NY Passes Gay Marriage Bill

In New York, now gay persons can be as unhappy in their marriages as straight people.

I kid. A great day for human rights.

< "Objectively Pro-Terrorist": Why Aren't We Doing More In Libya? | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Two thumbs up (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by dead dancer on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    I live in Tx, and married, so this has little effect on me personally; but two thumbs up.

    With their amend the constitution crap, I'm feeling this is the only thing that's been pie in the face of the Bush admin in the last - oh, since they left office.

    It is worth noting (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    Obama's courageous leadership on this issue:

    "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."


    It is reminiscent of the equally enlightened rationalizations offered by the segregationists of the 1960s.

    We're dragging him along kicking and screaming (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    I (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    don't think Obama can be dragged into a humane position - kicking or screaming or comatose.

    But you know - he made that statement that I quoted above during the campaign on 2008. And he got away with it.

    It is one of the dumbest utterances by a politician I have read. And yet he maintained an aura of being an intellectual - even "brilliant" - right through to the inauguration in which he presented us with his intellectual equal, Rick Warren.

    And it is so strikingly similar to the contrived idiocy of the so-called dixiecrats and Southern racists of the sixties. God created separate races. They should stay separate. The Bible says so. Tradition says so. And etc. ad nauseam.

    And he got away with it.

    I bring this up because we should have learned by now that in order to get anything done that hints of a progressive agenda, we have to go AROUND Obama. We have to apply pressure from outside. We have to threaten. We have to boycott.

    People who continue to insist, respectfully, that the way forward is to appeal to Obama's better nature are, in my opinion, willfully ignoring history and the reality that is before their eyes.

    This triumph in New York is cause for optimism.

    But it is in no way a triumph for the administration or the national Democratic party. It represents, hopefully, something that might wake them up and make them aware that they might have to fight for our votes instead of taking them for granted.

    But it is apparent that they are less and less the lesser evil.


    Kicking and screaming is right ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    and his supporters don't seem to care much.  I was never attacked as strongly on that Orange place as once when I questioned Obama's support of gay rights.

    This was at a time in the campaign where Obama had never spoken to any gay group, or given any address on gay issues.  So he wrote a letter to "the LGBT community".  I responded with something:

    "I wrote you a letter because we can't, like, be seen together."

    Which was a clear indication of what he'd done.  But people didn't want to accept it.  And attacked me soundly for saying it.

    And then there's this hugely homophobic reaction to the suggestion that he'd had an HIV test.  You could tell in that clip how uncomfortable he is not merely with the issue of gay rights but with the concept of gay people in general.


    Do (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    Hillary's supporters, or every other major candidate, care?

    We are all in the same boat because mo candidate that can win has made the leap.  But let's keep it real here. Obama is sending every signal that he is on the right page but can't make the jump quite yet and win.

    Speaking for myself and the Obama supporters know, we are alll thrilled with last nights historic vote.

    Change gone come. It is inevitable and I see obama and all other dem politicians being pushed towards it.

    And that push is what they want so our job is to push.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    Obama is sending signals that he's on the right page. LOL
    He just can't make the jump just yet...

    Are you kidding?
    Is this the mark of a leader?

    You are apparently in no hurry.
    Obama has had three miserable long years to make the jump.
    He was elected president you may recall.
    He was supposed to make the jump at that time.

    He's not jumping anywhere.
    He's napping.


    "Hillary supporters"? (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:39:51 PM EST
    The primaries of 2008 are over.
    Obama was elected.
    I think Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State.

    The point (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:07:04 PM EST
    Is that no matter which of the likely candidates won the primaries or the general election, we would nit have a president who openly supported gay marriage.

    This is Hillary just this year making it clear that she still doesn't agree

    "Many of his gay friends are in committed relationships, former president Bill Clinton said in 2009. As far as marriage goes, he said, he had just been "hung up about the word." .... But on the phone, Clinton is circumspect about her husband's comments. "Well, I share his experience because we obviously share a lot of the same friends, but I have not changed my position," she says without elaborating."

    As I said, the issue is broader one than any one candidate. The party should be made to make a call one way or another and then push.


    The point ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    ... is that Obama is the President, and leader of the democratic party.

    No one else.


    I don't see what being an Obama supporter (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    has to do with being thrilled with the vote in NY; I mean, it's not as if Obama has been advocating for its passage from the bully pulpit of the presidency - he's been as neutral as possible, reflecting his own personal opposition to gay marriage and his fear that choosing sides will have negative political consequences for him.

    The courage and leadership on display is just really overwhelming, and quite inspirational...or not.

    My prediction is that, as soon as more than 50% of the states are on board - or a majority of states with lots of electoral votes - Obama will scurry to the head of the pro-gay rights/marriage line and announce that - surprise! - he's been there all along.

    Because that's how he rolls.


    The people who showed courage (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by itscookin on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    were the four Republicans who voted "yes".

    You bet (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:41:44 PM EST
    And don't leave out the Republican state senate leader who brought it up for a vote when he could have buried it, and who clearly declined to "party whip" for its defeat, even though he himself voted against it.

    Well done all around, surprisingly, for the NY legislature.


    he won't flip before 2012 (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:41:27 AM EST
    which is... frustrating to say the least.

    Whether he flips after is anybody's guess.  I'd put my money on the supreme court first though.


    Cowardice is what it's called (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    Yes, I bet when he gets that second term... everything will be different because he has "nothing to lose."

    Keep believin that, keep believing he'll make really good SCOTUS appointments, even though his first two have proven idiots -- yes, it's certainly two liberal justices that go along with the majority to let cops bust into your house on a hunch instead of a warrant.  If these are the appointments we can expect more of, then you go ahead and start celebrating.

    Obama is the single biggest charlatan ever elected in this country.  He will do nothing to change that, not now, not in a second term, not after he's written his memoirs and blamed everyone but himself for his failures, etc.

    But he'll probably get re-elected, nothing will change about him, and we'll all just wonder WTF.


    That's an interesting take, dadler (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    that JJ Sotomayer & Kagan are regarded by you as "idiots." I've heard lots of criticism from the right about these new Justices, but never did I hear or read about even the largest critics of the two outstanding women referring to them as "provn idiots."

    I'll skip the obvious comeback and merely note that you might want to do some reading up on the opinion splits in the Court, the subject matter of cases headed to the Court, and the longevity of its members in the past 50 or so years. Oh...and how can I forget...check out the positions of the Republican appointees, compare & contrast, etc. Then, it would be even more interesting to hear you say that who gets elected makes no differece in what happens to the law of the land. What happens happens to the law of the land for at least a generation...a time period for a lot of reflection.


    Who gets to pick the Sup Ct (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    possibly for decades to come in terms of a majority block, does matter mightily -- except for some on this rather interesting board.  It's a perfectly relevant issue to consider as we size up the coming election and decide whether to withhold our support for a fairly disappointing president.

    Fortunately we don't have to vote today, and have time to reflect while O has many months more to govern -- and do the right thing, boldly, on jobs and another matter or two -- before we make our fateful decisions in the polling booth.

    Meanwhile, I guess I missed the Official Liberal Blogosphere Memo about K and S being such huge disappointments in their jurisprudence that they are in the "proven idiots" category.  And I wasn't aware that when they were named and approved that we we getting two Justices from the Pure Liberal wing.  Always moderately-liberal at most I'd thought -- and about as liberal as we could have gotten or expected under the circumstances.  O has greatly disappointed in some key areas, but Sup Ct picks is not one of them.  


    Brodie (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    Agree. The bashing of our two newest justices seems grossly unfair. They have made a real impact on the court already.

    If people were reasonable they would see that. If a GOP is elected, the momentum will reverse. We are only a justice away from real change on the court and people are so short sighted that they will work to make sure that such change is impossible.


    I agree with everything you said (none / 0) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 06:24:39 PM EST

    "...blamed everyone but himself for his failures,"

    He won't have any "failures."

    Things that you and I might think as failures will be swatted away Like this...."and I say to you, my fellow American Seniors, were it not for the dogged resolve and unyielding spirit of my Administration you would be living on 1500 less calories a day instead of the minus 1000 we forced the Republicans to accept."


    Saul1... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    You are aware that this is the same malarky that Obama apologists offered during the campaign of 2008.

    He had to campaign for Lieberman.
    He had to say that bs about gay marriage.
    He had to campaign with Donnie McClurken.
    He had to vote for the renewal of the Patriot Act.
    He had to vote for FISA.

    Every dumb thing he did was excused with the rationalization that it was just politics and that is would be different once he was elected.

    But it has not been different.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:57:48 PM EST
    wonder if you would give the same "one more chance" to a car salesman who had sold you a lemon.

    He had to do it to hold his job, you know.

    Another chance?

    Not me.


    Let's give (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:46:05 PM EST
    Romney the chance then. Yeah that makes sense.

    Look. (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:29:38 PM EST
    You vote for Obama.

    Have yourself a time.


    I will again (none / 0) (#136)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    Haven't regretted it in the least and look forward to the chance.

    He will if we make it harder for him (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    to run against Mitt Flop Romney by not shutting up about his flip from the 90s.

    President Obama stopping short (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    of backing same sex marriage is not clear to me. Even giving consideration to his frequent mini-step decision-making, his statement that "gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in the country" will not provide much, if any, political margin or safe haven from those in opposition.

    He should realize (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    that there isn't a single voter who prioritizes bigotry to the degree that this one issue would change their vote.

    If he genuinely believes in equality, he could say so right now without any negative political consequence.


    I read somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:52:00 PM EST
    that's he made the political calculus or either his team has that going against gay marriage is more beneficial to his electoral prospects than changing his mind. Apparently Obama believes that depressing the vote of African American evangelicals would be worse electorally than rolling gays under the bus on that issue.

    There is basically nothing he could do (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    to reduce his share of the black vote.

    I'm talking (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    about share. It's not like any are going to vote for the GOP unless maybe Herman Cain is nominated. I would say Obama's endorsement of gay marriage might make some feel just like not showing up for him.

    That analysis really falls short (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:55:10 PM EST
    Here's why:

    The people most likely to be offended by the President's endorsement of marriage equality are over 50. These individuals will not need any encouragement to vote in a Presidential election.

    The turnout problem he could have would be with young people. And the real problem there relates to jobs, not marriage.


    Well (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    why do you think that he isn't endorsing it then? It sounds like a lose/lose proposition then what he is doing. I mean it's not like he's going to win that voting bloc anyway.

    Why does he do lots of things I think are stupid? (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    Who knows!

    I think it's like all (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:33:31 AM EST
    of his policies.  
    why do you think that he isn't endorsing it then?

    He's following his own POV.  He told us up front who he was and lots of people didn't believe him.

    Agree that the turnout amount of young people (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    is critical. Of equal importance in this next go-round may be the over-50 crowd, sho--as you indicate--will turn out. The issue with the latter group may relate to the gradation of change. Right now, esp due to the Ryan plan, the WH stands to obtain a larger percentage of over-50ies than heretofore projected. A much larger percentage, actually (when a host of previous givens appear now to be threatened by the GOP--more & more evidence that the GOP overstepped.) As I indicated elsewhere, a number of people in that age-group have "evolved" in the matter of gay marriage--see polling info as well as anecdotal info. If Obama can help bridge that gap--a gap has grown smaller, but still exist--and considering the missteps of the GOP on the entitlement issues, the President stands to gain a lot from the older segment of voters that he previously could not reach. IMO

    Now, why would they vote for the GOP (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:17:53 PM EST
    if Herman Cain is nominated?

    Just anectdotal (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:29:53 PM EST
    really. Most of the African Americans I know agree with Herman Cain on social issues and it's not like Obama has done much to help anyone economically so I could see some African Americans voting for him certainly not the majority though. It would be really hard to sell the idea that Cain was a racist.

    Clearly (none / 0) (#134)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:08:10 PM EST
    You don't know many black people.

    So you (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    disagree with the polls that say blacks are social conservatives?

    Yes (none / 0) (#142)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 06:58:39 AM EST
    Because I think that when it comes to drug laws, death penalty, the justice system, affirmative action, the wars, etc., blacks are as liberal as they come are pretty liberal.

    The issue is that single issue folks define conservative and liberal with priority on their pet issues and on a few things blacks are indeed more conservative.

    But they can't be that conservative because despite the dem position on gays, abortion, church and state, etc., they are the most loyal dem voters on the planet.


    They certainly (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:18:01 AM EST
    don't agree with Obama on issues of war, the justice system it would seem either since Obama has done nothing to improve those over Bush and has actually defended Bush's policies.

    Let me keep it real for a moment (none / 0) (#147)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:31:19 AM EST
    1. We aren't a monolith governed by our skin color and the idea that we all bow down to the commands of the head negro in charge and follow him blindly is bull crap and kind of offensive.  The fact of the matter is that if race were the deciding issue for black voters, Jesse Jackson would have received the majority of black vote, but he didn't because Jesse Jackson would have been a terrible president and black people are smart enough to actually pay attention to issues to (which is the super insulting part of your train of thought that you don't seem to see).

    2. Most democrats disagree with Obama on the wars and that obviously includes most blacks.  Heck, most Americans disagree with Obama on the wars because most Americans want the wars to end immediately.  That's not some black issue.  People want troops to come home. Neither Obama or the dems or the republicans seem willing to do that immediately. But dude there are a hundred other issues that the President is juggling and if they like what he's doing on 75% of them, it's not stupid to continue to support him (while criticizing what you don't like.) In your bizzaro world black people are supposed to forget the other stuff he's doing which they love (check the approval numbers for ACA, an healthcare is the no.2 issue for blacks).

    3. Most importantly, the fact that you think all of these policies have been massive failures doesn't mean that others do, which tends to be the problem with many in this forum.  Black voters tend to be the most pragmatic of all voters because they look at the big picture, understand that the right is crazy and dangerous, and vote for the imperfect candidates that will keep the bad guys at bay.  What you see has some kind of idiotic and unthinking blind devotion is really just what black voters have done for decades:

    Support imperfect candidates who will provide incremental change for the better because that's the only real option out there.

    No (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    you were saying that people agreed with Obama on the wars which now you are saying that they don't.

    Look, I get it. The GOP is extremely hostile to African Americans and has spent decades banging up on them so I know why they don't vote for them but you're not really making the case about issues.

    I never said it was a follow the leader kind of thing so quit putting words into my mouth but you really could be more honest and say that's really more voting against the GOP which is pretty much what you advocate here all the time.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    Did (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    Edwards? did Hillary? Did Bill Clinton.

    This isnt an Obama issue. Itisa democratic party issue.


    The world has changed (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    What was acceptable from a national Democrat circa 2007 is no longer acceptable today.

    The President's latest paean to federalism borders on insulting. It would almost have been better if he had simply said nothing.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    It does not make me feel particularly good to think that there are some Democrats who have evolved no further than Dick Cheney, of all people, circa 2000.

    Andgarden (none / 0) (#104)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:02:52 PM EST
    How much are you willing to bet that the Democratic Presidential nominee is going to unabashedly support gay marriages during the GE campaign in 2016 since the world has changed?

    Ask Jerry Brown (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    Non answer (none / 0) (#126)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:17:23 AM EST
    I may be wrong but it seems to me that you lack confidence that the Democratic Party Presidential nominee in 2016 will unabashedly support gay marriage.

    Certainty in politics is impossible (none / 0) (#127)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    But I do think it's much more likely than not. California present is, to a large degree, U.S. future. New Hampshire and Iowa Democrats overwhelmingly support marriage equality now. Intervening events in both states have clarified this.

    OK, (none / 0) (#92)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    If this is a democratic party issue, it means that there is something deeply rotten in the democratic party.

    And, by the way, the titular leader of the party is...


    It's been rotten for years before 2008. (none / 0) (#135)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    Probably depends a lot (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    on who gets the nominee.  If it's a "moderate" like Mitt or Huntsman, they may force him to take a stance.  If it's a Michelle Bachman or a Pawlenty or someone, he may think he won't have to jump.

    to be clear (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    I do not agree that this is what he should do.  I think it's what he will do.

    I don't know what I think about what he will do after 2012 if he gets re-elected.  I think he will probably continue with what he's been doing, which is to not defend DOMA in the courts, but also not actively move to take it down.


    Agree, Saul (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    While understanding & supporting the emotion on this thread--and recognizing that some would disdain even a degree of pragmatism prior to the next election--the key reason for my laser focus on winning by the Dems & the President in 2012 is summed up this way: The Supreme Court.

    I am very happy for New York. Probably, almost all people who visit TL are. But, it is more than mallarkey to say that some people are evolving. Forget those that still remain in the Dark Ages...concentrate on those moving forward. Remember that most of the people in the--lets say--over 50 age group did have a lot of "evolving" (growing) to do. The school system my friends & I experienced undermined humanity in many ways, for example. We had to grow to be human.

    BTW, most of the people I know, including myself, have either grown to that point or are almost there. And, to not in any way try to assuage the justifiable anger that some may feel at the time this has taken for our society, please reflect that the past decade has seen a lot of change here. Thankfully. With NY,  the rate of change can only accelerate exponentially.

    As to the changes and human growth in our lifetimes, as Nelson Mandela wisely taught, show inclusion. Show love. No need to kick the President to the curb because he is a bit slower than some might wish. Really. He acknowledged that he is growing. Perhaps, we could also acknowledge the electoral realities he faces...because you have to win first.  

    I'm focused on: (1) What the Repub candidates & officeholders are saying; and, what were the total number of Republican votes last night on each side AND (2) What happens if one of thos Repubs gets the opportunity to nominate one or two Supreme Court justices? The replacement issue is more than a dream; and, the replacement issue could result in closing the door on or shutting down the dreams in a lot of areas for a generation. Including seemingly decided areas. So, pragmatism will be important. Not scare talk; realpolitik and reality.

    Meanwhile, celebrate yesterday and everyone's growth!


    Obviously we're dealing with a (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    WH Dem who prefers to avoid taking what he considers unnecessary political risks and opposed to stepping up and doing the right thing with a bold stroke announcement (see by comparison, JFK's June 1963 civil rights bill for bold-stroke governance, doing the right thing, taking the big political risk when he could have tried to argue for pushing it back to his 2d term).

    Obama is who he is, largely a president who prefers to govern in subtle shades of gray and in risk-averse incremental fashion.  It's possible he might get smoked out for his timidity on this one during the upcoming campaign, either by impatient issue activists or during the runup to the convention or even later during the debates.  Failing that though, it looks like he's rolling the dice that he'll survive easily any political downside next year, and in fact slightly benefit overall, from remaining in the anti-gay marriage camp.

    But that recent visit he paid to the LBGT group this week, those remarks he made, were about as close as a pol can come to openly promising a reversal of course in return for their support of him for reelection.  Promises, especially implied ones, can be broken of course, but I doubt we're looking at a pol cynically trying to manipulate his base for self-serving political reasons knowing he plans to turn around after the election and go cold on that group.  Obama doesn't strike me as that Machiavellian a pol.  


    Actually (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    Obama has rolled numerous groups under the bus over the last two years and he hasn't kept his word on much so why would they believe him this time?

    You have to go by his record and what he's done not by what he says. His record largely has not been good and it remains to be seen if that will cost him in '12 or not.


    "perhaps we could also (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    acknowledge the electoral realities he faces... because you have to win first."    He did win, he is the President of the USA.  The White House reaction to the NY vote was not even endorsement, but noted that it is up to the states.   States rights? Not exactly an historic bulwark against discrimination; and, what about those states that decide that same sex marriage should be denied?  Guess, that would be fine until they evolve.

    Christinep (2.60 / 5) (#53)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    Most of the bomb throwers on this blog would have called Mandela and Gandhi "sell-outs" and cowards for showing patience in achieving their goals. This is the instant gratification crowd, a steady and determined struggle towards achievement of goals is not their cup of tea.

    Pffffftttttt ... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    Ah, yes ... the tried-and-true Hannity/Limbaugh technique of putting imaginary thoughts and fairytale words in the minds and mouths of those you disagree with.

    It is a lot easier than arguing against what they actually say, isn't it?


    This is (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:00:01 PM EST

    Comparing Obama with Mandela?

    Mandela, someone who went to jail for decades rather than compromise with Obama, someone who abandons principles in the blink of an eye?

    It is insulting.


    The reference to Mandela (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:12:26 PM EST
    was to remind us all that Mandela--even with the sufferings & travails he faced--turned to inclusion after his release. He did not do the revenge thing. If Mandela (and, as Politalkix adds, Gandhi) could lead with a love of humanity--not with the vituperation that seems to emanate from your words, lentinel--then isn't that a model which we could all emulate?

    Again, the purpose of the reference is to ask of those who might feel anger in victory/who might feel bitterness/who might want to rage against someone not as far along as themselves...the purpose of my reference was and is to ask those people, even while justified in anger at our leadership, to look toward Mandela's example.

    (You misread my reference...it may be that I was unclear. I hope that this explanation helps.)


    The (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:30:09 PM EST
    difference is that Mandela won a victory for freedom and democracy and equality.

    Obama twiddled his thumbs and hid.

    No one is asking that Obama be thrown in jail.
    Although they might be within their rights to do so.

    But why should anybody be even remotely interested in this guy who was at best a bystander and at worst an impediment to this victory for human rights?

    This doesn't mean that one has to hate Obama.
    One doesn't even have to dislike Obama.

    But consider voting for this guy?

    No way.


    You have fun throwing away your vote then (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 06:12:10 PM EST
    The rest of us will work on keeping the GOP out of office for the greater good.  

    ABG, each person's vote is his or hers to (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    cast - or not - as he or she sees fit; what you or I or anyone else thinks about that choice is irrelevant.

    The right to vote is precious and personal and private; there's a reason voting is conducted the way it is - because having the freedom to vote isn't enough: we must also have the freedom to vote without pressure, judgment, intimidation or threat.

    I'm sick to death of people like you who, whenever someone expresses a reluctance to hold his or her nose and vote for the Democrat just because the candidate is a Democrat - and regardless of whether that candidate or incumbent has performed his or her job well - sneer out a response like, "so, I guess you'll be voting for Romney or Palin," or "have fun throwing away your vote," or "if a Republican gets to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, it will be all your fault."

    I have the right to standards, and the right to decide whether those standards are being lived up to, or whether the candidate has made an effort to attain those standards.  And I have the right to decide that someone isn't worthy of my vote.

    If I don't cast a vote for the Democrat, I am not required to vote for the Republican.  If I don't cast a vote, I have not effectively voted for anyone else.  No vote is no vote.

    What you do is your business; what others do is theirs.  It would be appreciated if you would kindly remember that before you castigate, sneer at, bully, shame or guilt someone because of what they say they may do.


    Be sick then Anne (1.00 / 2) (#143)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 07:04:21 AM EST
    If you are willing to vote in a way that gives a republican a better shot at winning, I don't care what you think.  You are the enemy.

    I'll castigate and sneer at whatever I want just as you crap on anyone who dares to support Obama.

    You go sit with your team of "democrats" and conservatives who spend all day bashing Obama and other dems and I'll sit over here with those of us spending our time bashing the republicans.

    I like my team better and frankly we don't need the assistance, or approval, of folks like you anyway.

    So yeah, your request is rejected.  Try some other  sap intimidated by you throwing a fit.

    Toughen up or ignore me.  Your choice.  But if you are voting for Romney or the Green Party or whatever, when we have republicans looking to gut everything, then you are an idiot.

    Sorry.  That's how I feel.


    Oh, brother...you still just do not get it. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:41:09 AM EST
    But then, love is blind, they say, and you are so protective of Obama-the-person that you can't or won't see that the criticism he gets here is about his policy.  Policy: you know, the stuff that decides things that affect real people's lives.  People struggling to find a job, or keep one.  People trying to stay afloat by working multiple jobs.  Seniors wondering if they will have to move in with relatives after years of independence.  People who still can't afford to get health care, or pay for prescriptions because all they can afford is the insurance premium - and that's getting to be a real struggle.  Policy that says you and I can be spied on, listened to, GPS'd - without our knowledge or permission.  Policy that is undermining our basic civil rights.

    Your position is, I guess, that no matter how bad the Democrats' policies are, the Republican policies will be worse.  But, what if they're more or less the same, the only difference being one of degree or timing?  What then?  Just keep lowering the bar, keep telling ourselves that we will get better representation by continuing to vote for mediocre-to-truly-crappy candidates?  How does that work?

    In my opinion, it doesn't.  And so, I have to decide, do I want to perpetuate this race to the bottom, or do I want to draw the line?  I haven't told you or anyone else that if they don't share my opinion on this that they are the enemy or they're idiots, as you have.  I'm just someone who, just like everyone else who is registered to vote, has the right to cast my votes - or not cast them - however I choose, for whatever reason I choose.  If I felt that Obama and the Dems were really bangin' it out of the park on issue after issue,  - and making some effort to counter Republican policy and ideas instead of embrace them - I'd be thrilled to vote for them - and so would a lot of other people: good policy is probably the best electoral strategy there is.

    You can criticize my thinking, my opinions, my positions on the issues, but you don't have the right to criticize how- or if - I vote - and perhaps you don't know this, but that's also the position of both Jeralyn and BTD.

    Oh, and as for your "team," the one that doesn't need me or people like me?  What happened to your "Big Tent" theory, ABG?  You want people like me in the tent, to vote the way you want us to, but we should just shut up and stop voicing our opinions?  How...big of you.


    Those that you castigate, insult and smear ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    ... simply because they choose not to support Obama are not "idiots".  That type of strategy may have worked in the 6th grade, but "idiot" is the last word that comes to mind re: Anne and most other posters who have criticized Obama and questioned the idea of supporting him simply because of the "D" behind his name.

    Besides, at this pointObama supporters are hardly in a position to tell people they're not needed.  Not the first time Obama acolytes have tried it, but it'll be interesting to see how that strategy works out for ya in 16 months.


    In all honesty (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    I read your comments (mostly), and I cannot recall your opinion of the President as ever being other than negative. So...why am I not surprised that you feel this way :-)

    The same could be said of you (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by sj on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:33:16 AM EST
    I don't recall an instance where you haven't found an excuse where others found him lacking.

    We all have our own point of view and our own threshold for what we consider a failing.  So why am I not surprised you would feel this way :-)


    Oh Christine (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:40:42 AM EST
    I truly believe that's where you went with your Mandela and Gandhi reference.  But I'm pretty sure the original commenter wasn't speaking with love of humanity.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#129)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    I am saying that YOUR intent (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    intent in referencing those leaders was not the same as the original commenter.  Read the prior and subsequent comments by that person and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to see the difference.

    Yes, I am quite aware of that as well (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    Thank you for the note, politalkix.

    To your observation, I would add: IMO, there is an "instigation" technique used by a few here that would view with alarm most daily or periodic events as evidence of how bad/wrong American leadership (particularly Obama) is. When I see remarks that appear a bit too programmed from the instigative, up-the-ante predictable few, well...mostly I chuckle while wondering about background alignments and, sometimes, I take the obvious bait. So it goes.

    A side note: An AP article today notes the public split about raising the debt limit. The part that caught my eye was writer's surmise that the public is not engaged because we have experienced so many alarms, shouts, frights in the past decade. The writer conjectures that it may be a kind of "doomsday fatigue" from the overused "crying wolf" and all-around histrionics. What does that have to do with this, you may ask? For me, I think people eventually adapt to decibel levels and dire warnings (and get less ruffled) with each screaming charge. Not to say that we should be passionless or uncaring.  Not in the least. But, passion to me, caring is more than decibels and rending of garments.

    Thanks again. (And, thanks for listening.)


    christine, did you ever wonder where (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    the public would be if they had actually been educated on the debt, the deficit, what it means to be sovereign in our currency, what the Constitution says about the validity of our debt obligations?  If there were some leadership that believed that the more the people knew, the better able they would be to make decisions about what the policies should be?  As opposed to their leaders crafting a campaign of hysteria that is meant to serve ideological agendas instead of the greater good?

    Because I do.  I wonder about it every time I hear someone compare the US budget to a household budget because they saw or heard or read some politician explain it that way, or they saw some analysis on their local/national news that framed it that way.

    Honestly, I don't know how one accords any validity to poll numbers when the responses are based on a mountain of misinformation; if the media had been filled for months with experts talking about how the earth was flat, and the moon was made of green cheese, what would it mean if 50% of people believed this obvious nonsense?  

    Would it make it true?  I don't think so.

    Speaking only for myself, I am mightily fatigued from battling the daily tsunami of BS; I'm sort of at the point where, if people want to believe what they're being told, if they're happier thinking that their leaders are telling them the truth, why should I waste my time and energy trying to convince them otherwise?

    The fix is pretty much in anyway, right?


    Bravo, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:35:33 PM EST
    Very well said.

    We could team up to write a book (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    on the subject of Democracy: Open Information & Education Expectations. (Suggest that we start with a review of the upsides as well as the downsides of the lowest-common denominator syndrome contemplated by John Stuart Mill.)

    It is very frustrating, Anne. And, that can be a problem in itself. Mass media, "dumbing down" techniques, info overload almost.... What do we get? It may start with those elected officials at the topmost levels geunuinely wanting open government, genuinely intending to change the overgrowth of past stultifying practices. Yet, every Administration faces competing interest groups...the President of All the People concept really should be the way it is, IMO. Ah, but then...the money (see esp United Citizens...see the importance of the Supreme Court.)

    I laugh at myself when I say that "its complicated." Then, I keep plugging away...incrementally.  Because, whether I like it or not, there will always be a number of people with no interest in politics or government or even a deep education. Yet, we live in a "majority rule" democracy (and, so often, thank the founders for equally significant "minority rights" that goes along with the majority rule.) The trap for those of us so frustrated may be to disdain others around us for not being so savvy, for not being observant enough, for not caring enough. I feel that way from time to time...and, then, I dig in with the certainty that my momentary elitism goes nowhere, since most people can sense when someone feels that way.

    I'm blabbering a bit, yes. My summary: People may be both smarter and dumber than we think.  All of us. And, I believe that we have a history of arriving at the "smart" side together. It does take awhile, tho, for everyone to navigate through the bought-&-paid-for cacophony of political interest group voices. Summary #2: Here is to this Democratic WH finally figuring out how to deal with messaging & communication. We are an independent bunch of cats to herd.


    Jane: Your method of response was expected. (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:25:25 AM EST
    As was your response N/T (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    Wonderful sentiment (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    Christene. In bashing our own so mercilessly we lose track of the real enemy.

    "the real enemy" (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 06:45:39 PM EST
    would be struggling to figure out how to win 4 electoral votes next year had Obama governed with the goal of improving the standard of living for the forgotten 99% who elected him. The mandate we gave him was any President's greatest fantasy dream,

    The problem is....he doesn't want to.

    He lied.


    Yes, and the war against (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:38:09 PM EST
    Oceania will continue forever.

    Deep inside (none / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:31:23 PM EST
    he doesn't give a darn one way or the other.  My sense is he thinks gay sex is a bit "icky," which cancels out his vague sort of anti-discrimination views.  You know, it's one of those "some of my best friends are" thing with him.

    And he no doubt feels, probably correctly, "Where else are they going to go?"


    Maybe If You're Not A New Yorker (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by daring grace on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    That's worth noting.

    To me, that it has taken us this long in my so called blue, blue state speaks to a lack of leadership HERE much more.

    I don't care for Andrew Cuomo for a variety of reasons but he delivered on this one putting it on the line as part of his (otherwise in many ways odious) agenda this year.


    NY state as a whole (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    ain't that blue. NYC is, and it outweighs the rest of the state in national and statewide elections, but not so much in the lege.

    HBO is showing a Harvey Milk (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    documentary too that I had not seen before.  I didn't see it up until late last night and it was almost over, but they showed it again this morning and we watched it.  

    congrats to all NYers (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by CST on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23:54 AM EST
    great day for the state, for civil rights, and for the gay marriage movement.

    It is very gratifying to see the momentum going forward after all the ugliness of the last decade.

    Only 45 more states to go.  Or one supreme court case.

    not safe for Rush to (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by observed on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    Visit NY  now. His marriage wont survive

    A large step forward (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    But when I saw the CNN headline my first reaction was don't rush into marriage. Too expensive in terms of emotion and finanicial status to undue.

    Someone sitting near us yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:34:59 AM EST
    bought our breakfast for us.  It was just Josh and his parents and Josh has big plans.  He wants to adopt a child, even if it turns out that he can safely genetically have his own he still wants to adopt a child.  So at breakfast he's talking about turning 21 and adopting his baby, but his dad cuts in and tells him to not get in a huge hurry on this.  Get yourself settled in before you become a parent.  I told him to get a little education, travel a little too, and when your life starts to feel a little boring to you that's the time to child up.  I guess someone felt sympathy, empathy, or liked our conversation :)

    I don't think (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Nemi on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    Josh could possibly have chosen better parents than you and your husband. He sounds like such a beautiful child inside out, and I love reading your posts about him and how you, his parents, deal with his handicap in a both realistic, loving, and even humourous manner, yet without ever getting sentimental - which I can't always say for myself while reading, heh.

    Hope you keep all these wonderful comments for him to read one day when he's old enough to enjoy them ... again. It's my experience that while kids love to hear their parents talk about them - it's only up to a certain age. And only when they are fully grown will they again find it interesting.


    It is very noticeable how easy (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    it is to forget some things they do and say when my daughter's oldest daughter is over here and she'll say or do something and I'll a flashback to her mom doing something very similar, but up to then I had forgotten about it.

    article in the times today (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CST on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    about wanting to keep the domestic partnership laws, despite the marriage law passing.  Not everyone wants a marriage in order to get other benefits.

    Similar to other debates I've seen in Europe to legalize civil unions for straight people.  I think a lot of people would like to see a less constrained version of marriage.


    Kudos to NY... n/t (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by desertswine on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:41:09 AM EST

    inquiring minds (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by observed on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    Wonder if there  is a lucky
     Mr. Andgarden in the works now.

    Not even close ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:58:10 PM EST
    No judicial activism here (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by diogenes on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    A GREAT day for laws being passed by legislatures rather than by the courts.

    This is the first state (none / 0) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:57:01 PM EST
    I think, that has done this without the faintest whiff of the courts breathing donw their necks.

    We were first in VT to do marriage equality legislatively, but that was after the state court's decision forced civil unions some years ago.  As far as I know, NY has had no court interpretation of the state constitution that pushed this along.


    New Hampshire (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:10:36 PM EST
    You're right! (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 08:14:11 PM EST
    My mistake.  It's just cognitive dissonance for NH to have done this, so I keep forgetting it.

    Congratulations NY (none / 0) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    A great day for human rights! Achieved through bipartisanship, not the madman theory of bargaining which would have led nowhere in this case. This is a point that should be noted.

    Actually (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    from what I have read, Cuomo went to bat on this issue, provided leadership and arm twisting and the GOP went along. You get these kind of "bipartisan" bills from leadership not bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.

    True, indeed (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:36:31 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    I want Cuomo to be the President in 2016 and watch commenters like you howl about compromises he is making on the economic front. There are lots of deals being made by Cuomo with Republicans and Wall Street on economic matters.

    Haha (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    Obama has been a failure on the economic front and he's been "cutting deals" so you really want failed supply side economics to continue just so you can make me mad or other commenters here mad? That's beyond silly. People here just want good policy.

    You really don't understand that it's not personal do you?


    I think his point ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    ... is that those who criticize Obama for making deals/compromising shouldn't praise Cuomo for showing leadership in this instance because a hypothetical President Cuomo will compromise/make deals in the future.  As if someone is claiming that pols should never compromise, or that all compromises are equal (all wars are equal, all HCR is equal, etc., etc.).

    Yeah, I know ...

    ... pretty silly.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    silly it is. Just because Cuomo did the right thing here doesn't translate into praise for everything he is doing.

    Many of the people (1.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    who are howling at everything the President is doing are too chaotic to run their own lives without any help. If they cannot be trusted to run their own lives without any help, they are not in any position to give advice about running the country! These people would not know good policy even if good policy hit them in their face.

    What?!?! (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    Who/what are you even talking about?

    Jee-zus ....


    try laying down (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    Those voices?

    They should go away after a little rest.


    No one's saying pols should never ... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    ... compromise, or that Cuomo shouldn't be criticized if/when he takes a position that liberals don't like.  If he does make deals as POTUS in 2016, he will indeed be criticized.

    That being said, it's nice to see what can be done when a pol is willing to put him/herself out there and show strong leadership on an issue ...

    ... for a "change".


    There's (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    nothing wrong with compromise as long as it's mostly a win-win situation which can occur. The problem many people have with Obama is that he starts negotiations with half a loaf instead of a full loaf so at best he's bringing home 25% of the loaf if that. Sometimes it's just mere crumbs he comes out of negotiations with. Of course then there's the other train of thought that Obama really is getting what he wants because he's a Reaganite Supply Sider.

    One thing you have to realize too that being willing to walk away is a good negotiating skill. Cantor knows Obama's history of capitulation and any smart negotiator would do the same.


    He does not see himself (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    as either a participant or a negotiator, is the problem.  He sees himself, I've long been convinced, as a "facilitator."

    And worse, a facilitator who (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:20:44 PM EST
    has no clear idea of what it is he's facilitating, and doesn't care whether the policy that gets facilitated is actually sound, as long as, in the end, there is an agreement.

    And since we little people are the last ones who ever get consulted, usually just as the ink is drying on whatever it is that's been decided, all of this facilitating is being conducted with and among people whose loyalties are to corporate and political interests, the benefits of which rarely trickle down to our level, and the negative consequences of which we tend to feel most keenly.

    What a world, what a world...


    Why's that? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:35:27 AM EST
    Achieved through bipartisanship, not the madman theory of bargaining which would have led nowhere in this case. This is a point that should be noted.

    Not sure who was advocating the use of the madman theory of negotiation to pass same-sex marriage in NY - not sure how that would've even worked in this case.  Either way, 4 crossover Republican votes out of 33 (from moderate districts) is hardly a lesson in bipartisan achievement.


    Cuomo (who is clearly a moderate) has (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    New York politicians' by the balls. For the last 5 months they have done every single thing he has told them to do. I wouldn't be surprised of some state senator is scrubbing Cuomo's floors right now. It's pretty amazing really.

    Why anybody would want to be married is beyond me (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    But those who do should be able to.

    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    has been that certain rights and privileges have been extended to citizens who are married.

    Tax advantages.
    Health insurance premium advantages.
    Parental rights.

    In France, this is not the case.
    They accept partnerships as equal to marriage as a status.
    You can refer to your partner or "conjoint".

    But in the USA, the right to marry is a must if all are to share in the same rights and privileges.

    It's a holdover from the hold on our government by religious organizations imo. But there it is.

    We can't even buy a bottle of gin on Sunday in NYC.


    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    Not just a victory for human rights and equal rights, but also a great victory for family lawyers.

    I have found the *state* of being married (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    to be very comforting and a source of feeling personally secure for 35 years.  The status of being married has also provided us (and our children) with innumerable legal benefits.  Any other couple that is of sufficient age and mental competence who feel they would benefit in the same way should be able to make that decision for themselves, and certainly should not be excluded from the legal benefits attached to the status for arbitrary and discriminatory reasons.

    Coming up on 31 years myself, and (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    heartily second your comment; whether or not one wants to be married, the choice should still be there for all who wish to take their commitment to that level.

    Whether one's religion will allow one to participate in the sacrament of marriage is another thing altogether, but religion - yours, mine or anyone's - should not be dictating to government what is and is not legal.


    I agree with (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    both you and Peter.  (And almost 41 years of marriage for Mr. Z and me.)

    My first thought: (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 05:00:18 PM EST
    Peter G, Anne and Zorba have very lucky spouses, but that seemed incomplete. You are lucky to have each other, was my next thought.  But, that, too, seemed incomplete, for it surely was not just luck, but working together in relationship, sharing the joys and meeting challenges.  And, I am probably still missing a lot, but that is the mystery of it all.   As NY gay women and men who chose to become married in law, they, too, will experience all the wonderment and all the trials of those wedded before them.  A good day for celebration.

    Well, who knows why or how the (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 06:16:09 PM EST
    universe brings people together - that may be where the "luck" comes into it - but hanging in there, holding on for the rollercoaster ride that is marriage, is work - but the good kind.  Not the OMG-I-can't-wait-for-the-day-to-be-over kind, but the knowing-we're-in-this-together-makes-it-all-worthwhile kind.

    I can think of no reason why anyone who wants to make the commitment should be prevented from doing so.


    Oh I agree with you Peter (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    As I said, those who do want to be married should be able to marry whoever wants to marry them. And it shouldn't matter what sex or color or shape or what anything either of them is.

    It's none of anyone else's business, and if anyone thinks that their marriage is somehow threatened by anyone else's marriage their own marriage is probably in trouble already, imo.

    I live with a cat who owns me. I might as well be married to her, for all the luck anyone else might have trying to separate her from me.


    Thanks, Edger, but I was directly addressing (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:10:06 PM EST
    your principal comment -- that you could not imagine why anyone would want to marry.  I tried to explain, very briefly and very personally, why.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:50:35 PM EST
    I was just thinking something very similar about my own cat the other night.  Those of us who've lived with cats who've bonded to us so strongly are truly blessed, IMO.  The very idea that such a small, essentially still largely wild creature, seek us out and trust us so utterly is just mind-boggling to me.

    Or as (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Nemi on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    Søren Kierkegaard put it, anno 1843:
    Marry, and you will regret it; don't marry you will regret that too; marry or don't marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or you don't marry, you'll regret both.
    (Note: I'm only quoting. ;))

    "Green, green, its green they say (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:45:52 PM EST
    on the far side of the fence.  Green, green, I'm going away to where the grass is greener still."

    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Nemi on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    Don't know if that's how Kierkegaard figured, but you've certainly got a point. :)

    Close, but I remember the line as (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    "it's green they say, on the far side of the hill"

    New Christy Minstrels, iirc, ca 1961-2.  From memory, lots of folk records in the family at the time, lots of watching Hootenanny on Saturday nights as a young kid.


    Bringing up Kierkegaard in this context, (none / 0) (#108)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    when many comments above have tied the topic back into the 2008 elections, reminded me of my favorite YouTube of the campaign:  "Kierkegaard in '08."

    Heh! (none / 0) (#130)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    Well, it was repeatedly said during the 2008 election that even a ham sandwich running on the Democratic ticket could win, so why not a danish? ;)

    Got to bet that (none / 0) (#46)
    by beefeater on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    the "legal community" is jumping for joy today, the market for pre-nups and divorces just increased substantially.

    Having been through this (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:54:47 PM EST
    it's the hospitality industry that's jumping for joy.

    We're actually just a little wistful here in VT because we had a huge advantage for so long.  Then Mass. came along, and now NY, and much of our once-thriving wedding business is going to evaporate.


    Just last weekend, my wife and I attended (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:21:57 PM EST
    a wedding of a young, straight couple from New York City, who insisted on holding their ceremony in Massachusetts (at a lovely place in the Berkshires) as a protest against New York's failure to permit gay marriage. And one of the readings was a passage from Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's opinion for the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health (2003): "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations.  ... Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. 'It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.' Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition."  

    yea.... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CST on Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 04:35:13 PM EST
    we're gonna lose a lot of cash here in MA because of this law.

    Still, all around a wonderful thing.


    When will we fight for marriage? (none / 0) (#80)
    by loveed on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    I personally don't think the government should be in the marriage business. Civil union for everyone.
      Marriage belongs in the church. It's a religious ceremony. Maybe then people can be held accountable for the promise made to there god. Get rid of prenup (this admits doubt). It Should be almost impossible to divorce.Let the church decide.
      I have no problem with gays being married under these rules. My problem is with how lightly people take marriage.

    Aloha and (none / 0) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 09:57:56 PM EST
    amen.  Well said.