stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


BREAKING NEWS: NY Voters Favor Gay Marriage By ‘Significant Margin’

by David Badash on April 20, 2009

in Legislation,Marriage,Politics

Post image for BREAKING NEWS: NY Voters Favor Gay Marriage By ‘Significant Margin’

Just Released Poll Finds 53% To 39% Approve Of Bill Currently In State Senate

 

 

A  state-wide poll found strong support for the marriage bill presented by Governor Paterson last week. Perhaps most surprising was the 50% to 40% margin of upstate voters who are in favor of the gay mariage bill. Those opposed were “males, blacks, Protestants and those over age 55. Republicans, by a 59 to 31 percent margin, were most opposed among the various subgroups…” according to The Buffalo News.

Last Thursday, surrounded by state and community leaders, Governor Paterson announced he would introduce the exact same gay marriage bill his predecessor had two years ago. The bill had passed the New York Assembly by a surprisingly wide margin, 85 – 61, in large part thanks to Assemblymember Daniel J. O’Donnell, who spoke at last week’s press conference, saying, “Someday soon, after 28 years of being engaged, I’m going to actually be allowed to be married.

The Governor has received some criticism from state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as cautious concern from some gay-rights leaders who voiced concern that there were not enough votes to pass the bill. But speaking to their comments, the governor said “Silence should not be a response to injustice, and that if we take no action we will surely lose, maybe we’ve already lost.”

But even before results of the poll were released, opinions seem to have been rapidly moving in the governors direction. Last Tuesday, in advance of Thursday’s official announcement of the bill, the New York Times reported:

“This is not a guarantee of anything,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat from the Upper East Side who noted that it took two months for legislation legalizing same-sex marriage to get through the Assembly in 2007 before it ultimately stalled. The Senate never acted on the bill.”

But the following day, The Times reported Kellner as saying,

“And I think that all could happen rather quickly,” said Micah Z. Kellner, a Democratic assemblyman who represents the Upper East Side. Once the Assembly acts, it will be up to Senate Democrats, who control the chamber 32 to 30, to decide whether to bring it to the floor for a vote.”

As I wrote just two weeks ago, in “NY ♡s Gay Marriage“,

“Attitudes are viral. The tsunami of gay marriage news over the past week (Iowa, Vermont, Washington, D.C.,) has made a lot of fence-sitters rethink their position. The fact that Vermont was able to override its popular governor’s veto gives us hope that other lawmakers will stand up to the diminishing numbers the Right has on its side. … 74% of New Yorkers favor some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. 41% favor legal gay marriage, 31% favor legal civil unions. While the numbers need to be stronger, studies show over time, attitudes have been dramatically improving.”

And fast!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 8 comments }

Tony P April 20, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Here in RI it's 58% in favor and 42% against marriage equality. Yet our legislature continues to ignore the fact

davidbadash April 20, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Sorry to say, but it's your governor. He's threatened to veto it. I hope the people in Rhode Island let him know what they're thinking. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here! Hope we'll see you back.

Nahshon April 21, 2009 at 1:08 am

leviticus 20:13-If an a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman both of them have commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

davidbadash April 21, 2009 at 1:45 am

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

joe May 12, 2009 at 1:19 pm

I do not believe in the Bible. So, how does this apply to me?

Joe May 12, 2009 at 1:20 pm

This was meant for Nahshon, not you David Badash.

Robguy April 21, 2009 at 6:25 am

It seems to me there are 2 ways to look at Biblical scripture.
One see's the modern church stance on homosexuality to be largely politically motivated as around 1400 the Catholic church changed the "lesson" of Sodom from being about hospitality. The word that is interpreted as wanting to "know" the angels is used in the Bible over 100 times and almost never in relation to sex. -and the word for angels is often used to describe people of another race.
Or you can look at the Bible as contradictory compilation of manuscripts that is ultimately ruthless and xenophobic.

or I guess the 3rd way is – it means whatever I want it to mean. Like the people that say that heterosexual marriage has been around in every culture for 2000-6000 years depending on who you talk to. Anyone that has actually studied history knows that other cultures have had versions of gay marriage and the Christian church has only been involved in marriage for less than 1000 years (probably more like 600). Marriage 200 years ago was substantially different than it is today, much less 2000 years.

davidbadash April 21, 2009 at 11:34 pm

I couldn't agree more. Interesting about the "angels" – wasn't aware of that! Also interesting that eating shellfish, planting different crops side-by-side, and homosexuality are all abominations. Maybe "abomination" meant something different back then, too.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: