Same-sex marriage bill voted down

The state Senate vote this afternoon was 36-24 against the bill. Irene has a listing of how each senator voted at CapCon. Neil Breslin voted "yes" and Roy McDonald "no." Eight Democrats voted "no," as did every Republican. (Here's a spreadsheet of the vote tally that we created from Irene's list.)

Comments

Morons!

I'm hearing there's a rally at the Capitol in support of Marriage Equality at 6PM. Who's in?

I'll never understand.

boo! it was totally looking possible there for a second...

I know who isn't getting re-elected! This year they have been more disappointing than usual. Well, with Pedro and his abuse of powers and the cluster F that he created, Hirram and breaking bottles of ladies heads and now this....they really don't want to keep their jobs do they!

This is not an 'equality' issue. Everyone has the same right to marry a non-relative of the opposite gender. A small percentage (less than 1%) want to make a different choice, but that doesn't mean we should start altering our fundamental definitions. If this legislation went through the senate, then New Yorkers would have voted it down at the ballot box, just like the past 31 states who have voted. Government has a responsibility to protect and preserve our institutions, and they've finally done something right.

Stupid NY Senate! What I don't understand is why people think two loving people of the same gender will somehow ruin marriage. Straight people have been ruining marriage for years before we even asked for it.

Two human beings, with rights, who pay taxes, who have the ability to vote, who did not commit a crime and who love each other can't get married. Why is this an issue that gets no traction?? Just makes no sense.

Let people who love each other get married and move on to other issues!

Save marriage, Jay. Ban divorce.

Jay, you're on the wrong side of history. Gay marriage is coming, just not as fast as some of us would like.

Ummm... I don't get this. When did marriage become an institution? I never understood that argument. If divorce is okay, how sacred is this institution anyway?

Marriage is more of an agreement between two people than it is an institution, and I would also say that each couple that agrees to it has different definitions of how to carry it out. Simply put no two marriages have ever been the same. The problem I see, is that people (bigots would probably be a more appropraite term) want to act like marriage is a privately owned country club, from which they can discriminate against anybody they feel doesn't belong. Personally, this hetero male will not be getting married in a state like this, until all of my friends, have the same options that I do.

@ jay. NY doesn't have a voter referendum to overturn laws like they do in Maine and California. Also, polls show a majority of NYers support marriage equality. Also, polls have consistently shown that men who do not support gay marriage are 1,000 times more likely to be be seen suspiciously poking around rest stops at odd hours in the AM, just saying.

"Everyone has the same right to marry a non-relative of the opposite gender."

Jay, the forebear to that argument was "everyone has the same right to marry a non-relative of the same skin color."

But hey, separate but equal is equal enough for you, right!

Jay, our "definitions" change as humanity progresses. If it was up to the popular vote at the time, slavery would never have been abolished, the civil rights movement of the 60's would have been a total failure, and women would not be able to vote or own property. This is an issue of human rights, and as usual the government will have to step in and do what's right because the general populace is too slow to adapt to change. I had hoped that wouldn't come to that, because it's always really touchy ground when the government goes against the wishes of the people. But when it comes to matters of civil and human rights, you can't always rely on the majority to be the wiser.

"Personally, this hetero male will not be getting married in a state like this, until all of my friends, have the same options that I do."

Agreed Chester. I think that has eased my boyfriends mind, because deep down we knew this wouldn't pass. I said that I wouldn't get married unless all my friends could marry who they wanted. I also indicated it was nation-wide, so yeah... :)

The government should not be in the marriage business anyway. Marriage is a religious institution, hence all the outcry from the religious conservatives against gay marriage. The government doesn't sanction bar mitzvahs or baptisms and they shouldn't be sanctioning marriages. They should be handing out legal civil unions to anyone and everyone who wants one, straight or gay. People who want a religious marriage in addition to their civil union can then find a church, synagogue, mosque, whatever to sanction their marriage before God.

marriage
(noun)
°The state of being married.
°The union of two people, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Marriage is no longer strictly a religious institution, as I am married and am not religious. Are you trying to tell me that because I was not married in a church that I'm technically not "married" or have the right to claim as such? I'll be damned if anyone tried to take that away from me, especially considering the fact that people in civil unions are not entitled to the same benefits as married people.

People have the right to choose whether they should have religion govern their own lives, but do NOT have the right to decide the same for others.

Summer, I think you might be missing Amy's point. I don't believe she's suggesting that people need to be married by a religious authority in order to be afforded the same civil rights as "married people." But rather that the government should recognize civil unions, and only civil unions, for all couples; therefore granting all legally bonded couples the same protection under law, regardless of sexual orientation.

I for one agree. And if people still feel a strong need to refer to themselves as "married" but don't want to have a religious ceremony they could always just have the Major of Lark Street sanctify it. It's no less arbitrary than the Catholic Church.

But it's a nuanced policy perspective which needs to be overshadowed by the more pressing concerns over people being denied civil rights. Deal with the semantics later.

Thank you, Jackers. That is exactly what I was trying to say. Every couple, regardless of orientation, should have equal legal "uniting" by the government.

Perhaps I did misunderstand Amy, but I really don't think there should be a distinction. Like I said, I did not get married in a church but wouldn't want to call myself anything BUT married. I don't think same-sex couples should be forced to make the distinction either.

I am actually 100% with Amy on this. The overriding issue behind all of this is that the term "marriage" applies to both the civil ceremony we've been dealing with here and the religious ceremony that everybody associates it with. The civil concept of marriage exists to ensure certain rights to people who enter into life partnerships, but unfortunately people are associating that legal partnership with their religious one, which is now responsible for the establishment of a second class of citizen under the law. This is really a failure of the separation of Church and State, but unfortunately it's not something I think we'll ever see rectified anytime soon.

Exactly, Pete. If it was entirely an issue of State, and not of Church, it would have been fixed years ago (or never have been an issue at all). The lack of separation of Church and State is also one of the overriding reasons that we'll never have a health care bill passed, because the Church keeps throwing funding for abortion into the argument. There's far less separation of Church and State in this country (One Nation Under God anyone?) than there should be.

I get what you're saying now, and I agree with you. Jackers is right- the semantics are a secondary issue. But unfortunately that issue is what a lot of people are hiding behind, whether you call it marriage, a civil union, or whatever. Heaven forbid (pardon the expression) people's "fundamental views" be altered.

Governor Paterson issued a statement that was read at the rally tonight that made an excellent point (I'm paraphrasing here): "The abolitionists' darkest moment came when abolition was voted down and slavery was allowed to continue, but that was only five years before the emancipation proclamation." In other words, history does repeat itself, and as with any civil rights movement, the outcome will ultimately be positive. Marriage equality WILL happen.

It's simple justice. The law confers a special tax, property and custody status on certain pairs of adult citizens, and denies it to others. That's unjust, and cannot hold.

The good news is that it won't, and when it goes it goes for good.

However ... once this particular injustice is repaired, the law will have to consider exactly how and why it confers this special "marriage" status to anyone. How and why. Here we're talking about pairs, but there's no doubt that once sexual orientation is (rightly) torn-down as a discriminator, others will challenge the unit size.

Get ready for, say, a group of five people to demand that their "marriage" be recognized under the law. I know it sounds weird (and icky -- to me, anyhow), but that challenge will come, and maybe more often than we expect. Might just be a practical arrangement, not intimate. One hopes.

Nevertheless, if X-Y isn't a just discriminator (it isn't, considering where we're starting from), the 1-1 discriminator is next. So we must think hard about what the law is trying to achieve in the first place.

It strikes me that a society with universal health care and durable power-of-attorney lets government out of the marriage business, and that government should want out.

LQ

Say Something!

We'd really like you to take part in the conversation here at All Over Albany. But we do have a few rules here. Don't worry, they're easy. The first: be kind. The second: treat everyone else with the same respect you'd like to see in return. Cool? Great, post away. Comments are moderated so it might take a little while for your comment to show up. Thanks for being patient.

The Scoop

Ever wish you had a smart, savvy friend with the inside line on what's happening around the Capital Region? You know, the kind of stuff that makes your life just a little bit better? Yeah, we do, too. That's why we created All Over Albany. Find out more.

Recently on All Over Albany

Thank you!

When we started AOA a decade ago we had no idea what was going to happen. And it turned out better than we could have... (more)

Let's stay in touch

This all feels like the last day of camp or something. And we're going to miss you all so much. But we'd like to stay... (more)

A few things I think about this place

Working on AOA over the past decade has been a life-changing experience for me and it's shaped the way I think about so many things.... (more)

Albany tightened its rules for shoveling snowy sidewalks last winter -- so how'd that work out?

If winter ever gets its act together and drops more snow on us, there will be sidewalks to shovel. And shortly after that, Albany will... (more)

Tea with Jack McEneny

Last week we were fortunate enough to spend a few minutes with Jack McEneny -- former state Assemblyman, unofficial Albany historian, and genuinely nice guy.... (more)

Recent Comments

My three year old son absolutely loving riding the train around Huck Finn's (Hoffman's) Playland this summer.

Thank you!

...has 27 comments, most recently from Ashley

Let's stay in touch

...has 4 comments, most recently from mg

A look inside 2 Judson Street

...has 3 comments, most recently from Diane (Agans) Boyle

Everything changes: Alicia Lea

...has 2 comments, most recently from Chaz Boyark

A few things I think about this place

...has 13 comments, most recently from Katherine