NY Gov. Cuomo Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill Into Law

[Gandalf]

The Religious Exemption has Passed

Why is there such an exemption? Based on what I've read, it looks like an emergency hatch for bigotry.

Quite saddening, really.

[LadyTevar]

So they can't sue a church for Discrimination, bluntly speaking.
More broadly, it's someone actually standing up for Separation of Church and State (and using it against gays, but eh.. Maybe someone will use it against Conservatives later)

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Senator Grisanti (R) is now confirming that he is a 33rd vote.

[LadyTevar]

AYES 33
NAYS 29

IT HAS PASSED !!!!!!

[Pint0 Xtreme]

FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gandalf]

So they can't sue a church for Discrimination, bluntly speaking.

Fascinating. Did a similar concern present itself when interracial marriage was first allowed?

AYES 33
NAYS 29

IT HAS PASSED !!!!!!

Woo!

[Slacker]

Look at it objectively-in five years, nobody's going to give a rat's tit about the religious exemption. In the meantime, we won. New York is *big*. It's the first major state where Republicans were pretty instrumental in getting the bill passed and the courts had really nothing at all to do with it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

For shits and giggles, the National Organization for Marriage (sic) declared victory a little too early this year.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, it looks like I get to put New York on the list of states I am willing to seek out tenure track positions within.

[Mr Bean]

Someone want to change the thread title since NY has voted for Marriage Equality.

[Crossroads Inc.]

AYES 33
NAYS 29

IT HAS PASSED !!!!!!

For the first time in ages I can proudly say:
AMERICA!!!!
FUCK YEAH!!!!

[Dalton]

Someone want to change the thread title since NY has voted for Marriage Equality.

Not until the Assembly passes the revised bill and Cuomo signs it. But FUCK YEAH

[Highlord Laan]

For shits and giggles, the National Organization for Marriage (sic) declared victory a little too early this year.

Ohohohohoho! Hows that "long summer" going, asshole?

Good for New York! Great to see them finally join the 21 century, too bad it'll probably be another 70 years before the rest of the US gets it's ass dragged out of the bronze age.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Wrap up of the voting, pretty impressive all around.
The fact that this was "brokered" with the church makes me think that it is unlikely we will see a massive push to ban it like in California.
But with the fundies you never know.

ALBANY, N.Y. – New York lawmakers narrowly voted to legalize same-sex marriage Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the gay rights movement was born.

New York will become the sixth state where gay couples can wed and the biggest by far.

"We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states," said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat.
Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the country and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

"Once this is signed into law, the population of the United States living under marriage equality doubles," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda in an interview. "That's certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation. It's truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won."

Though New York is a relative latecomer in allowing gay marriage, it is considered an important prize for advocates, given the state's size, New York City's international stature. The gay rights movement is considered to have started with the Stonewall riots in New York City's Greenwich Village in 1969.

A huge street party erupted outside the Stonewall Inn Friday night, with celebrants waving rainbow flags and dancing after the historic vote.
"I am spellbound. I'm so exhausted and so proud that the New York State Senate finally stood on the right side of history," said Queens teacher Eugene Lovendusky, 26, who is gay and said he hopes to marry someday.

He then repeated a chant he had screamed during a protest at the Obama fundraiser at the Sheraton last night: "I am somebody. I deserve full equality."
A number of celebrities also praised the Senate vote. Lady Gaga tweeted that she couldn't stop crying, while Pink tweeted, "congratulations!!!!!!!!! About time!"
"I have never be prouder to be a lifelong New Yorker than I am today with the passage of marriage equality," Cyndi Lauper said in a statement.
The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which previously approved the bill, passed the Senate's stronger religious exemptions in the measure Friday, and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who campaigned on the issue last year, has promised to sign it. Same-sex couples can begin marrying 30 days after that.

Cuomo made a surprise and triumphant walk around the Senate, introduced like a rock star by his lieutenant governor, Robert Duffy. The filled upper gallery shouted down to Cuomo, "Thank you!"

"Feels good?" Cuomo shouted up with a big smile and thumbs up. "Thank you!"

The passage of New York's legislation was made possible by two Republican senators who had been undecided.

Sen. Stephen Saland voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement.
"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."
Gay couples wept in the gallery during Saland's speech.

Sen. Mark Grisanti, a GOP freshman from Buffalo who also had been undecided, also voted for the bill. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.
"I apologize to those I offend," said Gristanti, a Roman Catholic. "But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents," he said.

The effects of the legislation could be felt well beyond New York: Unlike Massachusetts, which pioneered gay marriage in 2004, New York has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning the state could become a magnet for gay couples across the country who want to have a wedding in Central Park, the Hamptons, the romantic Hudson Valley or that honeymoon hot spot of yore, Niagara Falls.

New York, the nation's third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

For five months in 2008, gay marriage was legal in California, the biggest state in population, and 18,000 same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot there before voters overturned the state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the practice. The constitutionality of California's ban is now before a federal appeals court.
The climactic vote came after more than a week of stop-and-start negotiations, rumors, closed-door meetings and frustration on the part of advocates. Online discussions took on a nasty turn with insults and vulgarities peppering the screens of opponents and supporters alike and security was beefed up in the capitol to give senators easier passage to and from their conference room.

The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.

On Thursday night, President Barack Obama encouraged lawmakers to support gay rights during a fundraiser with New York City's gay community. The vote also is sure to charge up annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades Sunday in New York City, San Francisco and other cities.
Despite New York City's liberal Democratic politics and large and vocal gay community, previous efforts to legalize same-sex marriage failed over the past several years, in part because the rest of the state is more conservative than the city.

The bill's success this time reflected the powerful support of Cuomo and perhaps a change in public attitudes. Opinion polls for the first time are showing majority support for same-sex marriage, and Congress recently repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military.
In the week leading up to the vote in New York, some Republicans who opposed the bill in 2009 came forward to say they were supporting it for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.


Pressure to vote for gay marriage also came from celebrities, athletes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-independent who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll GOP campaigns and who personally lobbied some undecided lawmakers. Lady Gaga has been urging her 11 million Twitter followers to call New York senators in support of the bill.

While the support of the Assembly was never in doubt, it took days of furious deal-making to secure two Republican votes needed for passage in the closely divided Senate.
Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox rabbis and other conservative religious leaders fought the measure, and their GOP allies pressed hard for stronger legal protections for religious organizations.

Each side of the debate was funded by more than $1 million from national and state advocates who waged media blitzes and promised campaign cash for lawmakers who sided with them.

But GOP senators said it was Cuomo's passionate appeals in the governor's mansion on Monday night and in closed-door, individual meetings that were perhaps most persuasive.
The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.

[Slacker]

My view on this: The push in California to reverse the gay marriage law was supported primarily by the Mormon church, which is big in the West and in California. It's very much not here in New York. The primary church the exemptions the bill was written to protect were the Catholics, which aren't going to rock the boat, and the Jews, two out of the three major sects either largely support gay marriage or don't care one way or another anyway. And the Orthodox are generally ignored outside a few parts of Brooklyn. I think this is going to, other than some Conservative Party moaning and groaning, going to be pretty much bullet-proof. Especially with Bloomberg bankrolling the Republicans who stood up and voted for it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Keep in mind that NY doesn't have the same retarded voter referendum system that CA does. NOM has already promised to overthrow the 4 GOP senators that voted for equality but it will be a very hard future for them - especially when 60% of New York state residents support marriage equality.

[Slacker]

It won't happen. While the NOM can certainly bankroll Conservative Party challengers to the Republicans who voted, assuming they don't beat them in the nomination process, Bloomberg has vowed to support any Republican Assemblymen or Senators who voted for the measure financially in their re-elections. I won't bet on an astroturf bullshit bunch of religious nutjobs having more money than Michael fucking Bloomberg. Worst case, the Conservative Party splits enough Republican votes off that the Dems pick up a seat or two in the State Senate.

[Crossroads Inc.]

For anyone wanting a good chuckle, you can see the full melt down of the right over at Townhall.com In the story posted about gay marriage passing. The comments are mind numbing, sad and hilarious all at once. Reading through them I think the single biggest aspect they show off is just how much the rabid right is bound by religious dogma. It really is being consolidated down into religious nutters. Virtually everyone who is mindless freaked out about gay marriage at this point is doing so because of their own indoctrination into far right religious dogma and the "slippery slope" fallacy.

Two men can say vows all day long, and it ain't marriage, no matter what anyone says.

The inevitable result of this is that NAMBLA will probably eventually sue, and win - after all, if two men can marry, or two women, then why not their particular brand of 'love the one you're with'?

Proponents of bigamy may sue as well - how can their particular brand of 'love' be denied?

Someone who wants to marry two men, or two women will probably sue, and win - after all, who can deny them their particular bizarre brand of 'love'? The same arguments will be used.

This is what promarriage folks have been telling you, but you won't listen. Anyone who understands how lawsuits are used to break down barriers, once a wall has been breached, knows the inevitable consequences of changing a 6000 year old tradition that has stood from the dawn of time and the literal definition of a word.

The mad, insatiable liberal need to tear down and destroy traditions, morality and law goes on.

Why is it that this crap gets rammed down the throats of the majority of decent law abiding citizens who would vote it into oblivion given the chance to voice their concerns? This is the elite forcing tyranny upon the masses! This is not a true majority rule as founded by our fathers! When the majority of the people are not represented by their representatives then something is askew! It is not a representative republic if the people are not justly represented by their lawgivers! This kind of corruption is what started the revolutionary war! Now there will be gay bashing , killing and torture! This is not progression!

The nation was founded upon principles that were to allow the majority to be represented by proxy! I surely tell you the truth, The majority of New Yorkers were against this perversion being forced upon them. Allow them to vote on a constitutional amendment and they will reject it hands down as in Minnesota!

arch says

What will be next? Brother sister marriage? Goat and human male marriage? Pedophile adult and infant marriage? How bout blow up doll and pervert marriage? How bout retard marriage? How bout polygamy? Conservatives know better than to allow the camel's nose under the tent!

If some amoral legislators pass a law wherein a dirt clod is declared to be a diamond the dirt clod would legally be a "diamond", but physically it would still be a dirt clod no matter what the elitist, “enlightened” legislators say. It's the same with the diamond standard of marriage: A REAL marriage can only occur between members of the opposite sex, since that is the only kind of marriage that can be consummated in coitus rather than sodomy or penetration by a cylindrical instrument (in the case of lesbians), and the only kind that has the potential of eventually being manifested in the two actually becoming "one flesh", i.e. the joining of their genetic material into another, new and unique human being. These things are an impossibility in a dirt clod homosexual "marriage". So no matter what the amoral legislators/judges say, homosexuals will only be fooling themselves and their propagandized, simple-minded supporters. The rest of us, those who are normal and not afflicted with moral relativism and the cancer of political correctness, will always be able to recognize a dirt clod when we see one.

[General Mung Beans]

For anyone wanting a good chuckle, you can see the full melt down of the right over at Townhall.com In the story posted about gay marriage passing. The comments are mind numbing, sad and hilarious all at once. Reading through them I think the single biggest aspect they show off is just how much the rabid right is bound by religious dogma. It really is being consolidated down into religious nutters. Virtually everyone who is mindless freaked out about gay marriage at this point is doing so because of their own indoctrination into far right religious dogma and the "slippery slope" fallacy.

About polygamy though-provided all the participants do consent how would it not be acceptable if homosexual marriage is?

[CaptJodan]

How bout retard marriage?

This one was actually my favorite. Pretty much sums up this person and their moral bankruptcy in one easy phrase. Deny the developmentally challenged the right to marry! It's not a real marriage.

Those comments make my head hurt.

*Edit: Congrads on New York, though. Another victory in what seems like a very long, drawn out war. But a victory nonetheless. It's moving slowly in the right direction.

[Broomstick]

So they can't sue a church for Discrimination, bluntly speaking.

Fascinating. Did a similar concern present itself when interracial marriage was first allowed?

Interracial marriage was a bit different, in that it was always permitted in certain areas and not in others, and was made universal by SCotUS decision. However, yes, there is de facto exemption for religion. So, for example, for all the time that the Mormons wouldn't let anyone but white males be priests they couldn't be sued. Some socially conservative Protestants still do not permit interracial dating at their church-owned schools. This is permitted due to separation of church and state, as anyone within such churches who disagrees has other options, like public education or a different church.

Religions are allowed to discriminate within their own institutions. They aren't supposed to impose their bigotry on anyone else, although obviously some try.

Oh - AND THE BILL PASSED! :::confetti::::

[Alyrium Denryle]

For anyone wanting a good chuckle, you can see the full melt down of the right over at Townhall.com In the story posted about gay marriage passing. The comments are mind numbing, sad and hilarious all at once. Reading through them I think the single biggest aspect they show off is just how much the rabid right is bound by religious dogma. It really is being consolidated down into religious nutters. Virtually everyone who is mindless freaked out about gay marriage at this point is doing so because of their own indoctrination into far right religious dogma and the "slippery slope" fallacy.

About polygamy though-provided all the participants do consent how would it not be acceptable if homosexual marriage is?

Because it causes actual social problems like a biased operational sex ratio (and thus violence, if you want the details, I can go into it. Also, gays do not count toward said operational sex ratio) when widely practiced. Also: it is very very rare for all parties to consent, and there is a really high abuse potential.

[Alyeska]

Fascinating. Did a similar concern present itself when interracial marriage was first allowed?

Not really. Because the exemption is pointless. The law is already written where you cannot force a church to engage in marriage. There is no state that forces churches to conduct opposite sex marriages. The Catholic Church has never been forced to recognize divorce for starters.

The entire argument that an exemption is needed is a red herring by the conservatives. So this time around the Democrats called their bluff and put it in the bill. It got just enough votes while effectively doing nothing else.

[Slacker]

I don't know if it was a red herring so much as a fig leaf. There a lot of Republican voters, and politicians, in New York who are Catholic but not especially conservative. By saying they're protecting the Church by including this provision, they can cover their asses in the church while still doing what they think it's right. Sure, it's having their cake and eating it too, and the Church still needs to join the 21st century, but who the fuck cares. This provision may well actually serve as a precedent for other states, actually, if you think about it.

[Duckie]

Said religious protection language is in some shape or form already in gay marriage laws in all states except Massachusetts, so it's not surprising or unduly worrying. Someday it'll be struck down, if not by law then by community will (I don't know if it's legal to have a whites only private business, but it certainly isn't looked well upon by society at large, and the US government did force the Mormons to ordain blacks at one point).

Also, it's not actually weakening protections for gays in the state- the same religious exceptions were already in the discrimination protection laws New York uses, so anything they can now do to married gays they were already legally allowed to do against unmarried gays in the same way