shows a clear disparity between polling and voting.

    Pay attention to some elections then, CM. We have had a whole buynch of them here in the US where the media, be it because they had biased polls or the people didn’t tell them the truth, got the numbers completely wrong. Also keep in mind as I pointed out that unless someone is a voter, the opinion matter not a bit. In the end opinion polls don’t define anything, voters showing up to vote for or against something do.

    I believe that I have seen studies of the phenomena, but a quick Google didn’t help me much. I’ll have to look further.

    Heh, you think the LSM would expose that kind of stuff to us rubes? I bet it will take a Freedom of Information Act request to get that kind of information. :)

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    Pay attention to some elections then, CM.

    Yeah I generally do. Thanks for the tip though.

    We have had a whole buynch of them here in the US where the media, be it because they had biased polls or the people didn’t tell them the truth, got the numbers completely wrong.

    Well no they’re generally pretty close. The results are usually within the standard of error of the last polls. Of course people change their mind on the day – no way of picking that. But then I’m not pretending there is.

    Also keep in mind as I pointed out that unless someone is a voter, the opinion matter not a bit. In the end opinion polls don’t define anything, voters showing up to vote for or against something do.

    Well it matters in terms of getting a clearer idea what the general population think on an issue. Voting is less of a clear idea.

    Found the theory Kimpost. It’s called the Bradley effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

    Some analysts have dismissed the theory of the Bradley effect, or argued that it may have existed in past elections, but not in more recent ones. Others believe that it is a persistent phenomenon.

    Thumb up 0

  43. loserlame

    On a lighter note: lololololololollolololololololololololollolololololololololololollolololololololololololollolololol – someone give this guy an honorary Euro passport – lolololololololollolololololololololololol – cough -lololollolololololololollolololololololololololollolololol

    I had to laugh pretty hard when I read this “Ah, he’s just hanging out where every other American is living, too, lol” story.
    I recall how enlightened Kraut men would regularly get drunk in pubs and bars then publicly urinate on their otherwise spotless cleaned-by-grateful-Turkish-guest-workers city streets because it was the natural thing for real men to do.

    Here’s the rare, similarly enlightened Yank doing the global thang:

    http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-toilet-peeping-suspect-meticulously-plotted-peepholes-20110628,0,1109358.story

    BOULDER, Colo. — Luke Chrisco, the man accused of spying on women by hiding in a portable toilet tank at a yoga festival, spent hours creating peep holes in restrooms across Boulder, according to the arrest affidavit released Tuesday.

    Chrisco was just another bizarre Boulder character — his nickname is Skye — prior to the Hanuman Festival. That’s where a woman lifted the lid of a toilet in a portable restroom and saw something moving in the murk. A man summoned to investigate also saw movement beneath a tarp in the tank, and when he stepped outside, he heard the door lock behind him. But what went in had to come out eventually, in a manner of speaking — and a security supervisor subsequently saw a man later ID’d as Chrisco leaving the porta-potty and running away, clad only in a pair of gray sweatpants and a sheen of effluvia over some open cuts on his arms and back. Hygienic!

    Days later, Chrisco was busted outside of Vail during a traffic stop; he’d previously been eyeballed panhandling near a gas station. Before long, he sat down with Fox31 for an interview in which he refers to spying on urinating or defecating women — “the highest creature in the universe,” he maintains — as “praising God” and says, “It sounds kind of weird, but I would just find my peace and go away — say, ‘Thank you, goddesses,’ and go about my night.”

    Cmon. Freedom. Amnesty. The dude never hurt anyone. I can’t imagine he not be welcome where sex and living free is far more realized – in overseas.

    Thumb up 0

  44. HARLEY

    The real test of this marriage vote is gonna be in 6 to 18 months when the gay divorces start rolling in.

    As i said before now Gays will get the chance to be as miserable as the rest of us.

    Thumb up 0

  45. CM

    How will that be a ‘test’ of whether gay people should be allowed to marry? Their divorce rate is surely completely irrelevant.

    Thumb up 0

  46. CM

    I re-read it. I still don’t see how the ‘test’ of whether gays should be allowed to marry will be when divorces start occuring. Apologies if I’m missing some subtle context.

    Thumb up 0

  47. Section8

    Subtle context? It’s a fucking joke. Ray Charles could see that.

    Please note: Ray Charles is actually blind so he cannot see, and using him (since he is famous) in pointing out that he could even “see” what Harley was getting at was the point of my comment. Now keep in mind you can’t actually “see” obvious blind or not, as obvious is not tangible unless you happen to name your dog or something that is tangible obvious, but then you would use a capital O since it would be a name, but the point being made is that everyone knows the obvious context of Harley’s post, but not actually everyone, as there are six billion people in the world and oh my it would be hard to ask every one of them, In fact we found one here who couldn’t see it. Do I need to post a link now or sumptin?

    Thumb up 1

  48. HARLEY

    dude, you really need to get out ore, at no point in any of my comments on this story did i mention anything about not allowing gays to marry or my belife in some restriction of their right to marry,in fact i sated the exact opposite.
    Marriage is ALWAYS A test of your character, and your ability to put up with the others shit.

    as i sad now they have teh chance to be as miserable as the rest of us.

    Thumb up 0

  49. CM

    :-) Nice!

    Except I’ve been involved in discussions in the past with conservatives who believe that gay marriages will never last, and that this is of relevance to whether they should be allowed to get married in the first place. So, yeah, sorry that I didn’t just see it as a joke. I thought he was another conservative who was running that strange ‘argument’.

    Go on, ask me for a link to the relevant discussion. ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  50. HARLEY

    Gay marages will last jsut as long as straight marraiges, and be as chaotic and fucked up…

    oh yeah one more thing, i an not a conservative, im a libertarian.
    We ran off most of the religious conservatives a long time ago.
    pay attention, that has been mentioned several times.

    Thumb up 0

  51. CM

    Gay marages will last jsut as long as straight marraiges, and be as chaotic and fucked up…

    Yep, for sure!

    oh yeah one more thing, i an not a conservative, im a libertarian.
    We ran off most of the religious conservatives a long time ago.

    That’s true, there does seem be few obvious religious posters here. I know Jim (not JimK) is very religious, but he seems to be the only one who has come over from MW forums.

    (BTW I never said you were conservative. I said that argument had been made by a conservative in the past – some time ago, I can’t find it on the old MW forums, might have even been in its previous incarnation)

    pay attention, that has been mentioned several times.

    Yes sir, sorry sir.

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    dude, you really need to get out ore,

    I believe the ore should stay in the ground and we should be looking at renewables.
    Also, I went to a bar for lunch today and I’m out at another tomorrow night. Is that what you mean?

    at no point in any of my comments on this story did i mention anything about not allowing gays to marry or my belife in some restriction of their right to marry,in fact i sated the exact opposite.

    Ok, that’s cool. As I said, I’ve heard the argument before, but you’ve made it clear now that you weren’t actually making it. No harm, no foul.

    Marriage is ALWAYS A test of your character, and your ability to put up with the others shit.

    as i sad now they have teh chance to be as miserable as the rest of us.

    Indeed.

    Thumb up 0

  53. HARLEY

    I believe the ore should stay in the ground and we should be looking at renewables.
    Also, I went to a bar for lunch today and I’m out at another tomorrow night. Is that what you mean?

    OWW you got me,
    if you do not know it by now I am the TYPO king here, some times my mind moves quite a bit faster than my knuckles….

    Thumb up 0

  54. CM

    Dammit, I kinda hoped you’d respond in some way so I could reply with “LOOK at what i said. fuck…..it was a joke”.

    Yeah no worries. I’m no grammar nazi. Just a regular nazi.

    Thumb up 0

  55. santino

    if you do not know it by now I am the TYPO king here,

    I never thought I’d see the day… I actually understand someone (i.e. loserlame) less than Harley. :)

    Thumb up 0

  56. CM

    Loserlame hears that all the time. He’s behaving himself remarkably well here too, he was way way worse at MW forums. Every post legally requires no less than six of the following word/terms:

    Noble, Bono, Kumbaya, Fags, Euros, Peace, Love, Speaks Out, Village, Germany/Kraut, Rich,, Ancient Culture, Free, Oil, Hemp, Russians (Love Their Children Too), Xtian, Thinker, Enlightened

    Thumb up 0

  57. loserlame

    You can blame that on global warming. And climate change. GW, AGW, GWB, etc. Plus greenhouse gases. “MW” always meant “More about the Weather” to an elite educating minority (i.e. non-Americans) in tune with humanity, the earth and stars.

    Hey, now we’re finally back on topic. And since some folks always fuss about it, I can’t help but wonder – rhetorically, of course – if intercourse among homosexual men doesn’t emit more greenhouse gases than the generic hetero missionary position? And if our dying Mother Nature cares?

    Thumb up 0

  58. AlexInCT

    What is the hassle involved with answering a certain way on a telephone poll? How is the hassle determined by what answer you give?

    You must never have gotten a call from “Caller ID Blocked” or “Unknown Caller” that then claims to be taking a poll, huh? Even when it doesn’t block the ID, I tend to not trust the poll callers in general not to be crooks or people with an agenda, which they often are. Especially when they start asking for my gender, race, or annual income too. If I don’t have details I assume the worst, and work accordinly.

    Anyway, with respect to Cal, it seems the voting on Prop 8 in 2008 DID reflect what was shown in some polls.

    So you found one pollster that got close enough the number at some point, and then declared victory? Most of the polls I saw , from everyone, consistently over represented the other side and had skewed results. You would have a case if everyone had the same consitent numbers, which BTW they did not.

    Since 2008 support for gay marriage seems to have increased in the polling. So I guess the only way we’ll know for sure is if they have the chance to vote again.

    Are you a fan of the “Keep voting till I win” strategy employed by most of the EU bureaucrats? What happens if they later decide it wasn’t a good idea, polls show a swing back, and people want a new vote to reverse it? I am all for another vote, but not one immeidately after. Wait some time then try again.

    Thumb up 0

  59. CM

    Yeah I guess I’m just not paranoid enough….;-)

    So you found one pollster that got close enough the number at some point, and then declared victory?

    WTF? You’re the only one around here that declares victory. I’m not cherry-picking polls either. That’s the one I found. I didn’t find five and just mention the only one that resembled the vote.

    Most of the polls I saw , from everyone, consistently over represented the other side and had skewed results. You would have a case if everyone had the same consitent numbers, which BTW they did not.

    Guess I’ll have to take your word for it, given that asking for evidence/examples is so frowned upon.

    Are you a fan of the “Keep voting till I win” strategy employed by most of the EU bureaucrats?

    No, not particularly. In this case (California, 2000 and 2008) it’s been those against gay marriage that have brought the vote.

    What happens if they later decide it wasn’t a good idea, polls show a swing back, and people want a new vote to reverse it? I am all for another vote, but not one immeidately after. Wait some time then try again.

    Given the poll numbers on the issue these days, it would be a surprise if they did try again.

    Thumb up 0

  60. hist_ed

    And when a measure passes by one vote I have a tendency to smell agenda tainted money.

    So would you change the rules and require a super majority to pass any law? How many votes would you require?

    Why wasn’t this issue voted on by the people of New York state?

    Because New York, like every other state and the federal goverment, is a representative democracy. We elect legislators to pass laws. If the people of New York don’t like this they have recourse through the ballot box and campaign donations. They also (I am assuming) can reverse this with an initiative. I bet there are groups starting to gather signatures right now.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Mississippi Yankee

    Because New York, like every other state and the federal goverment, is a representative democracy.

    Then why did California and several other states put the matter of gay marriage up to a general vote?

    The facts still remain the same concerning this issue:

    Popular vote = No
    politicians vote – Yes

    EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. TIME!
    If you can’t grasp that point then I’m at a loss for words.

    Thumb up 0

  62. CM

    Then why did California and several other states put the matter of gay marriage up to a general vote?

    Initatives.

    Popular vote = No
    politicians vote – Yes

    Popular vote = Probably yes in some places in 2011 and beyond but we’ll have to wait and see
    Politicians and courts = Yes

    Thumb up 0

  63. Mississippi Yankee

    CW, Probably and Maybe and Kinda/Sorta are just like Polls. At the end of the day they don’t mean Whazoo.
    I’ll even go out on a limb a say I don’t think we’ll ever see a general vote on gay marriage again in the country.

    The ironic part of all of this is that I don’t give a shit about marriage, gay or otherwise. What pisses me off is how this and a few other issues have been used to pervert the will of the people.

    And not that you in NZ would have a say but I’d love to see this come up as a constitutional amendment. Yanno 70% congress and 75% of the states. Oh and that’s 75% of We the People not 75% of we politicians and courts.
    Lincoln and the Commerce Clause put an end to States rights long before this cause. Everything since has just been lip srevice (no pun intended)

    Thumb up 0

  64. hist_ed

    Because we have a couple of ways of making law in these here United States. There wasn’t much in the way of direct democracy until the progressives came along and pushed for the initiative process. Despite that being added, it is still the role of legislators to, ummmm, what’s the word? oh yeah, legislate. Which means making laws. That is how our system works. Until the late 19th century that was pretty much the only way things got done. Then those pesky progressive introduced that direct democracy thingy and we citizens could also vote.

    So, do you think that all laws should be subject to initiative? Should we abolish legislatures and adapt the Athenian model of democracy? Or is it just social legislation or gay stuff or what? Please give us a coherent set of rules that indicate when the legislature is allowed to legislate and when the people need to do so.

    Thumb up 0

  65. Mississippi Yankee

    For the very last fucking time… and I’ll try to speak slowly…

    Every comment I’ve made in this post has been to point out this one simple fact:

    When the people vote on this issue they vote NO
    When the politicians vote on this issue they vote YES

    IS THE PEOPLES WILL BEING SERVED???
    Do you suggest we redo the NO states in their state houses?

    I no longer trust the system. And the closeness of the NY vote doesn’t help that trust.

    Thumb up 0