Join 3,432 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


and there are no citizen initiatives in NY to overturn it
December 2, 2009 9:14 AM   Subscribe

News is breaking that the New York Senate will pass marriage equality legislation today, despite media reports that the legislative push was "stalled" from as late as last week. (The State Assembly repassed the same bill shortly after midnight last night to facilitate the Senate's vote today.) This has all happened largely under the radar—though Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas was apparently in the know, hinting at this "big news" in his Twitter feed on Monday night. Today he writes: "So by the end of the week, gay marriage should be legal in New York. And there are no citizen initiatives in NY to overturn it."
posted by gerryblog (819 comments total) 30 users marked this as a favorite

 
OpenLeft has a liveblog showing the bill's progress; it's passed the Rules Committee and is one of five items for the agenda today, two of which are already completed.
posted by gerryblog at 9:16 AM on December 2, 2009


Sweet. Now we just need medical marijuana and we're set.
posted by milarepa at 9:16 AM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


FOR ONE HELL OF A PARTY.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:17 AM on December 2, 2009 [17 favorites]


And once that citizen initiative comes, which it will, I will enjoy voting against that hateful garbage.
posted by milarepa at 9:18 AM on December 2, 2009


Big ups, New York. Big ups.
posted by Plutor at 9:19 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


milarepa, it's better than that: New York doesn't have a citizen initiative or referendum structure at all. Once it's in, it's in. No more votes.
posted by gerryblog at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2009 [12 favorites]


good deal.
posted by edgeways at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2009


Of course, you won't be able to get a marriage license because New York is about to run out of money.
posted by swift at 9:24 AM on December 2, 2009


Yay New York!
posted by rtha at 9:24 AM on December 2, 2009


Wow, that came out of left field (so to speak). That's my old state! I used to live there!
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:24 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


The debate is happening now. Watch live.
posted by prefpara at 9:25 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Slow and steady wins the race.
posted by homuncula at 9:25 AM on December 2, 2009


Well, I guess I am NY politics dumb, but can you blame me? It make no sense up there in Albany, what with their "steamed hams" and what not.
posted by milarepa at 9:26 AM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


Which I'm sure is little consolation to all the couples and families still living in states that refuse to recognize them. But I definitely feel like nationwide same-sex marriage rights are an inevitability now, which wasn't true for me even as recently as two years ago. So for today at least, huzzah!
posted by homuncula at 9:26 AM on December 2, 2009


But gay marriage opponent Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said he believes "the measure will fail, and it will fail by a pretty good margin."

Your misuse and abject misunderstanding of the concept of Constitutional Freedoms, Mr. McGuire, has earned you a coupon for one free Pele style whirling twirling butterfly kick right in your fucking balls from me, you pathetic coward. Go NY legislature, make it happen.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:26 AM on December 2, 2009 [22 favorites]


gerryblog: milarepa, it's better than that: New York doesn't have a citizen initiative or referendum structure at all. Once it's in, it's in. No more votes.

So much for the will of the people!!!!!teapartynineelevenislamofacists
posted by shakespeherian at 9:27 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


New York doesn't have a citizen initiative or referendum structure at all. Once it's in, it's in.

Hate will find a way.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:27 AM on December 2, 2009 [12 favorites]


I'm gonna celebrate with a wedding registry! Who wants to buy me a melon baller?
posted by The Whelk at 9:27 AM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


thank god. if there's one thing that drives me fucking nuts about this place, it's that - as liberal as we are on the federal level - we are disastrously conservative locally. new york's a diverse, liberal place, yadda yadda yadda, but damn if we don't have a hell of a lot of conservative, and flat out bigoted tendencies. you go to certain areas upstate, and you wouldn't find a liberal for miles, unless he's on a college campus.

that we're finally putting our local money where our federal mouths have been is immensely satisfying.
posted by shmegegge at 9:29 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I never thought I'd argue for throwing Maine out of New England in exchange for New York, but I might tonight!

(Hopefully) great news out of the Empire State.

The Yankees still suck.
posted by rollbiz at 9:29 AM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


This is really important. It's all well and good for a few smaller states, essentially New England plus Iowa, to legalize it, but having a large state legalizing same-sex marriage without possibility of reversal, that is traction.

I hate that it has to be done under cover of darkness, but the passage of this bill is too important to quibble. This is the defense of marriage.
posted by explosion at 9:30 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's about time the NY state senate got back to work after this past summer's serious weirdness. I saw my state senator marching in the town's pride parade so I hope he'll do the right thing. Antoine, I'm watching you.

yes, the Yankees do suck.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 9:30 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hate will find a way.

Seems like the wrong day to be defeatist, on this issue at least.
posted by gerryblog at 9:32 AM on December 2, 2009


Senator Duane stood up first in support of the bill. I think he spoke for less than a minute. Essentially, he said that this would make him equal with everyone else in the room, and sat down. Senator Diaz has been talking for a long time. First he tried to inflame party rivalry, then blathered about values, then listed all the religions and states that oppose gay marriage. Now he is saying that the people don't want gay marriage, and tricky politicians are going against the will of the people. It's really hard to watch.
posted by prefpara at 9:32 AM on December 2, 2009


Congratulates NY, you are sane (although apparently less sane than Iowa...)
posted by DU at 9:32 AM on December 2, 2009


rollbiz: "The Yankees still suck."

of course. that's why they have so many world series wins under their belt. it's because of how bad they are.
posted by shmegegge at 9:33 AM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


I'll ball your melons, The Whelk. Post a link and it's yours. Yay, NY!
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:34 AM on December 2, 2009


One of the closest couples I know is a pair of men who live here in New York. They've been together for about 20 years now, and have seen each other through deaths of parents, serious injuries, career changes, and countless other life issues.

They refer to each other as "my husband". They deserve to have that title be official. Finally, it looks like they will.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:34 AM on December 2, 2009 [13 favorites]


Senator Diaz has been talking for a long time. First he tried to inflame party rivalry, then blathered about values, then listed all the religions and states that oppose gay marriage. Now he is saying that the people don't want gay marriage, and tricky politicians are going against the will of the people. It's really hard to watch.

prefpara, you aren't kidding.
posted by gerryblog at 9:35 AM on December 2, 2009


MA, CT, VT, NY, NY in a month — what the hell was I thinking ever leaving the northeast? Come on, Connecticut, it's not too late to take back the Western Reserve!
posted by enn at 9:37 AM on December 2, 2009


I'll dance in the street if this happens.
posted by Damn That Television at 9:38 AM on December 2, 2009


Terrific news if true. As a native of California, I now feel even more disgusted that my (former) home state did not do the right thing.
posted by blucevalo at 9:39 AM on December 2, 2009


Pretty excited for my state! (Go Mets!)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:39 AM on December 2, 2009


MA, CT, VT, NY, NY in a month

Is that first "NY" supposed to say "Iowa"?
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:40 AM on December 2, 2009


shmegegge: "of course. that's why they have so many world series wins under their belt. it's because of how bad they are."

Apparently you're not familiar with what the word "sucks" means in the context of sports rivalries. No one ever says bad teams suck, because no one cares. "Sucks" is a safe statement of respect. When Jets fans started chanting "Brady sucks" during week two, they were trying to assuage his embarassment. When the crowd at a Boston concert for the Beastie Boys chanted "Yankees suck", they were greeting those three New Yorkers to our city in the nicest way they could think of.

posted by Plutor at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Is that first "NY" supposed to say "Iowa"?

No, the second one is supposed to say New Hampshire. Perhaps Iowa can be designated an honorary New England state.
posted by enn at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2009


I think it was supposed to be NH. Or else NJ, though no one is sure what is happening with marriage equality in the legislature there. Maybe NY will shame them into moving forward too before Corzine leaves office.
posted by gerryblog at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2009


explosion: without possibility of reversal
I'm not exactly an expert in NY State politics, but couldn't a subsequent legislative session simply pass a bill reversing it?
posted by Doofus Magoo at 9:42 AM on December 2, 2009


Have I been reading the wrong sources? Everything I've read said it needs 30 votes to pass, that the Democratic majority of 32 is compromised by the 4 democrats, led by Diaz, have said they will vote against it and the Republicans who said they'd support it in the past have backed off on their support. Everyone is saying it's going to fail.

I hope we do the right thing, but no one seems hopeful in the media around here.
posted by unsupervised at 9:42 AM on December 2, 2009


Perhaps Iowa can be designated an honorary New England state.

On behalf of the good people of Iowa, I accept. Thanks, enn!
posted by scottatdrake at 9:44 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Schneiderman spoke after Diaz and killed it. He talked about how this does not affect religion. I also liked that he said this: "We can't legislate morality. But we can legislate justice."

Now Adams is speaking strongly, analogizing to race.
posted by prefpara at 9:44 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Doofus Magoo, perhaps in theory, but that sort of reversal would be a very unexpected outcome. In other states it's always been the referenda process that has overturned marriage equality, not the legislatures.
posted by gerryblog at 9:45 AM on December 2, 2009


I hope other people are watching the debate from the link prefpara put up. Schneiderman really did a good job speaking in favor of the bill, and so is Adams now.
posted by gerryblog at 9:46 AM on December 2, 2009


unsupervised, I really hope I didn't jump the gun, but Kos and the bill's sponsor (see the first link in the post) think they have the votes.
posted by gerryblog at 9:49 AM on December 2, 2009


*crosses fingers*
posted by Ironmouth at 9:49 AM on December 2, 2009


Good for NY.
posted by ob at 9:50 AM on December 2, 2009


This is amazing! Adams just killed it.
posted by yarly at 9:51 AM on December 2, 2009


prefpara, gerryblog: No sound card in this machine, so the updates from debate are greatly appreciated. Looks like OpenLeft has their liveblog up now, for those in my predicament.
posted by rollbiz at 9:51 AM on December 2, 2009


Both Klein and Adams said they appreciated Diaz's remarks which came "from his heart." Which was awesome because Adams said it first and he said "from his heart, not his mind."
posted by prefpara at 9:52 AM on December 2, 2009


....Um -- I don't have access to the videos, so a question for all of you saying "so-and-so just killed it" -- you're scaring me, because I can't tell whether you mean "he did awesome on his debate and now people are going to vote yes because he's awesome" or "he just killed the bill and it won't pass".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:52 AM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


"...for better or worse, heterosexuals' right to marry stays the same."

Senator Schneiderman, you devil.

Seriously, though, I just spammed the hell out of my all my social networks with this info.

Senator Eric Adams making some great points about how this is the contemporary equivalent of repealing anti-miscegenation legislation, forty years ago, and the pain of immigrants. And, holy shit, he is on the verge of tears.
posted by griphus at 9:53 AM on December 2, 2009


I am using "killed it" as "did a fantastic job speaking in favor of gay rights."

Klein is reading from Loving v. Virginia. It's impossible to read this case and understand how a prohibition on gay marriage can possible be Constitutional.
posted by prefpara at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


They meant the awesome version. Adams was very impassioned, speaking about interracial marriage and what was said to his own grandparents, ending with "You don't have to be gay to respect the rights of those who are."

All of the pro speakers are pointing to Duane in the chamber and demanding justice for him, which is an interesting rhetorical tactic.
posted by gerryblog at 9:54 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Fingers crossed down here in MD. Go NY!

Yankees still suck.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:56 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


All of the pro speakers are pointing to Duane in the chamber and demanding justice for him, which is an interesting rhetorical tactic.

A great move, though, because if you think about it, all of the anti- sentiment somehow gives the impression that gay people are all like Dr. Frank-n-Furter or Caligula or something, and this underscores the fact that "no, your very own colleagues, people you see at work every day, and you can see they're just like you, are being negatively affected by the status quo."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:57 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Klein is telling a personal story about his grandmother, who survived the Holocaust. Because of the hatred she saw there, she embraced a gay family friend who had been rejected by his own family.
posted by prefpara at 9:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Any nay vote after hearing Eric Adams' speech either wasn't listening or comes from someone so blinded by their own misconceptions and misunderstanding that it's sad they're in the position to vote on something this important.
posted by unsupervised at 9:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's not really "under the radar" to many gay folks, as Joe.My.God. and Towleroad have been following it step by step all along, including about two posts each last night when it looked like the Senate was going to pass it then.
posted by dnash at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2009


Now speaking is Senator Valesky. He is making the argument that the Senate cannot legislate a religious principle in violation of the Constitution.
posted by prefpara at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2009


Yankees don't suck you suck you shut up
posted by grubi at 10:04 AM on December 2, 2009


COME ON, MY STATE.
posted by gaspode at 10:04 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Fair enough, dnash. All I meant was that this has happened without much, or any, mainstream press coverage. I'm sure activists have been working hard to make this happen and I thank them for it.
posted by gerryblog at 10:05 AM on December 2, 2009


Now speaking is Senator Parker, a co-sponsor. "The time to pass this legislation is now." He is talking about psychological and economic suffering of same-sex couples who are denied equal treatment. "This is the time that we strike a blow to one of the last levels of inequality that we find..." Is quoting MLK "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." We can't vote against this bill "and still call ourselves people of morality."
posted by prefpara at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


As a former resident of the Bronx, I'd like to register my disgust with Senator Diaz. Who apparently lives in Westchester anyway.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Holy shit, I didn't see this one coming. There are about to be a lot of very happy actors...

Not to jinx anything, but the NY State Senate is legendary for its ability to fuck up even the most simple tasks.
posted by mkultra at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Don't forget to check if you can Marry Gay in your state.

Also, remember: You never have to marry gay.

(previously.)
posted by d1rge at 10:08 AM on December 2, 2009


mkultra: "Who apparently lives in Westchester anyway."

Westchester is where NYers live when they don't like NY.
posted by shmegegge at 10:08 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Not to jinx anything, but the NY State Senate is legendary for its ability to fuck up even the most simple tasks.

Watching it live it's extremely moving to see them (so far) doing the right thing. Amazing.
posted by unsupervised at 10:08 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Question: What happens to equality efforts in NY if this doesn't pass today? Is there any reason it couldn't be brought up again after midterms or sooner?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:08 AM on December 2, 2009


... and Towleroad have been following it step by step

In addition to embedded video feed at Towleroad, there is some liveblogging:
-Sen. Diaz Sr. - Marriage equality vote is "treason."

-Sen. Schneiderman: "You cannot legislate morality, but you can legislate justice."

-Sen. Adams: "I have never been more nervous than I am today." Read off names of states that sold Blacks into slavery: "Because a numerical majority is in one place. It does not mean they are in the right place." ... "You don't have to be gay to respect the rights of those who are."

-Senator Klein: "We owe it to the entire gay community around New York to pass this legislation."
posted by ericb at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Parker is wonderful. He is talking about the rights that families lose when the partners cannot marry, and about the effect on children.
posted by prefpara at 10:09 AM on December 2, 2009


Yankees don't suck you suck you shut up

Exactly the eloquence we'd expect from a Yankees fan.

Aside from Diaz, has anyone spoken against this? Are the senators who oppose it too cowardly to put words to their opposition? It's great to see/hear so many senators speaking for the bill, but I don't want to get a false sense of security.
posted by explosion at 10:10 AM on December 2, 2009


From Kos's Twitter feed: "Valesky, a potential "no" vote on NY gay marriage, will vote "YES"." Wikipedia says mostly rural, comparatively conservative district.
posted by gerryblog at 10:10 AM on December 2, 2009


This is newsfilter at it's best! Everyone, please keep up with the play-by-play for those of us that can't get the live feed from work.
I'm riveted.
posted by Theta States at 10:10 AM on December 2, 2009


Does this mean the Gay Mafia is officially more powerful than La Cosa Nostra, or have we merely combined forces?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:11 AM on December 2, 2009


Am I the only New Yorker for whom this vote comes out of the blue? We've been told for the last few months that the state senate would not vote on marriage equality legislation this year.

I guess they'll do anything to avoid a vote on budget reformation.
posted by TheModernArdeo at 10:12 AM on December 2, 2009


This is incredible. I am watching the debates live thanks to this post and the links herein, and I am shaken by Parker's list of the rights that the current law denies to same-sex couples. I had been aware of only a few of them in forming my vehement opposition to the denial of marriage equality to same-sex couples. I think it goes to discredit the "sanctity of marriage" opposition when I say that hearing this list, and considering how important many of those items are, has made me think with stronger respect and appreciation of my own marriage.
posted by bunnycup at 10:12 AM on December 2, 2009


Awesome.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:12 AM on December 2, 2009


Any chance for a full transcript of Sen. Adams' remarks? (Can't watch the feed here.)
posted by shakespeherian at 10:13 AM on December 2, 2009


shmegegge: mkultra: "Who apparently lives in Westchester anyway."

Uh, check your quoting...
posted by mkultra at 10:13 AM on December 2, 2009


You never have to marry gay.

Ah, but elsewhere:
Family Reserach Council Claims Obama Has A ‘Plan’ To ‘Impose Homosexuality’
posted by ericb at 10:14 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


also, as a life-long nyer who has never voted locally unless it's been part of a national ballot:

I AM FUCKING WATCHING, FUCKERS. FROM NOW ON I WILL VOTE LOCALLY AS OFTEN AS SEPTUAGENARIAN WITH NOISY NEIGHBORS.
posted by shmegegge at 10:14 AM on December 2, 2009 [7 favorites]


mkultra: You took the words right out of my mouth. hah!
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 10:14 AM on December 2, 2009


mkultra: "Uh, check your quoting..."

oh that's weird. I used the mefiquote firefox extension. weird. sorry about that.
posted by shmegegge at 10:14 AM on December 2, 2009


OK, good to know this isn't littering up the thread.

Klein has spoken a lot about basic fairness, basic principles, civil rights.

Now speaking is Senator Espada. He calls the debate "glorious." "If this vote were taken in my district today, same sex marriage, marriage equality would fail." His district is next to Diaz's. The districts are very poor, primarily black and latino, highest unemployment. But this is not about demographics, others have talked about this not being a matter of religion or morality.

Now Espada addresses those Senators who have not made up their minds. Talks about violence against gay people or men who act effeminate. Talks about culturally ingrained sexism. This is not just a historic debate, the headlines will be about whether or not this is truly a vote of conscience. He is appealing to their inner sense of justice. Wants them to put aside partisan politics. You don't need a HS diploma to hear the inner voice of right from wrong.
posted by prefpara at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2009


I thought steamed hams was a Utica phrase.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:15 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I am watching the debates live thanks to this post and the links herein, and I am shaken by Parker's list of the rights that the current law denies to same-sex couples.

Years and years ago, I used to hang around the Yahoo discussion boards and got into a debate about marriage equality with someone. We were going back and forth on the topic, and he finally said, "and I don't understand what the hell they mean by wanting to be 'legally married' anyway. What does that mean?"

I answered that married couples have legal rights that unmarried couples do not.

"Really?" He asked. "Like what?"

"Like the right to inherit property, be named medical power of attorney for each other..." I listed a few more.

"....Wait, really?" My rival said. "Wait, I don't have a problem with a gay couple having those rights...so you're saying that they CAN'T do that with a civil partnership? And only married people can do that?"

"Yes."

"So THAT'S what this is all about?"

"Yes."

"Huh."

A few days later I saw that same person arguing IN SUPPORT of gay marriage.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:16 AM on December 2, 2009 [40 favorites]


Or else NJ, though no one is sure what is happening with marriage equality in the legislature there.

I think it's dead for the moment in NJ, if not actively set back once Christie takes office.

On the other hand, D.C. stood up to the threats from their Archdiocese and approved same-sex marriage, the first of two votes, so the District is one vote away from getting on this list.
posted by gladly at 10:16 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Espada: "let's send a message of hope. Let's send forth a drumbeat of equal rights for all." Speaks against ignorance or pandering.
posted by prefpara at 10:17 AM on December 2, 2009


Espada just voted against what he thought would be the wishes of his constituency. Representative democracy FTW. (Not sarcasm.)
posted by griphus at 10:19 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Senator Savino speaking now. Tens of thousands of lives hanging in the balance. If the bill fails the struggle will continue. This vote is not about politics or who contributed to what campaign. This vote is about an issue of fairness and equality.
posted by prefpara at 10:19 AM on December 2, 2009


Senator Savino refers to Reverend Diaz, and gestures toward him, but he is apparently absent. Way to stick to your convictions guy. Way to be unwilling to even be present and listen to arguments against your point.

Talk about cowardice.
posted by explosion at 10:20 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


explosion, yeah, I couldn't believe Diaz left the chamber after that pseudo-filibuster.
posted by gerryblog at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2009


I also am enjoying reading the live updates, although they have a bit of the flavor of someone quoting Steve Jobs at an Apple event...

So help me with my tortured logic: Historically, the Republicans have opposed abortion in words, but rarely in deeds. So an 'average' and pro-choice voter might go ahead and vote Republican with the tacit understanding that the status quo isn't going to change.

If equal marriage passes, and the Republicans again demonstrate an unwillingness to take any action to overturn it, would that actually help the party attract more moderate voters? My state already has marriage equality, and I voted for a Republican for one particular town office last month because the Democrat incumbent was both bumbling and corrupt. It was definitely a little easier to do so knowing I wasn't likely to be taking marriage rights away.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2009


Savino: why should Tom Duane not have the right to share his life with his partner? All they want is to be treated fairly and equally and be able to plan for each other, the way (names senators and their wives). All of us who are married are able to plan and protect the person that they love.

Tells a story about being stopped at a light on 6th ave, a man in a pedicab recognized her, stuck his head in the window of her car and asked her why she was going to vote for gay marriage and he said "but they're changing the definition of marriage" and she told him "we just met, we could get married tomorrow. And nobody there will ask us about the quality of our relationship." She says, that is what this is about, government does not determine the quality of a relationship or we'd issue 1/4 as many marriage licenses. A church can deny me the sacrament of marriage, city hall does not have that right. That will not change.
posted by prefpara at 10:23 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is Governor Paterson A Progressive Hero? Yet, even if he leaves office disliked among those in his own party, Paterson is poised to leave having accomplished two of the top two things on the progressive wish list: reforming New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws and passing a marriage equality bill.
posted by gerryblog at 10:24 AM on December 2, 2009


The DC council just took the first step towards marriage equality yesterday. Sometime shortly after the end of the year, same-sex marriage will be legal in the nation's capital.

Assuming, of course, that Congress doesn't block the law from taking effect.
posted by stoneweaver at 10:24 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wait, wait, wait- these people are speaking with a strange mix of eloquence, reason, and compassion.

THE NY STATE SENATE HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY ALIENS!
posted by mkultra at 10:25 AM on December 2, 2009 [16 favorites]


Savino talks about The Bachelor/ette and The Littlest Groom as "what we've done to marriage." Is rebutting the argument that the sanctity of marriage is under threat. Those of us who have abused our privilege are responsible... we have nothing to fear from Duane, people who are committed to each other and want to protect from one another. We have nothing to fear from love and commitment. Hope that we can learn from you, Tom, and you don't learn from us.
posted by prefpara at 10:25 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


God, Savino is fantastic. She is coherently presenting many of the arguments I have made (and my "made" I mean ranting, frothing at the mouth, throwing things at the TV, etc.).
posted by rtha at 10:25 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Family Reserach Council Claims Obama Has A ‘Plan’ To ‘Impose Homosexuality’

God, I hope so. I've been going through a terrible dry spell lately.
posted by Avenger at 10:26 AM on December 2, 2009 [22 favorites]


We have nothing to fear from love and commitment. Hope that we can learn from you, Tom, and you don't learn from us.

Savino was really, really good.
posted by gerryblog at 10:26 AM on December 2, 2009


Some brilliant public speaking going on in there. I wish more people were hearing it.
posted by hermitosis at 10:27 AM on December 2, 2009


Senator Krueger now speaking. Why this vote is easy for her: she is a woman and a jew and she knows about discrimination. I think she is near tears.
posted by prefpara at 10:27 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Krueger: nothing in this bill makes any religion change anything, but this is a religious issue. I'm here in the NY State Senate because this was a country that guaranteed religious freedom, so my ancestors came here because they could practice their religion.
posted by prefpara at 10:28 AM on December 2, 2009


I ♥ NY
posted by brundlefly at 10:31 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I am shaken by Parker's list of the rights that the current law denies to same-sex couples.

And this is just a partial list of the rights and benefits of "marriage"
"Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a 'family partnership' under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.'

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family."*
posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on December 2, 2009 [81 favorites]


is there a link directly to the videos? I don't see any live streaming in your previous link, prefpara.
posted by boo_radley at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2009


Now speaking Senator Squadron. Bill is just a few pages but very powerful. Has to do with what sort of government we have. Quotes Jefferson on importance of religious freedom & separation of church and state. This little bill is about a kind of government that allows us individual liberties. This is a personal bill, not just for Senator Duane but for all of us who are married. I just got married, it was the most moving and powerful experience I have ever had in my life, great joy. But was missing something because many members of our families weren't there. They all passed away before I had the opportunity to get married. But for so many New Yorkers, the reason that marriage can't happen right now and those gaps in attendance at their weddings will be greater is literally because of what we do today.
posted by prefpara at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2009


boo_radley, the video is in the top post at http://joemygod.blogspot.com/
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2009


Thanks so much, prefpara.
posted by Theta States at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2009


"I don't understand, as a Jew, how a Jew could vote know."

As a Russian-Jewish immigrant coming here not for religious freedom but to escape rampant antisemitism, I can't agree harder. My family wasn't discriminated against for what we did (as we were secular Jews,) but for who we were, inherently, no matter what we did.

That's what this is about, for me at least. Not the granting of rites of civil marriage itself, but saying "you aren't any different than the rest of us, so there's no reason to treat you any different."
posted by griphus at 10:32 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


boo_radley, all the way at the bottom. Allow it on NoScript and hit the power button.
posted by prefpara at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2009


Streaming video of the debate.
posted by explosion at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2009


Thanks for the updates prefpara. Keep 'em coming!
posted by chara at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2009


"Vote no" that is.
posted by griphus at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2009


ericb, thank you for posting that list.
posted by bunnycup at 10:34 AM on December 2, 2009


Squadron is talking more about separation of church and state, which he credits as the reason America has such a vibrant and rich and varied religious tradition.
posted by prefpara at 10:34 AM on December 2, 2009


is there a link directly to the videos?

The Live Fee is at the bottom of the page.
posted by Midnight Rambler at 10:34 AM on December 2, 2009


If there's one thing the gay marriage debate has taught me, it's this: Gays deserve rights, but marriage is a privilage, and not a right, just like driving.

A bad marriage can be a very dangerous thing. An incestuous marriage can lead to life-threatening birth defects. Spousal murders often occur. Loveless marriages harm the sanctity of marriage, and non-fertile marriages strip the institution of all meaning. And divorce is an expensive and stressful proposition.

Hence, I think we should go for a graduated marriage license system, just like New Jersey's drivers license program. After all, we don't let people who have poor reaction times or DUIs drive. It's dangerous to have a speeding car skid out of its lane. Why should we be more lenient with our most sacred institution?

When you turn 16, you can apply for a marriage permit, which lets you engage in basic courtship, so long as you have a chaperone with a valid marriage license. When you turn 17 and have enough hours of dating, you can then get a provisional civil union, which will allow you to share a dwelling and have visitation rights for visiting your partner in the hospital. After that, you can then work towards your General Marriage License, which will require visits with a marriage counselor, gynecologist, urologist, and genetic counselor to verify that you do love each other, are of sound body and mind, are not blood relatives, are capable of producing offspring and do not intend to murder each other.

Further, there will be no divorce in this system, but the marriage license will expire every four years. If you fail to renew your license, it will lapse, losing you your benefits, but leaving you free to be remarried. If you are caught committing adultery, your marriage license will be suspended. If you are no longer eligible, your license is expired, end of story, until you get fertility treatment or quit wanting to murder your spouse.

Yes, this will cause many older and/or deranged couples to be separated, but there is a tradeoff with every piece of legislation. Further, these spouse-on-spouse murders and old people walking hand-in-hand in the park have been making a mockery out of marriage for far too long.
posted by mccarty.tim at 10:35 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sen. Montgomery spinning it as "We don't want people to live in sin!" and pointing out that African-Americans used to be denied legal marriage.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:36 AM on December 2, 2009


Montgomery: "I want to remind you, if the minister marries you, but you do not go to City Hall, you are not married."
posted by explosion at 10:38 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


MetaFilter: one free Pele style whirling twirling butterfly kick right in your fucking balls
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:38 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Oh, and re: Senator "Oh Shit I Better Get Out of Here" Diaz: Gay Marriage Vote Advances, Diaz Sr. Resorts To Prayer

And Senator Montgomery just publicly accused him of "running away," to a chuckle from the Senate.
posted by griphus at 10:39 AM on December 2, 2009


I'm really grateful for the live-blogging commentary. I love you guys.

I wish we were talking about my state.
posted by Alison at 10:39 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Senator Montgomery speaking now. Thanks everyone who has spoken. I will only add that in my family and my culture, espeically as it relates to my religion, i just want to remind my colleagues that it was always considered that if you were living together and not officially married that you were actually living in sin. so for those of us who believe in the religious tenet of why we should support this: we do not want people to live in sin. in addition i note that the whole isntitiution of marriage has changed over time, as several colleagues have pointed out the only way that african-americans could marry was to "jump the broom." And in fact there are some states that actually at one point in time recognized common law marriage if people lived together long enough. So the institution of marriage is actually basically a part of our government contractual process. and in addition to that we also attach religious meanings and rituals to it. but i want to remind us that if the minister marries you and you don't go to court, you are not married. so it's the marriage really is concretized by the contract that is recognized and required by the gov't in every case. so we're really talking about who we include as being eligible to go to court and to receive a marriage license which protects them from all of the aspects i have, if our husbands decide that they want to run away there are certain responsibilities and protections that we have. and i want everyone to have that. why do we only want ourselves to have them? so i am very much in favor. statement especially to the people i represent in my district: the ministers many of whom are LGBT, the doctors, the many of the choir directors: the churches would not exist if there weren't choir directors, many of whom are gay. i want to talk about people in all walks of life, african americans, africans, latinos, white people, black people, men, women, they are my constituents too, i represent them, they would like to have the right to marry. some of them will not care but many of them, any of them who would like to be married, i want to say to them today that i am goign to vote so that you have every right that every other citizen has.


(sorry for the typing)
posted by prefpara at 10:40 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Man there is some SERIOUS statesmanshipry goin' on here. This is better than watching go-karts explode.
posted by The Whelk at 10:41 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.'

That one really stuck out as shocking, so much that I can hardly believe it's true. Wow.

Good luck to everybody in NY, and congrats in advance.
posted by Sova at 10:41 AM on December 2, 2009


Savino talks about The Bachelor/ette and The Littlest Groom as "what we've done to marriage." Is rebutting the argument that the sanctity of marriage is under threat.

Oh, thank GOD someone made this argument. I always thought that the whole "threat to marriage" thing was a total crock argument as it overlooked the fact that marriage has been a prize on not just one but two gad-damned reality shows.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:41 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


From griphus's link: Here's the strongest sign yet that the gay marriage bill will indeed come to the Senate floor for a vote before the day is over: Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., the measure's most outspoken opponent, has retired to his Albany office to pray.
"I don't know why it has to be done in special session. I don't know why it has to be today. Is it going to be done? I believe so," Diaz Sr. told me rather glumly during a brief telephone interview just now.


"Of course I'm going to vote 'no' - that's my position...I will hold all my comments for the floor if the issue comes to the floor. You will hear me say everything I have to say about it. I have a strong feeling that it is (coming to the floor). I’m in my office. I'm calling around. I'm praying."


"...I don’t know anything anymore," Diaz Sr. added. "I don’t know what’s going on anymore. People give you word and then they go back on their word. There is no gentleman’s agreement anymore. Me, I give you my word and I don’t go back on it. Not anymore."

posted by gerryblog at 10:42 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Senator Serrano speaking. This is a wonderful day. What separates the US from other nations and makes us great is this civil rights movement, every such movement has come through struggle and in every one of these struggles there have been those who have said that if these measures were enacted we would spiral into chaos. History has time and time again proven that extending civil rights further has made our nation more whole and complete. It will make our communities stronger. History will prove this civil rights movement to be right.

No one should be subjugated to less rights than anyone else. We are a diverse nation and we should embrace that fully because it is our nation's greatest strength. Equality is the foundation of the American ideal.
posted by prefpara at 10:43 AM on December 2, 2009


(technically, that post is from yesterday, but it still speaks to his demoralization)
posted by gerryblog at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2009


It's just like New York to steal our thunder again!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2009


Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.'

Where do these exist? I tried googling and I only got copies of lists of marriage rights denied to gay couples.
posted by Alison at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2009


Serrano: we all cannot be free until all of us are afforded the same rights
posted by prefpara at 10:44 AM on December 2, 2009


I just had to come by to say that this is very exciting.
posted by sleepinglion at 10:46 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh, this is awesome. This is so awesome. I'm not even sure why, but I'm so excited, and hoping so hard. It's another step in such a long journey.

(I wish someday I'd be watching this for PA, but I'm terrified that it'll never happen in my lifetime.)
posted by kalimac at 10:46 AM on December 2, 2009


You all are great! Reading with baited breath!
posted by lunit at 10:47 AM on December 2, 2009


It's so rarely you see the scales shift toward justice, and they do so at such a slow, often invisible pace, that when you can actually peek in a seismic shift at the moment of its happening, it's ... well, I don't know if there is a word for what I feel. I'll make one up.

Enhopening.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:47 AM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


Hassell-Thompson is riveting, incidentally.
posted by kalimac at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2009


This makes me reconsider relocating.

When will they vote!?! I'm going nuts!
posted by Evangeline at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2009


oh god, Ruth Hassell-Thompson is making me cry.
posted by lalex at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2009


If this passes, and I hope it does, New Yorkers deserve a big pat on the back.
posted by drezdn at 10:48 AM on December 2, 2009


I appreciate these realtime updates so much. I only wish Georgia's legislature could take a hint. But, alas...

Cheers, New York. Do the right thing.
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2009


Evangeline, I believe they each vote at the end of their speech. Could be wrong, though.

Sen. Hassell-Thompson's story about her brother is riveting.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2009


If Hassell-Thompson doesn't make you cry, you're made of stone.
posted by padraigin at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2009


"Praying" to deny people rights that everyone else has is the most fucked-up ass-backward belief system I can conceive of. Fuck that guy. And if God supports that, fuck Him, too.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:50 AM on December 2, 2009 [19 favorites]


"People have the right to choose."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:50 AM on December 2, 2009


this is riveting, why isn't this being broadcast on the major news orifice.

"no one elected me to be the moral arbitrator of their decisions. "
posted by The Whelk at 10:51 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Senator Hassell-Thompson now speaking. Her mother was the preacher in her family. Passed in August, strong person. Her eldest brother was gay and this is the first time she has said this publicly. For a long time it was not something her parents could admit or feel comfortable about. He was born in 1930, his sexual preference was not acceptable so he left for France and stayed in Europe all his life where he had a formidable career but could not share it with his family. When she came of age she searched for him across the world and searched consulates and embassies and one day got a response and he wanted to know why did I want him to come home and I said to him because your father needs to lay his eyes upon you and he said my father does not want to see me and I said your sister does... and he did come home and after that made frequent visits but never could settle and so died in the south fo France. And so my youngest brother brought his ashes home. Because of his status those things that he should have been entitled to as a married couple he should have been entitled to. And it caused strain between our two families. How do I equate the teachings of a lifetime and a relationship that we were bereft of for so many years? Have always been a supporter of choice, believed the Constitution is magic document that when applied freedom.

Her sister is now the minister and I am proud of her, and she would not agree with the decision that I am going to make today but... people have the right to choose. This bill is not about encouraging people, enticing people, but rather giving them the right to make the choice for themselves. And if there is a condemnation in that choice, which my church preaches, that is between them and God. No one elected me to be the moral arbiter of their decisions but they did ask me to provide leaderhsip. I hope the people who called my office and asked me to vote no understand that if they picked me as the leader then my decisions on their floor are about all the rights, the people who asked me to vote yes have a right to expevct my protection as well.
posted by prefpara at 10:51 AM on December 2, 2009 [7 favorites]


50% of her constituents are against the bill. What a courageous, wonderful woman.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:51 AM on December 2, 2009


Gay Marriage Vote Advances, Diaz Sr. Resorts To Prayer

Marriages were a civil and not religious affairs in pre-colonial America. If Diaz only knew the truth, his head would asplode!

All that gays and lesbians are seeking is a civil marriage. Diaz, you can keep your "traditional" religious marriage. LGBT folk don't need it!
For Massachusetts, a Chance and a Choice (by Peter J. Gomes | February 8, 2004)
"When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620, among the first things they did for the well-ordering of their new commonwealth was to institute the Dutch custom of civil marriage with which they had become familiar during their long sojourn in the Netherlands.

The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590, and the first marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in exercise of his office as magistrate.

There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph Smith in 1629, but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who may perform such ceremonies.

This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the court's ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition, rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been since 1621.

Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of consideration, those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution.

No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church or with its blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these distinctions.

It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the constitution.

We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage, the so-called 'miscegenation' laws that obtained in many parts of this country within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious.

Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners
....[more]"*
posted by ericb at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2009 [7 favorites]


Where do [neighborhoods zoned families-only] exist?

It's common for zoning laws to regulate the number of unrelated people who live in the same house. AFAIK they're usually intended to keep boarding houses and high-occupancy rentals (ie, 3 bedroom houses with 6 college students) out of "family" or otherwise established neighborhoods.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


If this passes, and I hope it does, New Yorkers deserve a big pat on the back.

Great big fat gay Wedding Party!
posted by The Whelk at 10:52 AM on December 2, 2009


Going by the "Undecided" list on the Albany Project here, the only unknown vote yet cast is Valesky, a maybe-vote Dem, and a big win on account of his being from upstate. I'll try to keep track of the votes to see who's votes are expected and whose are surprises.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2009


Talk about a tough act to follow.
posted by The Whelk at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2009


The Albany Times-Union ( aka Times-Useless ) has a blog entry summarizing the votes up now.
posted by mikelieman at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2009


Does anyone know if there's a limit to how long the debates* can go, or when they'll be actually voting?

*If we can even call them debates, since only one guy has even said they're against it.
posted by explosion at 10:53 AM on December 2, 2009


I still do not believe the votes are there. Unless asshats like Bill Stachowski realize their pathetic 2008 numbers reflect their refusal to support sensible legislation like marriage equality, this is just a chance for Patterson to look good.

I will purchase and then eat a hat if this passes.

PS
Thanks Senator Thompson, you are a doll!
posted by munchingzombie at 10:54 AM on December 2, 2009


Thompson was the 2nd "Yes" coming from an undecided.
posted by unsupervised at 10:54 AM on December 2, 2009


Senator Johnson speaking. Thanks people, right now is thanking Tom Duane, admires him for leadership, dignity, love for Lewis (Tom's partner). Talks about his own marriage, references Squadron's comments about his pride and love on his wedding day. This bill is simple. It does two things. It's about two things. It's about equality. No matter who you love, gives them the right to obtain equal access to a marriage license. Speaks against a separate but equal system of civil unions. Says look at NJ and VT which passed civil union statutes. Says it just didn't work so VT changed it and went to marriage.
posted by prefpara at 10:54 AM on December 2, 2009


So we need to hear 20 more "yes" speeches to see it really pass? Do the NOs have to speak, or can they just not show up?
posted by gerryblog at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2009


Johnson: this bill is about love. And about two individuals who love each other and want to express that love in a lifetime relationship of commitment. And don't need to be treated separate but equal. This bill doesn't force anyone to do anything except our clerks to issue a license.

Repeats the freedom of religion arguments. This is not an attack on religious liberty or we would all stand shoulder to shoulder together to fight that attack but that's not what this is about. This is about civil marriage.
posted by prefpara at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2009


I hope this passes.

I only wish Georgia's legislature could take a hint.

I'll hold my breath for Georgia if you hold yours for North Carolina. We'll see which one of us passes out first.
posted by marxchivist at 10:57 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I wonder what legal penalty Kos would suffer for reporting this in Uganda?
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:57 AM on December 2, 2009


Johnson: it's important to have this debate, for constituents to see how we vote. We are a representative democracy. We were elected to represent our districts. And so today, for my district, for my family, for my constituents, for (two names of people who were denied a marriage license in one of his town)... wants them to be given the equal rights that I have.
posted by prefpara at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2009


I can't get enough hot hot oratory action.
posted by The Whelk at 10:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Senator Perkins now speaking. Thanks movement: you have made a difference, it matters that you are here. Camera shows audience. Half the people in this room would not be here at another point in time. Many of us have the privilege of the success of past civil rights movements. We've always been able to succeed so get ready, marriage equality is here and it is inevitable.
posted by prefpara at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2009


Thank you for liveblogging this.
posted by anastasiav at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2009


I can;t help if that "Marrie Equality is here!" was a deep reference to "we're here, we're queer, get used to it."
posted by The Whelk at 11:00 AM on December 2, 2009


Ahem. Uganda? Are you watching this? This is what you should be aiming for.
posted by ZsigE at 11:01 AM on December 2, 2009


Perkins: agrees this is a great moment for our democracy, we have been a part of a historic moment. It is inevitable that we will be successful. If not today, tomorrow. I can see Dr. MLK smiling down on us today in recognition that his sacrifice was not in vain.
posted by prefpara at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2009


hey, don't have time to really participate in the thread, but my fingers are crossed and best wishes to y'all. I hope I can come back here in a few hours and read good news.
posted by desjardins at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2009


Thompson was the 2nd "Yes" coming from an undecided.

There are two Thompsons in the NY Senate, Hassell-Thompson and regular old Thompson. Open-Left lists them both as co-sponsors, meaning they're both Hard Yes.
posted by muddgirl at 11:02 AM on December 2, 2009


The DC council just took the first step towards marriage equality yesterday. Sometime shortly after the end of the year, same-sex marriage will be legal in the nation's capital.

Nats suck.
World Champion New York Yankees.
posted by inigo2 at 11:03 AM on December 2, 2009


Perkins was planning on a vacation with his wife to celebrate their wedding anniversary, but postponed it for the vote.
posted by EarBucket at 11:03 AM on December 2, 2009


munchingzombie: I will purchase and then eat a hat if this passes.
Haaaaaaaats!

But seriously... great news, hope it passes, and it's awesome to be able to watch it live while here at work. Based on what I'm seeing... how can this not pass? Sounds like two unknowns are going "YES"... are there any unknowns, or previously presumed "YES"es, going "NO" so far?
posted by hincandenza at 11:03 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


When this passes, does anyone know how many gay men will get married as opposed to lesbians?

I'm a little concerned we'll wind up with a shortage of little wedding-cake men.
posted by grumblebee at 11:03 AM on December 2, 2009


Thanks for this post -- I had no idea this was happening today. And thanks for the running account (I can't stream the video, either). Keep it comiing!
posted by trip and a half at 11:04 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


livesteam keeps breaking up for me.
posted by The Whelk at 11:05 AM on December 2, 2009


Oppenheimer just compared marriage equality to tikkun olam. I think I'm in love.
posted by kalimac at 11:06 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wherever we see discrimination, or hatred, we have to fight that. - Sen.Oppenheimer
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:06 AM on December 2, 2009


Oppenheimer plays the Godwin card!
posted by EarBucket at 11:07 AM on December 2, 2009


Bless you, New York.
posted by darkstar at 11:08 AM on December 2, 2009


Senator Oppenheimer now speaking. Thanks those who have been patient for years and have finally said we've been patient long enough, we need answers. Believes if not today, will prevail soon. Everyone is entitled to equal legal rights and protections, mentions survivorship, retirement benefits, hospitalization, welfare, a thousand different pieces. A civil issue not a religious issue, which is clearly delineated in the bill.

I don't understand people who think this diminishes their marriage. have been married, why would this diminish my marriage? I have a very fine marriage, four children.

Almost all of us have LGBT friends. They are for the most part in serious committed relationships of long standing. Why wouldn't people want stable committed couples living in the house next to them? They are stable people, isn't that what we want in our communities? I really admire the commitment and the loving relationship that I see between Lewis and Tom Duane.

One of the foundations of Judaism is something called tikam aloom (sp?) which means repairing the world. means wherever we see discrimination or hatred we have to fight back. Her husband was able to escape Germany just prior to the Holocaust, rest of the family did not get out. We personally live with an appreciation of the devastation that hatred and inhumanity can cause in the world, making it much more difficult for many of us to try and heal the world. Her Rabbi quoted a sage who said all the 10 commandments are important but one is so significant that it makes all the others commentary: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. She is crying. We all seem to be getting quite emotional and quite personal.

This hits a chord for all of us, this is not just for the gay and lesbian community but for all of us, a measure of all of our humanity.
posted by prefpara at 11:08 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


prefpara, you're good!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2009


Stavisky: I can't stand here and oppose discrimination based upon religion, sex, creed, race and condone discrimination based on sexual orientation.
posted by prefpara at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


We need to deploy Senator Oppenheimer on the anti- states. Inspiring oratory is one thing, but Jewish grandmother? They don't stand a chance.
posted by griphus at 11:09 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Has anyone else voted NO yet? I'm curious to hear what kind of rhetoric will come out against these logical juggernauts.
posted by Theta States at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2009


16/1 and 45 to go. We're 1/2way there!
posted by mikelieman at 11:10 AM on December 2, 2009


"What is wrong is not knowing what the Bible says. What is wrong is when you quote the Bible for your own purposes" - Sen. Smith
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Senator Smith: people ask him why he is supporting gay marriage. when he asks back why not a good number of them would retreat to the Bible. well the Bible says it is wrong. What is wrong is not knowing what the Bible says. The Bible does not say same sex marriage is wrong. The Bible talks about the importance of relationships and fairness.

(sorry i have to take a short pause)
posted by prefpara at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2009


It's petty, but I was a little thrown when Oppenheimer pedantically noted "One rule in the ten commandments was so important, it makes the others commentary. I wonder which of us could guess which one it was..." and then proceeded to mention the golden rule.

Still, overall this is great to hear people speaking rationally about compassion and basic decency... in a legislative body! Mind == blown.
posted by hincandenza at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2009


"The bible does not say, same sex marriage is wrong. The bible talks about the importance of individuals, and the importance of fairness in understanding one another. What is wrong is when you quote the Bible for your own purposes... Please do not quote the Bible or refer to it, if you are not clear what it really means." - Sen. Malcolm Smith

THANK YOU.
posted by griphus at 11:12 AM on December 2, 2009 [9 favorites]


expecting TWINS people.
posted by The Whelk at 11:13 AM on December 2, 2009


TWINS
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2009


oh, snap. Sen. Smith to the no votes: UR DOING THE BIBLE WRONG.
posted by lalex at 11:15 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Dammit, I should be working! And all I want to do is watch the stream and cheer and wave flags and get teary eyed and stuff. Go New York!
posted by jokeefe at 11:16 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Did someone just interrupt Sen. Smith's speech to mention outdated senate proceeding rules?
posted by griphus at 11:16 AM on December 2, 2009


Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks. Pulling out all the stops.
posted by jokeefe at 11:16 AM on December 2, 2009


Malcolm A. Smith is being fantastically brave.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:17 AM on December 2, 2009


Duane steps up.
posted by EarBucket at 11:18 AM on December 2, 2009


When will they vote? Any idea?
posted by jokeefe at 11:18 AM on December 2, 2009


Sen. Duane is closing shop. Does anyone have a count on aye and nay speeches?
posted by griphus at 11:18 AM on December 2, 2009


Speeches are over.
posted by grumblebee at 11:19 AM on December 2, 2009


One rule in the ten commandments was so important, it makes the others commentary. I wonder which of us could guess which one it was...

I am the LORD your GOD. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
posted by jock@law at 11:19 AM on December 2, 2009


17 yes, 1 no
posted by EvaDestruction at 11:19 AM on December 2, 2009


Man, I'd hate to be the closer for that speechathon. Duane sounds like he's about to cry at points.
posted by The Whelk at 11:20 AM on December 2, 2009


Duane: "There's still time to feel my gratitude in its fullness." Brilliant.
posted by maudlin at 11:20 AM on December 2, 2009


The senate bill under consideration.
posted by mikelieman at 11:20 AM on December 2, 2009


Speeches are OVER? Only a single person voting NO had the guts to give their reasons?

Oh me oh my.
posted by Theta States at 11:20 AM on December 2, 2009


"There's still time to feel my gratitude in its fullness."

awwww yeah.
posted by kenko at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009


This is like the anti-matter version of the 9/11 post. The longer it goes, the better I feel.

I'm sending one canadian cyber-hug to the New York State Senate.

Do the right thing!
posted by WinnipegDragon at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009


Duane is incredibly funny and on the verge of tears and I think I am too. (Well, the tears bit.)
posted by kalimac at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009


That's no bill -- it's a cookbook!
posted by gerryblog at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I guess the issue matters a little more to him...


"[Duane] Only the second openly LGBT member of the New York Legislature"
posted by The Whelk at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009


This has to be tremendously emotional for Duane. I can't imagine having to get up in front of my co-workers and ask for their permission to be treated like an equal human being.
posted by EarBucket at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009 [14 favorites]


One rule in the ten commandments was so important, it makes the others commentary. I wonder which of us could guess which one it was...

She confused the Ten Commandments with the Talmud. I think the story is that Rabbi Hillel was asked to stand on one foot and condense the Talmud into a couple of sentences. He said, "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you. The rest is commentary."
posted by grumblebee at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Quoting abolitionist preacher Theodore Parker.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:21 AM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


I know that, jock@law. I was saying it odd that Oppenheimer chose to riff on the 10 commandments, and then used the golden rule instead.
posted by hincandenza at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2009


whendotheyvotewhendotheyvotewhendotheyvotewhendotheyvote?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh my this had better pass.
posted by haveanicesummer at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2009


Thank you for that list, ericb.

The point that seems to go over so many heads, the president's included, is this: Even if states have civil unions exactly equivalent to marriage *in that state*, these Unions grant none of the rights the federal government gives to married couples.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:22 AM on December 2, 2009


Damn it, Senators, I'm not made of stone!

I closed my office door, initially to listen without headphones, but now i'ts moreso that I can let the tears flow.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2009


crying! laughing! IT'S PERSONAL.
posted by The Whelk at 11:23 AM on December 2, 2009


World wide internet superhighway!
posted by jokeefe at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2009


Hi! to you too, Senator!
posted by anastasiav at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2009


Duane: "Thanks to the WorldWideInternetSuperHighway..."

Metafilter: Best of the WorldWideInternetSuperHighway.
posted by explosion at 11:24 AM on December 2, 2009


Like lots of other folks, I had no idea this was happening today. Thanks for this thread. Wow.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2009


You never really know how people fall on an issue. Was up in Oregon last week in my wife's minivan (complete with "Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one" bumper sticker); as I got in, a woman with her dog walked over and said she liked our bumper sticker. I said "Thank you" and she said "no, thank YOU", very friendly and charming. Then a few days later in California, a woman working at the restaurant we'd just eaten at, but sitting on the curb (I assume on her break) said "good thing you parked backwards" as we walked by, and gestured at the bumper sticker (which couldn't be seen from the restaurant entrance because of how we'd parked.) It was not spoken with cheeriness or menace, but in a tone that suggested our van would have been vandalized if people could see the sticker.

So good on ya, New York. Here's hoping people there have better things to do than fight it.
posted by davejay at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2009


So it's gonna pass, right?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2009


(Sorry, I needed to help my friend with a question. Why are exams in a week?)

Senator Duane closed with moving thanks to everyone. I am still in and out trying to help my friend but caught him saying

"there is never a right time for civil rights with the ecomony... and wars... there's never a good time for civil rights, I get that, but the paradox is it's always the time to be on the right side of history."
posted by prefpara at 11:25 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


uncleozzy- Neither did Sen. Duane, apparently.
posted by griphus at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2009


if I were a NY State senator, I'd be on this thread commenting while I sit in session.

me: hey guys. voting yes. how are you? I'm in ur senate, passing ur billz.
posted by shmegegge at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2009 [11 favorites]


He hasn't closed yet. He's still speaking. ("We're beating New Jersey, today.")
posted by grumblebee at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2009


"They may have the Gets, they may have the Giants, but they are not taking this away from us.'
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


That's true, drjimmy11, but every state that passes civil unions exactly equal to marriage (or marriage itself) is one more reason for the Supreme Court to tear down DOMA.
posted by muddgirl at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


"It's never ever ever the right time for civil rights. I know. I get that. But the paradox is that it's always the right time to be on the right side of history."

Brilliantly put, and beautifully stated. What must it take for him to look sympathetically to those who would stand right in front of him and deny him his own human rights?
posted by Navelgazer at 11:26 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Um, Jets. I watch football.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2009


Duane: "Today we are beating New Jersey." So THAT'S what this is all about.
posted by gerryblog at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2009


also: Ruben Diaz, wtf?
posted by davejay at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2009


VERMONT! LOVELY! THE TREES!
posted by The Whelk at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2009


I know that, jock@law

Oh I know. I just wanted to imperiously walk in from nowhere and suggest that I was God, only to have it turn out I was quoting the First Commandment, Jed Bartlett style.
posted by jock@law at 11:28 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


My afternoon's productivity is entirely shot until this is finalized and I get to go have a cry.
posted by Theta States at 11:29 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Watching this has restored a little of my faith in elected officials, and in the people's ability to elect them.

I've had a lot of bad cries lately, and this was exactly the good cry I needed to restore balance. GO NEW YORK!

I'd rather have marriage equality than good burritos.
posted by padraigin at 11:30 AM on December 2, 2009


"I teach a civics class on same-sex marriage. They already think its happened, those kids. No. Thank you, but no! They're shocked! Call MTV, they're lying."
posted by griphus at 11:30 AM on December 2, 2009


davejay: also: Ruben Diaz, wtf?

My guess is Diaz got up and was all like 'All right guys we all know how this is we'll just whip out our brilliant anti-gay rhetoric and we'll win again just like we did in California and Maine because we're so big and tough and strong and... guys? Guys? OHSHIT' (runs away and hides)
posted by shakespeherian at 11:30 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Please hurry - I have to pee.
posted by Evangeline at 11:31 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm very proud to have voted for Sen. Duane. Good work, sir.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:31 AM on December 2, 2009


Anyone in NYC who wants to watch this on TV, NY1 is now running live from the Senate floor.
posted by lalex at 11:32 AM on December 2, 2009


I will purchase and then eat a hat if this passes.

No problem!
posted by marxchivist at 11:33 AM on December 2, 2009


The top three national stories on CNN are all about Tiger Woods. Bah.
posted by jokeefe at 11:34 AM on December 2, 2009


Full on tears now - man - this gonna be cathartic.
posted by The Whelk at 11:35 AM on December 2, 2009


I will purchase and then eat a hat if this passes.

Hats of Meat?
posted by explosion at 11:35 AM on December 2, 2009


I will purchase and then eat a hat if this passes.

No problem!
posted by grumblebee at 11:35 AM on December 2, 2009


OMG I went out to pick up my laundry and I'm back now and he's STILL talking.

I adore Duane and I know he's emotional right now but he sounds like he's on pills.
posted by hermitosis at 11:36 AM on December 2, 2009


What a charming man. I want to buy him and Lewis some china or something for their wedding.
posted by kalimac at 11:36 AM on December 2, 2009


I sent Savino a fan email. So many of the folks who talked today have been fantastic, but she was the first one to knock my socks off, so she got the "thank you!" email.
posted by rtha at 11:36 AM on December 2, 2009


The Whelk, I will personally buy you a congratulatory drink if this passes. you know, if you ever come to a meetup. FUCKIN' LET'S GO NEW YORK FUCKIN' FUCK A BUCK BAGOCK A GOCK.

/eddie izzard.
posted by shmegegge at 11:36 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I have a meeting in 45 minutes. Come on you guys!
posted by jokeefe at 11:37 AM on December 2, 2009


I will personally buy you a congratulatory drink if this passes. you know, if you ever come to a meetup.

If you knew me, you would know that is not a good idea.

hermitosis: he's on EMOTION PILLS. 100% CONCENTRATED.
posted by The Whelk at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2009


Showing up in my Twitter feed: RT @JoeMyGod: Tom Duane is stalling while the GOP Senators (who aren't in the chamber) are being strong armed.
posted by gerryblog at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2009


I will purchase and then eat a hat fedora if this passes and I'm informed that pictures of me prompt girly coos.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2009


The top three national stories on CNN are all about Tiger Woods. Bah.

The sanctity of marriage, indeed.

Regardless of how this goes, I'll be writing an appreciative note to my Senator, Eric Adams, for his moving words today. Thanks for keeping us updated, prefpara.
posted by cosmic osmo at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Not [coming out] makes it seem like its something you wouldn't want to be!"
posted by griphus at 11:39 AM on December 2, 2009


"I got a new gay hip."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:39 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


We're done!
posted by jokeefe at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2009


RING MY BELL!
posted by The Whelk at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Debate is closed and they're ringing the bell.
posted by bshort at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2009


nyc is going to be a very interesting place to live once this goes into effect (not that it isn't already). I can't wait to see the happy couples at city hall, please don't disappoint
posted by slapshot57 at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2009


Here we go...
posted by anastasiav at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2009


Uh, except the voting part jokeefe. That's also kind of important. :)
posted by hincandenza at 11:40 AM on December 2, 2009


"I'll be a married gay". Hopefully, Senator.
posted by gaspode at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009


aretheygonnavotenowaretheygonnavotenowaretheyarethey???

(I might be slightly emotionally involved)
posted by kalimac at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009


while the GOP Senators (who aren't in the chamber) are being strong armed.


must. resist. muuuuust
posted by The Whelk at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009


Sorry. I'm biting my nails here. Crossing everything for New Yorkers.
posted by jokeefe at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009


Oooh. Slow roll call? Awesome! We get to hear how every person votes.
posted by brina at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009


Why would they ask for a slow roll call? Are they stalling for time?
posted by bshort at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009


I'm back... they're calling the roll slowly. Pay attention, NY voters!
posted by prefpara at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009


"When you finish ringing the bell, pull the rolls slowly."

NYS Senate is so broke they're running a bakery out the back of it.
posted by griphus at 11:41 AM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


FOR DRAMATIC IMPACT.

and, I imagine, public shaming of the Nayers.
posted by The Whelk at 11:42 AM on December 2, 2009


"I got a new gay hip."

I was drinking coffee when he said this and nearly spit it out all over my laptop when he said this, it made me laugh so hard.
posted by rtha at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2009


has anyone else apparently lost sound?
posted by kalimac at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2009


Is the sound muted intentionally, or did I lose sound on the streaming video?
posted by explosion at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2009


Aaargh! The sound keeps cutting out!
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 11:43 AM on December 2, 2009


kalimac, I did, but a reload fixed it.
posted by gerryblog at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


Sound is back.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


SUSPENSE. KILLING. ME.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh, they're going to let everyone "explain" their votes.
posted by brina at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


I'm getting chills.
posted by jokeefe at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh no, are they all going to justify their votes?

Please just tell us the score!
posted by casualinference at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


As a member of Red Sox nation, I hate to put my allegiance with the Yankees... but man, NY, you're making Little Rhody and Maine both look like the drunken uncles of New England. I guess we could take you in instead, but you'll have to put on a plaid shirt.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


sounds back
posted by shmegegge at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


Oooooh I'm recording the vote so hopefully I can keep it as a reminder of the day New York was AWESOME
posted by gaspode at 11:44 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh good, I can't wait to hear the NO explanations...
posted by Theta States at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2009


i am one nervous former western new york. pleasepleaseplease.
posted by radiomayonnaise at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2009


So is this the actual vote that is taking place right now?
posted by griphus at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2009


adams yes
adabo no
alisi ?
aubertide ?
bonasec ?
breslin yes
difrancisco no
diaz ...
posted by shmegegge at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Open Left says that each Sen. gets two minutes to explain their vote. At least now the No's will have to say SOMETHING, right?

...right?
posted by muddgirl at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh not Diaz.
posted by jokeefe at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh boy, Diaz.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on December 2, 2009


jinx jokeefe
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on December 2, 2009


ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
posted by shakespeherian at 11:46 AM on December 2, 2009


"The Bible should never be left out."
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on December 2, 2009


The ones voting no don't have the spine to explain themselves, except Diaz.
posted by jokeefe at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2009


Fuck Diaz in his dried-up, hateful, bitter heart.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2009


aw, Diaz is having a hissy fit about being the bad guy. Ha!
posted by gaspode at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2009


yep, actual vote now. One yea (Adams) and Diaz is speaking now. Lots of silent names -- are they abstaining, or just voting quietly?

(Jeezy pete, Diaz is talking about taking the Bible -- metaphorically, I assume -- into the senate chambers with him? Am I understanding this?)
posted by kalimac at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2009


Tally (mentioned above). Seems to update in real time/fast.
posted by AwkwardPause at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2009


again, the running score is here: http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/20479/gay-marriage-vote-tally/
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:47 AM on December 2, 2009


I can't hear their responses! How are they voting! I can only hear the name called!

Adams stood to explain his vote. He wasn't around to march with King but he is here.

Diaz also stands, addresses you who are listening (hi MF?), we have to have respect for the elderly, worry about crimes, Diaz says please don't leave your Bible outside the Senate door, it should never be left out. Disagrees with Smith, Bible says no to gay marriage. Says commit your word, don't make other people look like the bad guy. Says Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Bill Clinton - he is joining them in voting no.
posted by prefpara at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


Diaz was completely incoherent.
posted by The Whelk at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


Diaz: "You should always bring the Bible in." "Better to keep your word than make other people look like the bad guy." Umm. "I am joining Obama and Clinton in voting no." Umm^2.
posted by maudlin at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


# Eric Adams (D) — YES “This is about love.”
# Joseph Addabbo (D) — NO
# James Alesi (R) — NO
# Darrel Aubertine (D) — NO
# John Bonacic (R) — NO
# Neil Breslin (D) — YES
# John DeFrancisco (R) — NO
# Ruben Diaz (D) — NO

Live updating here
posted by EvaDestruction at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


Here's the running count.
posted by gerryblog at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


Duane jumps up. Bill Clinton now is for gay marriage and someting about when Obama was in the Senate... votes yes.
posted by prefpara at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


diaz no
dilan yes
duane yes
espada yes
posted by shmegegge at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


Argh, c'mon!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


Diaz: I am going with Obama, H. Clinton and B. Clinton and saying "no."
Duane: Uh... actually.

[/facile]
posted by griphus at 11:48 AM on December 2, 2009


I think Senator Duane just implied Obama was on the down low in Springfield...
posted by aswego at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2009


So many nos
posted by gaspode at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2009


Crap.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2009


My heart is pounding, for real.
posted by jokeefe at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2009


Why are there so many 'no' votes????
posted by brina at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2009


COME ON!!!
posted by AwkwardPause at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2009


Shit. Just got to a clot of "No"s.
posted by maudlin at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2009


My guess is Diaz got up and was all like 'All right guys we all know how this is we'll just whip out our brilliant anti-gay rhetoric and we'll win again just like we did in California and Maine because we're so big and tough and strong and... guys? Guys? OHSHIT' (runs away and hides)

aw, Diaz is having a hissy fit about being the bad guy. Ha!

Fuck Diaz in his dried-up, hateful, bitter heart.

Well, one thing's for sure: if Diaz gets re-elected, we're truly going to know how people in NY feel about this issue.
posted by davejay at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2009


Please pass this.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2009


SUSPENSE
posted by The Whelk at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2009


I can't stand hearing the no vote. Have the courage and decency to justify yourselves you fucking hateful bigots.
posted by prefpara at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Bawling. Come ON.
Each NO is so awful.
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 11:50 AM on December 2, 2009


Jesus.
posted by jokeefe at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009


So many no's...Do we know if the end of the alphabet is supportive?
posted by casualinference at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009


all the no's, one after another, gah, I just want them to stop. How can you do that?
posted by kalimac at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009


God. How many yes votes does this need to pass?
posted by jokeefe at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009


That live roll-call page shows a lot of YES votes out of alphabetical order. Did some people leave proxy votes or vote ahead of time?
posted by maudlin at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009


I think that if you're voting 'no' on a civil rights issue without explaining yourself, you should announce it as 'chickenshit' instead of 'no.'
posted by griphus at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009 [13 favorites]


WTF PEOPLE? EXPLAIN YOURSELVES, COWARDS.
posted by Theta States at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think it's over, right?

Hate wins.
posted by unsupervised at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009


WHY ARE SO MANY NOS? GAH!
posted by The Whelk at 11:51 AM on December 2, 2009


maudlin, I think those are senators who have already expressed how they plan to vote.
posted by EarBucket at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009


I'm hearing a lot of the undecided folks say no. I am still shaking.
posted by bunnycup at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009


Gonna be about 5 short.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009


There are a lot more Ds at the end, but I am too nervous to count where we're at.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009


Oh my god. Parker speaking against legislating morality, a lot of our constituents don't agree with our morality. Actually says Islam is growing and essentially is saying if we set a precedent for legislating morality then guess whose morality might get legislated.
posted by prefpara at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009


32 to win.
posted by casualinference at 11:52 AM on December 2, 2009


Me: So, bigotry, how are you? Haven't seen you in a while.

Bigotry: Oh, don't worry, I'm still around. Hangin' out with my peeps in New York today, actually.
posted by davejay at 11:53 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Anyone who is hiding behind 'I have a primary' or 'I have an election,' that is no excuse for not doing the right thing" - Sen.
posted by griphus at 11:53 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


only 14 yeses so far....
posted by kalimac at 11:53 AM on December 2, 2009


That page on last refresh showed 21 YES and 32 NO.

FUCK.
posted by maudlin at 11:53 AM on December 2, 2009


Doesn't look like they have to votes to pass it. Dammit.
posted by EarBucket at 11:54 AM on December 2, 2009


WILL I BE DRINKING IN FURY OR CELEBRATION TONIGHT?
posted by The Whelk at 11:54 AM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


Me: Weren't you in California for a while?

Bigotry: Yep, some other places, too. I get around. In fact, I never really leave.
posted by davejay at 11:54 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Fuck.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:54 AM on December 2, 2009


c'mon, DO THIS!
posted by dolface at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2009


So I repeat: If this doesn't pass today, where does that leave equality in NY? Can we try again after midterms? Sooner maybe for some reason?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2009


What a rollercoaster.
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2009


Well, yay for my senator (Serrano) anyways.
posted by gaspode at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2009


I don't understand how one goes to work the next day if you're Duane and a bunch of your colleagues just announced that they hate you.
posted by Mavri at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2009 [10 favorites]


FIX THE FUCKING SOUND!
posted by shmegegge at 11:55 AM on December 2, 2009


Hate wins again.
posted by unsupervised at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm so sorry, everyone, they said they had the votes.
posted by gerryblog at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009


DAMNIT!
posted by casualinference at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009


FUCK!!!!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
posted by shmegegge at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009


"The bill is lost."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009


Well, shit.
posted by griphus at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009


FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
posted by The Whelk at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009 [7 favorites]


ayes 24 nayes 38
the bill is lost
posted by prefpara at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009


*cries*
posted by jokeefe at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009


Ugh. Now I'm dehopened. Thanks, fuckers.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:56 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Fuck that.
posted by gaspode at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


YES 24 - NO 38 FUCK!
posted by maudlin at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


"The bill is lost"

How apt.
posted by Alison at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


New York New York, a hell of a town, the whitesstraights are up and the blacksLGBTs are down...

in my lifetime. c'mon. I don't ask for much. fuckfuckfuck.
posted by davejay at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


This is why we can't have nice things.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


GAH.
posted by brina at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


god damn it. I'm sorry, everybody. we're not all like this, I swear.
posted by shmegegge at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


FUCKITYFUCKFUCKGRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARFUCK!!!
posted by EvaDestruction at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


God damn it. Looks like fury drinking tonight.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


COWARDS.
posted by Theta States at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


THAT'S IT WE'RE ALL MOVIN' TO VERMONT. I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR HORRIBLE DECOR NOW BITCHES
posted by The Whelk at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009 [9 favorites]


FUCKING FUCK BOLLOCKING FUCK FUCK FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK COCK FUCK BOLLOCKING BLOODY FUCK
posted by kalimac at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


Haven't been watching but it's never going to pass because everything outside of NYC proper is a barren wasteland of uneducated hillbillies and selfish grating Long Islanders.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:57 AM on December 2, 2009


Ugh.
posted by trip and a half at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2009


I am just so tired from this.
posted by Sfving at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2009


Sadly, I expected this. I can't wait until most of the people in office are dead.

I hope their offspring don't have the same values.
posted by Malice at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2009


WHY IS THIS EVEN A QUESTION?
posted by lauranesson at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Man, I think it says something when, with the exception of Diaz, not a single hate-monger wished to explain themselves.
posted by explosion at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Goddamnshitfuckfuckfuck.

You'd think I'd be used to this by now, but no, breaks my heart every fucking time.
posted by rtha at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


UGH. SUCKS.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:58 AM on December 2, 2009


I hate everything.
posted by elizardbits at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009


What we apparently cannot have in the United States:

- Decent health care for everyone
- Civil rights and equality for all our citizens
- Nice things
posted by davejay at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [17 favorites]


Okay -- here's an idea.

Everyone -- check to see if there's someone near you, or in your district, who voted no. And then -- call their office tomorrow, and simply ask them to explain WHY. They were given a two-minute window of opportunity in which to explain themselves, and they didn't, so you'd just like to know why.

If we have enough people do this, that may make for a rather effective protest, wouldn't you say?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [12 favorites]


.
posted by jedicus at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009


HOW DO WE HOLD THESE ASSHOLES INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE?

Where can I send money to have these people spat upon?
posted by Theta States at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think the Sen.s voting 'no' should have had to look Duane in the face when they said it.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


yeah, see, there you go

maybe one day the city can be its own state, give staten island back to New Jersey, and institute a $20 "Fuck You" toll to enter
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I don't understand how one goes to work the next day if you're Duane and a bunch of your colleagues just announced that they hate you.

Repeated for truth. This actually happened where I work (when we held a vote to allow insurance benefits for non-married cohabitating couples). I know there are a couple gay folks in my department who are not "out" at work and I can't imagine what keeps them coming in, knowing that people hate them but are too cowardly to say anything to their faces.
posted by muddgirl at 11:59 AM on December 2, 2009


And then they should have been punched in the dick.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009


I hope those assholes live long enough to feel ostracized and guilty when gay marriage is as much a given as interracial marriage. I hope the few of them with consciences pray for forgiveness instead of hate.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I ♥ NY
posted by brundlefly at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


SCUM
GARBAGE
FILTH
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Man, I think it says something when, with the exception of Diaz, not a single hate-monger wished to explain themselves.

Yep. When you have no valid position to take, what are you gonna do, stand up and admit you're scared of/don't understand homosexuality and you care more about being re-elected than you do about standing up for disenfranchised people?
posted by davejay at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


god fucking damn it. just fuck. fuck god damn it.
posted by shmegegge at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009


Here's how everyone voted. Adjust your votes accordingly, New Yorkers.

* Eric Adams (D) — YES “This is about love.”
* Joseph Addabbo (D) — NO
* James Alesi (R) — NO
* Darrel Aubertine (D) — NO
* John Bonacic (R) — NO
* Neil Breslin (D) — YES
* John DeFrancisco (R) — NO
* Ruben Diaz (D) — NO “Sen. Smith, it is better to keep your word.”
* Martin Malave Dilan (D) — YES
* Tom Duane (D) — YES
* Pedro Espada (D) — YES
* Hugh Farley (R) — NO
* John Flanagan (R) — NO
* Brian Foley (D) — YES
* Charles Fuschillo, Jr. (R) — NO
* Martin Golden (R) — NO
* Joseph Griffo (R) — NO
* Kemp Hannon (R) — NO
* Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D) — YES
* Shirley Huntley (D) — NO
* Craig Johnson (D) — YES
* Owen Johnson (R) — NO
* Jeffrey Klein (D) — YES
* Liz Krueger (D) — YES
* Carl Kruger (D) — NO
* Andrew Lanza (R) — NO
* Bill Larkin (R) — NO
* Kenneth LaValle (R) — NO
* Vincent Leibell (R) — NO
* Tom Libous (R) — NO
* Elizabeth Little (R) — NO
* Carl Marcellino (R) — NO
* George Maziarz (R) — NO
* Roy McDonald (R) — NO
* Hiram Monserrate (D) — NO
* Velmanette Montgomery (D) — YES
* Thomas Morahan (R) — NO
* Michael Nozzolio (R) — NO
* George Onorato (D) — NO
* Suzi Oppenheimer (D) — YES
* Frank Padavan (R) — NO
* Kevin Parker (D) — YES
* Bill Perkins (D) — YES
* Michael Ranzenhofer (R) — NO
* Joseph Robach (R) — NO
* Stephen Saland (R) — NO
* John Sampson (D) — YES
* Diane Savino (D) — YES
* Eric Schneiderman (D) — YES
* Jose Serrano (D) — YES
* James Seward (R) — NO
* Dean Skelos (R) — NO
* Malcolm Smith (D) — YES
* Daniel Squadron (D) — YES
* William Stachowski (D) — NO
* Toby Ann Stavisky (D) — YES
* Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) — YES
* Antoine Thompson (D) — YES
* David Valesky (D) — YES
* Dale Volker (R) — NO
* George Winner (R) — NO
* Catherine Young (R) — NO
posted by unsupervised at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


.

I'm devastated.
posted by Maastrictian at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2009


An extra special FUCK YOU to all of the No voters who didn't even have the courage to explain their bigotry.
posted by rollbiz at 12:01 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I want to go home.
posted by Evangeline at 12:01 PM on December 2, 2009


Someone needs to send a busload of angry drag queens to Albany.
posted by The Whelk at 12:01 PM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Addabbo (D) - NO
Aubertine (D) - NO
Diaz (D) - NO
Huntley (D) - NO
C. Kruger (D) - NO
Monserrate (D) - NO
Onorato (D) - NO
Stachowski (D) - NO

Not a single Republican for it.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:01 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


unsupervised, I will be voting for Sen. Duane as long as he would like me to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:01 PM on December 2, 2009


Can NYC become its own state yet?

To listen to those speeches and then this...every time I think I might enjoy living here, something happens to make me start counting the days again until I return to Canada.

Someone needs to buy Sen. Duane a drink, and I hope every one of those "no" fuckers has to look him straight in the eye as they leave.
posted by ilana at 12:02 PM on December 2, 2009


The New York State Senate has some vile motherfuckers in its chambers, but it's interesting to note that one of the vilest--Hiram Monserratte--flip flopped on this vote and voted No.
posted by Mavri at 12:02 PM on December 2, 2009


WHY HELLO THERE BOTTLE OF KNOB CREEK I DIDN'T SEE YOU THERE LET'S ENJOY SOME TIME TOGETHER
posted by The Whelk at 12:02 PM on December 2, 2009 [24 favorites]


Can someone please post contact info for the people that voted no? Particularly the Democrats?
posted by Theta States at 12:02 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Man this is like watching Revenge of the Sith all over again. 'Maybe this time everything won't be fucked to shitting fuck! ....oh.'
posted by shakespeherian at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Another disappointment. It felt good for a few minutes there.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2009


I am ashamed of us, as a country. But no less proud of those who spoke eloquently, voted yes, and others who have worked hard in favor of equality.
posted by bunnycup at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


You know, this is something I just don't understand. How is it that my father, a man who casually uses the n-word and doesn't really have the best record at being Mr. Open-Minded and Fair, can see the rationality behind legalizing gay marriage and these supposed good Christian people who preach love and tolerance can't?

Granted, Pops thinks its a good idea because he thinks it'd be great for the economy, because those gays, they have money and like buying frilly things, doncha know? But he even admits that there's no reason for the government to tell people who they can and can't spend the rest of their life with.
posted by teleri025 at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2009


I say we go ruin all these no-voters marriages.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2009


I AM SO ANGRY I CAN'T DRAW STRAIGHT! THAT'S RIGHT, YOU'VE RUINED A DRAWING. WHY DO YOU HATE ART NYS SENATE? IS IT THE SICKNESS IN YOUR SOUL? HUH?
posted by The Whelk at 12:03 PM on December 2, 2009


Kos claims: GOPers promising to vote for it didn't. RT @alonzorey: @markos It wasn't even close. What were you basing your confidence on?

I feel like such an ass.
posted by gerryblog at 12:04 PM on December 2, 2009


Thanks, you fuckers, for rendering my Canadian step-daughter's marriage invalid in the state where she lives. Again.
posted by jokeefe at 12:04 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


fuck
posted by marxchivist at 12:04 PM on December 2, 2009


The New York State Senators and how to contact them.
posted by jedicus at 12:05 PM on December 2, 2009


guys I'm going to Paris for a month or so in a while and you think they'd let me stay if I learned their frenchy talk?
posted by The Whelk at 12:05 PM on December 2, 2009


We all heard the speeches. Every single one of those Democrats who sat there, heard the testimonies of their colleagues, and still voted NO...

...well for one thing they deserve a swift kick in the behind. If I were queen of the world I'd revoke their marriage licenses and see how THEY like it!
posted by muddgirl at 12:05 PM on December 2, 2009


Remember when New York was supposed to be a city full of limousine liberals who wanted gays to marry and all that other shit? I think we drank the kool-aid folks, and forgot that there's still a lot of confusion, fear and hate out there.
posted by davejay at 12:05 PM on December 2, 2009


I'm crying here. Damn this sucks.
posted by pointless_incessant_barking at 12:06 PM on December 2, 2009


Now I'm preparing for DC to crush my soul further.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:06 PM on December 2, 2009


And we will bring it back in NY at the next given opportunity, just as it will be brought up again in Maine at the next given opportunity, again and again until people act right.

Which eventually people will. And everyone knows this.

So why do these fuckers have to delay the benefits for the people fighting for them today?
posted by Navelgazer at 12:07 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sorry Interpol, New York doesn't care.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:07 PM on December 2, 2009


On a positive note, at least now the Gays can't destroy the sanctity of Rudy Giuliani's third marriage.
posted by EarBucket at 12:07 PM on December 2, 2009 [10 favorites]


Eight dems voted no. It would have passed if those eight had voted yes.

Maybe it's time for a three-party system.
posted by nushustu at 12:08 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I love Duane, but that's some awful vote counting there. I tried to ignore the bad signs (zero No speeches other than Diaz; they knew they wouldn't have to bother) and the general uselessness of the state senate because he was so confident. Major egg on his face.

Paterson might have gained an inch on Cuomo had this gone through; he's pretty much done forever now. He bet the farm on this--nice of him, but he failed to deliver yet again.
posted by Epenthesis at 12:08 PM on December 2, 2009


FURY IT IS!
posted by The Whelk at 12:08 PM on December 2, 2009


Stavisky, who I believe is my district, voted yes. Marcellino, who is my parents', voted No. My parents will be made aware. I have about 15 people I believe I can convince to vote in the next senate election.
posted by shmegegge at 12:08 PM on December 2, 2009


Video of Senator Hiram Monserrate (D - Voted "No") pulling his girlfriend away from a neighbor's door after he allegedly slashed her face in a jealous rage. He was convicted of Third Degree Assault for this.

Senator Ruben Diaz (D - Voted "No") has promised to officiate Monserrate's wedding.
posted by unsupervised at 12:09 PM on December 2, 2009 [21 favorites]


.
posted by drezdn at 12:10 PM on December 2, 2009


Wow, unsupervised; that really puts things in perspective. It's good to know he's fighting the good fight for maintaining the sanctity of a marriage in which you can abuse your spouse.
posted by davejay at 12:11 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Fuck it, I'm seceding from the Union. Who's with me?
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:11 PM on December 2, 2009


Brag and boast, coast to coast, we fear homosexuality the most. Yay, USA!
posted by davejay at 12:12 PM on December 2, 2009


To all the senators who voted No, let me just say this, I hope you enjoy a lifetime of bad haircuts.
posted by The Whelk at 12:12 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


For distribution...

Addabbo (D) - NO
Aubertine (D) - NO
Diaz (D) - NO
Huntley (D) - NO
C. Kruger (D) - NO
Monserrate (D) - NO
Onorato (D) - NO
Stachowski (D) - NO



Joseph P. Addabbo Jr's Contact Information
Albany Office: 815 Legislative Office Building / Albany, NY 12247 / 518-455-2322 / Fax - 518-426-6875
District Office: 159-53 102nd St / Howard Beach, NY 11414 / 718-738-1111 / Fax - 718-322-5760
Email address: addabbo@senate.state.ny.us


Darrel J. Aubertine's Contact Information
District Office (main office): 317 Washington Street / 4th Floor / Watertown, NY 13601 / 315-782-3418 (office) / 315-782-6357 (fax)
Albany Office: 903 Legislative Office Building / Albany, New York 12247 / 518-455-2761 (office) / 518-426-6946 (fax)
Oswego Satellite Office: 136 Rich Hall / Oswego, New York 13126 / 315-312-3106 (office) / 315-312-4206 (fax)
Email address: aubertin@senate.state.ny.us


Ruben Diaz's Contact Information
District Office: 900 Rogers Place / The Bronx, NY 10459 / Tel:(718) 991-3161 / Fax:(718) 991-0309
Albany Office: 307 Legislative Office Building / Albany, NY 12247 / Tel: (518) 455-2511 / Fax: (518) 426-6945
Email address: diaz@senate.state.ny.us


Shirley L. Huntley's Contact Information
ALBANY: Room 803, Legislative Office Building / Albany, New York 12247 / (518) 455-3531 Office / (518) 426-6859 Fax
DISTRICT: 161-10 Jamaica Avenue / Suite 504 / Jamaica, New York 11432 / (718) 523-3069 Office / (718) 523-3670 Fax
SATELLITE: Rosedale-Laurelton Office / 133-24 233rd Street / Rosedale, New York 11422-1308
Email address: shuntley@senate.state.ny.us


Carl Kruger's Contact Information
District Office: 2201 Avenue U / Brooklyn, NY 11229 / Tel: (718) 743-8610 / Fax: (718) 743-5958
Albany Office: 913 Legislative Office Building / Albany, New York 12247 / Tel: (518) 455-2460 / Fax: (518) 426-6855
Email address: kruger@senate.state.ny.us


Hiram Monserrate's Contact Information
District Office: 32-37 Junction Blvd. / East Elmhurst, New York 11369 / Tel: (718) 205-3881 / Fax: (718) 205-4145
Albany Office: 944 Legislative Office Building / Albany, NY 12247 / Tel: (518) 455-2529 / Fax: (518) 426-6909
Email address: monserra@senate.state.ny.us


George Onorato's Contact Information
District Office: 28-11 Astoria Blvd. / Long Island City, NY 11102 / Tel: (718) 545-9706 / Fax: (718) 726-2036
Albany Office: 310 Legislative Office Building / Albany, NY 12247 / Tel: (518) 455-3486 / Fax: (518) 426-6929
Email address: onorato@senate.state.ny.us


William T. Stachowski's Contact Information
Albany Office: 918 Legislative Office Building / Albany, New York 12247 / Phone (518)-455-2426 / Fax: (518) 426-6851
District Office: 2030 Clinton Street / Buffalo, New York 14206 / Phone (716)-826-3344 / Fax (716)-823-6372
Email address: stachows@senate.state.ny.us
posted by Theta States at 12:12 PM on December 2, 2009 [25 favorites]


Just dropped a line to Sen. Serrano saying thanks for the vote. Typed in dick-punching suggestions re. his colleagues several times, but finally manage to send it off with those bits deleted.

(also wanted to ask him to buy Sen. Duane a large scotch for me, but managed to delete that too)
posted by gaspode at 12:12 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Now I'm preparing for DC to crush my soul further.

It won't be DC that crushes your soul. The city council's all good (it was 11-2 yes; now they have another vote in 2 weeks, which will still be yes). It's Congress, which can and will come in to say No no no little fiefdom, we will tell you what to do!
posted by rtha at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I am disappointed that only Senator Thompson voted yes out of the WNY delegation.

A Democrat majority is meaningless unless we elect better Democrats; something we are also seeing in the (fucking) US Senate. So, all ya'll NYers better write a check to primary challengers in a few months and phonebank.
posted by munchingzombie at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


@benpolitico: In NY, classic collapse I think: A number of Sens. willing to be the 32nd vote, none willing to be 25th.
posted by gerryblog at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2009



Fuck it, I'm seceding from the Union. Who's with me?

First we take manhattan.
posted by The Whelk at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


that list of votes might not be accurate.
the open left live blog says "Elizabeth Little, a Republican, voted yes"
posted by yeoz at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2009


Note for the future: Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. I
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:14 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I can't imagine why they advanced this now if they weren't dead sure they had it locked.

Senate Republicans had said before the vote that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill. “There may be a few, that’s very possible,” said Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton, the deputy Republican leader who said he will vote against the bill. “Everybody’s feeling is get it on the floor and let’s vote it up or down. It’s been talked about enough. Let’s get it done. I think it’s going to be very close.” Ms. Krueger said before the debate began that she was optimistic the bill would pass, but added, “It depends on whether Republican votes are delivered.”

Ah. The old dagger in the back.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:15 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Video of Senator Hiram Monserrate (D - Voted "No") pulling his girlfriend away from a neighbor's door after he allegedly slashed her face in a jealous rage. He was convicted of Third Degree Assault for this.

Senator Ruben Diaz (D - Voted "No") has promised to officiate Monserrate's wedding.


There's something else for the protest -- while everyone else is asking the "no" people why they voted no, those who call Diaz's office can ask why, if he believe you shouldn't leave the Bible outside the courtroom, he's leaving his Bible out of the CHURCH when he officiates the wedding of a spouse abuser.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:16 PM on December 2, 2009 [10 favorites]


God it must be embarassing to be a Democrat and have some Republicans come off looking less bigoted than you. If they aren't ashamed and embarassed by this, we need to make them be.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:16 PM on December 2, 2009


Note for the future: Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. I
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:14 PM on December 2

Pessimism, you win this round.
posted by gerryblog at 12:17 PM on December 2, 2009


First we take manhattan.

Don't forget Brooklyn.
posted by brina at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2009


This is what happens when Democrats push to be centrists. When did we lose out moral core and because defenders of an unjust statis quo?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


They can wear the Democratic Party label, but votes by quislings like these are why there can be no compromise, no give and take with these religious, right-wing extremist terrorists. These traitors aim to destroy the Constitution of the United States by violating its equal protection clause, and they should be impeached and imprisoned for crimes against the state and against their fellow human beings

Until we start taking these criminal violations and their perpetrators seriously, we will never have true equality.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Fuck you, you scum-sucking bigots.

AND THE YANKEES SUCK TOO!
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Still, I'm astounded that Duane let it go to the floor without being absolutely sure. Even in his speech he seemed positive it would pass. This is everybody's fault but mine.
posted by gerryblog at 12:18 PM on December 2, 2009


The following is not a call to arms, but a question.

After hundreds of years of being oppressed and disenfranchised, African-American communities started forming militant political organizations. These were largely derailed by pulling development money and jobs out of communities (which was made possible by institutionalized segregation that had the majority of African-Americans living in clustered communities) and so the potential power of these groups got circumvented into riots and gangs and drug sales as the people in the communities tried to hold on to power being taken from them, and then ultimately just to survive.

Now we've got something different here, because LGBTs have always been encouraged to hide their orientation, so there's no locational segregation and no community clustering; that means the militant LGBT political organizations that are beginning to form can't be easily derailed using the same methods. Is this marriage issue a sign that these organizations are successfully pushing for change (even if the change hasn't happened yet), and so even this failure is a sign of hope, or is this marriage issue an attempt to channel the potential power of these organizations into a distraction that will prevent (or at least delay) their ability to drive other changes, and so this failure is a sign of further delay on other important issues?
posted by davejay at 12:19 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


New York State != New York City

There's a lot of tension between the two but it's never been enough to actually force a split (and the creation of a new state), as this vote aptly demonstrates.
posted by tommasz at 12:19 PM on December 2, 2009


jokeefe: "Thanks, you fuckers, for rendering my Canadian step-daughter's marriage invalid in the state where she lives. Again."

This bill failing doesn't change the fact that Canadian gay marriages are treated as (sorta) valid in New York state.
posted by Plutor at 12:19 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I wish Metafilter was a congressional district.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:20 PM on December 2, 2009 [16 favorites]


So does this margin suggest that some Rs hinted at voting in favour knowing they would actually vote against, thus consciously setting up the Ds and the marriage equality movement for this "major blow"?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:21 PM on December 2, 2009


Today's pros: Daily writing quota attained; thesisdraft.pdf now sits at just over 100 pages.

Today's cons: Screw you NY.
posted by PMdixon at 12:22 PM on December 2, 2009


Metafilter recognizes the esteemed senator from YOU SUCK!
posted by The Whelk at 12:22 PM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


I don't understand this. How could anyone sit through all of those speeches and not be moved? I mean, goddamnit!

Wouldn't have been nice if the Senate session had been like some sort of Disney/LifeTime movie with Sen. Duane starring as the scrappy underdog who makes a passionate, eloquent speech and when he's done, the silence is broken by one lone slow clap which slowly crescendos into a rousing standing ovation as the senators (save for the curmudgeonly Mr. Diaz) rise to their feet, one by one...

Instead we get this: genuine, grade-A American Bullshit™.

I'm going to be real with y'all: in a strange way, I admire Sen. Diaz. At least he had the balls to speak out for what he believed in, he was honest with his views and intentions from the get-go. These cowardly, flip-floppy naysayers, who didn't even have the courage to give any explanation for their votes, they can shove it.

What a slap in the face. What a disgrace.
posted by chara at 12:22 PM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Pessimism, you win this round.

Don't say you have the votes if you don't have votes and don't go into the vote knowing you need Republicans to vote with you on a issue their party is solidly against.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:24 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Okay, I'm perfectly serious about those calls to those senators' offices. When do we want to do this? What time? Synchronize our calls to all come within a given window so the lines get overwhelmed.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2009


So fucking ridiculous. I hate these haters. !^@&%!%@
posted by defenestration at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2009


If I were one of these State Senators I would have announced on the floor each Republican who told me they would vote Yes.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:25 PM on December 2, 2009


Fuck the Republicans. They've been in the pocket of hate for decades now. It's the Dems that need to be dragged out on the mat and humiliated.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:27 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


they should all be forced to live in Albany.
posted by The Whelk at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


Brandon Blatcher: Don't say you have the votes if you don't have votes and don't go into the vote knowing you need Republicans to vote with you on a issue their party is solidly against.

Absolutely. This is a major fuckup for the NY Democrats, who should have left nothing on a vote this big to chance.
posted by gerryblog at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


The dinosaurs need to go away. I'm "praying" for meteors.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't understand this. How could anyone sit through all of those speeches and not be moved?

In my personal experience and from my reflections on history, religious dedication has the common side effect of inuring followers to the sufferings of others. I am considering not just my own experiences in which I've experienced this, but history's lessons on "righteous" actions that deliberately and cruelly inflict suffering on individual people by favoring compliance with text over real human feelings.
posted by bunnycup at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


How could anyone sit through all of those speeches and not be moved?

I'm sure many skipped the speeches. I hope that this civil rights battle is won in our lifetime and they are covered in shame.
posted by prefpara at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2009


"Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets."

That quote takes on quite a different meaning here. Equal rights for all... or nothing.
posted by Neilopolis at 12:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


How could anyone sit through all of those speeches and not be moved?

I believe they (the Republicans and some Democrats) weren't in the chamber at the time.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:29 PM on December 2, 2009


Stop taking this personally stop taking this like its anything other than politics. I mean read the bios of some of the senators who vote no. There is no way they are personally against gay marriage. They aren't bigots or wannabe theocrats, they are just simple hypocrites.
posted by JPD at 12:30 PM on December 2, 2009


The Whelk: First we take manhattan.

The muppets have beaten us to it.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2009 [7 favorites]


Sorry JPD. I'm taking this fucking personally. Fuck them.
posted by josher71 at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Stop taking this personally stop taking this like its anything other than politics. I mean read the bios of some of the senators who vote no. There is no way they are personally against gay marriage. They aren't bigots or wannabe theocrats, they are just simple hypocrites.

They're playing politics with MY rights. I think I will take it personally.
posted by casualinference at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2009 [9 favorites]


How could anyone sit through all of those speeches and not be moved?

Because that's not they way people work in real life. That's Hollywood. (Hell, that's Shakespeare.)

It's a wonderful, wonderful fantasy (and sometimes a terrible, scary one) that the right words can change someone. (I suspect it goes beyond a belief in the power of logic and rhetoric. It's a desire for magic -- for magic words that can weave a spell.)

I'm not saying that words have no effect. Everything has SOME effect. But the key is that it's VERY hard to change people's minds. You should never count on (or even think it's likely that) a good speech will change someone.

Sometimes a moving speech can entrench the opposition even further. A bunch of the speeches today implied (or overtly stated) that anyone voting against gay marriage is a bad person.

While I agree with this, it's not a message likely to change someone's mind. There's a small chance it might shame them into voting yes. There's a larger chance it will boost their defenses to the point where they won't be able to hear anything you say. But the most-likely outcome is that everyone will simply vote the way they'd pre-decided before the speeches started.

People sometimes do change their minds, but usually it's a gradual process. It's not something that suddenly happens because a good speaker says the right words.
posted by grumblebee at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


They aren't bigots or wannabe theocrats, they are just simple hypocrites.

In this case, makes no difference.
posted by gaspode at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2009


When politicians fuck with my civil rights and inform me that I am not worthy of the same rights as everyone else in this country, you had better fucking believe I am going to take it personally.
posted by elizardbits at 12:32 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


It's hard not to take personally things that affect people's lives, you know, personally.
posted by ilana at 12:33 PM on December 2, 2009


Dammit.
posted by kryptondog at 12:33 PM on December 2, 2009


The muppets have beaten us to it.

Let's send Statler and Waldorf to the gallery of the New York State Senate.
posted by josher71 at 12:34 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I wish Metafilter was a congressional district.

"Motion for cloture to ban the use of... the "Papyrus" font, amendment to the Omnibus Font Bill of 2010... Sigh. Another font vote?"
posted by kid ichorous at 12:35 PM on December 2, 2009 [35 favorites]


Jesus, this is so fucking lame. I had never even heard about this bill coming up, then all of a sudden there's this optimistic post on Mefi with all these great speeches and everything. I go away for a while, I come back and there are nearly 500 posts in the thread, and I'm all, "Sweet, I bet these are all celebratory comments! Way to go NY!" And then I read that not only was the bill defeated, but the jackasses had 14 more votes -- half-again as many as the good guys! What the fucking fuck? This is like someone saying, "Hey, I've got an amazing present for you!" And you're all, "Sweet, I can't wait to open it!" and then they kick you in the balls. So, so disappointing.
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:35 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


Y'know...I think it's about time to call them out for what they are...bigots who hide behind their supposed Lord to justify their hate. And, I'm not talking about calling them out in forums like this. I'm saying publicly. Billboards, tv ads, radio, etc. Outright decry them as bigots. Playing nice just isn't going to get there. If people want to hate...fine. But you're going to have to wear the title, too.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:36 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]



The muppets have beaten us to it.


I can fully support a dual gay-muppet state.
posted by The Whelk at 12:36 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


Goddammit, that sucks. I saw this post earlier today and thought it was so awesome that NY was going to make it happen, and without a lot of fuss.

Serious question: who on Metafilter is pro-marriage equality and going to run against one of these knobs? Let me know so I can start saving up for (a) campaign contribution(s).
posted by cog_nate at 12:37 PM on December 2, 2009


Possible songs for the jukebox down at the gay bar tonight.

The Imperial March

Anything by the Dead Kennedys

Suspect Device - Stiff Little Fingers

Heavy dose of Anti-Flag

what else?
posted by The Whelk at 12:39 PM on December 2, 2009


The muppets have beaten us to it.

So does this mean Bert and Ernie are moving to Vermont?
posted by Jughead at 12:40 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Six of the eight Dems who voted 'NO' represent districts in New York City. I'm all for seceding if we leave those jokers behind.
posted by cosmic osmo at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2009


I'll hold my breath for Georgia if you hold yours for North Carolina. We'll see which one of us passes out first.

In Tennessee, I'll be holding my breath even longer.
posted by blucevalo at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2009


I happen to have tickets to see a tragic play about minority lesbians tonight. In NYC. What a perfect way to "celebrate." I have a feeling the mood is going to be funereal, at best.
posted by ilana at 12:42 PM on December 2, 2009


Thorazad, I actually think that's a better idea than my "calling each office" thing. Let's all pool our money for a big ad in the New York Times or something asking those eight senators to publically explain their "no" votes, implying that "the only other explanation we can see is bigotry. But let's give you a chance to explain why it isn't that."

Something like that. Who's in on that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:44 PM on December 2, 2009 [13 favorites]


So for you New Yorkers who actually want to win this (which I do) Its not about bigotry or morality - it is about breaking the republican party in the Suburbs. Find real candidates to run again Skelos et al. That's how you win this. There are just enough seated democrats who ARE bigots that it will always be hard to win on a straight party line vote. Attack them in the primaries as well (the repubs will NEVER win some of those seats.
posted by JPD at 12:45 PM on December 2, 2009


Let's all pool our money for a big ad in the New York Times or something asking those eight senators to publically explain their "no" votes, implying that "the only other explanation we can see is bigotry. But let's give you a chance to explain why it isn't that."

I'm in!
posted by grumblebee at 12:45 PM on December 2, 2009


religion is not why this vote was lost. stop saying that.
posted by JPD at 12:46 PM on December 2, 2009


Shit, I live in Arizona, I'll donate $5. Tell me where to paypal it.
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:46 PM on December 2, 2009


Something like that. Who's in on that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:44 PM on December 2 [+] [!] Other [11/11]: «≡·

I am in.
posted by prefpara at 12:47 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


religion is not why this vote was lost. stop saying that.

According to the bill's most vocal opponent, it was.
posted by bunnycup at 12:47 PM on December 2, 2009


Montréal is awesome. Just sayin' is all.
posted by Shepherd at 12:49 PM on December 2, 2009


We have a couple people who want to donate. Who wants to be point person for the money?

(I probably should not just yet, my bank account's a little funky.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:49 PM on December 2, 2009


Terrible vote counting. Who runs this up the flagpole without having the votes? Terrible legislative work. Just pathetic.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:51 PM on December 2, 2009


EmpressCallipygos, The only modification I would make to that would be to run the ad in the local papers in the representatives districts. Take it to their home. The NYT is too "librul fag NYC" and easily dismissed by the haters.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:52 PM on December 2, 2009


I'm a Canuck that will be gaymarried soon, but I'll gladly donate $50 towards a shaming campaign against the No voters.
posted by Theta States at 12:52 PM on December 2, 2009


religion is not why this vote was lost.

Religion is not why this vote was lost. Religious extremist terrorism is why this vote was lost. Making people afraid was why this vote was lost.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:52 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I may be late to the party but I'm not too late to say HELLS YEAH!
posted by mistersquid at 12:52 PM on December 2, 2009


josher71: "The muppets have beaten us to it.

Let's send Statler and Waldorf to the gallery of the New York State Senate.
"

Statler: The other day, I was stuck in an elevator with a bunch of idiots!
Waldorf: You were at the New York State Senate building, too?
Both together: Ha Ha!
posted by shmegegge at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2009 [7 favorites]


Stop taking this personally stop taking this like its anything other than politics.

Of course a lot of it's just politics. I mean, duh, right?

But why the fuck shouldn't I take it personally when a vote like this is "Yeah, well, fuck your civil rights. You're not good enough to be treated like a Real Person." Because in this case, this is exactly the message of "just politics."

And religion? Most of the guys who voted no haven't seen the inside of a church for actual, spiritual purposes in a long time, I bet. But please note that the only "no" vote who deigned to explain why he was voting no just couldn't resist bringing in God and the Bible and yadda yadda.

If they stop bringing up religion as a reason for voting against gay marriage, I'll stop bringing it up. But as long as the rhetoric around this issue centers on the "sanctity of marriage" and shit like that, yeah, I'm going to call it out.
posted by rtha at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Montréal is awesome.

Sigh, fine I'll get the books back out again.

Bonjour, Je m'appel Whelk. J'ai 25. J'parley en Francis tres' mal, mais j'veux plu bein.
posted by The Whelk at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Is it to late to change the title of this post? It's poking salty little rusted nails with a glaze of glass shards in my wounds.
posted by bunnycup at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I may be late to the party but I'm not too late to say HELLS YEAH!

Umm, you kinda are, actually.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:53 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


mistersquid is an object lesson in reading entirety of the thread
posted by The Whelk at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [21 favorites]


religion is not why this vote was lost. stop saying that.

According to the bill's most vocal opponent, it was.


Hate and bigotry are hard to defend. Religion is much easier to defend. Therefore a great deal of hate and bigotry (and fear, obviously) is presented behind a mask of religion. Frankly, it's not doing religion any good.
posted by davejay at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


The only modification I would make to that would be to run the ad in the local papers in the representatives districts. Take it to their home. The NYT is too "librul fag NYC" and easily dismissed by the haters.

You do make a point -- but a lot of the "no" votes came from senators who DO represent NYC districts, so the New York Times IS their local paper.

Although, the DAILY NEWS is another option, as that would also get the Long Island ones as well.

But we need to have someone step up as treasurer first.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm in, money-wise, and also agree that the ads should go to the local papers and not the NYT. Aim for editorial (read: not paid for) coverage there, if it gets big enough, but so far as actually spending money is concerned, go local with the ads.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:55 PM on December 2, 2009


ugh, I really wanted to come back to this thread and hear good news.

I'm heartbroken by this and I'm in a hetero marriage. I can't even imagine how those of you who want to marry your same sex partner must feel.
posted by desjardins at 12:55 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm in.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:55 PM on December 2, 2009


I'm so sorry to hear this. It's really sad to think of all the work people have put in getting it to this point, just to see it voted down by people who lack basic human sympathy. All I can say right now is: maintain your rage.
posted by Sova at 12:58 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is it to late to change the title of this post? It's poking salty little rusted nails with a glaze of glass shards in my wounds.
posted by bunnycup at 3:53 PM on December 2


It just has the opposite meaning than I'd hoped. There are no citizen initiatives in NY to overturn what just happened.
posted by gerryblog at 12:58 PM on December 2, 2009


Oh mistersquid, like the pre-drinking party animal that arrives at the house party with his pants already at his ankles, only to find that someone choked and died 45 minutes earlier...
posted by Theta States at 12:59 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I am somewhat neutral about NY Times vs. local papers, but one thing in favor of the Times is that it's a national paper. This is a national issue as much as it's a local issue. It might be a good thing for the full-page ad to go national -- to focus more attention on what happened in NY.
posted by grumblebee at 12:59 PM on December 2, 2009


A sizable ad in any section of the Times is not cheap. (2009 rates, PDF) It might be more effective to pool funds with a larger organization planning the same thing.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:01 PM on December 2, 2009


I may be late to the party but I'm not too late to say HELLS YEAH!

If you find yourself in a position where people are telling you not to jump, ignore them.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:02 PM on December 2, 2009


bunnycup: "religion is not why this vote was lost. stop saying that.

According to the bill's most vocal opponent, it was.
"

this is tough to call, without hearing the explanations from the opposing senators, but even if they all gave speeches, it would be a mistake to assume they're all devoutly religious and wrong about what the bible says. A safer assumption is that they're paying lip service to a belief that allows them to vote this way without talking about gays at all. You can say "I vote no because of the bible blahblahblah" and never once mention gays, and that is a glorious opportunity for them because then they never have to say "gays don't deserve this right" explicitly. so let's not act like there are all these devoutly religious senators out there. they're almost to a man opportunists who like what being religious offers them, politically.

No, the truth is this: none of these men and women see themselves as lifelong state senators. they are all ambitious men and women who think this is a step along their road to supreme whatevership of something bigger, and the bigger money and infuence that will earn them. even the elderly senators. and right now, each of these conscience-less shitbags believes they have correctly read the writing on the wall re: the national debate on gays. they believe the country is going solidly anti-gay, and they'll be damned if they're gonna take what they think is the losing position on this issue so that it can bite them in their ass if they take their career to the national level. where that kind of thing is considered, local politics is as delusional as the hollywood hopefuls are, they're all gonna make something of themselves. they're all gonna be president, or a US senator, or on the board of directors for Halliburton.

the safe bet for reading your politicians is always opportunism. always. they're fucking cowards who shelved their conscience and their sense of justice long ago for a cheap leg up on the road to their office.
posted by shmegegge at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


I can't believe we're still protesting this shit.
posted by mattbucher at 1:03 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Stop taking this personally stop taking this like its anything other than politics. I mean read the bios of some of the senators who vote no.

Hard not to take it personally when I can get married, but my cousin who heads this fine group, (shamelss plug) cannot. He sure took it personally when his partner of like two decades got sick and he had to worry about whether or not the hospital would let him in or make health care decisions (thank God nothing major), so people might take it personally because it *is* personal.

I mean sure they're merely hypocrites, but so were apparatchiks in Eastern Europe, the petty functionaries of any dictatorship, and little Eichmans in whatever system you care to name. I'm sure some Southern cops or judges weren't evil drooling Bull Conners, just doing their jobs, mere cogs, you know. In 2009, that argument doesn't cut it any more.

But at least girlfriend slasher and convicted violent felon Monserrate's future marriage is protected against its being devalued.
posted by xetere at 1:04 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Something like that. Who's in on that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos


I'm in.
posted by Evangeline at 1:05 PM on December 2, 2009


Shit, I thought this was a done deal. A sad day for NY and the nation.
posted by homuncula at 1:07 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Everyone:

We have had a number of people say that they want to contribute towards an ad in local papers, but we still need someone to come forward and say "okay, I am the person to send that money TO."

I cannot be that person. Who is willing to be that person?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2009


> Sadly, Senator Monserrate was convicted only of a misdemeanor, which is why he's still a senator.
posted by swerve at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2009


Stop taking this personally stop taking this like its anything other than politics. I mean read the bios of some of the senators who vote no. There is no way they are personally against gay marriage. They aren't bigots or wannabe theocrats, they are just simple hypocrites.

FUCK. THAT. SHIT. Anyone who voted against this bill is a bigot, religious or otherwise. It's times like this that make me regret not trying to become a historian because votes like this tend to overshadow any other legislative accomplishments someone acheives. Does anyone give a shit how a state senator in Tennessee voted during the 60s except as far as integration goes? No, no one gives a shit. Any Democrat who votes to reelect one of these assholes automatically earns my contempt. There is no "centrist" position here. Either you think gay people are entitled to the same rights as all other humans or you don't.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2009 [11 favorites]


Shmegegge, I agree with you to a large extent, and that was partly why I used the phrase "According to the bill's most vocal opponent." Many supporters of the bill very eloquently argued that civil marriage issues are simply unconnected with religion, and I agree with them. However the intersection of this issue with Church opposition to homosexuality for religious grounds with the dominant alignment of religion on the political right, make the exploitation of religious sentiments easily successful in terms of continuance of political careers. That is, I agree with you that most who voted against probably don't have as strong a religious sentiment as Diaz espoused, but regardless of belief they will act in appearance with that religious sentiment for political gain. Thus in my mind, defeat IS closely linked with religion, but for the most impure of reasons.
posted by bunnycup at 1:08 PM on December 2, 2009


Meanwhile, Meredith Baxter has come out of the closet.
posted by bearwife at 1:11 PM on December 2, 2009


Is this where we draft the ad?

...............

[IMAGE: headshots of those voting NO, all sliced in half by a razor that rests at the edge of the page]

Occam's razor is the principle that states the simplest explanation tends to be true. These senators all voted against giving the right of marriage to all loving couples in New York state, but offered no reason why.

The simplest explanation: they are all hateful bigots who lack basic human compassion and decency. But let's be certain - call your senator and ask if they are hateful bigots, or if they had some other reason for opposing this law they left unvoiced.

...............

(nope, still too angry to write copy)
posted by mikepop at 1:12 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Son of a fucking bitch. I had such high hopes.

I was hoping yet another state (and a new governor) would help Rhode Island get off its ass and do the right thing.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:12 PM on December 2, 2009


Thanks to this vote, I now know who my New York State Senator is.

Hi Vincent Leibell. Enjoy your remaining days in office.
posted by swift at 1:13 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Something like that. Who's in on that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos


I'm in.
posted by dinty_moore at 1:14 PM on December 2, 2009


Is this where we draft the ad?

I'm still trying to get someone to be the money collector for it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:14 PM on December 2, 2009


Thorazad, I actually think that's a better idea than my "calling each office" thing. Let's all pool our money for a big ad in the New York Times or something asking those eight senators to publically explain their "no" votes, implying that "the only other explanation we can see is bigotry. But let's give you a chance to explain why it isn't that."

Something like that. Who's in on that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:44 PM on December 2


I hate to be Mr. Nofun McReality, but a full page ad anywhere in the NYT is like two hundred thousand dollars.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:15 PM on December 2, 2009


I wonder how much it costs to buy ads on the subway.
posted by grumblebee at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


mikepop, I think that copy's great except for the last sentence. Just let it stand:

The simplest explaination is that they are all hateful bigots.

Fade to black.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 1:17 PM on December 2, 2009


Maybe the reason reasonable people have such a problem with religion being involved at all is because we feel that us nonbelievers choosing to not constantly giving people shit about their chosen delusion (sorry, that's what it is) is like a kind of social favor we do to keep things running genially. We could treat you like adults that keep silly imaginary friends if we felt like it, but for the most part try and keep that to ourselves. Out of a base-level respect.

In return, we feel the least they can do as meet us halfway and keep their superstitious nonsense out of our civics. But it never seems to work out that way in America. Go figure. They want their security blanket AND they want the right to strangle others with it. Sorry, but fuck that.

If this seems curt Im sorry, but I am pissed as hell that any of this is still up for debate, and the fact that it is has entirely to do with imaginary fake sky man bullshit. Regardless of whether you feel that tolerance and blind faith are compatible.

////end red-faced, angry rant.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 1:18 PM on December 2, 2009 [20 favorites]


It figures. My senator was a 'yes', but the 2 suburban shitheels surrounding me both went for 'no'.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:18 PM on December 2, 2009


WTF is wrong with people.
posted by Flunkie at 1:20 PM on December 2, 2009


After getting my hopes up with "we got the votes" stats in California (where the anti 8 forces led in the polls), in Maine, and heck all the way back into the presidential 2004 election, I've become somewhat gun shy.

I no longer feel confident reading "good news" about gay rights supposedly gaining support here or there.

And so, much as I hoped to be proven wrong, I followed this vote with great trepidation.

Folks, this is not going to be easy.

Yesterday I was exiting Whole Foods here in West Hollywood, and there's a guy with a clipboard going "do you support gay marriage". He wants me to sign up for a new initiative for 2010 to overturn prop 8. I felt so, so depressed. Because after having contributed a lot (for me) of money and a lot of time to the anti-8 cause, I feel that 2010 is just too soon - voters hate to be asked to vote again on something they've just decided a couple of years ago. If this gets on the ballot, it will be shot down - that's my feeling, much as I hate to say it. I'd rather put my money and effort into 2012, where I feel a real chance exists. So what could I say to the guy with the clipboard? That yes, I desperately support gay marriage, but I will still not sign on to put this on the ballot in 2010? So, I only said "I've always supported gay marriage" and marched on as fast as I could.

This is so depressing.
posted by VikingSword at 1:20 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I echo the sentiments above that ae incredulous that this bill was brough up with much fanfare when THE VOTES WEREN'T THERE! That's some rankly incompetent whipcounting, folks. And meanwhile, thank you for the great big unexpected kick in the balls today.

Meanwhile, this is yet another piece of evidence that supports my observation that Markos Moulitsos, and DailKos in general, is an excellent source of political news, but an absolute pile of dogshit when it comes to political analysis.
posted by darkstar at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I hate to be Mr. Nofun McReality, but a full page ad anywhere in the NYT is like two hundred thousand dollars.

According to this it's just a couple grand, but that's still....a couple grand.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2009


Looking for a fun (pro-gay) vacation this summer?

Boycotting that cabin in Maine?

The Gay White Way looking a little too homophobic right about now?

Why not consider beautiful, gay friendly Washington, DC? We're glad to accept you tourist dollars, your gay wedding plans, and now, thanks to out of town assholes, you can even bring your guns to your touristy gay wedding!

So come on down to the Cesspool on the Potomac! We're waiting!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:22 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


I am ashamed to say that Huntley is my rep. I hope the hateful, ignorant homophone gets dragged through the streets by her hair.
posted by Aversion Therapy at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2009


Homophobe even. *sigh*
posted by Aversion Therapy at 1:25 PM on December 2, 2009


And now Im imagining Snagglepuss wishing for Huntley to get dragged thru the street by her hair.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 1:26 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


To all those who said they would be willing to donate money towards an ad:

Since no one is stepping forward to collect that money, I urge you to call one of the senators (contact info is provided above) instead, sometime about 11 am Eastern Time tomorrow.

Let's do that instead (go back to plan A).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:30 PM on December 2, 2009


According to this it's just a couple grand, but that's still....a couple grand.

I believe that that is per column inch.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


According to this it's just a couple grand, but that's still....a couple grand.

That's still probably the classified section, or a banner ad in Real Estate or something. A full page ad in the black and white should run from 50 to 100k.

posted by kid ichorous at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Well, at least the Senator from my old neighborhood voted in favor of it. Good for you, Senator Hassell-Thompson. I'm sorry I'm not there anymore to vote for you.
posted by deadmessenger at 1:35 PM on December 2, 2009


Assuming that we find a treasurer, I'm betting it will be easy to collect a lot of cash (maybe not 100K) via here and Tweeting/Re-tweeting.

I know nothing about online money-collecting apps. Do they exist? Is there way to set up a fund that people can contribute to by clicking a link and entering their credit-card number?

The idea could be to buy the biggest ad we can with however much we raise -- with a cut-off date for raising money.
posted by grumblebee at 1:36 PM on December 2, 2009


I don't know where you're getting that figure but I assure you that you cannot place a full-page ad in the NYT for a few grand. Maybe 60-75k if you don't care when the ad goes out within a certain window of time, much more than that if you want a specific date.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:36 PM on December 2, 2009


Another possibility is an online ad or ads.
posted by grumblebee at 1:38 PM on December 2, 2009


I just want to note that at least two Senators stated that they were voting against the preferences of their constituency. If we're thanking people, we should thank them.

Senator Espada
Albany Office
420 Capitol
Albany, NY 12247
Tel: (518) 455-3395
Fax: (518) 426-6858
District Office
400 East Fordham Road, 7th Floor
Fordham Place
Bronx, NY 10458
Tel: (718) 220-5480
Fax: (718) 220-5398
Email address: espada@senate.state.ny.us

Senator Hassell-Thompson
District Office
959 E. 233rd Street
Bronx, NY 10466
Tel: (718) 547-8854 / Fax: (718) 515-2718
Albany Office
612 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Tel: (518) 455-2061 / Fax: (518) 426-6998
Email address: hassellt@senate.state.ny.us
posted by prefpara at 1:39 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Assuming that we find a treasurer, I'm betting it will be easy to collect a lot of cash (maybe not 100K) via here and Tweeting/Re-tweeting.

Since no one's stepped up to BE the treasurer, and since it looks like it'd be several thousand we need, I've largely abandoned this idea. If someone else wants to give it a stab, go for it.

or we could approach another organization and make a donation.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2009


LGBT community, I'm so sorry. It's shocking to me that we, as a country, haven't left behind this kind of hatred and bigotry long ago. I can't believe we're still fighting this decades after the last race-based marriage battles ended. A nation that can overcome that but still fights this is practicing a terrible form of hypocrisy. Every time this kind of vote happens it's a heartbreaking reminder that ignorance and hate still exist in such numbers. It makes me cry when I think of how much further we still have to go.
posted by empyrean at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2009


Not that this adds anything meaningful to the discussion but it makes me fucking sick. My partner and I have been together almost half as long as my parents were married. We moved to New York cause where else do you go to live your life if you're a gay kid growing up in Texas. I don't know why I expected better, or expected anything at all.
posted by thankyoujohnnyfever at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2009


The people you need to reach do not read the NYT, and consider the Grey Lady part of the evil liberal media that keeps true Americans like Sarah Palin down. I think you'd be preaching to the choir in that particular paper, and while it might raise some eyebrows, it wouldn't do as much good as a concise, compassionate one-page argument in the regional papers.

Who may refuse the ad.
posted by Shepherd at 1:44 PM on December 2, 2009


I use ChipIn to collect donations on my blog. It works fine. Uses PayPal.
posted by bunnycup at 1:45 PM on December 2, 2009


sad thread......
posted by fuq at 1:46 PM on December 2, 2009


I am *this* close to making a deal with the devil by joining forces with those religious nutjobs who want outlaw divorce, introduce prison sentences for adultery, etc. As a gay man, I'm really sick and tired of bearing the brunt of this nation's bigotry.
posted by treepour at 1:46 PM on December 2, 2009


Just remember American gays: Rick Warren would support your execution if he thought it was politically feasible on the domestic front.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 1:46 PM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Ultimately patience is the greatest weapon in this fight. They've already lost, the demographics are stacked against them, and the dinosaurs opposed to equal protection are slowly going extinct. It's a matter of time.
posted by mullingitover at 1:51 PM on December 2, 2009


re: the advertising...

I think going local is a good call, but I also think going as visible as possible is a good call. I'm in NYC and I'm willing to help out but I can't organize anything of this magnitude until the semester is over (Dec 22) so, somebody... get on this, you've got support.
posted by johnnybeggs at 1:51 PM on December 2, 2009


Dear Mr. Onorato,

Your No vote on legalizing marriage equality is shocking in its cowardice. I won't attempt to dissuade you from being so comprehensively on the wrong side of history, obviously you've made your mind up.

It should be quite obvious that anyone running against you has gained at least one enthusiastic vote.

Sincerely,
Skorgu
Now to find someone running against this asshole to donate to.
posted by Skorgu at 1:52 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Or there's plan A.
posted by johnnybeggs at 1:53 PM on December 2, 2009


Shepherd: "Who may refuse the ad."

the post certainly would. the daily news might run it. the village voice would be preaching to the choir, AM New York would probably be as well. El Diario? I don't speak spanish so I don't know if they'd run it, or how their views run politically.
posted by shmegegge at 1:53 PM on December 2, 2009


I think everyone's scared to step up as treasurer since the PayPal incident with the raffle... that said, I've handled large amounts of incoming money in my PayPal account before and would be happy to serve if we can come up with a concrete plan and identify which papers to target and how much we'll need. Barring that, why not try using something like Kickstarter where the money is refunded if the ad buy doesn't go through?
posted by bitter-girl.com at 2:00 PM on December 2, 2009


Carl Kruger (D) — NO

He really ought to have joined the Republicans by now, given his record, his "Gang of Four" BS last year, and other proposals. And oh yes, he will be getting a letter and a phone call.
posted by cmgonzalez at 2:02 PM on December 2, 2009


I guess it's a good thing that I've learned to never get my hopes up, and to not trust anyone in any position of power to keep their word. To never feel like I really belong anyplace.

That's a good thing, right?
posted by MrVisible at 2:15 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think everyone's scared to step up as treasurer since the PayPal incident with the raffle...

Ah, I didn't know anything about that.

I'm wondering if maybe posting a list of different activist groups is the way to go -- presumably they all have the means in place to receive donations, and each of us can donate independently without having to make someone be the Official Treasurer or whatever.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:15 PM on December 2, 2009


mistersquid is an object lesson in reading entirety of the thread

I'd add abject to that. :-}

I've had my head down near my keyboard all day. I'm so embarrassed.
posted by mistersquid at 2:22 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Oh, and I'm not too late to say OH NOES!!!
posted by mistersquid at 2:22 PM on December 2, 2009


I don't know exactly how, but I am totally, totally blaming the Yankees for this.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:24 PM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


Advocates say they aren’t surprised by the decision.
posted by ericb at 2:26 PM on December 2, 2009


So, maybe not an ad in the NYT, but could we still pool some cash and make a donation somewhere? I'm a gay, married, Canadian, and I would love to throw a couple of dollars at this problem. I know I could do it alone, but it's more satisfying to pool money with others and feel like my contribution counts more.
posted by arcticwoman at 2:29 PM on December 2, 2009


So, I posted this to facebook this morning. I deleted it to fix a typo, and while reposting I noticed the text of the article had changed from "hope for slim victory" to "defeated by a large margin."

To all those wondering how they could let it go to the floor when they didn't have the votes - maybe that was the point. It's possible this could be used to get marriage equality people riled up and participating in the 2010 elections, and as a political weapon to use against those who voted Nay.

I don't know how likely that is, but given all the passions this stirred up maybe it'll be an effective rallying cry.
posted by heathkit at 2:29 PM on December 2, 2009


Duane Calls Democratic Betrayal on Marriage 'Contagious Lack of Backbone'
"I wasn't expected to be betrayed, and so I have some justified anger. But it's just going to propel me to - I don't want to say redouble my efforts, because my efforts have been pretty strong - but I'm not going to let up. I'm angry. I'm disappointed. I am let down. I'm betrayed. But I am not going away...Unfortunately, I think there was a contagious lack of backbone that occurred here today. And I’m angry about that and sad about that, but it was contagious. Similarly, the opposite would have meant far more votes than anyone had expected but unfortunately that wasn’t the way it went today."
posted by ericb at 2:30 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


The NYT article.
posted by prefpara at 2:33 PM on December 2, 2009


Well, we won't have liberty and justice for ALL until ALL of us are treated the same, without prejudice. ALL.

ALL
EVERY AMERICAN
EQUAL

In the Constitution it says, in Amendment 14:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seriously. How does our Constitution jibe with the list of rights denied to same-sex couples ericb posted? HOW? I realize marriage is completely left out of the Constitution. However, all citizens should enjoy the same rights and privileges; this whole man/woman/marriage thing is patently depriving persons of liberty and property, simply at the whims of people who are inherently bigoted and ignorant and largely are unaffected by the law themselves. I mean... WHAT. THE. FUCK.

I'm sure someone much smarter than me can explain the legality of a huge part of our population still living under some "separate but equal" conservative and/or religious bullshit, but it's still discrimination and it always will be.

I'm so, so sorry for every same-sex couple that keeps waiting to be treated fairly. And for all the people who voted in opposition out of fear, greed or ignorance... if you believe that your fellow American doesn't have the right to be equal, whether you agree with their lifestyle or not, then you're no better than those who tried to keep their slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation. I pray that we see an end to this shit in my lifetime, because the last two words of the Pledge of Allegiance say it best:

FOR ALL.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Unicorn on the cob:

I happen to agree with you. I believe that marriage is a fundamental right, the denial of which to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The Constitution has always been an aspirational document. When it was written, the inequality and injustice in our society was of a magnitude that, today, can scarcely be imagined. Over time, as we grow more civilized, we approach more and more the ideals that were enshrined in that document.

I should note that it is possible to make plausible legal arguments about why a prohibition on gay marriage is Constitutional. I personally find such arguments unpersuasive.

My hope is that I will live to see America make good on its promise of equality and accept gay people as equal citizens. However, right now, the rights regime that the Constitution describes does not exist, not for them, and not for many other Americans.
posted by prefpara at 2:42 PM on December 2, 2009


I have been through this in Oregon a number of times. We squeaked by with "civil unions," but every time the *M* word comes up, heartbreak ensues.

And California, well, don't get me started.
posted by Danf at 2:45 PM on December 2, 2009


Disappointing.

Just wanted to drop in and second Diane Savino's truly heartfelt *and* well-reasoned, eloquent speech from the floor. It gives me hope, even (or especially, maybe) at the level of state politics which too often serves as a civic "gateway drug" for incompetents and grifters and fools, that there's a bright and apparently grounded and level-headed citizen-senator willing to tell it like is. Pity that bignorance (that's my none-too-clever portmanteau for bigoted ignorance, you may use it so long as you don't cite me on it) carried the day.

Here's Savino's speech. And, what's more, this is from a Roman Catholic representative of Staten Island of all places, so there goes the "I'm personally in favor of this policy but my constituents are not on board blah blah bullshit" canard.

Anyways, my heartfelt condolences to same-sex couples in the Empire State, and though I know that's cold comfort to say the least, please know that there are plenty of us straight, midwestern dudes who are totally with you on this and willing to help see things through and set things right. Though I know it's awfully easy for me to say, don't give up hope.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:45 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


This isn't about me, per se, but about my perception of the obviousness of civil rights for gays, lesbians, and any other being expressing a desire to marry another. After reading the summary, I foolishly figured the elected representatives of New York would do the right thing, that they would vote in a way that justifies the trust their electorate had placed in them, that they would lead with courage and wisdom.

Fuck all I know.

For the last year I've been itching for California's Prop 8. to be decided by the courts because I convinced myself that the judiciary tends to conserve and extend Civil Rights. With this vote by the NY legislature, I'm no longer so sure.

Seems we’ve entered years so terrible that the apocalyptic tones sounded in Yeats’s “The Second Coming” or drawn in The Road Warrior seem the only way to make sense of the political insanity that’s gripped fully 50% of the US.

I’m angry and drowning over here, and it seems more and more *everything* is coming up disaster.
posted by mistersquid at 2:48 PM on December 2, 2009


I say we go ruin all these no-voters marriages.

Heck, no. Let the Bible thumpers and "holier-than-thous" be forced to stand behind their priniciples of maintaining the 'Sanctity of Marriage."

First step: they shouldn't be permitted to get divorced.
"The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: 'Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce..."

Evangelicals: Why Do We Have the Highest Divorce Rate?

Proposition: 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act -- "Safeguarding Marriage From The Evils of Divorce." [video | 02:07].
"'Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more,' [John Marcotte] the 38-year-old married father of two said. ...

Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be 'impractical,' said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8. ...

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

'That's where our intention begins and ends,' he said.

Funny, what's preventing Prentice...from using similar logic in his battle against same-sex nuptials? Couldn't he be content with 'seeing fewer gay marriages' through advocacy instead of rewriting the California Constitution, just as he does in his efforts to reduce the divorce rate of straight couples?"*
posted by ericb at 2:50 PM on December 2, 2009


Barney Frank on "Real Time With Bill Maher" (March 11, 2005):
"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."
posted by ericb at 2:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [15 favorites]


Just remember American gays: Rick Warren would support your execution if he thought it was politically feasible on the domestic front.

Because if there's one thing that Jesus of Nazareth taught and lived it was that we ought to stand in judgment of others and the best way to see to that is to conflate the spiritual and the political.

Oh yeah, that and violence. Big fan of violence, that J-dog was. Also: he wants you to be wealthy, so no need for cognitive dissonance, friends.

Sorry for what's turned into a mini-rant, but good goddamn stop using your flawed and facile interpretation of your weak-sauce theology as a proxy for ignorance and hatred, especially if you're just a cynical hack playing to the fools in your constituency. Garrrgggh.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:56 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


It's still astonishing to me that journalists let religious jerks get away with clearly absurd statements like this without challenging them by noting the many utterly outdated definitions of "marriage" easily found in the Judeo-Christian bible:

“While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in a statement. “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable. However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood...

I mean, that's so obviously not true. And yet journalists *consistently* give the religious anti-gay bigots a pass on it.
posted by mediareport at 2:58 PM on December 2, 2009 [5 favorites]


I was hoping yet another state (and a new governor) would help Rhode Island get off its ass and do the right thing.

Unfortunately, if any action would be taken by the legislature of R.I., there's your homophobic governor -- Gov. Donald Carcieri -- who'll veto any progress:
'Traditionalist' Rhode Island Gov Joins Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign.

Rhode Island Governor Won't Even Give Rights to Dead Gays.
"If you're gay and you die in Rhode Island your domestic partner won't be able to make funeral arrangements for you because Governor Donald Carcieri just vetoed a bill providing for that.

Why?

According to Carcieri, 'This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.'"
posted by ericb at 3:04 PM on December 2, 2009


Stop taking this personally stop taking this like its anything other than politics

Things are not just politics when they impact people's lives, positively or negatively. That politics might be the motivation doesn't lessen the impact of the result.
posted by davejay at 3:06 PM on December 2, 2009


And the results are very, very personal. Hit post before finishing.
posted by davejay at 3:06 PM on December 2, 2009


So sad. My state senator is a un-persuadable Catholic Republican. Our senate is so fucked up this year, this isn't at all surprising.
posted by saffry at 3:07 PM on December 2, 2009


From the New York Times article:

State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said.

Hey, fuckface, you know who are people? Gays and lesbians. They are people. I'm also a person, and I don't oppose it. I also know lots of other people who don't oppose it. So you can take your "the people" and shove it up your ass.
posted by Caduceus at 3:10 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Funny, what's preventing Prentice...from using similar logic in his battle against same-sex nuptials? Couldn't he be content with 'seeing fewer gay marriages' through advocacy instead of rewriting the California Constitution, just as he does in his efforts to reduce the divorce rate of straight couples?

It's because people like Prentice are cowardly and mean-spirited bullies who pick on gays because gays are (still, despite all the progress we've made) easy targets. I firmly believe that it's really as simple as that. It's how they get their kicks.
posted by treepour at 3:18 PM on December 2, 2009


Hey, fuckface, you know who are people? Gays and lesbians. They are people.

" ... so that government of the (heteronormative) people, by the (heteronormative) people, and for the (heteronormative) people shall not perish from the earth. Also: butt-sex skeeves me out -- in that it makes me question my own sexuality -- so we should probably do something about that while we're at it." - Gaybraham Lincoln
posted by joe lisboa at 3:21 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


This is why favorites are important; I was able to filter on +5 and get quickly to the FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 3:21 PM on December 2, 2009


“While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman,”

-Richard E. Barnes, Executive Director, New York State Catholic Conference


I also am against unjust discrimination. But my hatred of the leadership of the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and Republicans in general is now feeling pretty fuckin' just.
posted by Danf at 3:25 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I may be late to the party but I'm not too late to say HELLS YEAH!

You are. Just don't try the crab and avocado dip. It's gone sour.
posted by ericb at 3:30 PM on December 2, 2009


This sucks. Was totally hoping for y'all. Keep fighting. It WILL happen.
posted by hangashore at 3:33 PM on December 2, 2009


Hey, fuckface, you know who are people? Gays and lesbians.

I wonder about myself sometimes. Most days when I hear news like this I feel like an animal. Some kind of putrid, diseased, highly contagious beast who's very existence threatens society and civilization itself.

Naturally, thats how Christians feel about us, by and large, but it's difficult for me not to internalize those feelings.

I mean, this is, basically, what it must feel like to be a rabid dog.
posted by Avenger at 3:36 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Next election cycle, if the incumbent Democrats win their primaries, it will be very tempting to donate to the Republicans running against Addabbo, Aubertine, Diaz, Huntley, Kruger, Monserrate, Onorato, and Stachowski in the general election—it wouldn't change the vote any, and at least the Republicans aren't liars when it comes to their party affiliation.

Republicans may be bad, but fake Democrats are worse.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I'm so very proud of my (ex-)Senator.
posted by Bromius at 3:48 PM on December 2, 2009


mediareport: "I mean, that's so obviously not true. And yet journalists *consistently* give the religious anti-gay bigots a pass on it."

Exactly; that is one of the two things that always bothers me when reading about American attempts at defining marriage.

The other one is that, hell, there are other nations out there! Countries other than America have taken steps towards equality (granted, it's not as speedy a process as one could wish for, but whenever politics actually do improve a situation that should be reason enough to celebrate) and we still exist! I mean, even the Christian Democratic Union, one of the two main parties over here that still emphasize a Christian attitude, has now come around to the position that the gender of married couples should have no influence on their legal status.
I mean, how can any American politician keep a straight face when they claim that there needs to be a difference between gay and straight marriage? The evidence is all around that it does not have to be that way.
posted by PontifexPrimus at 3:55 PM on December 2, 2009


Thedown-to-earth, sensible, relatable, and moving speech from Senator Savino is also up on YouTube now. If you didn't get a chance to watch live, I recommend it. I also very much recommend watching Adams, Parker, and Hassell-Thomspon. These people, and every other Senator who spoke, and the Senators who voted for the bill, continue to work and fight. Take heart from their words.
posted by prefpara at 4:01 PM on December 2, 2009


Naturally, thats how Christians feel about us

Let's fight stereotyping with stereotyping!
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:12 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


My girlfriend and I made a deal not to get married except in a gay marriage state. We'd been thinking about a trip to the East Coast this spring: looks like it's on now.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 4:16 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jimmy, we have some bad news.
posted by gerryblog at 4:27 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


I don't understand. I really don't.

The whole thing makes my heart hurt.
posted by aclevername at 4:30 PM on December 2, 2009


Let's fight stereotyping with stereotyping!

At some point, we have to recognize that millions upon millions of American Christians have, in recent months and years, rallied around their religious traditions and turned up at the ballot box in incredible numbers to deny rights to their gay and lesbian neighbors.

It's pointless to try and pretend that any of this would be happening if it wasn't for the massive current of cultural Christianity which exists in this nation, or that the massive center of anti-gay sentiment and organization in this country is not Christianity and it's various churches. And if "fighting against gay rights" becomes a short-hand term for "Christian", it'll be their doing, not ours.
posted by Avenger at 4:30 PM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


looks like it's on now.

To Connecticut or Massachusetts?
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:30 PM on December 2, 2009


Let's fight stereotyping with stereotyping!

God dammit, no! Not here. Christianity teaches that gay people do not deserve the same kind of sexual expression as heterosexuals. Enough christians have internalized this putrid thought to make it difficult for gay Americans to get treated like goddamn people in this country. The fact that there are other christians who don't believe that does not make the others any less immoral.

You're a chrstian? You want to tell me that Not All Christians Are Like That? How about going out and talking to some Christians That Are Like That instead. I say ugly things because I want people to have equal rights, they say ugly things because they want people to have fewer rights than they do. If that means I'm the bastard in someone's eyes then that's fine, I'll be the bastard. I have love on my side.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 4:35 PM on December 2, 2009 [24 favorites]


First we take manhattan.

Then we take Berlin.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:38 PM on December 2, 2009


what's with all these calls for explanation? the senators who voted no did so because they felt it was the best move they could make for their career. since when was politics about principles?
posted by tehloki at 4:38 PM on December 2, 2009


What if we whip up a nice web-page and buy some google ads targeted on their home districts? You can localize down to zip code, I think.
posted by shothotbot at 4:39 PM on December 2, 2009


At some point, we have to recognize that millions upon millions of American Christians have, in recent months and years, rallied around their religious traditions and turned up at the ballot box in incredible numbers to deny rights to their gay and lesbian neighbors.

That doesn't mean it's a good strategy to frame the pro-gay position as an anti-Christian position. Indeed, this is an extremely bad strategy. If you want gays to continue to be deprived of equal rights, you should pursue this strategy. It's obviously offensive to millions of people you're trying to convince. And it's even offensive to someone like me -- a die-hard secular humanist, but someone who realizes that my Christian friends and family members don't fit the caricatures of "Christians" I read on Metafilter. (There are gay Christians, you know -- ever read Andrew Sullivan?)

It's pointless to try and pretend that any of this would be happening if it wasn't for the massive current of cultural Christianity which exists in this nation

It's impossible to know what that counterfactual situation would be like. Maybe there are other reasons for homophobia, and Christianity is just a convenient excuse. In fact, I think this is likely, considering how unconcerned Christians are with the letter of the law in many other parts of the Bible. (Don't mix fabrics and all that.)

And if "fighting against gay rights" becomes a short-hand term for "Christian", it'll be their doing, not ours.

That still doesn't mean it's a good strategy for us.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:41 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


(Also, any new yorker with a same sex sweety who cant get married in the state, MeMail your address and I will send you a melon baller. Not much of a consolation prize, but still).
posted by shothotbot at 4:41 PM on December 2, 2009


God dammit, no! Not here.

Not in our precious echo chamber!

You're a chrstian?

Absolutely not.

You want to tell me that Not All Christians Are Like That? How about going out and talking to some Christians That Are Like That instead.

I have, and I've been able to convince some of them to come around to gay rights. And you know what worked? Surprisingly enough, the answer wasn't to cartoonishly tar their whole faith as bigotry or their whole families as bigots! The answer is civil, rational, informed debate. If you're as confident as I am that gay rights is the right position, there's no reason to be afraid of this.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:45 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


I AM YELLING ABOUT THIS VIA MUSIC
posted by The Whelk at 4:45 PM on December 2, 2009


but someone who realizes that my Christian friends and family members don't fit the caricatures of "Christians" I read on Metafilter.

At what point to these good christians hang up the towel and say "enough is enough?" They don't seem to be doint anything to convince their homophobic brethren that opposing gay marriage is inflicting serious and tangible emotional harm on their countrymen. In the meantime I get to watch my friends get told by their elected representatives that they are not equal in the eyes of the law. How much more mollycoddling is expected of us?
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 4:46 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Look, it'd be fine with me if all religious people abandoned their faiths overnight. But that's not going to happen. We have to work with reality; we can't wish it away. The vast majority of Americans are Christians. A political strategy that offends them is doomed to failure, no matter how justified it may be in principle.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:49 PM on December 2, 2009


And another thing: negativity is inherently offputting. We have to focus on the positive, no matter how much we obviously dislike our political opponents. This should be a slam-dunk considering what the marriage equality issue is all about. I'm pretty sure it's about love.

Again, my views on religion are comparable to those of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher. If I'm offended by gay-rights advocacy that's based on attacking Christianity, then I'm quite sure that most Americans are.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:54 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


But there is no strategy that doesn't offend christians because the outcome offends christians. Any attempt to compromise doesn't work because if either side gets and inch it's going to try and take a mile. Just look at what happened in Washington. It's clear that christians will oppose any sort of initiative to grant gay Americans equality with equal vigor no matter what the initiative is. The line's in the sand now. Do christians believe that gay people deserve equal rights or not? It's going to wind up being a combination of a demographic shift and a cultural shift that makes it impossible for christians to utter their true feelings in public. I can't effect the pace of the former change, but I sure as hell can with the latter.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 4:55 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


But there is no strategy that doesn't offend christians because the outcome offends christians.

An outcome that many Christians are currently opposed to =/= a rhetorical strategy that offends Christians

The former is something that can be overcome with persuasive arguments. The latter is something that will exacerbate the opposition to same-sex marriage.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:09 PM on December 2, 2009


I AM YELLING ABOUT THIS VIA MUSIC

How about Eminem - White America
EC80R - We are Pissed
!!! - Pardon my Freedom
posted by shothotbot at 5:14 PM on December 2, 2009


what's with all these calls for explanation? the senators who voted no did so because they felt it was the best move they could make for their career. since when was politics about principles?

Their careers do depend on votes. They can be reminded in many ways why that might tie into the principles of their constituents.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:15 PM on December 2, 2009


Jebus H. Politics, here's the Salvador Dali tribute of a public statement from the Log Cabin Republicans:
"Today we share in the frustration and disappointment that the Senate did not pass the marriage equality bill. We are deeply saddened that the Democratic Conference failed to secure the votes they promised, undermining the possibility of a credible bipartisan vote of conscience on the merits of marriage equality. Winning marriage equality in New York requires the Democrats to keep their promises, and Log Cabin will continue to work to ensure that Republicans vote their conscience when that finally happens."
Yes, and how's that whole "working on Republicans to ensure they vote their conscience" thing going for you bastards? Blame the Dems, who at least voted in large numbers in favor, yet completely give the Republicans a pass when they're the ones that unanimously voted no???

That's some pretty serious denial you guys are living in, is all I gotta say.
posted by darkstar at 5:16 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


But there is no strategy that doesn't offend christians because the outcome offends christians.

Oh, for fucks' sake -- THERE ARE CHRISTIANS WHO AREN'T OFFENDED BY GAY RIGHTS.

YOu know, maybe the religious right wouldn't have gotten as far as it did if there weren't people on the left that were all LOLXIANS every five minutes, or writing them off as a monolithic brainwashed mass.

The people on the religious right aren't like that becuase they're Christian, they are like that because THEY ARE ASSHOLES.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:19 PM on December 2, 2009 [14 favorites]


I really don't see a chance of my state (NC) passing any kind of same-sex marriage legislation in the foreseeable future. Anyone know of a good organization to give some money to who is working toward getting this legislation passed? Either a national org or a state org where this will be coming up soon.

Not sure if this is really pertinent to the conversation here, and it is a link to a flickr photo of mine, but a little history. In North Carolina shortly after the end of the Civil War, former slaves who had been married as slaves (not legal) came into the county courthouses to register their "slave marriages." We call those cohabitation records. They are often the first time former slaves appear by first and last name in the public record. I have been reading this thread on and off all afternoon, was cleaning off the card on my camera and posting a few things, ran across this and just made some kind of connection.

"Before me, WILLIAM A. WHITE, Clerk of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions for said County, personally appeared Darby Johnson and Dicey Plummer, residents of said County, lately slaves, but now emancipated, and acknowledged that they do cohabit together as man and wife, and that said cohabitation commenced..."

I believe 20+ years from now, when our kids and grandkids are grown, and same-sex marriage will hopefully be a right for everyone in this country, today's kids will look at us and say "What were you thinking?" much like people today may look at old-time proponents of Jim Crow. I'm not sure what I'll say. "Shouted on the internet and donated some money."

I'm kind of lazy. I've often said if I was going to get off my ass and actually march and protest about something it would be against the death penalty. I'm adding same sex marriage to that list. But like I said above, it is so far off the radar in my state (I believe) I don't know if people are even bothering to march about this. Hence my above plea of a place to send funds to. To echo what someone above said, there is at least one straight guy in North Carolina rooting for marriage rights for everyone who wants to help.
posted by marxchivist at 5:21 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


You want to tell me that Not All Christians Are Like That? How about going out and talking to some Christians That Are Like That instead.

What the fuck makes you think I DON'T?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:21 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


The vast majority of Americans are Christians. A political strategy that offends them is doomed to failure, no matter how justified it may be in principle.

It's amazing we ever made any progress.

Well, actually, we did, back when we didn't worry what might offend the fringe. That's what this is. They've mainstreamed it, but this is really fringe politics. That's what the strategy against these guys really should be. They've already marginalized themselves politically, but they win on this issue alone. The strategy should be to make that marginalization stick as much as possible while advancing a rational argument for gay marriage at the same time. I do think this has to be a situation where there is a wholesale rejection of this evil shit, which is all pretty much bundled together, and it's easy for people to see when it's personified in someone like Sarah Palin.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:22 PM on December 2, 2009


I AM YELLING ABOUT THIS VIA MUSIC

How about Eminem - White America
EC80R - We are Pissed
!!! - Pardon my Freedom


RADIO RULES MEAN I CAN'T REALLY TAKE REQUESTS BUT THOSE ARE GOOD IDEAS AND FIT INTO WHAT I'M PLAYING NOW GAH ANGER MAKING ME PLAY BLACK FLAG WHAT AM I 14? GAAAAAH
posted by The Whelk at 5:26 PM on December 2, 2009


It's amazing we ever made any progress.

Well, actually, we did, back when we didn't worry what might offend the fringe. That's what this is. They've mainstreamed it, but this is really fringe politics.


You know, you've reminded me of a good point --

Another way that we made social progress is by appealing TO the faith of the mainstream and using it AS an argument in favor of social progress.

Contemporary case in point: Bono. Some people are surprised that he got as far as he has with different right-wing leaders in this country -- because, shit, he's a ROCK STAR; one from IRELAND, no less, what the hell does he know?

But one thing he knows is Scripture, and THAT is how he convinced so many right-wing Congressmen to have a change of heart on AIDS funding and relief funding. Rather than asking them to go against what they believed their faith was, he showed them how doing what he wanted worked WITH their faith: "You ask yourself 'what would Jesus do'. Well, I think He'd do this -- and here's my proof." And right-wing congressmen agreed with him.

If he'd attacked their faith instead, they'd have written him off and he'd never have gotten anywhere. Attack someone's faith, rather than work with it, and the same thing would happen to you.

And there are Scriptures that could be used to convince these senators to support gay marriage. If you wanna know about them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:35 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


Christianity teaches that gay people do not deserve the same kind of sexual expression as heterosexuals.

Well, Paul's better to marry than burn being the operative phrase, I'm fairly sure Christianity would be cool as Buddha with homosexuality as soon as homosexuals could get married. Let Dan Brown die writing himself out of that.
posted by kid ichorous at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


What the fuck makes you think I DON'T?

I'm sure you do, and that makes you estimable in a way that most of the christians I know aren't. But the problem is that mainstream American christianity appears to teach homophobia. I know the catholic church does. Which isn't to say that catholics are, as a group, homophobic. I know, and am related to, plenty of catholics who support gay rights, but they get there in spite of the church's teachings not because of them. The problem is that christian politicians, or just asshole politicians it doesn't really matter, can lean on the good book to justify their disgusting votes. The Rick Warrens and the Pat Robertsons aren't gong to be convinced that their theology is wrong on this point because they have plausible arguments that their theology is right on this point.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2009


But there is no strategy that doesn't offend christians because the outcome offends christians.

Massachusett's Episcopal Bishop Okays Same-sex Marriages .

God-damn activist bishops and priests!
posted by ericb at 5:38 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I took a few minutes to write to my senator, Tom Libous, on the state senate website:
As a straight, married man, it baffles me why people are threatened by extending basic human rights to those different than them.

What possible reason could you have for voting against this bill? Religion? It has no place in government. Lack of support in your district? While I can't support it, at least I could understand your motivation. Is there some other reason I don't understand? I genuinely want to know.

Marriage equality WILL happen sooner or later, and you will be on the wrong side of history. What will you have to say to the generations to come? Shame on you.
posted by phrenq at 5:41 PM on December 2, 2009


The people on the religious right aren't like that becuase they're Christian, they are like that because THEY ARE ASSHOLES.

Yep. Yep. Yepyepyepyepyep. Super-this.
posted by davejay at 5:41 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm in no position to be a treasurer either, but let me just say that EmpressCalypagos' ad idea is a fantastic one. Surely someone here can set up a simple donation site with paypal or chip-in which can also try out and audition copy ideas, put it up on projects, and get this ball rolling.

Also, local papers mean shit when six of the eight are from within the NYC boundaries. This absolutely, positively, has to go to the Daily News. You get out to Queens and the Bronx, where most of these senators' districts are, and The News is what people read on the subway. The News is also, for better or worse sort of exactly in-between The Times and The Post in terms of both politics and journalistic quality. In the meantime, you can email your thoughts to voicers@edit.nydailynews.com, and if they're well-composed and compelling enough, get them on the editorial page within the next few days. (note: "well composed" here doesn't mean like a mefi comment, but more like a soundbite. c'est la vie.)

Anyway, I no longer live in NY, unfortunately, and am straight besides, but this still felt like a punch to the gut for me. And it is personal. It was less like a vote among logical statesmen about human rights and public policy than it was a polling of a sixth-grade cafeteria full of bigoted cowards and a few brave and strong enough to stand up for what was right.

But I'm proud of New York The assembly keeps passing this every year and will continue to do so. There speeches made today in favor of this that brought tears to my eyes, and from people representing groups considered by common knowledge to be against Same-Sex Marriage. The comparison between this and Black civil rights has long brought about rancor from the black community, who largely hasn't seen it as analogous. To see African-American leaders like Adams, Parker, and Smith stand up, shout down the idea that this sort of bullshit can be instructed by the Bible, and simply say, "your struggle is our struggle," was amazing to me. Today was a day when eight people shot down the rights of millions. The millions will have their say, in the end. It's tragic that it didn't happen today, as it's tragic that it didn't happen every day before today. But today isn't the end.

Maine, too, will pass this again, and the People's Veto will be more difficult for them every time it's attempted. This fight is difficult, and, to quote from Samwise the Brave, "by rights we shouldn't even be here. But a new day will come, and when the sun shines it'll shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That really meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But now, Mr. Frodo, I understand. I know it now. The folk in those stories had lots of chances at turning back only they didn't. They kept going, because they were holding onto something. That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

There's some good in New York. There's some good in Maine. There's some good in California. And that's why we're fighting those battles there right now instead of in Oklahoma and Utah. We've just got to keep going. Finally, here's the Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles singing "Simple Gifts." It's been killing me today, but it gives me some hope as well.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:42 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


New York Marriage Equality: The Post-Vote Blame Game
"Here are the eight 'no' votes from Democrats on marriage equality in New York state today, along with their email addresses if you'd care to speak your mind. The percentage before their names...represents — FYI — their 2008 general election percentages.
53% Aubertine (Upstate) - aubertin@senate.state.ny.us
53% Stachowski (Upstate) - stachows@senate.state.ny.us
58% Addabbo (Queens) - addabbo@senate.state.ny.us
81% Onorato (Queens) - onorato@senate.state.ny.us
93% Diaz (Bronx) - diaz@senate.state.ny.us
93% Kruger (Kings) - kruger@senate.state.ny.us
100% Huntley (Queens) - shuntley@senate.state.ny.us
100% Monserrate (Queens) - monserra@senate.state.ny.us
Looks like efforts need to focus on Queens, where four of the eight senators reside."
posted by ericb at 5:44 PM on December 2, 2009


You guys are arguing a bit cross purposes. You must distinguish between the ordinary Christian believer and church officials, especially those in a top-down structure like the Roman Catholic Church. Note, that yet again, the Roman Catholic Church has been instrumental in lobbying the defeat of gay rights even in this case:

"The state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who had actively lobbied against the bill, said they were pleased by the vote.

“While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in a statement. “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable. However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.”"


Argue all you want about how lay Catholics line up for or against gay rights. There is no mistaking what the Roman Catholic Church official hierarchy actually does - with immense damage to millions of people worldwide.

So excuse me, if I don't battle with lay Catholics - or Christians in general - but I do relentlessly oppose the RCC and various Christian "leaders" when they influence the political process to the detriment (and often death - AIDS in Africa etc.) of millions of people everywhere.
posted by VikingSword at 5:48 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: I'll be the bastard. I have love on my side.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:49 PM on December 2, 2009


Oh, and btw. every time I speak out against the RCC, or do an FPP on them, I get hate messages from various people (turn-the-other-cheek Christians, no doubt). I'm expecting a few more after this one.
posted by VikingSword at 5:55 PM on December 2, 2009


God, if I'd had been here to see this thread progress I would've been crying a little while ago.

'Luckily' I was driving all day through country where the only radio station to listen to was the apparent mega-station Moody FM, which spews as much hate (and lies!) as anyone and had already informed me jubilantly that it didn't pass.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm still depressed, but at least I didn't have the chance to get my hopes up.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 5:55 PM on December 2, 2009


VikingSword, the thing is, nobody's ordering Catholics to change what marriage means for their religion, but they are ordering that everyone else keep that definition in line with theirs.

Also, I spent the afternoon watching these hearings with a Catholic from Maine who almost went into the priesthood, but who is adamantly in favor of GBLT rights in all their forms, and who was as crushed by how this went down as I was. (He was nearly catatonic when the People's Veto went through. I've never seen him like that in any other situation, but watching the state he love so dearly decide something that important so wrongly struck deep inside him.)
posted by Navelgazer at 5:56 PM on December 2, 2009


Navelgazer, this is why I don't have a problem lay Catholics or Christians as such. There are plenty of wonderful human beings who are also religious - and some of them post here... who can say a bad word about Pater Aletheias? But I will do everything in my power (vote, contribute money, agitate, march etc.) to keep the separation of church and state strong, and oppose the official hierarchy of all hateful organizations like the RCC.
posted by VikingSword at 6:01 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


From Chris Geidner's Twitter feed: So, the story is that 10 votes - 5 Rs and 5 Ds - flipped from yes to no in NY today as a result of an early defection that cascaded. Awful.
posted by gerryblog at 6:03 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


I am so tired of having my civil rights turned into an Christian exegetical exercise, with the more politically engaged messianic sect getting to determine how much equality I'm allowed.

Can we please just have the Rapture already? That'd be a win-win for all of us. And the Tribulation can't be this much of a kick in the balls, surely.
posted by darkstar at 6:04 PM on December 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


Geidner's source for this to Mike Signorile, whose radio show and columns I'm not familiar with.

What happend in NY? Source says 5 of the 8 'no' dems were 2 go yes; 5 repubs were 2 go yes too. 1 of dems bailed early, caused cascade. (link)

@mklavers81 @msignorile did your source say which dem bailed early and started the cascade?// Addabbo (link)

RT @ToastKT @msignorile do you have the name(s) of the bailer and lemmings that followed? //Addabbo, kruger, huntley, onorato, monserrate (link)
posted by gerryblog at 6:10 PM on December 2, 2009


Another from Signorile: Addabbo started the 'no' vote cascade in NY. LGBTs gave him lots of $$. Gay groups endorsed him. Betrayed us big time.
posted by gerryblog at 6:24 PM on December 2, 2009


This is a bit like the Challenger, all over again.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:24 PM on December 2, 2009


And there are Scriptures that could be used to convince these senators to support gay marriage. If you wanna know about them

Uh.. have you.. read the Bible?
posted by kbanas at 6:31 PM on December 2, 2009


Uh.. have you.. read the Bible?

You mean the part where it says that people who find celibacy impossible must get married? 1 Corinthians 7:9. Gay marriage is a Scriptural imperative for those unable to remain celibate. Have you read the Bible?
posted by jock@law at 6:38 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


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

"Cálice"

During Brazil's military coup d'état of 1964, Buarque wrote about the events which transpired and avoided censorship by using cryptic analogies and wordplay. For example, in the song "Cálice" ("Chalice", or Jesus' Last Supper "Cup") he takes advantage of the homophony between the Portuguese imperative "shut your mouth" --cale-se-- and "chalice" --cálice-- to protest censorship against freedom of speech by the dictatorship, disguised as the Gospel narrative of Jesus' Gethsemani prayer to the Father to pass from Him the chalice of bloody death probation:

Lyrics (in Portuguese, translation below)

Pai, afasta de mim esse cálice
De vinho tinto de sangue.
Como beber dessa bebida amarga
Tragar a dor, engolir a labuta.
Mesmo calada a boca, resta o peito
Silêncio na cidade não se escuta.
De que me vale ser filho da santa
Melhor seria ser filho da outra
Outra realidade menos morta
Tanta mentira, tanta força bruta.

Como é difícil acordar calado
Se na calada da noite eu me dano
Quero lançar um grito desumano
Que é uma maneira de ser escutado
Esse silêncio todo me atordoa
Atordoado eu permaneço atento
Na arquibancada pra qualquer momento
Ver emergir o monstro da lagoa

De muito gorda a porca já não anda
De muito usada a faca já não corta
Como é difícil, pai, abrir a porta
Essa palavra presa na garganta
Esse pileque homérico no mundo
De que adianta ter boa vontade
Mesmo calado o peito, resta a cuca
Dos bêbados do centro da cidade

Talvez o mundo não seja pequeno
Nem seja a vida um fato consumado
Quero inventar o meu próprio pecado
Quero morrer do meu próprio veneno
Quero perder de vez tua cabeça
Minha cabeça perder teu juízo
Quero cheirar fumaça de óleo diesel
Me embriagar até que alguém me esqueça



Translation

Father, pass away from me this chalice
of wine tinted with blood!
How to survey this bitter drink
Inhale the pain, swallow the drudgery.
Even if the mouth is shut, the heart still remains
Silence in the city is not heard.
For what is it worth for me to be the son of the holy mother
Best were I born to another one
Another reality less lethal
Without so many lies and repression.

How hard it is to wake up and notice you cannot open your mouth
If I pang in the quiet of night
I desire to release a wild scream
Which would be a way to be heard
All of this silence makes me dizzy
Dazed, I remain attentive
In the expectation of, at any moment,
To see the monster of the lake emerge

From so much fat, the hog no longer walketh
From so much use, the knife hath gone dull
How hard it is, father to open the door
With this word stuck in the throat
This Homeric world drunkeness
What's the advantage of having good will?
Even if the heart is silenced, consciousness remains
Of all the drunkards in the center of the city

Perhaps the world isn't that small
Nor is life a consummated fact
I desire to invent my own sin
I wanna die from my own poison!
And disconnect my mind from yours once and for all!
May my head lose your way of thinking
I wanna sniff diesel fume
And get intoxicated until I'm forgotten!
posted by telstar at 6:43 PM on December 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


Jebus H. Politics, here's the Salvador Dali tribute of a public statement from the Log Cabin Republicans:

I mean, you're right mostly, but I can sorta feel the LCR's pain. They got ratfucked by the New York Democrats on this one. They live between a political rock and a hard place, and the Dems held out their hands to help and then stabbed them in the back. This whole thing was truly disgraceful.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 6:56 PM on December 2, 2009


every time I speak out against the RCC, or do an FPP on them, I get hate messages from various people

Maybe it would help if you weren't so hateful. Your beef is with the Magisterium, not the Church. Gay marriage is emphatically not an issue addressed in dogma. There is as far as I know no ex cathedra pronouncement on it. If your beef is with the hierarchy, then criticize the hierarchy, not the laity. The Church = ALL Catholics. Not all bishops agree with the positions taken by the gay marriage meddlers. Definitely not all clergy agree. I'm sure the Jesuits and the Paulists especially love your pathetic stereotyping and grouping them with the Vatican. Your comments are an ignorant spewage of hateful and intellectually lazy diarrhea. You have no knowledge of what you're talking about, and no appreciation for the nuances of internal politics of an organization more vast and more subtle than you could possibly comprehend. Do you know how many people a billion people is? Do you have any concept? Do you know what two millennia of tradition is like? Is it any wonder that the more rarefied levels of leadership are slow-moving? And based on that, you want to condemn the entire Church? Shove a sock in it, you hateful ignorant man.
posted by jock@law at 6:59 PM on December 2, 2009


What if we whip up a nice web-page and buy some google ads targeted on their home districts? You can localize down to zip code, I think.

My district covers three zip codes.

I think our best immediate approach is to flood these offices with letters and phone calls, especially if any of us are residents of the districts represented by the No voters. Do not merely email, send paper letters as they're taken more seriously.
posted by cmgonzalez at 7:02 PM on December 2, 2009


Monseratte is my senator. Met the guy once, seemed nice enough. Seemed respectably liberal. I mean, it's Queens FFS. We have LOTS of teh gayz here.

Boy, has he been a fucking disappointment. Started with when he defected to the Republican side for money. Then came back when he saw what a big mistake that was. I guess he realizes he'll never win reelection. Fuck you, Hiram.
posted by fungible at 7:09 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


If your beef is with the hierarchy, then criticize the hierarchy, not the laity. The Church = ALL Catholics.

I don't think I've ever criticized religion on MetaFilter before.

But I am sick and tired of Catholics using this excuse. If you are FOR something that your church is emphatically AGAINST, then you are in the wrong damn church.
posted by desjardins at 7:15 PM on December 2, 2009 [19 favorites]


What would Jesus shove a sock into?
posted by jabo at 7:20 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Shove a sock in it, you hateful ignorant man.k

Whoa. Dude. He said hella times that he had no problem with individual catholics. The fact that he used "the church" incorrectly doesn't make him a "hateful ignorant man."

As someone who used to share your faith, I have to say that you sound a little sketchy when you point out that there's never been an ex cathedra pronouncement on gay marriage. That may be true, but the church's party line about homosexuality seems pretty clear. I left the church a while ago, so if I'm wrong about something here feel free to correct me. As far as I remember, the church says that homosexuals aren't evil because of their urges, but they commit mortal sin when they engage in gay sex.

I think that's bullshit theology and here's why. The church also teaches that fornication is a mortal sin. For a straight dude like me, this gives me an ability to engage in sex that won't condemn me to hell. However, for gay people there is no out. They are born into celibacy or a pattern of mortal sin. The way the church works right now condemns people for who they are as opposed to what they do, and because of that they drove me from their ranks with great abandon. I am beyond redemption, but the church could prevent others from taking my path if they would correct this truly stupid teaching.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 7:26 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


And based on that, you want to condemn the entire Church? Shove a sock in it, you hateful ignorant man.
posted by jock@law at 6:59 PM on December 2


Seeing as how the Catholic Church mostly spends money on a) covering up child rape, b) moving child rapists to new places so they have new children to rape and c) fighting against marriage equality for people who do not rape children, I can see how some us want to condemn the church.

If you think it's ignorant and hateful to be against an organization that facilitates and covers up child rape, yet condemns consensual adult homosexual pair bonds, that's fine, I guess.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:27 PM on December 2, 2009 [22 favorites]


Your comments are an ignorant spewage of hateful and intellectually lazy diarrhea. You have no knowledge of what you're talking about, and no appreciation for the nuances of internal politics of an organization more vast and more subtle than you could possibly comprehend. Do you know how many people a billion people is? Do you have any concept? Do you know what two millennia of tradition is like? Is it any wonder that the more rarefied levels of leadership are slow-moving? And based on that, you want to condemn the entire Church? Shove a sock in it, you hateful ignorant man.

Thank you, jock@law. I think the best response is to let your text stand. It is perfect in its own way, a perfect illustration. Anyone can examine my posts, and your characterization of them, and that's good enough for me. And your tone, is exactly you and what you stand for. Thanks again!
posted by VikingSword at 7:27 PM on December 2, 2009


btw, I am so proud of my Christian husband who is trying to talk sense into his fundamentalist friends.
posted by desjardins at 7:29 PM on December 2, 2009


[few comments removed - no more of this. Go to metatalk if you absolutely positively must be hateful on this site. Otherwise, just take a walk please, thank you.]
posted by jessamyn at 7:35 PM on December 2, 2009


Another possibility is an online ad or ads.

I'll bet you could get Google to cut you a deal.
posted by vibrotronica at 7:35 PM on December 2, 2009


I've been wrong before. I've been *convinced* of things that turned out to be untrue. I could be wrong now.
But an organization supposedly based on teachings of love and forgiveness and not judging and so forth can not be both sincere and as hateful as many churches [such as the RCC] are today.
This is real hate that hurts real people.
The behaviour does not follow the ostensible motivation.
Or maybe it's just a mystery more vast and more subtle than I could possibly comprehend
posted by Acari at 7:45 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


The fact that he used "the church" incorrectly doesn't make him a "hateful ignorant man."

Well, I'm not writing a legal opinion, or a scholarly essay - if I were, I'd be referencing, and annotating, and citing and qualifying. But I'm not. I'm posting on a website - and therefore I'm using shortcuts and colloquial speech to refer to concepts. There is nothing I did that actually is "incorrect" here - as long as I make my meaning clear. Which I did - abundantly. I did make a distinction - repeatedly - between lay Catholics and the hierarchy. "The Church" encompasses both - but in common usage, it is allowed to use it as referring to just the hierarchy. It's what analytical philosophers (and linguists) refer to as "common usage". To then play word games, and attack someone for using language in such a way - as long as there is no confusion, which in this case there wasn't - is a hallmark of dishonest debating techniques, techniques which people get past in the first week of debating classes. If someone uses such techniques, it says quite a bit about them, and as such it is valuable. Saves effort, I can rest my case merely by quoting my opponent.
posted by VikingSword at 7:49 PM on December 2, 2009


Viking, your argument is dishonest and you know it. Even IF you were talking about "the hierarchy" you're still being overbroad. The entire Episcopacy does NOT embrace the Vatican's position, and it's lazy and hurtful to claim or suggest that it does.
posted by jock@law at 8:00 PM on December 2, 2009


The entire Episcopacy does NOT embrace the Vatican's position, and it's lazy and hurtful to claim or suggest that it does.

No, this is just semantics. You're taking offense over nothing, and seemingly a lot of it.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:10 PM on December 2, 2009


The entire Episcopacy does NOT embrace the Vatican's position, and it's lazy and hurtful to claim or suggest that it does.

Fine. What do you think though? A reasonable non-catholic who hasn't been taught the nuances of the teachings could think that the church teaches that homosexuals aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Nobody is being an anti-catholic bigot by saying that they think the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong. That's a fair assessment of catholic dogma. And once you've accepted that, the parade of horribles follows.

Do you think it's ok to be gay? Do you think the state should recognize the committed relationships that gay Americans want to form? Can you explain why you hold the opinions that you do?

I don't mean to sound like I'm cross examining you, although I acknowledge that is how it sounds. I honestly want to know. Why do you continue to associate with this organization that denies human experience to a significant portion of the world's population?
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 8:13 PM on December 2, 2009


*raises hand*

I have a problem with individual Catholics.
posted by mediareport at 8:14 PM on December 2, 2009


Why do you continue to associate with this organization that denies human experience to a significant portion of the world's population?

This is pretty much what I want to know, too. If an organization is acting counter to your beliefs, you either seek to change the organization, or you leave it. You don't defend it.
posted by desjardins at 8:22 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Viking, your argument is dishonest and you know it. Even IF you were talking about "the hierarchy" you're still being overbroad. The entire Episcopacy does NOT embrace the Vatican's position, and it's lazy and hurtful to claim or suggest that it does.
posted by jock@law at 8:00 PM on December 2 [+] [!]


Why don't you just stop? 1. You've been hurtful enough today to get at least one comment removed in this thread. 2. Viking was more than clear enough in the comments you are attacking, and you either willfully mis-characterized what he was saying, or you're remarkably illiterate. 3. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaigning against gay marriage initiatives while at the same time shutting down services to people who actually need them (as I'm given to understand the Church did in Maine) for lack of funds is far, far more hurtful than what one dude on one website says. You've done this before, and it's getting old.
posted by Caduceus at 8:22 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


while at the same time shutting down services to people who actually need them (as I'm given to understand the Church did in Maine)

And has already threatened to do in DC.
posted by inigo2 at 8:34 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Pater Aletheias (and I think there is some correlation between doing your Greek homework and getting this Christianity thing right) said something very memorable, way back when.

The story of the temptations of Christ is a familiar one. After forty days and nights of fasting, the devil came to Jesus with three temptations. The first was to turn stones into bread, the second, to throw himself off the peak of the temple and have the angels catch him, the third, to have all the kingdoms of the world. We could summarize these as temptations be comfortable, to be impressive, and to be powerful. I am inclined to believe that those are also the three most common temptations of the church. Until recent years, the American church was offered each of those and gladly accepted them. Christianity was the default religion for the world’s greatest superpower—a position that should have made us tremble with concern that we were in danger of sliding off the path of self-denial that leads to the cross—but it seemed to occur to very few people that having such a position could be spiritually problematic. We built impressive structures, including dining facilities, recreation and entertainment centers. We turned praise and worship into a profit and star-making industry, and we gladly took our place in the halls of power. It seems that Satan offered us the same things he offered Christ, but we responded “Yes! Yes! Yes!” I doubt that the contemporary trends that are stripping away the power and prestige of the church are the work of the evil one—more likely it is the work of the Holy One, who is leading us step by step back to the paths of righteousness. [here]

So, by this view, it's not a matter of some finite number of preachers or diocese or whatever, but this whole commingling of civic destiny - a great and outer exercise, the polis and the res publica - with this inward road, the whole pilgrim circuit laid between Penn, Williams, Emerson, yellow bricks, etc, ending in an age of glittering televangelism. And in their most sober and sublime moments, both state and church have warned against what lies at the intersection.

We've seen some of it. Pat Robertson, wielding the tv antenna as a sort of church-state crosstalk. The modern pharaohs of the Church of Mormon, and this cult of shrink-wrapped material immortality. "The Family," whatever it's worth. The White Identity gangs, and their various counterparts and spin-offs, like the Black Hebrew Israelites. All permutations of causa nostra, Medicci, and medicine man, all somewhere on the Right.

It is easy to miss the other half. The progressive Left has not been too shy to lay foundations on religious populism, lay its weight on reverends and preachers, invoking in peace what can otherwise be invoked in war. And while I'm sure you all can separate the strains, the good fruits from the bad, I'm not sure we can separate the cause and effect. If it's not of the same tree, it's certainly of the same garden.

Should we even be invoking God when what we're making is America? Do you purchase a Letter from Birmingham Jail and a Mountaintop vision with a century of the 700 Club? Peace with holy war? I think it is a worthwhile but possibly useless question, in that a true answer won't necessarily alter what's to come.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:01 PM on December 2, 2009 [6 favorites]


Gay City News: "Albany Delivers Staggering, Bitter Defeat." Contains some additional details about why people voted the way they did and what went wrong with the whip count.
posted by gerryblog at 9:03 PM on December 2, 2009


You have no knowledge of what you're talking about, and no appreciation for the nuances of internal politics of an organization more vast and more subtle than you could possibly comprehend. Do you know how many people a billion people is? Do you have any concept? Do you know what two millennia of tradition is like? Is it any wonder that the more rarefied levels of leadership are slow-moving?
This doesn't read like a very good defense of the Vatican, honestly.
posted by verb at 9:12 PM on December 2, 2009


Seeing as how the Catholic Church mostly spends money on a) covering up child rape, b) moving child rapists to new places so they have new children to rape and c) fighting against marriage equality for people who do not rape children, I can see how some us want to condemn the church.

If you think it's ignorant and hateful to be against an organization that facilitates and covers up child rape, yet condemns consensual adult homosexual pair bonds, that's fine, I guess.


If only this could be favourited a million times.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:32 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Okay, not to derail this lovely discussion of religion, but I'm awfully curious about a couple of remarks Diaz is reported to have made:
## "...I don’t know anything anymore," Diaz Sr. added. "I don’t know what’s going on anymore. People give you word and then they go back on their word. There is no gentleman’s agreement anymore. Me, I give you my word and I don’t go back on it. Not anymore."

and
## Diaz: … "Better to keep your word than make other people look like the bad guy."
Sounds like he was expecting the vote to go the other way, and was feeling betrayed by specific people. Anyone know what the story behind that is?
posted by hattifattener at 9:44 PM on December 2, 2009


he's a fucking idiot?
posted by shmegegge at 9:50 PM on December 2, 2009


also, did you guys know that monserrate is getting sentenced for his domestic violence and assault charge in 2 days? that's right, on dec 4th, that criminal conviction he received that was mentioned upthread goes to sentencing.

how great would it be if the judge were gay? ah, dreams.
posted by shmegegge at 9:51 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


monserrate is getting sentenced for his domestic violence and assault charge in 2 days?

What is it with these homophobic extremists beating up the women in their lives?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:07 PM on December 2, 2009


it is with heavy heart that I favourite this thread, so that I can come back and depress/enrage myself further later. GAH.
posted by LMGM at 10:19 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


[That] the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong [is] a fair assessment of catholic dogma

That is false.

Do you think it's ok to be gay? Do you think the state should recognize the committed relationships that gay Americans want to form? Can you explain why you hold the opinions that you do?

Yes. Yes. Yes (and again).

No, this is just semantics. You're taking offense over nothing, and seemingly a lot of it.

Imputing the positions of a few to an entire religious tradition with over 1 billion adherents is not "nothing" and objecting to it is not "just semantics." There's some serious Catholic-hate going on in this thread and others, and it's just. not. okay.
posted by jock@law at 10:39 PM on December 2, 2009


The people on the religious right aren't like that becuase they're Christian, they are like that because THEY ARE ASSHOLES.


Just speaking of a few of the people on the religious right that I happen to be related to, they kind of are assholes in a few ways, but they firmly believe they're like that because they're Christian, full stop. And the type of Christian they are encourages that line of reasoning.

I'm not a LOLXTIAN type, because I know too much about it to be that way. But it's not a monolithic faith group, it just so happens that the squeakiest wheels aren't the ones most interested in peace on earth and good will toward their fellow Americans, in this time and in this place.

Please, Baby Jesus, my favorite of all the Jesuses, tell your friends to speak the hell up.
posted by padraigin at 10:51 PM on December 2, 2009


Imputing the positions of a few to an entire religious tradition with over 1 billion adherents is not "nothing" and objecting to it is not "just semantics." There's some serious Catholic-hate going on in this thread and others, and it's just. not. okay.

Your nuanced understanding of the church's teachings on homosexuality is rarely articulated in the public discourse. People who pay attention to current events usually get The Catholic League or some similarly ridiculous institution telling the world what catholics believe. There are huge numbers of catholics who go on the record to say that legal recognition of any sort of gay union is unacceptable in their eyes. This is an enormous problem because it effects how people vote. The catholic church (and I mean the head honchos here) has done absolutely nothing to convince its followers to accept gay folks.

It has a completely fucked theology with respect to how humans have sex, and it seems to have no qualms about imposing that theology on societies that may have significant populations that don't share their hang-ups.

I respect that you think gay people ought to have legal recognition of their relationships, but truth be told it's literally the least you can do. I still haven't heard from you how gay people can have sex without committing mortal sin, by the way.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 10:54 PM on December 2, 2009


Today I renew my call to have NYC secede from upstate and suburbia, in an informal fashion that does not involve Congress. Each half sends a senator. Espada, Montserrate, and co.'s districts are retroceded to Westchester County. Peace out.
posted by zvs at 11:07 PM on December 2, 2009


[That] the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong [is] a fair assessment of catholic dogma

That is false.


And that, sir, is blatant bullshit contradicted by even the most cursory view of church teachings on the subject. The Catholic Church hierarchy most definitely and clearly teaches that homosexual desires are sinful desires and it is a sin to behave as a homosexual.
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
...
The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
...
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
You may be embarrassed by the teachings of your own church, but lying about what it (i.e., the hierarchy) clearly teaches in order to avoid the issue is just evil. So is, by the way, playing shitty semantic games so you can weasel out of association with a church hierarchy that blatantly teaches bigotry.

So we can move on to what individuals believe and so forth, but don't for a second try to bullshit this forum into thinking that the approved Catholic Church doctrine isn't very clear about condemning homosexuality.
posted by darkstar at 11:14 PM on December 2, 2009 [8 favorites]


I still haven't heard from you how gay people can have sex without committing mortal sin

It's pretty tough to commit mortal sin. You commit mortal sin only when you do something with full knowledge that it is wrong and with intent to do it because it is wrong. Anonymous gay bathroom sex, Larry Craig style, born entirely out of lust and enjoyed because it's forbidden, fits that description pretty nicely. Loving, unitive sex within a committed relationship doesn't seem like it would. The Catholic model of sin doesn't turn on how badly other people judge you for what you did; it turns on how far you intentionally pushed God out of your life when you did it.
posted by jock@law at 11:15 PM on December 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


The Catholic model of sin doesn't turn on how badly other people judge you for what you did; it turns on how far you intentionally pushed God out of your life when you did it.

That's probably the best explanation I've ever heard, so cheers! I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say you beat the pants off my former pastor. I still think you give the church too much credit, but I also think that we might have come to some sort of mutual understanding here which is probably the best thing to come out of this legislative tragedy so far.

I want to reiterate that I don't think you're a bad guy, and I don't think that being a christian is a sufficient factor for being a homophobe. Nevertheless, I maintain that christian theology works demonstrable harm on the issue of gay rights. It is something to be overcome. I long for the day when churches can say that they oppose gay marriage and those that don't belong to those churches can shrug their shoulders and say "whatever."
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 11:24 PM on December 2, 2009


darkstar: Please reread what I posted. I said it is false that "the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong" is "a fair assessment of catholic dogma."

Dogma is a very specific word with a very specific meaning: "it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from." Only those articles of faith issued ex cathedra are dogma. Papal infallibility does not apply to statements not so issued. The Nicene Creed is dogma. The teachings on homosexuality are not. This is not a semantic game. The dogmas of the Church are what defines its core. They define what it means to be Catholic. Everything else is, at least theoretically, potentially revisable. The distinction between the teachings on homosexuality being dogma and being doctrine means that the teachings are permitted to be in flux. That's an important distinction for those of us Catholics who wish to see the teachings corrected.
posted by jock@law at 11:28 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


That's probably the best explanation I've ever heard, so cheers!

It's also an explanation that is entirely at odds with official church doctrine, which permits NO homosexual behavior under any circumstances.

But that's okay, as long as we all understand that individual Catholics can and do hold much more enlightened and compassionate views than their church's official position on the subject.
posted by darkstar at 11:28 PM on December 2, 2009


That's great, j@l. You well understood that the statement that was made was in the broader sense, used to refer to official church teaching. So you prevailed on the semantic argument to allow you the wiggle room to imply that because it wasn't "dogma" in the technical sense, that it wasn't church teaching. This is what people are on about when they're calling you out for playing the semantic games.

Just because the Pope hasn't made an "Ex Cathedra" statement on a subject doesn't mean that the Catholic Church doesn't hold to very specific doctrines on the subject. Of course, we all know they do. Which is the whole point.

And if I may say, the Ex Cathedra caveat is not really a defense. When the doctrinal tradition, and even the Catechism itself, is so clearly condemning homosexuality, it's hardly a place of retreat to note that the Pope hasn't issued any additional statements on the subject. This is a classic example of "he who remains silent, agrees".
posted by darkstar at 11:39 PM on December 2, 2009


darkstar: the quote he referenced was about the nature of sin and had nothing to do with homosexual behavior. any priest would tell you the same thing about the catholic conception of sin. it is impossible to commit mortal sin by some act if you do not believe that act to be wrong. this position is not at odds with church doctrine; in fact, it is exactly what church doctrine is.
posted by jock@law at 11:42 PM on December 2, 2009


It does seem to fall in that same category of commonplace sin as masturbation. I'm oblivious to all of the doctrinal nuance that comes with the different flavors of Christianity, but proceeding from the source scripture alone, it still looks like gay marriage is actually the solution to the Christian problem with homosexuality. If only someone like Robert Mitchum were around to sell it to them.
posted by kid ichorous at 11:43 PM on December 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


states rights. (just like canada's "activist judges". who do not simply "follow" law... but rather may strike DOWN laws as contradictory to what Canada is, which actually MAKES Canada what it is. (interesting read*)
as R v drybones, R v morgentaler (also*)


activist STATES can really show the rest of the country a message. or be racist and/or hateful.

that's the grand experiment idea I guess.

Balls in NY's court now.
posted by infinite intimation at 11:45 PM on December 2, 2009


Again, you're playing games, j@l. Here is the exact quote:
A reasonable non-catholic who hasn't been taught the nuances of the teachings could think that the church teaches that homosexuals aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Nobody is being an anti-catholic bigot by saying that they think the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong. That's a fair assessment of catholic dogma. And once you've accepted that, the parade of horribles follows.
Tracking back through the thread, it's clear that he's not limiting his comment in some strictly technical sense the way you describe. He was talking in the broader sense about how the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is wrong, explicitly as it manifests in the outworkings of civil rights, and how it is therefore easy for a reasonable non-Catholic to walk away with that impression.

Well, of course a non-Catholic would walk away with that impression, because it is EXPLICITLY what the Catholic Church teaches! And making that observation, to reiterate the conclusion of his statement, is not anti-Catholic bigotry. It's just simple observation of the clear statements made by the Church.
posted by darkstar at 11:56 PM on December 2, 2009


darkstar: it's not a semantic game. the difference between doctrine and dogma is analogous to the difference between a federal law and the constitution. these are very real differences! "illegal" is very different from "unconstitutional"! a church teaching that gay sex is wrong is very different from making adherence to that teaching a core article of faith! these are not semantic games, they are not technical arguments, they are very real distinctions with very real consequences for the future of the catholic church. i have explained this several times now, and im really starting to feel like youre being intentionally obtuse. doctrine changes. the teaching about 'limbo' comes to mind.
posted by jock@law at 12:00 AM on December 3, 2009


a church teaching that gay sex is wrong is very different from making adherence to that teaching a core article of faith! these are not semantic games, they are not technical arguments, they are very real distinctions with very real consequences for the future of the catholic church. i have explained this several times now, and im really starting to feel like youre being intentionally obtuse. doctrine changes. the teaching about 'limbo' comes to mind.

Oof. Ok, limbo is a pretty good example because it worked serious harm while it was church teaching. It emotionally devastated millions of parents, and then with a snap of the pope's fingers it was no longer the church's teaching. This is emotional abuse.

Again, the church can engage in this perverse game so long as it only applies to the emotions of those who are voluntarily within its authority. I will not accept it and will vehemently denounce it when it attempts to assert itself in my secular political process. I have no patience for a teaching that gay sex is wrong whether you call it a teaching or a dogma.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 12:10 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


j@l, nobody's buying the diversion.

The original comment WAS NOT restricting itself to Catholic terminology. It was using terms in their broadest sense, i.e, "what the church teaches". When you then come along and say "Oh, well, you know, we Catholics have all kinds of specific terminology that we use, which I will now overlay on your comment, so I can undermine and dismiss what you say" THAT is a semantic game. It's the very DEFINITION of a semantic game.

Q: What does the Catholic Church officially teach about homosexuality?

A: That it's wrong.

Q. Is it reasonable for a non-Catholic to get the impression that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is wrong?

A: Of course it is, because that's what they explicitly teach. Haven't you been listening?

There. I've stripped out words like "dogma" and "doctrine" that you're trying to use to parse and hairsplit away the relevance of the larger issue.

No one is suggesting that Catholics don't have very real, meaningful distinctions between the terms they use. But they are not relevant to the argument as it was made. You're trying to shoehorn the argument into precise Catholic terminology so you can then use the technical SEMANTIC distinctions between "doctrine" and "dogma" and dismiss the basic objection. That's a classic debating ploy, but it's grossly dishonest.

Now, I've explained this to you several times, to the point that I'm beginning to feel like you're being intentionally obtuse, etc., etc.
posted by darkstar at 12:11 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


Again, the church can engage in this perverse game so long as it only applies to the emotions of those who are voluntarily within its authority. I will not accept it and will vehemently denounce it when it attempts to assert itself in my secular political process. I have no patience for a teaching that gay sex is wrong whether you call it a teaching or a dogma.

I'll second this comment, heartily, DWNI.

And I'll just add, too, that the practical distinction between doctrine and dogma makes precious little difference to the rest of society when the Catholic Church puts the full force of its finances and influence behind legislation that undermines civil rights for gays. At that point, I frankly couldn't give a rat's ass how the church categorizes its teaching on homosexuality, because the effect on gay people is the same.
posted by darkstar at 12:18 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


darkstar: your arguments are dishonest. dogma is not "the terms they use." it's a word in english with a very precise meaning. and i wasnt the one trying to shoehorn anything into it. someone else used the word first and i objected. then you came along and started swearing at me for my objection. your behavior in this thread is dishonorable. i will not further engage you.
posted by jock@law at 12:21 AM on December 3, 2009


dogma is not "the terms they use." it's a word in english with a very precise meaning.

More bullshit.

"Dogma", as a word in English, contrary to your assertion, has a much broader set of connotations in common usage, of course. It's only in Catholic tradition that the semantic meaning is so precise.

Someone used the word upthread clearly intending the broader meaning of "authoritative teachings, doctrines, etc." in which case it was perfectly appropriate. Then you chose to play the semantic game of shoehorning it into the precise meaning that the Catholic Church uses, so you could handwave away the larger argument. I think it's pretty well demonstrated who's been dishonest and dishonorable, here.

But if you're going to claim the mantle of aggrieved victim just because I've called you on your bullshit, and that means you're finished with the dissembling, semantic games and revisionist misrepresentation of the thread, then good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
posted by darkstar at 12:29 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


dogma is not "the terms they use." it's a word in english with a very precise meaning. and i wasnt the one trying to shoehorn anything into it.

Oh for pete's sake. You have not once acknowledged that mainstream catholic teaching is that homosexuality (at least the "practice" of it, which is a horrific distinction) is wrong and yet you accuse darkstar of being dishonest? That's not fair.

Look, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're being slippery with what you believe. I realize that you place a great deal of value on the distinction between dogma and teaching and whatever, but non-catholics don't share that distinction. Really. We don't. We don't even though there's a dictionary definition of dogma that differs from teaching.

No catholic goes on TV and says the things you say. Or at least, they don't draw the distinctions you draw. It is completely reasonable to think that mainstream catholic teaching mandates that homosexuality is wrong because there is no readily accessible mainstream catholic authority that says otherwise.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 12:29 AM on December 3, 2009


Yeah, jock, what you seem to have demonstrated is that the Church is compatible with gay marriage on a "constitutional level," and that (running with the metaphor, here) actions of the Church on an inferior or local level could be brought in line with this by some appellate process. That in itself is hugely important, but advance the metaphor a step further...

Because the United States constitution is, by all appearances, compatible with gay marriage. And yet the issue continues to play out like localized whack-a-mole, or the slaying of the hydra, instead of some orderly, ascending class of appeals, all terminating neatly with the fall of a gavel. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

In other words, our constitution is sound, our law is (more or less?) sound, but our dysfunctions are local and real, and can't be abjured away by a gesture to central authority. If the analogy holds, what's true for the US could also be true for the Catholic Church.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:34 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


DWCNI: that's enough of the ad hominems out of you too. i havent been at all slippery with what i believe, and in fact in our mefi mail and in previous threads i have linked to here i have been quite clear. you're being disingenuous.
posted by jock@law at 12:39 AM on December 3, 2009


kid ichorous: i don't disagree. recursing back up out of this rabbit hole ... its extremely dysfunctional for states to be denying gay marriage and for diocesan organizations to be meddling in those politics, and just as dysfunctional for the church to fail in its pastoral care of gay persons. as i said before, i hope the catechistic teachings change soon and that more progressive views held by many of the clergy take firmer and wider hold.
posted by jock@law at 12:43 AM on December 3, 2009


Reading this thread is like watching jock@law argue that Scotland isn't a true Scotmsan.
posted by verb at 3:08 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


Looking for a fun (pro-gay) vacation this summer?

Boycotting that cabin in Maine?

The Gay White Way looking a little too homophobic right about now?


I know I'm coming at this a bit late, but it's worth noting that New Hampshire allows civil unions, and recently passed legislation to allow full gay marriage, also! That law goes into effect within a month! So consider spending your hard-earned vacation money in beautiful, sales-tax-free, gay-friendly New Hampshire! Where we put the "ampshir" in "Hampshire"!
posted by Greg Nog at 3:20 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


>And there are Scriptures that could be used to convince these senators to support gay marriage. If you wanna know about them

Uh.. have you.. read the Bible?


Yes, and I've found passages like this:

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" 1 Samuel 18:1

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." 2 Samuel 1:26


There is also evidence that the New Testament story about a Roman Centurion asking Jesus to heal his "favorite slave" is actually about a Roman Centurion asking Jesus to heal his boyfriend.


....Have YOU read the Bible?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:49 AM on December 3, 2009


...Have YOU read the Bible?
EmpressCallipygos, while I applaud those who try to extract a more compassionate faith from the subtext of Christian scripture, it's more than fair to say that the interpretations you cite are far outside the mainstream of Christian theology and thought. Cherry picking ambiguous statements like that is not likely to convince a conservative Christian that they should be cool with gay people: they will get angry and tell you that you are engaging in perverse distortions of Scripture.

A realistic and honest reading of Scripture has to balance ambiguous subtext ("Jonathan and David were good friends and they hugged and might have been gay, so God is cool with it") against very unambiguous calls to stone people to death if they are caught in a homosexual relationship. It has to balance suggestions that "the favorite slave" might have been a boyfriend against the fact that the primary shapers of early Christian theology explicitly said Gays would never enter heaven.

Christians who believe that God does not condemn homosexuals believe so in spite of centuries, even millennia, of Christian doctrine on the subject. They believe it in spite of unambiguous statements in Scripture on the topic. I commend them for their stance, but it's a mistake to pretend that anyone is going to prooftext James Dobson into the pro-gay-marriage fold. In all fairness, I am an ex-fundamentalist. I came to the conclusion that I was no longer a Christian, and abandoned some twenty odd years of belief, because I believed it was more honest and faithful than continuing to call myself a Christian while arguing against the defacto tenets of the faith.

Others may note that the Orthodox faith, or branches like the Anglican Church, take a different view and that my history inside fundamentalism may be distorting my understanding of what 'Christianity' is. This is true, and jock@law's insistence that Christianity is so big no one can be accused of anything is at some level a legitimate defense. But it is indisputable that the pro-GLBT voices inside of Christianity have a role somewhat similar to Climate change skeptics inside the scientific community. Honestly assessing the 'consensus' in Christianity, and the dominant interpretation of the Scriptures, leads one to the inescapable view that homosexuality is a sin. Lots of other things are, too, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is 'gay friendly.'

If there are kinder, gentler strains of the faith inside the broad community that makes up "The body of Christ", it will be some time before those are strong enough to influence public policy or broader culture in the same way that the pernicious and petty flavors do today. At one point, the Gnostics were considered part of the Christian church -- that is now a historical footnote, though, and only time will tell what flavor of today's Christianity will turn out to be more dominant.
posted by verb at 4:16 AM on December 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


Where I disagree with you, verb, is in the percentage of Christians who actually hew to the hard language you reference in the Bible.

There is no doubt that there is hard language in the Bible. Yes, there are passages that call for people to stone people in a same-sex relationship to death. However, there are also passages that call for the same punishment against adulterers, heretics, and disobediant sons. Yet, somehow, the majority of right-wing Christians manage to not stone their sons if they get uppity -- instead, they turn to other passages, such as the tale of the Prodigal Son, to find a reason to give the kid some slack and hope that the kid will straighten out eventually. I acknowledge that you come from a fundamentalist background -- yet, even funadmentalist Christians find ways to temper the hard language with mercy in several other instances. Same-sex relationships is not -- and should not be -- any exception.

Also, whether or not someone retorts that I would be "distorting scripture" entirely depends on an approach. One could make a very fair argument that the harsh language against homosexuality refers more specifically to homosexuality as a part of Church service, or against immoral, out-of-wedlock, "casual-sex", "one-night-stand" kinds of encounters, which the Bible also condemns in the case of heterosexual couples as well. In fact, the scholarly translations support this very argument. And, these passages I've cited do indeed support a close, loving bond between two men as much as it does between a man and woman -- so isn't it possible, Mr. Christian, that what the Bible was actually condemning was only homosexuality within a certain context as opposed to homosexuality across the board? Especially when considered in light of the celebration of the close bond between David and Jonathan?

And that is why Christians who believe God does not condemn homosexuals believes this. Yes, there are centuries of Christian doctrine shunning "homosexuality," but the definition of "homosexuality" has shifted over time. In fact, people have only thought of "homosexuality" to mean "all same-sex relationships" for a couple hundred years -- before that it was more strictly used to refer to "same-sex encounters that were really kinky -- but when it comes to the more vanilla stuff between two guys, we can't argue with that, we'll just look the other way".

If there are kinder, gentler strains of the faith inside the broad community that makes up "The body of Christ", it will be some time before those are strong enough to influence public policy or broader culture in the same way that the pernicious and petty flavors do today.

The pernicious and petty flavors are the minority. I agree with you, though, that the silent "compassionate majority" needs to get off its ass and do something -- however, the way to encourage them to do something is NOT by trashing their faith as a whole. THESE are the people to whom I wish to appeal with the Bible passages, in fact, not the hardline Christians you fear will take offense. But the mainstream Christians, the ones who don't really have any problem with gay people, wouldn't -- however, they WOULD take offense at someone trashing Christianity. It is to THESE people I want to appeal with the message of "here's something Christianity says about love between two men -- do you really want the Fred Phelps of the world to shout this kind of thing down?"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:38 AM on December 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


Regarding these verbal gymnastics to defend the Catholic Church's (and other Christian) views regarding the condemnation of homosexuality: let's see how far back my eyes can roll before they fall out my skull.
posted by grubi at 6:04 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Were you referring to me, grubi? Because I wasn't defending the condemnation of homosexuality, I was condeming a given interpretation of Scripture and pointing out that it is not the only interpretation Christians use.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:06 AM on December 3, 2009


I wish Metafilter was a congressional district.

Wait, I voted for that bill? I thought I was just bookmarking it ironically.
posted by rokusan at 6:27 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


I am pretty sure there is something about loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself being the greatest of all the commandments, but dont listen to me, I am a lapsed atheist/non practicing agnostic.
posted by shothotbot at 6:34 AM on December 3, 2009


Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
posted by prefpara at 6:39 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


I had heard of that, prefpara, but didn't really believe it until I saw the article you linked. Listen, I have a pretty simple view - I wholly reject Church leadership and teachings on the issue of homosexuality (as I reject semantics games about doctrine and dogma; the fact of the matter is that in words and actions, the RCC leadership is profoundly anti-gay), but I recognize that many individual Catholics are very nice people who do good things - I know some of them. On the other hand, many of those same Catholics have told me that it is common Catholic knowledge that "you cannot do evil in the name of good; it remains evil." With their actions in DC from that article, their lobbying against basic civil rights - the RCC is doing evil. Whether it comes from Magisterium, Bishops Conferences, individual Pastors or individual Catholics, I don't care. It is evil, it is wrong, it is immoral and unethical, and I condemn it. To me, it is a wholly unacceptable excuse for individual Catholics to say "But I am not personally anti-gay" while they continue to give money and allegiance to an organization that is doing evil. While instead they boycott retailers who acknowledge that other faiths celebrate important holidays in December, they do nothing about the deprivation of civil rights. In modern times, we typically do NOT accept membership in a group or following orders as a valid excuse for having done wrong actions, and I see NO REASON why that logic should not be applied to the Church and its members.
posted by bunnycup at 6:54 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


(By the way, I realize that there are other religious groups distinct from the Roman Catholic church involved here. I don't single them out because I believe they are the sole bad seeds, but because having attended a Catholic elementary school, Catholic high school and Jesuit law school, coming from an Irish Catholic family, and having sat through Mass every Sunday from infancy until graduating high school, I am significantly more informed about Catholic teachings than those of other faiths.)
posted by bunnycup at 6:58 AM on December 3, 2009


Well, actually, we did, back when we didn't worry what might offend the fringe. That's what this is. They've mainstreamed it, but this is really fringe politics. That's what the strategy against these guys really should be. They've already marginalized themselves politically, but they win on this issue alone.

And given "The Family" & Uganda, Pat Robertson's ties to blood diamonds, the Moonie Washington Times, it wouldn't be so hard, but center left, so-called mainstream lefties are gutless wonders, and the right are effective at positioning any one to the left of that so called gutless center as raving 60s radicals who don't bathe, want everyone to be vegans and live off the grid and are man hating castrators.

Jeez as much as I hate them, if I ever need to market something bogus, useless or even dangerous, I'm calling Roger Ailes, et al for pointers.
posted by xetere at 7:05 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Metatalk about raising donations...
posted by Theta States at 7:46 AM on December 3, 2009


I just sent an e-mail.

Dear Senator Duane:

I'm not one of your constituents, but I am a patriotic American who
cares about the future of our country, and I was watching during
yesterday's tragic vote on marriage equality. Senator, I was downright
appalled by the cowardly, craven and hateful behavior of your
so-called colleagues and friends. How they can greet you, look you in
the eye and still vote to deny your basic human rights is beyond my
comprehension. I know how hurt and betrayed you must feel, and that's
why I wanted to write you to remind you that one shameful vote is no
signal to abandon the battle for what is right, but instead a reminder
that we must all redouble our efforts to defeat the powers of
ignorance and bigotry and elevate our nation to the ideals of equality
held by our forefathers. My deepest sympathies and condolences, as
well as those of others all across America, are with you and Mr. Webre
at this exceedingly difficult time.

Sincerely,
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:52 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


I don't mean to offend anyone here - and if you'd rather stay in the U.S. and fight on, that's great, truly - but, if you're really sick of this hatred and you'd like to go somewhere that actually wants you, or if you just want to be legally married, consider coming to Canada.

We'd love to have you, you don't have to hide who you are or who you want to be with, and hopefully you'll be one more vote against Harper and the Conservatives - and Canada will tilt that much more towards progressive legislation, and provide that much more of an example to our southerly neighbour.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:54 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Imputing the positions of a few to an entire religious tradition with over 1 billion adherents is not "nothing" and objecting to it is not "just semantics." There's some serious Catholic-hate going on in this thread and others, and it's just. not. okay.
posted by jock@law


No. It's okay.

The Catholic Church is an organization, participation in said organization goes directly and monetarily towards denying the rights of people who live in the United States. If you considered yourself to be Catholic but not a member of the Catholic Church in some way, you'd have something. As it stands, it is perfectly reasonable and indeed sensible to hate an organization which spends large amounts of money to deny people their rights and freedoms. I have Catholic relatives who are incredibly kind and friendly people, I have not asked them their opinions on this matter because I don't want to hate them. I don't hate them, but I hate their Catholicism.

It's definitely okay.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:57 AM on December 3, 2009


A visibly distraught Senator Alesi casts his "no" vote. (via)
posted by gerryblog at 8:01 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


haveanicesummer: So bigotry against homosexuals is a problem, but bigotry against Catholics is okay?

No wonder we're having so much trouble winning the "yes" vote.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:05 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


haveanicesummer: So bigotry against homosexuals is a problem, but bigotry against Catholics is okay?

I know you knee-jerk to defend a Church that regards you as less than a full person, but there's a difference between "Your church is a horrible thing" and "I hate you for being Catholic."

Look at what haveanicesummer wrote:
I don't hate them, but I hate their Catholicism.
That isn't bigotry. That's loving the sinner and hating the sin, which is a sentiment that some guy who's really important to Christians advocated at some point. Shit, what was his name?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:09 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


When homosexuals start (successfully) advocating in huge numbers to deprive Catholics of their civil rights, I will equate "bigotry" against Catholics to bigotry against homosexuals.
posted by bunnycup at 8:13 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


So bigotry against homosexuals is a problem, but bigotry against Catholics is okay?

No wonder we're having so much trouble winning the "yes" vote.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:05 AM on December 3


Disagreeing with the teachings of Catholicism is bigotry now? Get a grip.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:13 AM on December 3, 2009


A visibly distraught Senator Alesi casts his "no" vote.

Christ, what an asshole coward.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:14 AM on December 3, 2009


I know you knee-jerk to defend a Church that regards you as less than a full person, but there's a difference between "Your church is a horrible thing" and "I hate you for being Catholic."

1. I'm not Catholic.

2. I'm not gay.

3. All the liberal Catholics I know have no problem with homosexuality.

4. All the liberal Catholics I know DO have a problem with people saying "Your church is a horrible thing."

5. Not all Christians think exactly the same thing.

6. Not all Christians think exactly the same thing.

7. Not all Christians think exactly the same thing.


...Yes, I know I said the last point three times, but this seems to be a point that consistently escapes you, so I'm hoping maybe repetition will get it to sink in.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:15 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'll be the bastard. I have love on my side.

I have this sneaking suspicion that that's not how LOVE works. Just a hunch.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:16 AM on December 3, 2009


i havent been at all slippery with what i believe, and in fact in our mefi mail and in previous threads i have linked to here i have been quite clear. you're being disingenuous.

in truth, dude, I'm having less and less ability to see your side in this particular thread. I know the lolxtians hate around here can get obnoxious, and I'm not a fan of it myself, but this isn't a case of that. to explain what I mean, here's the larger picture of the thread:

it's about the gay marriage vote in the NY Senate. the catholic church's representatives in NY actively lobbied against it. they did this because current catholic doctrine is anti-gay. someone points this out, but uses the term "dogma," which I must admit I did not know had as narrow a definition as it turns out to have. they specifically pointed out they're not talking about catholic people, and are talking about catholic officials. you then turned it into this moment of attacking 1 billion people falsely because dogma is papal dictate and this is just doctrine. when it's been pointed out to you that the comment in question was not specifically making that distinction, probably out of ignorance of the particular definition, you kept going at it.

the proper response in that case is not to keep going on about the difference. the proper response is to say "you know what, I thought he was talking specifically about capital D Dogma, which I thought needed addressing. if he's just talking about doctrine and modern catholic teaching, it's true that that's an issue, but I would like to remind everybody that it is open to change, and that I believe it will change. Many catholics feel like I do, please don't assume we're all gay hating child molesters or anything."

I don't think anyone could have reasonably argued with that (although mefites will often get unreasonable around topics like this, at least then you'd be in the clear). I'm still not sure why you didn't just take that tactic. you really did turn this into a bizarro semantic thing that went completely beside the point. I can sympathize with the frustration, certainly, but I hope you'll take it to heart when I tell you that - as an outside observor - I think your frustration took over more than your reason.
posted by shmegegge at 8:16 AM on December 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


Look, I'm an American, I know that in many, many profound ways America sucks. I know its leadership sucks. I know my country's moral compass is off. I know our foreign policy is insane. I know our domestic policy is embarrasing.

I also consider myself lucky to be an American sometimes. Occasionally we can really do something amazingly good. The whole theory behind how we do things is pretty darn decent. I don't have to worry about getting arrested for talking publicly about how I think America sucks, but all that is beside the point that I'm getting to, which is this, many Roman Catholics are in the same boat as many Americans. They know things are bad, that the direction is off. They also know that they are but a tiny cog in a giant wheel. They can push all they might and things will get better, but it may be a long time, or it might even be never, before they see change.

We can't just condemn those that keep trying to make a change from within, the ones that see that good things can be accomplished and hold out hope.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:18 AM on December 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


(points) Pollomacho just said everything I wanted to say way better than I could have said it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:21 AM on December 3, 2009


EmpressCallipygos: "1. I'm not Catholic.

2. I'm not gay.
"

I was about to say. wow, how did we go from being united in our hopes for this bill to attacking each other based on wild assumptions like this? my experiences reading EC on this site is that she just doesn't like people attacking the religious simply for having faith. you don't have to be Catholic to do that. and I certainly don't recall her ever talking about being gay. can we maybe slow ourselves a bit here, and take some deep breaths? I hate to be all deepak chopra here, and shit, but damn, people.
posted by shmegegge at 8:22 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


1. I'm not Catholic.

Didn't say you were. I said you knee-jerk top defend the Church.

2. I'm not gay.

You're a woman, though, and that's not something that the Church is terribly fond of.

3. All the liberal Catholics I know have no problem with homosexuality.

Good for them! The Church itself, however, condemns homosexuality, and liberal Catholics are generally out of step with the Church on issues like this. I'm not going to debate whether or not that makes them good Catholics, but I won't simply follow your pointing finger toward some less-objectionable people and forget that they're a small group within a larger malignancy.

4. All the liberal Catholics I know DO have a problem with people saying "Your church is a horrible thing."

I'm sure they do. I don't give half a fuck what people who give money to the Church think.

5. Not all Christians think exactly the same thing.

I'm not saying they do. Again, I am referring to the Catholic Church and not to those individuals who associate with it despite disagreeing with it on such fundamentally basic concepts of human decency as the matter at hand.

The Church is an organization of morality and belief- you don't join the Catholic Church for professional development, you don't join it for sports, you don't join it for the wine. You join it, like any religious organization, because you share the values and beliefs that it holds and promotes. The Church is also, as a whole, engaged worldwide in campaigns against the rights of GLBT folk and women. Were I a member of an organization which spent so much time and money committing such indecencies, you know what I'd do? I'd quit. I'd stop associating myself with it and stop giving it my money. Instead liberal Catholics just smile and say "Well, I disagree with them on that!" and keep the tithes flowing and keep putting their asses in the pews, and you continue to pretend as if the existence of some people who disagree with the Church's more horrifying beliefs yet continue to participate in it and contribute to it somehow redeems it and lifts it above reproach.

This is a fantasy in which I cannot and will not join you.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:25 AM on December 3, 2009 [10 favorites]


"We can't just condemn those that keep trying to make a change from within..."

Catholics for Marriage Equality. This group in the news: 1, 2, 3.
posted by bunnycup at 8:26 AM on December 3, 2009


Were I a member of an organization which spent so much time and money committing such indecencies, you know what I'd do? I'd quit. I'd stop associating myself with it and stop giving it my money.

Do you agree with every single last one of the policies of your country's government?

Do you pay taxes?

I'd wager that the answers to those questions are "No" and "yes." Why, then, do you give yourself a pass when it comes to "not associating with an organization to which you don't agree fully" but not give the religious a pass when it comes to their own faith?

I said you knee-jerk top defend the Church.

Only because I defend all groups who are unfairly being targeted by bigots.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:28 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Well, I do think it is fair to point out that paying taxes is mandatory, the failure to do so being subject to criminal prosecution, whereas church membership is voluntary.
posted by bunnycup at 8:29 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


When there are articles out there like this one I'm not sure what to make of this argument that not all Catholics think alike. As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church is pretty adamantly anti-gay. Now it's fine that some individual Catholics disagree and that this is allowable because it's doctrine and not dogma and all that, I'm not sure it's anything more than, "well, okay, you're not a horrible person."

I mean, many of the Catholics who disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings are still giving money to the Church, right? The one that spent huge amounts of money in Maine and California on taking away gay rights? And that likely financed (who knows, given how secretive NOM is about their finances) at least part of the $600k that was spent lobbying legislators in NY? And threatened to stop operating non-marriage-related public services in DC if DC's city council passed marriage equality legislation?

I don't feel like attacking individual Catholics. I do feel like calling out the Catholic Church. And people who defend the Catholic Church (regardless of whether or not they're Catholic): this is what you're defending. You're defending an organization that is actively spending money, time, resources, etc. to prevent my rights from being recognized.
posted by grae at 8:34 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'd wager that the answers to those questions are "No" and "yes." Why, then, do you give yourself a pass when it comes to "not associating with an organization to which you don't agree fully" but not give the religious a pass when it comes to their own faith?

There is no nation on earth whose policies I agree with, and the current alternative to paying taxes is to move to Somalia. There is a big goddamn difference between paying taxes to a government, which is mandatory, and belonging to an organization in which neither membership nor tithing is compulsory. Those liberal Catholics are free to go any time they want. The consequences of doing so are less severe by several orders of magnitude than those of refusing to pay taxes, and the comparison is not a good one in any way.

Only because I defend all groups who are unfairly being targeted by bigots.

I'm not a bigot. I loathe the Catholic Church because of its historical and present positions and practices. I do not hate it because I am ignorant of it; I hate it because I know enough about it to judge it. It makes me think less of someone to find that they are Catholic, but it's the same with finding out that they are fans of Twilight or Immanuel Kant. I certainly don't dehumanize them, and describing it as bigotry when it is in fact careful consideration of both their words and deeds is dishonest and emotionally manipulative.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:35 AM on December 3, 2009 [6 favorites]


The debate as to whether the Roman Catholic Church's position regarding homosexuality is dogma, doctrine, or something else is semantic quibbling.

The basic fact of the matter is the Roman Catholic Church's institutional organization in the United States has declared political opposition to same-sex partnerships as a matter of policy. So we are probably going to see more cases of RCC organizations sacrificing pastoral services while spending money to influence elections and lobby legislators in opposition to gay rights.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:36 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


It makes me think less of someone to find that they are Catholic, but it's the same with finding out that they are fans of Twilight or Immanuel Kant.

And you don't consider that bigotry? How is that different from saying "it makes me think less of someone to find out that they are gay"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:37 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Also I find it mildly hilarious, Empress, that you've found a way to paint one of the most powerful and wealthy and privileged organizations in the world- and one which has been for over a millenium- as a victim; this is a use of the language of power that mocks real victimization.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:38 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Do you agree with every single last one of the policies of your country's government?

Do you pay taxes?


If you don't pay taxes you go to jail. If you disassociate yourself with the Catholic Church you do not go to jail. This is frankly the worst argument you could have made.

Further, I sure hope you don't criticize other organizations based on their beliefs; by your logic, anyone who disagrees with Scientology's doctrine of killing or terrorizing subversive persons is a bigot. Anyone who disagrees with fundamentalist Muslims who suicide-bomb in crowded markets is a bigot. Calling the Church of Pastafarianism fake? Bigot. Disagreeing with the white supremacist theology of World Church of the creator? Bigot. Bigot bigot bigot. In your rush to defend the indefensible based on some pantheistic religion-is-always-good hope, you are saying that all ideas and all ideologies are equally valid, and that merely disagreeing with those ideologies is bigotry.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:39 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


And you don't consider that bigotry? How is that different from saying "it makes me think less of someone to find out that they are gay"?

Are you seriously suggesting that we should not alter our opinions of people based on what they believe? Do you really not think any less of me, given what you know about my disgust with religion? Do you really not think any less of people who hold beliefs and associate themselves with organizations that you find reprehensible?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:39 AM on December 3, 2009


I presume Pope Guilty wants Catholics and even (gasp) Twilight fans to have the same civil rights as the rest of us.

(Not intending to put words in anybody's mouth)
posted by bunnycup at 8:40 AM on December 3, 2009


bunnycup: "Well, I do think it is fair to point out that paying taxes is mandatory, the failure to do so being subject to criminal prosecution, whereas church membership is voluntary."

it is absolutely fair to point out. I think it's also fair to point out that, if you're a believer, failing to be a church member subjects you to eternal torment in hell.
posted by shmegegge at 8:40 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


PG, you're trying to reason someone out of an organization they were either 1) Born into or 2) Joined for emotional/spiritual fulfillment. Reason can't do that, I'm afraid.

Kudos for trying, however.
posted by Avenger at 8:42 AM on December 3, 2009


I presume Pope Guilty wants Catholics and even (gasp) Twilight fans to have the same civil rights as the rest of us.

Well, Catholics, anyway. ;)


it is absolutely fair to point out. I think it's also fair to point out that, if you're a believer, failing to be a church member subjects you to eternal torment in hell.

I dunno; whenever I argue about that these days, I am almost always assured that nobody really believes in hell anymore. Apparently the UU's swallowed up all the other churches.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:42 AM on December 3, 2009


PG, you're trying to reason someone out of an organization they were either 1) Born into or 2) Joined for emotional/spiritual fulfillment.

She's not Catholic.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:43 AM on December 3, 2009


Technically; one can receive last rights and be absolved of any sin. One is also free to not believe in hell, to think carefully about the matter and find moral reason to convert to another faith, and so forth.
posted by bunnycup at 8:43 AM on December 3, 2009


Only because I defend all groups who are unfairly being targeted by bigots.

Oh, come the fuck on. This isn't anti-Catholic bigotry; this is anti-Catholic Church -- the ORGANIZATION. An organization which routinely promotes doctrine that condemns homosexuals, helps spread AIDS worldwide through its campaign of lies, and covers up pedophilia by its clergy.

Don't even pull that "poor poor Catholics are being picked on by meany liberals" bullshit.
posted by grubi at 8:45 AM on December 3, 2009


How is that different from saying "it makes me think less of someone to find out that they are gay"?

Those are groups those people CHOSE to join. Being gay isn't a choice. So stop it.
posted by grubi at 8:47 AM on December 3, 2009


Pope Guilty: "I am almost always assured that nobody really believes in hell anymore."

as someone who is not catholic, but who comes from a very catholic family (one one side, anyway) let me assure you that people still believe in hell.

bunnycup: "one can receive last rights and be absolved of any sin."

it's not that simple. as shakespeare wrote: Words without thoughts never to heaven go. obviously shakespeare isn't catholic doctrine, but it's true that you can't just make lip service on your death bed and be off to heaven. further, the rights are no guarantee. you have to honestly repent. further, if you die suddenly of non-natural causes (such as getting hit by a bus) you don't get that sweet sweet get out of jail free card.
posted by shmegegge at 8:52 AM on December 3, 2009


bunnycup: One is also free to not believe in hell, to think carefully about the matter and find moral reason to convert to another faith, and so forth.

Neat, and for that matter, a homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

ALL PROBLEMS SOLVED
posted by shakespeherian at 8:53 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Man, I haven't been called a bigot... ever.

What is your solution Empress, though? How should I feel towards an organization that directly opposes the laws and rights which I believe are correct and just? Is your argument that I should love them anyways, as Jesus would? I am not religious, I am not required by my morality to suffer the hatred of others out of some misguided appropriation of "love thy neighbor." When I see that Catholics are good people, I do not hate them, but my hatred of Catholicism is well reasoned and for specific, clear, modern reasons. I also hate the Republican party but I don't try to deprive rights from the neighborhood teabaggers.
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:55 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Point of information: is there anyone who knows anyone whose exact position is: I would be all for gay rights, but unfortunately the bible ties my hands.
posted by shothotbot at 8:55 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Right.

Pope -- and you too, OC, even though this reiterates what I said to you in real life -- here is my total official point.

1. I do not believe the church is a victim in all of this. I only think that dismissing an entire group of people based on the fact that they belong to a given faith group is abhorrent.

2. I DO, however, support the criticism of a faith group's POWER STRUCTURE. Everything that you have pointed out in your attacks on the church should more accurately be directed towards attacking the church's POWER STRUCTURE. And a power structure is a thing created by men.

3. There are scores of Catholics who agree with the cosmology of the church -- but are working to change the power structure. I believe that in criticizing the church itself, instead of confining your remarks to its power structure, you run the risk of alienating potential allies, as well as running the risk of denigrating people outright.

4. This is not only true of Catholics, but of every other faith group that is out there.

5. I accept that it is impossible to escape from forming an opinion about other people based on what they believe -- but I also believe firmly in giving an individual the benefit of the doubt.

6. I believe that falling into the trap of "oh, you SAY you're a liberal, but you still belong to the church, so you must not reallY BE a liberal" is a sign that you are not paying attention to what this person is stating they believe, and you are instead falling back on some internal prejudices you may have.

7. I believe that you cannot truly claim that you "know what thus-and-such people believe" if you have a MONOLITHIC view of what they believe. Tossing off counter-arguments with "well, they pay money to that organization so they can't REALLY be liberal, can they?" is just another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, which is never attractive.

8. At the very least: I believe that the cause of LGBT rights is way too fucking important to risk pissing off potential allies because you're too busy stomping your little feeties about how "the church hates gays" to notice that there is an active Catholic organization fighting FOR LGBT rights. Continue to hate Catholicism if you want, but what's wrong with working WITH a Catholic group for the same cause you support?

I honestly don't give a toss what your individual opinion about a given group is. I am mainly objecting to the fact that you are spouting that opinion so loudly and vehemently that you are alienating the very people who have the best chance of helping this cause, and fucking DAMMIT this is too important a cause to let that happen.

And to answer one last question:

Do you really not think any less of me, given what you know about my disgust with religion?

My opinion of you is based entirely and solely on having witnessed your behavior. However, before witnessing your behavior, I gave you the chance to show me what your actions were rather than dismissing you before having even met you. Based on what you're stating, you wouldn't even give anyone that chance first, you just know they belong to a given classification and are judging them without having met and spoken with them. That, my friend, is pre-judging someone -- which is the very definition of prejudice.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:55 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


And I think with that, I'm done with this thread. Goodbye.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:57 AM on December 3, 2009


shmegegge, shakespeherian : I'm sorry my rather tongue-in-cheek tone didn't come through. As a repented "cradle Catholic" I am very attuned to the requirements (and limitations) of last rights.

I also don't think, though, that "Catholic who disagrees with a tenet of their faith converting" and "Homosexual nevertheless marrying the opposite sex" are coequal, but perhaps there is a tone I am missing as well.
posted by bunnycup at 8:57 AM on December 3, 2009


Only because I defend all groups who are unfairly being targeted by bigots.
posted by EmpressCallipygos


The keyword there is "unfairly." People define bigotry as you do, as an unfair attack on a person generally not because of what they believe or their actions, but because of who they are, what they look like, etc. Our problem with Catholicism does not fit this definition. Our problem is based on their actions and in some cases, what they believe. I would not target a Catholic in any way, I would not see a Catholic ten year old and hate them BECAUSE they are Catholic. Those are the actions of bigots, not a reasoned argument that belonging to and supporting an organization that itself is bigoted and damaging to our society is something that should be looked down upon, not held as a paragon of virtue.
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:05 AM on December 3, 2009


The problem here isn't taking issue with the Roman Catholic Church, it's the condemnation of people who are Catholics. If you "think less of someone to find out that they are Catholic" you are not distinguishing between the two. Perhaps Catholics continue to give money and remain in the church because they hope for change and they support the positive and good things that the Church does.

It does do some good things too you know.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:12 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


bunnycup: "I also don't think, though, that "Catholic who disagrees with a tenet of their faith converting" and "Homosexual nevertheless marrying the opposite sex" are coequal, but perhaps there is a tone I am missing as well."

I don't think they need to be equal, so much as they're close enough that it's not reasonable to ask someone to stop believing they'll go to hell if they abandon their faith. which is to say that, americans pay their taxes despite disagreeing with american policy. catholics keep their faith despite disagreeing with certain pieces of doctrine. and there IS room to disagree with doctrine on this issue. no mefites will be excommunicated for supporting gay rights.
posted by shmegegge at 9:13 AM on December 3, 2009


Perhaps Catholics continue to give money and remain in the church because they hope for change and they support the positive and good things that the Church does.

It does do some good things too you know.
posted by Pollomacho


Imagine you gave to a charity, say Doctors Without Borders. You've heard they do great work. Then you find out (on uhhh Givewell perhaps?), they've been spending a large amount of money on Anti-Vaccine propaganda, which you certainly disagree with.

Wouldn't you think about donating your money somewhere else?
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:18 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Always surprised more homosexuals don't move North to Canada. Though, I suppose immigrating is a giant pain in the ass, and you really shouldn't have to. America, stop being so fucking lame. This thread is kind of depressing.
posted by chunking express at 9:20 AM on December 3, 2009


That's some pretty serious denial you guys are living in, is all I gotta say.

It's 2009 and they are living in log cabins. What do you expect?
posted by chunking express at 9:21 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think that if one DOES disagree with a voluntary group of which one is a member, leaving that group is a valid option. Remember, my comment addressed the recourse available for those who already disagree - the Catholics who oppose their church's stance on homosexuality.
posted by bunnycup at 9:23 AM on December 3, 2009


It's 2009 and they are living in log cabins. What do you expect?
posted by chunking express


I heard a Log Cabin Republican explain that gay rights were important to him, just not as important as economic issues.

"I have a dream! Tax cuts for the rich, and oh, if you get to it, some civil rights would be okay too. No? Oh well. I did get a nice refund check. It's cool."
posted by haveanicesummer at 9:24 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


Leading Catholic Cardinal: Gays 'Will Never Enter Heaven'.
posted by ericb at 9:34 AM on December 3, 2009


Virginia and Maryland Governors Blast Catholic Church for Marriage Equality Threat.
posted by ericb at 9:34 AM on December 3, 2009


From ericb's link, just above: "[Homosexuals] must be welcomed with respect and sensitivity, and 'every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.'"

How does the avoidance of unjust discrimination comport with the denial of civil rights? Oh wait, I remember, the denial of civil rights is not unjust discrimination. It's entirely appropriate discrimination.

/sigh
posted by bunnycup at 9:38 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


bunnycup: "Remember, my comment addressed the recourse available for those who already disagree - the Catholics who oppose their church's stance on homosexuality."

yup, that's true. so let me clarify: I agree with that. I just think it's also okay to remain a catholic and hope for change that will likely come, even if it's very late. clearly not everyone here is all anti-catholic no matter what. I simply think that some mefites have good reason to say "it's still okay to be catholic, and please don't hate catholics for belonging to a church they believe in even when they disagree with some of its doctrine." it's also okay to criticize that organization, obviously.
posted by shmegegge at 9:49 AM on December 3, 2009


I just think it's also okay to remain a catholic and hope for change that will likely come, even if it's very late.

I generally agree with that, and I have family members I respect who do so. That is also why I posted to links of a Catholic pro-marriage equality activist group (somewhere in the shuffle upthread) and some of their recent activity, and I hope to encourage my many Catholic family members to consider them. I further agree with comments above, I believe from EmpressCallipygos, stating that far more good is likely to be achieved from a position that is outwardly respectful. If there is one thing to be learned, it's that the language of respect (i.e. the "unjust discrimination" quote) is very useful, even if dishonest, for persuasion.

I realize I may seem to be wobbling back and forth between many viewpoints on this issue, but I come at it from a lot of different angles. There's what I believe is right, what I actually think about people who oppose gay marriage rights, what is expedient, and more.
posted by bunnycup at 9:57 AM on December 3, 2009


bunnycup: "I realize I may seem to be wobbling back and forth between many viewpoints on this issue,"

ha. to my mind that's just being honest and open minded. no worries.
posted by shmegegge at 9:59 AM on December 3, 2009


I know I'm late here, but I thought I'd weigh in from the perspective of a Christian who both takes the Bible seriously and believes in gay rights:

-Unlike other sins, Homosexuality doesn't seem to be intrinsically destructive to anybody. Most 'sins' that the Bible calls out (lying, hatred, adultry, etc), are clearly and self-evidently hurtful, and destructive to other people as well as to the individul committing those acts. The sins that seem to particularly work God up are those that cause injustice, and I can't see any injustice being done by two consenting adults loving each other.

-Homosexuals are clearly mistreated and discriminated against in our society, especially by "religious" people. Reading how Jesus interacted with those perceived as sexual sinners in his day, its pretty clear to me that today He would be on the side of homosexuals vs intolerant, hypocritical, holier-than-thou religious people.

-I believe that homosexulity was much more normative and accepted in Roman culture than it is today. The strong words that the New Testament has about homosexulity were critiques of the occupying imperialist culture. Lifting what is said about those in power and applying it in a completely different context to an oppressed minority is not something to be done lightly.

-As far as establishing laws, America is not a theocracy, nor should it be. Pater Aletheias, has spoken quite eloquently on this before. The church was not meant to ever be in political power.

In the end, I'm still torn as to whether or not homosexulity is wrong in Gods eyes. I don't know, and frankly, I don't really care. I know that I am very far from perfect, and its not my job to speculate on what other people should or shouldn't be doing (planks and specks and all that). Thats between them and God. Maybe thats evasive or wishy washy of me, but that's where I'm at.

On the other hand, I am certain that it is my job, and the job of the church to defend the rights of the oppressed. And on this, we have done a pretty shitty job.
posted by jpdoane at 10:22 AM on December 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


EC: 3. There are scores of Catholics who agree with the cosmology of the church -- but are working to change the power structure. I believe that in criticizing the church itself, instead of confining your remarks to its power structure, you run the risk of alienating potential allies, as well as running the risk of denigrating people outright.

4. This is not only true of Catholics, but of every other faith group that is out there.


I'm reminded in this discussion of Al Franken's words in regards to loving America:
Franken: You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow.
Religious reformers, or reformers of any stripe are open and accepting of honest and well-intended criticism. Owning up to those flaws is an essential part of helping the organiztion grow and change. Reformers understand the ways in which the organizations they try to change have caused or are causing serious harm, and don't begrudge others well-justified anger and frustration.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


because you're too busy stomping your little feeties about how "the church hates gays"...

Yes, because painting our legitimate objections to Catholic Church orthodoxy as it is manifested in public policy as an infantilized temper tantrum is exactly the way to respect and influence us, too.

We're talking about policy issues and politics here. A few in the thread have done their best to re-frame it as "LOLXTIANism" or "liberal Christian hate". But I'm not having that. I don't hate Christians. Most of my friends and family are Christians. And many of them are pro-gay-rights, for which I'm grateful.

It's something else, entirely, to point out the very real bigotry and damaging political influence of the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church or the fundamentalist Evangelical movement when it comes to oppressing gay people.
posted by darkstar at 10:41 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Sorry to double post as I just put this on MetaTalk thread, but NJ is going to take up a gay marriage bill next week.
posted by bearwife at 11:24 AM on December 3, 2009


I consider it bigotry that Pope Guilty would think less of my mom for being Catholic. She's one of the greatest people alive and has a secret pie crust recipe that is simply breathtaking.

And she has a gay brother and a queer daughter and would sooner poke her eye out with a rusty nail than say either of them couldn't get married.

So, yeah, it bugs me to see people discriminate against any one for any reason. I know some pretty freaking awesome people and to see "I would think less of someone for ______" makes me sad because, damn, you're lowering your opinion of some pretty awesome people you haven't even met yet. It's better to wait until someone is ACTUALLY an asshole before lowering your opinions.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 12:33 PM on December 3, 2009


Must have been hurt by Duane's taunts.

I've heard enough legislators have switched to kill NJ's bill, but here's hoping.
posted by gerryblog at 12:49 PM on December 3, 2009


Here's the thing, I can appreciate EmpressCallipygos' point about doing what's effective rather than what feels good. It's a smart way to approach things, much as I often fall on the "feels good" side of things I really do support the "be effective" side and try to go that direction.

But a few points.

Firstly, I think it's preposterous to object to a wailing and gnashing of teeth here only moments after the bill failed. I think outcry against those who brought about the defeat of equal rights is inevitable, and understandable. This site is not a propaganda outlet aimed at getting the enemy to become our friends and vote our way, or at least to stay home and not vote. Most people here are firmly on the side of what's right, and I think it isn't unreasonable to see this place as, among other things, a place to vent the rage and frustration we must feel at being, yet again, defeated.

Chastising people for verbally lashing out here at the groups who brought about this most recent evil seems counterproductive.

More important, I think it is more than somewhat disingenuous to claim that there exists a silent majority of Christians who really and honestly do support gay rights.

I'll begin by defining a few terms so as to ward off jock@law and his semantic games. When I talk about "sects" or "Churches", I'm talking about the leadership, the people in charge. If I want to talk about the average believer I'll use the term "Christians", or "the average believer", or "individual Christians", or other similar terms.

Virtually all sects of Christianity are characterized by moderate to extreme homophobia and, regardless of degree of homophobia, a deep seated opposition to same sex marriage. There are some, few, sects that aren't officially homophobic or opposed to same sex marriage, I do not deny this but I think there's no denying that they represent a very small percentage of sects.

As far as individual Christians go, I also think EmpressCallipygos has it wrong. If most Christians supported same sex marriage we'd wouldn't be having this conversation because all the bills outlawing it would have failed, and all the bills allowing it would have passed. Christians account for 76% of the US population if they wanted it we'd have it.

Therefore, self-evidently, a majority of Christians do not support equal rights for homosexuals, and I think it's a dangerous act of self deception to pretend otherwise.

I can appreciate that liberal Christians would like to imagine that they are not a minority, and that the majority of their coreligionists can't look at the same Bible and draw such radically different conclusions. But that's reality. Christianity is overwhelmingly anti-equality.

I agree that attacking Christianity qua Christianity is not an approach likely to gain many converts to the cause of righteousness. But I really don't think religious appeals will do much good. People don't change their minds because of scripture, they pick and choose scripture that suits what they've already decided; any scriptural counterclaims are dismissed as misinterpretation.

If EmpressCallipygos wants to try the scriptural argument method on her wrong thinking coreligionists I certainly won't say she's a bad person for doing so, but I will say I think she's going to be beating her head against a wall. They didn't decide to hate homosexuals because the Bible told them to, so a cherrypicking reading of the very few passages that can, with extreme mental gymnastics, be taken to imply that homosexuals aren't so bad won't change any minds.

I do think that we need to recognize that yes, Christianity is the enemy; that's not pleasant to our liberal Christian friends and allies, but it is the truth. More than any other force Christianity has been the force that has defeated equal rights.

However, I don't say that in the sense of "Christianity is the enemy and therefore we should demonize it and antagonize individual Christians", but rather in the sense of "Christianity is the enemy and therefore it is to Christians that we need to direct our resources and propaganda". And also, it is Christian groups that we most need to be cautious and suspicious of, becuase it is Christian groups that have been most instrumental in getting the evil laws passed and defeating the good laws.

Perhaps we can make use of the sectarian infighting and mistrust in the Christian community? By painting opposition to gay marriage as a Catholic activity to Protestants and a Protestant activity to Catholics we may be able to demoralize our enemies and discourage them from voting, not out of a love of equality or justice, but out of a desire not to be associated with the other people's cause. I know that the vast majority of Southern Baptists in my area are of the opinion that Catholics aren't Christian, surely we can make use of such infighting in the ranks of our enemies somehow.

I do agree that overt anti-Christian attacks won't win us any friends or, more important, converts. I don't agree that it is even POSSIBLE to win converts from the ranks of Christendom. Those few liberal Christians, those who already agree with us, are all we're likely to see in the short term. In the long term, both Christianity and homophobia are in the decline, but I'd rather see victory soon, not after all the evil bigots have died.

I also agree that attacking Christianity, essentially agreeing with the majority of Christians who like to see equal rights as a cause of Christians vs. Heathens, is playing right into their hands.

But we must recognize that our enemy is Christianity, that it is Christians who are the majority of our opponents, or else we can't effectively combat them.
posted by sotonohito at 12:56 PM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


grapefruitmoon I see your point, but surely you can see that a person who gives money to the forces of evil has a strike against them? Especially if all we know from the onset is that she is a member of the Church, and most likely gives them money?

If your mom is a Catholic who puts a note saying "I won't be tithing until the Church reverses it's position on equal rights for homosexuals" in the collection plate every week then I'm in complete agreement that she's a stellar person.

But if she thinks "I don't like the position of the Church, but I'm going to support them financially anyway", I think she is part of the problem as much as she might not want to be.

The Roman Catholic Church is a self selecting top-down authoritarian structure with absolutely no method for the individual believers to have any say whatsoever in official Church policy. The only voice individual Catholics have is their economic contribution, or lack thereof, to surrender that voice seems to me to be a tacit agreement with Church policy.

I have Catholic friends, they don't put any money in the plate, and in large part that's why I'm still friends with them. I don't think I could be friends with a person who gave money to the Roman Catholic Church anymore than I could be friends with someone who gave money the KKK. Even if, in both instances they completely disagreed with Church/KKK policy, economically supporting an evil organization is not something you can do and stay my friend. No matter how great your pie crust is.

And perhaps that's a point we need to be driving home to otherwise good people who nevertheless continue to support evil organizations. Probably not with a KKK comparison, that'd doubtless drive them away really quick.

Maybe printing up a bunch of "I cannot contribute any money until the Church changes it's position on equal rights for homosexuals" check lookalikes and explaining to our Christian friends and family why we would like them to put those in instead of cash would be an effective strategy? What do you think?
posted by sotonohito at 1:06 PM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Last night: Hundreds of New Yorkers rally in Times Square for marriage equality. "There’s another rally scheduled for 6:00 p.m. tonight in Union Square in New York. "
posted by ericb at 1:08 PM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


I ♥ NY (NO HOMO).
posted by ericb at 1:11 PM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


sotonohito: "I see your point, but surely you can see that a person who gives money to the forces of evil has a strike against them?"

oof, that is one loaded ass statement. I mean, surely you see how framing what otherwise seems like a reasonable question that way causes problems, yes? the forces of evil?

I mean, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that grapefruitmoon's mom doesn't see the RCC as the forces of evil. what's more, I'm inclined to think that she can reasonably hold that belief, and isn't just terribly deluded about the Pope's wicked muahahaha agenda.
posted by shmegegge at 1:14 PM on December 3, 2009


Hundreds of New Yorkers rally in Times Square for marriage equality.
posted by gerryblog at 1:20 PM on December 3, 2009


Oh, ericb, you beat me.
posted by gerryblog at 1:21 PM on December 3, 2009


Oh, ericb, you beat me.

I'm really not into S&M. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by ericb at 1:24 PM on December 3, 2009


This basically sums it all up. I defy anyone to read that and find an intelligent statement in one of the red boxes.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 1:28 PM on December 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


I think most of those pink boxes can be summed up as "I am scared of and/or dislike things (people) that are DIFFERENT from me." We tell little kids that's not okay, and most of them seem to learn it pretty well (at least the ones I know). It's a shame we forget when we grow up.
posted by bunnycup at 1:34 PM on December 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


but surely you can see that a person who gives money to the forces of evil has a strike against them? Especially if all we know from the onset is that she is a member of the Church, and most likely gives them money?

I only count it as a strike against someone to participate in something with the intent of causing harm. Up until that point, they're behaving in a way that THEY THINK IS BEST whether or not I personally agree with it.

Someone else would be twisting this the other way "How can she support teh evil gays?!"

So, no, I can't come out against someone for doing something I don't agree with until they start actively acting out of malice. Like, oh, Prop 8. Yeah, I can get down with that being evil. Donating to church organizations with the intent of supporting anti-gay legistlation: evil. Tithing: acting in accordance with your religious beliefs with benign intent.

Note: I don't know if my mom tithes or not, that's kind of none of my business. I know that she volunteers time at a food bank, sends money to Catholic charities involved in elder care in Ecuador (she's "adopted" an 83 year old Ecuadorian woman), and participates in the local nursing home's "Secret Santa" program. I've had words with her about giving money to the church due to their issues with safer-sex & AIDS and doing harm, and she agrees that it's a way tricky issue, but believes that the church is doing good in other areas. So, we disagree, whatever.

The Church is doing things OTHER than just standing around saying "WE HATE GAYS!" so, yes, some Catholics are doing that, but not all, and it's not the only thing that the Church does, so no, I don't think that someone who tithes into the Catholic Church is doing anything evil, unless their check has "I HATE GAYS" in the note section.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:35 PM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Dangit, now, this whole thing has gone and acidified my digestive juices. I really like being a laid-back, easy going, low maintenance kind of fag. I don't do drama and generally manage to get along with most everybody. I roll easy with evangelicals, atheists, Muslims and all manner of heathens and respect their right to exercise their religions and usually keep my mouth shut about any disagreements I have with them in day-to-day life.

But I swear, this whole "gays don't deserve the right to get married" thing - and all the twisted rationalizations for it - just gets my blood boiling.

If I've been intemperate or mean on this subject, I claim the frailties of humanity when overcome by an impassioned sense of justice.
posted by darkstar at 1:57 PM on December 3, 2009


"Some of my best friends are gay Catholic."*
posted by ericb at 2:10 PM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Marriage is gay.



This was my (home-made) bumper sticker during all the hoopla out here in Oregon. Also coincided with a spike in the use of the word "gay" as a synonym for "lame" or "stupid" by, seemingly, everyone under 30 years old (That REALLY annoyed me, not that they were under 30, just the insensitivity.). So, I was attempting to take that phrase (X is so gay) and the marriage equality debate, turn it on its head, chop it up, mix it around and WAh-LAh! A cross-demographical army of banner-waving, t-shirt wearing, "Marriage is gay" chanting ....

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I suppose, my irreverent creativity and desire to make a difference was easily out-paced by my apathy and lack of ambition. So, the home-made bumper sticker was as far as I got. I also didn't get the reaction I wanted. I imagined the t-shirt being worn by a hip, skinny jeans-wearing twenty-something; simple font, all caps or no caps. On the back of a dirty 4WD truck, driven by a middle-aged, married (20 yrs), un-hip white guy, I think my message was interpreted as the angry rant of a divorced homo-phobe.

Anyway, if anybody out there is in the middle of this BS and wants to use it... I would love to see a giant "Marriage is Gay" banner on the news at a rally somewhere.
posted by secondhand at 2:34 PM on December 3, 2009


shmegegge wrote II mean, surely you see how framing what otherwise seems like a reasonable question that way causes problems, yes? the forces of evil?

If I were propagandizing someone I would certainly avoid that term, and other accurate but discomforting terms, unless (very unlikely) I thought it would help me persuade them. Since here I'm talking to people who are in agreement with equal rights and are debating tactics I assume that accurate if discomforting language is more appropriate.

As far as the term itself goes, I think it's perfectly accurate, and that it's necessary for us on the side of good to acknowledge that reality.

The actions of the Church in their fight against equality, their work to encourage the spread of AIDS, etc are so heinous from my point of view that no amount of good they do simultaneously with those evil acts can make the Church less a force of evil. If they were to give up their evil ways and do nothing but soup kitchens, and adopt an elderly person, and all the other good things they do I'd say the were no longer a force of evil.

To make a crude analogy: "Yes, Bob is a serial killer, but he also helps homeless puppies, so he isn't really evil, right?"

No, Bob is evil because being a serial killer is so bad that no amount of helping puppies can offset that evil. Only by ending his career as a serial killer, and by trying to make amends for his actions as a serial killer, can Bob stop being evil.

Same with the Church. The instant they stop their fight against equality, their desire to spread AIDS, etc and begin working to make amends for those evil actions, then and only then will they stop being a force for evil. Until that point no amount of soup kitchens, adoption programs, etc can change the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a force of evil.

grapefruitmoon wrote I only count it as a strike against someone to participate in something with the intent of causing harm.

I'm afraid I must disagree. At best a person who gives money to an evil organization, without the intent of doing evil herself, is a dupe. A dupe is, of course, not even on the same level of bad as an active supporter of evil, but a dupe is still a dupe.

Someone else would be twisting this the other way "How can she support teh evil gays?!"

I'm sure they do, and I think the issue is how one defines evil. No one [1], not even Joseph Ratzinger, deliberately sets out to do evil. I'm sure that Ratzinger considers his actions to be a noble struggle for good. Which is part of what makes this whole debate so heated. I don't think any of the evil bigots who voted against equality considers themselves to be evil, they likely see themselves as valiant defenders of civilization struggling mightily against the evil commiefaggot Hippies who would doom us all.

Obviously I disagree with their view of who is good and who is evil, and they with mine, and thus not only the conflict but the heated emotions involved in the conflict.

The Church is doing things OTHER than just standing around saying "WE HATE GAYS!" so, yes, some Catholics are doing that, but not all, and it's not the only thing that the Church does, so no, I don't think that someone who tithes into the Catholic Church is doing anything evil, unless their check has "I HATE GAYS" in the note section.

As I said above, in my reply to shmegegge, it is my consideration that the evil the Church is engaging in is sufficiently heinous that their good programs can't balance it out.

A person donating to the overall organization, that is putting money in the basket on Sunday morning, is supporting evil. Whether or not that's their intent only determines if the person is evil themselves, or merely a dupe. In no event is such tithing an indicator of virtue, or even an ethically neutral act. At best they merely have not thought through the implications of their actions.

A person who donates to a specific subset of the Church, as in your example with the adopt an elderly program, is not acting as I would prefer, but I won't argue that they are either dupes or evil for doing so.

As I said, I think we must defund the Church [2], and I think the only way to do that is to persuade Catholics to stop giving the Church money. That's what I meant in my first comment here when I said that we must remember that it is Christianity (leaving aside the very few goodly sects) that is the enemy, and that we must therefore focus our persuasive efforts on individual Christians of good will, and on demoralizing the Christians of ill intent.

For myself, I don't think I can do anything but view a tithing Catholic, or Mormon, or [insert any anti-equality sect here] as being less good, less honorable, less virtuous, than a non-tithing person, or a tithing member of one of the few good sects. Such a person may be of good intent, but they have damaged their integrity by their support of an evil organization.

Which doesn't mean I'd spit on your mom, but I'm afraid it does mean that if she does donate money directly to the Church, I must think less of her than I otherwise would.

[1] Leaving aside seriously mentally damaged people.

[2] And other evil Christian organizations, it isn't my intent to turn this into a specifically anti-Catholic message.
posted by sotonohito at 2:52 PM on December 3, 2009


As a Connecticut resident who chose to marry in New York City Hall last year, the attraction of the New York I thought I knew and admired has just taken a major dive.
Sorry to anyone who is a victim of this nonsense.
posted by duncan42 at 3:23 PM on December 3, 2009


[comments removed - metatalk is your option.]
posted by jessamyn at 3:35 PM on December 3, 2009


New Yorkers Rally for Marriage Equality in Union Square.
posted by ericb at 9:05 PM on December 3, 2009


I imagined the t-shirt being worn by a hip, skinny jeans-wearing twenty-something; simple font, all caps or no caps. On the back of a dirty 4WD truck, driven by a middle-aged, married (20 yrs), un-hip white guy, I think my message was interpreted as the angry rant of a divorced homo-phobe.

Let's fight stereotyping with stereotyping!

Who cares if he's white? Are white people more likely to be homophobic than black people? That's news to me.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:20 AM on December 4, 2009


Monserrate sentenced to probation for assault on girlfriend. Girlfriend pleads for lifting of order of protection and talks about their marriage plans.

At least they can get married.

Too bad he has another year in office. He was up for spending that year in jail.
posted by cmgonzalez at 1:16 PM on December 4, 2009


Jon Stewart on New York's Marriage Equality Disappointment.
posted by ericb at 4:40 PM on December 4, 2009


NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn on Same-Sex Marriage Vote
posted by prefpara at 5:19 PM on December 4, 2009


secondhand, your t-shirt is for sale.
posted by koselig at 2:11 AM on December 5, 2009


« Older Izza Kizza - I'm The Izza Kizza (lyrics nsfw) by Y...  |  Metafilter knows that texting ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments