What are the Chances this Gay Bill Will Pass?
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/ny...aQ&oref=slogin

Gov. Eliot Spitzer will introduce a bill in the coming weeks to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, his spokeswoman said Friday, a move that would propel New York to the forefront of one of the most contentious issues in politics.

Though he has long voiced support for same-sex marriage and promised during his campaign last year to introduce legislation to legalize it, Mr. Spitzer did not mention the issue in his State of the State speech in January or in remarks a week ago outlining his priorities for the remainder of the legislative session, which ends June 21.

But the spokeswoman, Christine Anderson, said that Mr. Spitzer would not back away from his campaign pledge.

“The governor made a commitment to advance a program bill, and he will fulfill that commitment during this legislative session,” Ms. Anderson said, using the term that refers to legislation introduced directly by the governor rather than through a state agency or by the Legislature.

Several states allow some form of civil unions for same-sex couples, including Connecticut, where lawmakers are debating a measure that would legalize marriage for lesbians and gay men. Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal.

Any legislation to make New York the second such state would face a steep climb in Albany, a fact that Mr. Spitzer has acknowledged. Explaining why he did not include the gay-marriage bill among his post-budget legislative priorities, Mr. Spitzer said last week that he “was listing bills that I think we can and should get passed by the Legislature in the next few weeks. And so I am focusing now on politics as the art of the possible.

“I think most who are close to the issue would agree with me that it’s not likely to be passed in the next nine and a half weeks,” Mr. Spitzer added.

Legislation to allow same-sex marriage has never made it to a floor vote in either the Assembly, which has a Democratic majority, or the Republican-controlled State Senate. Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, has declined to take a stand on the issue. Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, has supported legislation to outlaw hate crimes and workplace discrimination against gays, but he remains opposed to same-sex marriage.

Even among lawmakers who say they favor the legislation, there is some division over the best strategy to get it passed. Two legislators from Manhattan, State Senator Thomas K. Duane and Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, both Democrats, have tried for several years to shepherd a gay-marriage bill through the Legislature and are trying again this year. That bill has at least 14 sponsors in the Senate and 42 in the Assembly.

If Mr. Spitzer does propose a bill, it is unclear how much muscle he will be willing — or able — to put behind it. The priorities he has outlined — such as overhauling the state’s campaign finance laws and introducing a constitutional amendment to require nonpartisan legislative redistricting — already pose a considerable challenge. That would leave Mr. Spitzer with little political bandwidth that would allow him to build support for another controversial bill.

The governor has also had few opportunities to build bridges to constituencies that present the strongest grass-roots opposition to gay marriage, such as Roman Catholic Church officials and other religious leaders. Church leaders already oppose Mr. Spitzer’s support of embryonic stem cell research, and an initiative that might have softened the blow of gay marriage — a tax credit for parents who send children to religious or other private schools — did not make it into the budget this year.

Gay-rights groups are scheduled to convene in Albany early next month for a day of lobbying, and several lawmakers and same-sex marriage advocates said they hoped that Mr. Spitzer would introduce his proposal before then.

“I don’t think the governor has dropped the ball on this,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay-rights group. “We’ve been talking with the governor’s people about this. At every moment they have brainstormed with us in some very creative ways about how to accomplish this agenda.”

Mr. Van Capelle said he shared Mr. Spitzer’s assessment that the measure was unlikely to pass both chambers of the Legislature this year, but he emphasized that the governor’s proposal would give it strategic and symbolic weight.

Gary Parker, the founder of Greater Voices, a coalition of gay-oriented political clubs in New York City, said the fact that every statewide elected official now supports gay marriage had heartened advocates.

“During the Pataki administration, there was a lot of frustration,” Mr. Parker said. “We felt extremely stagnant and stifled. Now there is movement. And the fact that there is discussion is progress.”

It's A Trap!!!

Hahahahaha!

Admiral Ackbar, nice!

I don't really see what the deal is with gay marriage. I'd rather have the institution of marriage separated from the gov't than gay marriage legalized. Marriage is between 2 people, a 3rd party doesn't need to get involved.

My favorite use of cause against this is: "If you allow same-sex marriage, you are going to have to allow incest, bestiality, and so many other horrid things like that."

I seriously don't see the problem with gay marriage. I do see a problem with the government denying rights, and I agree, a 3rd party does not need to be involved.

i dont see anything wrong with gays having some sort of "union" with the same rights as those who are married, but "marriage" should be between a man and a woman.

just my 2 cents.

arnold shwarzenegger was quoted as saying that he thinks'gay marriage should be something between a man and a woman'.

Lol

I'm not keen on the whole institution of marriage, but do you not think that any citizen who pays tax should be allowed to have the same rights as anyone else? The whole concept that marriage should only be between a man and a woman sounds pretty lame, especially considering that married gay couples generally make for great marriages, apart from great parents.

it's pretty presumptuous to tell someone how to live their life.

if two people of the same sex actually love each other enough to actually WANT to get married....let them.

it's not like it's something that's fun and easy. :p

exactly why do people have the right to tell other people how they can and cant live there lives, providing they are not hurting anyone.

What's so special about marriage anyway? Why is it so important that a couple should validate their relationship in a socially acceptable way? Can't they just be a couple who love one another and be done with it?

Ask Pookie, he's getting married.

I don't think that argument really holds a lot of water. Look at how many changes marriage has already gone through. Before the Civil War African Americans could not marry. Before 1967 interracial couples could not marry. You couldn't get a divorce without the permission of the pope, women used to be the property of men, marriage used to be a way to bind families for every reason except for love.

Marriage has changed so much in the last few centuries.I think to say "Marriage is between a man and woman and shouldn't change" is just weak.

Properly speaking, isn't a "marriage" something that is done in a church, before God? In which case it doesn't really matter whether the State says yay or nay, it's what the religious authorities say that matters.

Regardless of the personal views that someone might have, it makes certain things easier between gay couples, legally and financially. It is a bit easy to say that when you have more rights as a couple to start with.

It's rather crap, though, that a couple has to legitimise their relationship on what are really purely social terms to get legal rights.

I agree, but unfortunately it's the way things are. I'm strongly against marriage because of that, but if someone feels fit to tie the knot with another person, it should be their choice to do so, not others'.

Agreed.

I for one don't care much about it, but I have met people who are fervent believers that they should get married. I agree with what most has been said.

marriage is great. it's not easy, but it's worth it.

although I do not see any difference between me being married (with a certificate) and two gay people simply saying "we're married", however it's more of an equal rights issue isn't it?

honestly, I'm really not sure why sanctioned-bigotry is even legal in Amerika today. most gay people I know will say that they didn't choose to be that way, and that they were born into it. my point is: this is not simply some behavioral issue that "requires" restriction by the law and it shouldn't be anybody's business but those that are involved.

although I have no personal stake in this issue, I have a lot of gay friends and I live in the middle of Amerika's bible-belt. ignorance is rife here, and it tends to get under my skin.

i dont know about marriage, i mean its all very well showing your love but when it doesnt work then or when things have taken there toll and your only doing it for someones elses sake then its better to let go and live your life the way you want to. i think its sad if people marry young and then regret it later but then are stuck in their situation, it must be hard to get out of but not impossible. when things are too hard, even though your married then it should end because then you are just wasting your life for something thats not worth it.

time does take its crazy toll.

marriage is not about men & women or churches or any of that. what we're talking about here is forming a family and having the rights, protections and obligations of a family.

what's being questioned is the right of gay people to form a family. and currently they are being denied. the rest is all a bunch of semantic bullshit.

besides: the state is not a church & it never has been. you don't need a marriage license from the state to have a religious ceremony. and you don't need a religious ceremony to have a civil marriage.

funny how quickly we forget history-- in the XIX century, the catholic church (and other churches) fought against civil marriage because they saw it as a loss in their power and influence. they argued that marriage was a church affair not a matter of state. yet the state has its own reasons to recognize people as members of a family, and so civil marriage is a prevailing feature of life everywhere.

curiously enough, the state of israel is probably the only democracy that does not have civil marriages. the religious orthodox camp has the monopoly on marriage, so than even conservative and reform jews have to have an orthodox marriage. many israelis therefore chose to marry outside their country (cyprus being a favorite due to its proximity) , the state of israel then has to recognize the foreign marriage because of diplomatic reasons.

now i don't know who in america wants to give churches power over matters of state-- wait! republicans do! but sorry, there is separation of church & state, so the chuch should shut the fuck up on who gets a marriage license from the state. they in turn are free to set up their own requirements for marriage upon which the state has no say.

A "union" that grants gay couples the same rights as married couples would then technically be a marriage because IT WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME THING AS A MARRIAGE. It seems like you have a problem with the word "marriage" being used to describe the union of a gay couple, as opposed to a problem with wanting to separate "marriage" from "union" because of a deeper meaning "marriage" might have. Or is it a Church issue?

Basically what I'm saying is that your post is whack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui7pfVXFUqM

see how easily marriages fall apart?? :eek:

I'm telling you people....it's SERIOUS BIDNESS.

It proves that internet marriages are weak. They've only been married for just over a week and the cracks are already starting to show.

!@#$%! will be happy to know they are having marital problems.

ha ha ha you're more instigator than rob. of course i did. posted 3 times and i'm done with it. :D


i just want what's best for luxy, and crypto is a huuuuge playa. but she's stone-cold, so they can probably inflict equal harm on each other. oy...!!

Oh that is my nature, to be an instigator, and let the events follow through and me watching from the bench. Mostly cause I am a writer.

It was doomed from the moment I insisted on having a gay cake-topper.

And i thought that it was the ensuing argument because of the photo arrangements. Did you refuse to hold a bottle of vodka in your hand or something similar?

You must spread before giving it to Porky again.

Surely it'd be he giving it to you? You must spread though. ;)

Ah yes, I think they call this "irreconcilable differences."

okay, i'll admit, it was pretty whack.
i didnt think that one through quite well.

who said that matriarchy was a thing of the past?



:D

Pony play!!!!!!!!

She said no, didn't she?

Don't worry, Argos will give you a refund on the ring.