Paterson To Introduce Gay Marriage Bill In New York

Yes they can:

Gov. David A. Paterson will announce on Thursday plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor's plans.

Mr. Paterson's move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor's desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.

The right-wing loves to flog the judicial system anytime a state allows gay marriage through court decision. 'Undermining the will of the people!' they shout. But it really jams their radar when a legislature does it, like in Vermont.

Any New Yorkers want to weigh in on this bill's chance in the legislature?

Tags: Gay Marriage, Gov. Paterson (all tags)

Comments

44 Comments

Not Good

A bill passed the assembly last session, but never came to a vote in the Senate. This time Democrats control a 32-30 majority, but one of our senators, Diaz, said that he wouldn't support the Democratic candidate for Majority leader unless there were assurances that a gay marriage bill would not reach the floor for a vote. Between him and other conservative upstate Democrats I doubt that the bill has enough votes to pass at this juncture.

by pierredude 2009-04-14 07:55AM | 0 recs
Diaz?

Probably a Catholic, judging from that name.

Everyday I am more and more angry at the Church of my ancestors.  

They have completely lost their way.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Diaz?

WashBlue, do not confuse the hierarchy with the institution with the faith communities.  Our parish has a lot of middle-aged people (40-60) and a very healthy contingent of 20- and 30-somethings.  Of course, it tends to be things like gay-tolerant and I think the issues of married priests, women priests, and pro-choice would be fairly close if a vote were taken...I think "pro-choice" would win.

The Catholic Church in America is not homogeneous.

Note:  my Facebook page lists "Subversive Catholic" as my religion.

by InigoMontoya 2009-04-14 09:31AM | 0 recs
Indigo, do you feel your parish is typical or

the exception.

My GF goes to church here on Capital Hill in Seattle, and it is, as you would expect for the most liberal neighboorhood in Seattle, a very liberal parish.

Yet, when she goes down to visit her mother in Phoenix, as she did a couple of weeks ago, she mentioned the priest from the Pulpit went on a rant about Abortion....out of no place in the sermon, just took a right turn (as it were.)

I am not doubting that there are left leaning diocese, but, as a whole, the heirarchy is going to lean right, and, IMHO, probably fund a strong opposition to this bill (if it sees the light of day) as they did in CA.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Indigo, do you feel your parish is typical or

WSB, things vary wildly from parish to parish.  I get the hives just driving by churches in St. Louis, which is where my wife is from, because of their anti-abortion signs out front.  (We're in SoCal ourselves).   Years go by with abortion being mentioned from the pulpit here, though I suspect there are Catholics with very strong feelings on both sides of the aisle, fwiw.  (And I think it's a good thing that the issue is put aside.  Too divisive and the absence lets people work together on other things without acrimony.)

Fwiw, if one is looking for a tolerant parish, I suggest looking for one staffed by either Paulists or Jesuits as opposed to ordinary diocesan priests...much more educated, which is a start.

And I make no claim of being anything but a heterodox Catholic in several dimensions...my Facebook page says "Subversive Catholic" as my religion.

by InigoMontoya 2009-04-14 09:51AM | 0 recs
I went through Catholic Schools

Till high school, have a soft spot in my heart for the Jesuits even now.

I know I make the big bucks (wink!) because I was encourage to read great literature early; I was certainly blessed to have a Jesuit teacher hand me a copy of Moby Dick, because cause I was bored with the stuff they were having us read at that grade level.  

Here in Seattle, the Catholics schools are probably over 50% non-Catholics, because the rich folks know the quality of the education is still very high.

I have a lot of arguments with the Church of my Ancestors, but my Catholic School eduction is certainly not one of them.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Diaz?

The Catholic Church has been consistent in its views towards non-precreative sex.  How can you say it has lost its way?  I don't offer this as a defense of the Church, but at least they are and have been doctrinally consistent.

by orestes 2009-04-14 02:46PM | 0 recs
So, Marriage=Sex=Procreation?

Hmmm...

Therefore, the Catholic church wants ALL marriages that don't have children annulled?

If I tell a priest, myself and my girlfriend, in our late 50s, have NO intentions of having children, should he refuse to marry us?

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: So, Marriage=Sex=Procreation?

Did you really attend Catholic schools?  It's surprising you do not know the church's view on sex if you did.  The church has always opposed extra-marital sex and the use of contraceptives for married couples.  You can find it ridiculous, as I do, but it is at least consistent.  Doctrinally, homosexual sex is viewed no differently than extra-marital heterosex.  I have always respected the consistency in the church's position because it does not demonize homosexuality any more than other forms of non-procreative sex.

by orestes 2009-04-16 10:19AM | 0 recs
its 3 senators

Diaz is only one of them.  This goes back to when the Dems won the senate finally. Malcom Smith the current leader supports gay marriage, but the 3 dems (which would make the vote 29 - 33 against) made a big hooplah over supporting him for dem senate maj leader because of gay marriage.  They did get a lot of flack over it though (of course it was more complicated than that). Overall though, the new senate maj leader supports gay marriage as well, and i guess it would depend on how much pressure we can put on the 3 democratic hold out senators of the state.

by sepulvedaj3 2009-04-14 08:16AM | 0 recs
Diaz Espada and Kruger

Rubén Diaz Sr., 65, a Pentecostal pastor from the Bronx, was elected to the senate in 2002 to represent one of the poorest districts in the city. Most of his energy goes toward combating the scourge of homosexuality. In 1997, Diaz insisted that gays be barred from entering the city to participate in a series of sporting events because they were likely to spread AIDS.  Diaz has insisted that his goal in the leadership fight is to block any gay-marriage bill.

his may be because Democrats were already in shock that Smith had offered even more power to another Bronx dissident known to push the envelope in his business affairs. Pedro Espada Jr., 54, is a peppery ex-boxer who has been giving the Bronx Democratic organization conniptions for years. In 1998, while facing charges of steering money from a large health clinic he runs into his political campaigns, Espada wore his own secret listening device to meetings with top Democratic officials... Espada beat that case at trial. But a few years later, three of his top aides pleaded guilty to state charges of having diverted $30,000 in clinic funds into his campaigns, while another went to prison for perjury. The money had been intended to help poor families and patients suffering from AIDS.

Carl Kruger, a wily and wealthy senator from south Brooklyn, cut the best deal of all. Kruger, 58, won election to the senate in 1994 with the support of Tony Genovesi, the late assemblyman and Brooklyn powerbroker who was an eloquent foe of capital punishment. Upon his election, Kruger immediately voted for the death penalty, prompting his mentor to accuse him of betrayal.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-12-17/c olumns/how-the-gang-of-three-ties-up-sen ate-dems/2

by sepulvedaj3 2009-04-14 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Diaz Espada and Kruger

Finally, a Democrat who takes a courageous stance against the special interests.

I'll know who to contribute to from now on.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Diaz Espada and Kruger

Silly child...all interests are special interests to someone.  If you want to support Diaz because he is a bigot, bigotry can be YOUR special interest.

by candideinnc 2009-04-14 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Diaz Espada and Kruger

LOLZ.

This gay marriage issue is going to tear this country apart.

Who knows, the Dems and the Repubs may both come to fully support gay marriage.

But gay marriage blows apart the concept of traditional marriage.

As long as I'm a Democrat, I'll never support it; and I'll defend those who agree with me.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Diaz Espada and Kruger

Its immoral...simple as that. There is a reason that only man and woman can create a child. God intended it that way.....Gay marriage is an absolute abomination. And for those on the other side who think that this country supports it in the majority, they are in for a very rude awakening.....

by adb67 2009-04-14 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh we're not in the majority

It's not coming to California.

The millions who voted for Obama and Prop 8 saw to that!

As far as the not being governed by religion, you're right.

But our civilization and legal code is based on Judeo-Christian principles, so it's a little different from the "black-and-white" way you're perceiving governance to be.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: No, its not

Much legal code in the US is lifted verbatim from Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

As far as marriage being an unfortunate farce in many cases, you are right.

But that doesn't make gay marriage right.

One of my good friends is gay. We shot clays together a couple weeks ago. I care for him a lot.

But that doesn't change the fact that the idea of gay marriage as a fundamental human rights issue is basically foisting immorality on the body politic.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Much of Levitticus and Deuteronomy

I like you, friend!  :)

The Jews were not exposed to the Babylonians until approximately 700 BC, many centuries after Mosaic law was established, so I'm a little confused by your assertion.

I was the first person to cheer when the SCOTUS struck down the anti-sodomy laws.  A policeman should not be arresting two men or two women for anything he happens to find them doing in the privacy of their home.

Gay marriage, like heterosexual marriage, instantly becomes a universal concept when it's promulgated in the courts or our legislatures. It becomes something that everyone has to instantly recognize as right. It affects everyone.

I can't speak for others' interpretation of the Bible, but those concepts from the Old Testament which are reiterated in the New Testament (such as homo sex being immoral) are most important. I'm not preaching here, but I'm telling you how Christians view important concepts from the Bible.

The only thing Bush said of any value during his Presidency was that we're all sinners, even those heteros who abuse marriage.

As far as bigotry towards gays, I wouldn't be having this debate with you if I were truly prejudiced.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: uh Abraham came from Ur

There's a weird confluence of history and theology going on in your head.

You think theology is subservient to history, but really it's the other way around.

And the law is Mosaic, not "Abrahamic". If you're saying that Abraham is the father of all Jews, then you must have proof that he designed their code of law.

The Bible is a useless baseline?

If anyone is bigoted and prejudiced, it's you.

Don't worry--at the end of the day, I'm still a Democrat, I still believe in fairness, decency and honesty, but I will never subscribe to prejudiced notions like yours which treat religion like a remnant of history.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 02:05PM | 0 recs
Who made you F-ing God?

Listen, you toad, who gave you the legal right to make YOUR definition of Morality law?

Personally, I could care less if you think Gay people are immoral, black people are inferior, the Jews killed Jesus, whatever nutbar crazies spins your top, it's a free country.

Just don't try to think YOUR morality should define law in the US, if you want a theocracy
there are plenty of countries more to your liking.

Seriously, you ought to consider if this is the right blog for you, I think Red State or even Free Republic would be more to your thinking.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Who made you F-ing God?

The nail on the head!  You can continue to be a racist or a bigot or a right wing religious fanatic, we don't give a damn.  But you can't treat gays, or blacks or atheists as a subordinate group under the law.  Marriage is a right, not a privilege for heterosexuals.  

If the state is going to give tax breaks to heterosexual couples, and the state is going to offer family health insurance coverage to married couples, we are taxpayers.  We demand equal treatment under the law.  If the state continues to certify marriages, it is going to have to include us.

by candideinnc 2009-04-14 01:57PM | 0 recs
of course

This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple.

All this "my freedom of religion is being threatened" clap trap is ludicrous.

Engraved on the SCOTUS of the US is

"Equal justice under law"

That's it. There are no exceptions.

If you are a US citizen, there is only one set of rules.

Your gender, color, religion, country of ancestry and for goodness sakes, who you choose to love CAN NOT be a criterion for the law to consider.

We all are equal, or none of us are.

I apoligized below for biting his head off, but I just go nuts when someone plays this morality card, in this, of all countries on the planet, that should be laughed out of the arguement.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: This is my beef with religion

What Jesus wanted was for us to follow the word of the Lord. He wanted us to place him before everything else, including ourselves. Everythign we do is supposed to be done to please the Lord....simple as that.

by adb67 2009-04-14 11:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you support banning divorce?

They will never answer.

Nor will they EVER answer what is the causual action that gay marriage will take, that will harm Hetrosexual marriage?

Is it an electrical or magnetic effect? Or nuclear?  

I get it offends their religious sensibility.

Big deal, as I said, they can be offended and huffy all they want, but the law is not their weapon for their correcting their uncomfort with other people not just like them.

I hear this "you will have to teach in the schools blah blah blah..."

Yes, and I bet it was really a change when they had to say "yes, its OK for people of different races to marry"....

Funny, I still see WHITE people marrying other WHITE people, somehow when the miscegenation laws fell, that didn't change a whole lot.

How's about a bet, you religious folks?

If the hetrosexual divorce rate in Vermont or Iowa shoots up wildly in the next 5 years, you can call me out.

If NOTHING CHANGES, hows about you put your religious intolerance where the sun don't shine.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you support banning divorce?

Divorce is actually allowed for in the Bible.

The bottom line is no matter the religious angle, whatever becomes law becomes RIGHT, becomes TRUE, becomes PROPER, becomes SANCTIONED, PERPETUATED AND PROLIFERATED under the law.

What two people do at home is their business, but when their private acts become RIGHT under the law, then those acts become a) normalized, and b) exemplified for others to perpetuate and proliferate.

If gays were truly seeking equality, they wouldn't want others to perpetuate and proliferate their acts but instead they would seek to keep those acts to themselves, in private. Gays essentially already have the right to privacy under the law, so I don't know why they are going the extra step of asking for marriage. The concept of marriage would forever be changed and their private acts would become as public and as appropriate as hetero sex. So sex in a hundred years would go beyond being a choice and instead would become obligatory to find out if you actually prefer sex with men or sex with women.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 03:02PM | 0 recs
WTF are you talking about

So sex in a hundred years would go beyond being a choice and instead would become obligatory to find out if you actually prefer sex with men or sex with women.

Dude, what planet do you live on?

Heck, when my hormones kicked in, I was BEYOND obligated, I was a shaking drooling IDIOT trying to get sex.  

But, like many, I knew I liked girls. I knew I liked girls BEFORE my hormones lite the fuse.

I WAS BORN THAT WAY so, evidently Nature or God did the obligating!

No one taught me, or showed me the Heterosexual Agenda...Sheesh!

Maybe some people are not as sure as I was, but having heard a lot of heart-rending stories of people who were obligated by family, by religion, to repress what they knew in their souls, that they were different...

Oh hell, why are we talking to you?

Your viewpoint is on the decline, the millenials will run your viewpoint RIGHT out of the marketplace in 10, 20 years max.

Sigh, what's tragic is, it will take that fricking long.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF are you talking about

I was born in 1979.

I guess I'm late Gen-X, so maybe I don't count.

Not even 30 and I'm already past it.

Woest me.

But you still chose to have sex.

You choice was made easier by examples in the media.

If gays are allowed to marry, different kinds of choices will begin to predominate in the media and the choice will be harder for a kid to make.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-04-14 03:20PM | 0 recs
Harder?

Or maybe, a family of man will NOT have such a torturous road, have to live in denial of who they are and how they want to live their lives.

Besides, you're already fighting a battle lost.

You think you can control the media?

Shit, bro, What I see on Network TV, Broadcast TV, Desperate Housewifes, would have been just about PORN when I was a kid in the 50s.

The damn is already bust, you watch cable, reality TV, the secret is out.

THERE ARE GAY PEOPLE OUT THERE!!!

LOL, a media blackout ain't gonna do it.

Besides, there are larger social trends at work then TV?

I see a lot of millenials where I live, and they all seem to be having multiple kids younger then my generation or the Xs did?

What caused that? Media?

Are they turning away from Marriage and Progcreation because of seeing Gays on Network TV?

Not that I can see.

You're proposition is silly, your future is already here.

Gay is out, and they ain't going nowhere.

You can't decide for them anymore, they are NOT going to give up, and plenty of straights like me are going there with them.

The Millenials have already decided, and yes, it may take 20 years or more till enough of the boomers are gone...

And yes, Alabama may remain in the closet till the bitter end, but so what?

You have already lost the battle, the future is already here, it is just not fully distributed yet.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF are you talking about

When did you consciously choose to be straight?  Like, specifically, at what point where you sitting around drooling over a hot piece of man ass and thinking about the ninety different nasty things you wanted to do to it, stop, and then say to yourself, "Nah, I'm gonna go for chicks?"

by Dreorg 2009-04-14 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you support banning divorce?

If you're referring to the exemption allowing for divorce in cases of infidelity, it's worth noting that the passages which contain this are in Matthew and Luke, and are almost certainly derived from the similar passage in Mark, which does not contain the exception. Maybe somebody thought a loophole might come in handy? Additionally, Paul makes no mention of such an exemption in his discussion of divorce in Corinthians.

Not that I care one way or another, but it's always fun to pick apart biblical claims using the bible.

by Elakazal 2009-04-14 06:23PM | 0 recs
For Jane

I love you and the times are changing. I look forward to day it is legal for you to marry the love of your life. Yeah four states and counting, but not PA yet. Why is this taking so long I don't know, but we will win. My Wife and I can't wait for the honor of attending your wedding. My marriage seems less than whole, because you are denied yours.

by HCLiberal 2009-04-14 05:14PM | 0 recs
There is a tsunami coming....

If NY were to pass such a law, it would mark a permanent shift in the winds.

The Homophobes, the RR, know they have to start making stands, the tide is turning against them.

I expect the Catholic Church to make this a line in the sand, and we all know how powerful they can be in certain NY communities AND in politics.

How sad, the Church of my ancestors that used to stand for the poor and disenfranchised NOW strictly does the bidding of old white men, sex obsessed conservatives, out of touch with the times.

No wonder, when my GF goes to church, she says it is getting to be about 70% people over 60, and a smattering of the young.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Paterson To Introduce Gay Marriage Bill In New

A lot has been going on in New York today.  Covering Patterson and NY-20: http://natchgreyes.blogspot.com/2009/04/ new-york-todays-summary.html

by Natch 2009-04-14 09:08AM | 0 recs
Absolutely, get them on the record

And, just keep bringing up the bill every year.

I have a feeling, ala Rick Warren, that those standing in the way of equality would like to do this off the record.

Make them go public, so we know who they are.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 09:48AM | 0 recs
Definately an older Catholic thing....

As my example of the churches above, my GF said the Conservative Church in Phoenix she takes her mom to is about 70% people over 60, and a small smattering of young, mostly their grand kids going with them.

Damn Reagan Democrat Catholics. I'll be happy when they are hanging with Jesus up in heaven, playing golf and listening to Benny Goodman records...

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 10:43AM | 0 recs
It's not too promising....

According to the Empire State Pride Agenda:

http://www.prideagenda.org/tabid/191/Def ault.aspx

31 Senators (a majority) are opposed, 21 are in favor, and 10 are undecided. We need 32.

by fsm 2009-04-14 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not too promising....

That's an old list.  The folks on it are the 2006-2008 state Senate membership.  And don't be too surprised at some "evolution" on the subject.
by killjoy 2009-04-15 01:02AM | 0 recs
Pass or Fail, A Bill Worth Bringing Forth

In my opinion, it is worth bringing it to a vote every single year until it passes, forcing the homophobes to take a public stand to their constituents.

by Dreorg 2009-04-14 11:05AM | 0 recs
What wrong with the far left

Whats more is what bother me is the blatant attempt by the left in this country to minimize ethics and morally based upon Judeo Christianity. For them those who are devout, be they Christians or Jews represent everything they fear. That is, their is a higher power beyond the government for whom we place all our faith.

by adb67 2009-04-14 12:36PM | 0 recs
This isnt a far left

issue anymore. That's where you are wrong.

If it goes to a vote and fails, then so what. Those born after Reagan became a republican dont care. How long will it take? At most 10 years in my opinion. People born in the late 80s and early 90s arent that big an impact YET.

In 10 years you will have great majority of 20 years worth of eligible voters who arent dogged by "the sanctity of marriage."

Who comes out on top? My generation.

by sepulvedaj3 2009-04-14 12:53PM | 0 recs
rather

became president no became a republican

by sepulvedaj3 2009-04-14 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: rather

ugh typos -

by sepulvedaj3 2009-04-14 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: What wrong with the far left


There isn't such a thing as "Judeo-Christianity".  It's a concoction of the 'Christian Right' that no actual Jews or Judaism are associated with.

And it the anti-homosexuality doctrinal stance is a result of grossly exaggerating Pauline comments.  The credibility given this exaggeration is due to Nature deism beliefs, i.e. pagan syncretisms into Christianity, about an Order Of Nature.  Violations of which the Gods punish, of course.

The 'Christian Right' is basically a movement dedicated to the defense of paleopagan syncretisms into Christianity.

You're not going to get very far trying to argue its case here.  If there is a God, S/he is higher than the crap miserable paleopaganizing idiots foist on the world in Her/his name.

Btw, Jesus of Nazareth teaches that being a powerless tiny minority and doing actual good is the preferred mode of living his teaching.  Being a political haranguer angling for a majority, not so virtuous or useful.

by killjoy 2009-04-15 01:15AM | 0 recs
adb67 , WHY are you on this blog?

I asked you above, and mea culpa for biting your head off, but above all, intolerance is a quality which to me defines YOUR party and gives mine at least a chance of doing God's work.

If you look at your history, you agree with most of us on virtually nothing at all.  

I get you disliked George Bush Jr.  That wasn't difficult to do, most of the Republicans I know didn't like him either.

But most of them wouldn't, if  they are Republicans, spend a lot of time on a board like this.

Why do you?

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-14 01:30PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------