Massive, crushing defeat for Marriage Equality in New York

[Duckie]

38-24 vote in the Senate despite the Assembly passing it thrice to make a point. This loss means we'll lose NJ- no way after Maine and NY will New Jersey pass it. And we'll lose 2010 California or Washington if we're stupid enough to try that. We can make a credible (but ultimately futile) try in California or the like in 2012 I guess if we feel like wasting more money and time.

NEW YORK, Dec 2 (Reuters) - New York state lawmakers voted against legalizing gay marriage on Wednesday, dashing hopes of gay rights activists that it would become the sixth U.S. state to allow same-sex couples to wed.

The New York state senate voted down the legislation 38 votes to 24. Gov. David Paterson, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, had said he would sign the bill into law if it were passed.

Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont have legalized gay marriage, while 40 U.S. states have specific laws that ban gay marriage. Last month, voters in Maine chose to repeal a law that had legalized gay marriage.

"This is an enormous victory," said Maggie Gallagher, the leader of the anti-gay marriage group, National Organization for Marriage. "What you saw was the will of the people. ... The culture really hasn't shifted on gay marriage."

New York's Democratic-controlled state assembly has easily passed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage three times, but the legislation was never voted upon in the senate until now.

The Democrats hold a senate majority of 32 to 30, but several Democratic senators opposed legalizing gay marriage.

New York is one of the most politically liberal states in the country. Recent polls showed a majority of New York voters favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, but one poll showed the public evenly split.

"The depth of sadness that I and many New Yorkers feel today is difficult to express," said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is gay. "We will not accept defeat and we will not stop fighting until all New Yorkers are treated equally."

Gay rights lobby group the Empire State Pride Agenda said marriage would have entitled gay couples to 1,324 rights -- from tax to adoption benefits -- that otherwise would be denied.

Gay marriage activists will likely now turn their attention to New Jersey, where the Democratic-controlled state legislature is considering taking up the issue before Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine leaves office in January.

Corzine has said he will sign a bill legalizing gay marriage. He was defeated in November by Republican Chris Christie, who has said he would veto such a bill. (Editing by Michelle Nichols) ((nyc.buro@reuters.com, +1 646 223 6280))

The Perpetual Fail Tour Continues: California, Maine, New York, New Jersey, California Again, Oregon, Washington, then where? (Maybe it'd be interesting to go lose in Illinois or something rather than focusing on losing the same few states in a row over and over).

I'm not sure why we even bother sometimes.

[AMT]

Never underestimate the small mindedness of humanity.
A pity the Governor can't use an executive order to pass this despite those small minded bastards.

[The Romulan Republic]

As much as I hate to say it, these things take time. The nation's probably going to keep moving further to the Left if the GOP doesn't whip itself into shape and Obama manages to avoid a truly epic fuck-up. Centuries of deeply held societal prejudices do not evaporate overnight. It may be frusterating, but its also understandable and probably inevitable.

[Omega18]

We can make a credible (but ultimately futile) try in California or the like in 2012 I guess if we feel like wasting more money and time.

You're being much too pessamistic about California here.

Remember there are currently gays legally married in California right now. By 2012, the bigots are going to need to explain to the rest of the population exactly what harm those existing gay marriages have caused and how allowing new ones will actually change things. (While you have the outright bigots voting against gay marriage, a portion of the general population has voted against gay marriage in the past because they are worried somehow such a change will cause harm to society and they are not personally affected by the current ban. If some of them decide there isn't any valid reason at all to continue with the ban, that can make a big different in the vote outcome.)

You also have significant demographic trends working in favor of gay rights. Younger voters are far more supportive of gay rights than older voters, with the strongest opponents being the oldest voters who are outright dying off in the long run. By 2012, the demographic shift alone makes a substancial difference.

[Coyote]

I hate to say it, but Romulan Republic is right. The fact that States in the USA are actually openely discussing this and votes are being held in the halls of power and it is razor thin in many areas, and keeps coming back, is a sign of progress from just the 1970's --when simply being gay could mean a trip to jail.

That doesn't mean giving up the fight; rather it means don't get discouraged now, progress is being made. It is hard to see, because the heavy lifting is still being done, but a lot has happened in just a generation's time.

I mean, if you'd told someone in 1975 that Boise, Idaho would have an openly lesbian state Senator (Nichole LeFavour) in session, they'd've laughed you out of the state. Yet here we are.

[Duckie]

I'd say it's going to get worse before it gets better- Older people vote more, and the Baby Boomers are actually the least progressive. While pre-baby boomer elderly nowadays don't support gay marriage, they actually were the fastest growing acceptance group: from 1993 to 2009 20% of people above 65 changed their opinion. That can't be accounted for with death rates alone- some of those people had to have changed their opinion based on their children or grandchildren coming out or the like. By comparision, 40-65 age bracket went up by less than 6% but more than 2%. I cannot remember the exact number. While the middle bracket is still higher than the elderly, the difference in change is astounding. Young people were the second highest rate of Delta-Gay Marriage over that time period.

So when the Baby Boomers, who are the most recalcitrant age group, reach old age when they start voting a lot, Gay Marriage is going to paradoxically take a huge hit in any actual voting, even if the polls show it steadily increasing. We may actually already be in the first stages of this considering California and Maine. Especially if the enthusiasm gap continues- most straight supporters don't actually care enough to go help or vote, whereas you could get a half-dozen volunteers for death squads in every church, let alone phone banking, which is why gay marriage severely overpolls (also that people lie to the polls, which is actually a good-ish sign. People are internalising that homophobia is bad- no longer like in 1980 could you actually make an argument starting with "I hate gays", you have to phrase it like "I have gay friends but I don't believe in their lifestyle" or the like)

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that once all the currently-middle-aged people are dead, then real progress will be made. The current generation supports gay marriage at a bare 50% across the country. 50% is not enough to win reliably with a massive enthusiasm gap, even if that polling isn't for once tainted. The next generation will be the ones who actually see it.

It will take a while for every person 50 or above now to be dead, and for everyone born just now to reach 18. But once they do, having grown up in a world that's post-massachusetts, then it'll actually start happening.

I'll post a picture eating a hat if before 2016 there are 10 states that allow gay marriage- that's merely the pacific coast, new england, and new york, so it shouldn't be too hard. (Bonus points- two hats for a federal solution that happens in a courtroom that has Alito or Scalia in it)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

38-24 vote in the Senate despite the Assembly passing it thrice to make a point. This loss means we'll lose NJ- no way after Maine and NY will New Jersey pass it. And we'll lose 2010 California or Washington if we're stupid enough to try that. We can make a credible (but ultimately futile) try in California or the like in 2012 I guess if we feel like wasting more money and time.


The Perpetual Fail Tour Continues: California, Maine, New York, New Jersey, California Again, Oregon, Washington, then where? (Maybe it'd be interesting to go lose in Illinois or something rather than focusing on losing the same few states in a row over and over).

I'm not sure why we even bother sometimes.

Oregon IS moving toward a repeal and is, in fact, securing popular support before doing so. And quit your bitching about my home state, Washington chose to pursue a Fabian Strategy in the late 1990s, and a decade later we're steadily plodding ahead with all hands on deck and all guns manned while these wild excessions were crushed. And I believed in them too and it hurt just as much, but, god, if it weren't for those gungho idiots in 2006 who just had to get the Washington Supreme Court to take the issue up, we would have perhaps come even further by now. New Jersey was already a lost cause with the end of the Corzine administration. Old people are dying, Duckie, just not quite as fast as you hoped.

And I never said anything about marriage in 2010 in Washington but rather 2011--after everyone in the state legislature has been safely reelected. That's part of the state strategy. Nobody does anything which could influence a major election year. R-71 was passed in a year with no major elections other than for City of Seattle Mayor. It's pretty much an open secret that the gay legislators (we have more than a few) in the Washington State legislature agreed to this plan, and so far, it's worked flawlessly, each bite-and-hold has been successful and we're chewing off a little more each time. And maybe instead of just futilely trying the same things over again, those grease-slicked lobbyist suits for the HRC should come out here and start asking us how we got R-71 passed in insanely rural places like Clallam and Skagit counties.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And the best thing that people can do for gay marriage rights right now is to just assert them even if they don't have them. If you're in a committed relationship, if you've got a civil union or a domestic partnership, endlessly, constantly, always refer to your partner as your husband/wife, always say you're married, never, never let other terms be used around. Make the average person aware of and acclimated to the idea that you're married. Just insist you are, and act like it. This is much easier certainly in domestic partnership states, but that includes huge numbers of the US population.

The only time you couldn't do this is for a few very strictly legal minor circumstances. But in day to day life? Hell yes you can do it, and you should.

Take your time, build things up with little things like that, and slowly the country will come around. You're being utterly, and out of proportionally hysteric. I mean, christ, New York accepts gay marriage from any state where it's legal and any country. The money HRC spent lobbying the New York Senate would have been better spent starting a charity which provides free Amtrak tickets to Hartford for Gay and Lesbian couples in New York.

[Simon_Jester]

Oregon IS moving toward a repeal and is, in fact, securing popular support before doing so. And quit your bitching about my home state, Washington chose to pursue a Fabian Strategy in the late 1990s, and a decade later we're steadily plodding ahead with all hands on deck and all guns manned while these wild excessions were crushed.

Could you expand on this? While I know what a Fabian strategy is, I'm not entirely sure I know what you're talking about.

[Duckie]

The bigots in Washington were forced, even though they knew it was coming, by their own prejudices to fight the expanded DPs, knowing that they were wasting money and public support and momentum that could have been used on the marriage fight.

In fact, some washingtonian ministers pointed that out and tried to convince the bigot community in Washington to wait for gay marriage itself as a name change to DPs, rather than fight the equal rights themselves. But some of them wouldn't have that and so forced a confrontation, which resulted in a DP win giving the gay marriage supporters the appearance of more momentum and public support even in an off-year.

Whether it'll work considering how marriage-phobic the country is (cf Arizona, which rejected a marriage and civil union ban then banned marriage 2 years later; Maine where civil unions are allowed with almost all rights but which rejected marriage, California the same, the fact that polling indicates a 6% drop at marriage compared to civil unions with equal rights to marriage, etc.) is up in the air.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

An article about Ed Murray's Fabian Strategy ; it's not named as such but that's exactly what it is:

OLYMPIA - Just 11 years ago, Washington state lawmakers barred same-sex marriage with the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This week, that law is on the edge of becoming irrelevant.

On Monday, Gov. Chris Gregoire is set to sign an "everything but marriage" bill that gives gay and lesbian couples all the state-provided benefits that married heterosexual couples have. A referendum effort to overturn the law has already ramped up.

With a handful of other states, most recently Maine, having legalized same-sex marriage, it seems inevitable that Washington state lawmakers soon will be asked to again define who can get married.

State Sen. Ed Murray, who has spearheaded the domestic-partnership expansion effort for the past three years, said that while the marriage debate may still be a few years off, the incremental approach was a strategic plan.

"We needed to have a multiyear discussion with the state on gay and lesbian families," said Murray, one of six gay lawmakers in the Legislature. "I believe DOMA won’t long be the law of the state because those conversations are changing hearts and minds around the state."

But Murray, a Seattle Democrat, is quick to caution that just because an almost-marriage law for gay couples will soon be on the books, that doesn’t mean the state will embrace same-sex marriage.

"California’s experience should be a lesson to us, not to move before we’re ready," he said.

And Murray's strategy worked and Referendum 71 was voluntarily passed by the population, because the average Washingtonian is not a bigot and does not want to be seen as one. The battle for marriage will be a tough one, but with Oregon planning for a statewide referendum to overturn its ban on gay marriage in 2012, we'll be well positioned to do the same, around the same time.

The Christian right turned this into a referendum about marriage even though it wasn't, and lost, and broke its own morale and resources. We now have the advantage and can press ahead with full gay marriage in the legislature at any time we think appropriate to provide the best positioning for the subsequent referendum battle.

[Omega18]

I'd say it's going to get worse before it gets better- Older people vote more, and the Baby Boomers are actually the least progressive. While pre-baby boomer elderly nowadays don't support gay marriage, they actually were the fastest growing acceptance group: from 1993 to 2009 20% of people above 65 changed their opinion. That can't be accounted for with death rates alone- some of those people had to have changed their opinion based on their children or grandchildren coming out or the like. By comparision, 40-65 age bracket went up by less than 6% but more than 2%. I cannot remember the exact number. While the middle bracket is still higher than the elderly, the difference in change is astounding. Young people were the second highest rate of Delta-Gay Marriage over that time period.

So when the Baby Boomers, who are the most recalcitrant age group, reach old age when they start voting a lot, Gay Marriage is going to paradoxically take a huge hit in any actual voting, even if the polls show it steadily increasing. We may actually already be in the first stages of this considering California and Maine. Especially if the enthusiasm gap continues- most straight supporters don't actually care enough to go help or vote, whereas you could get a half-dozen volunteers for death squads in every church, let alone phone banking, which is why gay marriage severely overpolls (also that people lie to the polls, which is actually a good-ish sign. People are internalising that homophobia is bad- no longer like in 1980 could you actually make an argument starting with "I hate gays", you have to phrase it like "I have gay friends but I don't believe in their lifestyle" or the like)

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that once all the currently-middle-aged people are dead, then real progress will be made. The current generation supports gay marriage at a bare 50% across the country. 50% is not enough to win reliably with a massive enthusiasm gap, even if that polling isn't for once tainted.

It will take a while for every person 50 or above now to be dead.

You're really missing that its not merely, a matter of being older, its the older you are, the more statistically likely you are to oppose gay marriage right now. We're actually talking about a huge difference, with 65+ being nearly 15% higher in polls in their opposition to gay marriages than those in the 45-64 age demographic.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/mova ... s_f_1.html

In other words, the reality is being a bit more stubborn is VASTLY outweighed the actual impact of the oldest voters who are least accepting of gay marriage dying off in the long run.

You also are apparently not fully getting the impact that the number of eligible youngest voters who are most supportive of gay marriage are growing a statistically very substancial rate. The point is every year you get a bunch of additional potential voters who turn 18 and are by far the most supportive of gay marriage, but you also lose stastically very few voters who were previously in the 18-29 age group. Compared to the older age groups, the number of deaths on a statistical basis is simply massively smaller. Even if voting among the age group stays not as high as would be desirable, you're still talking about a very important long term demographic impact.

I would like to specifically see evidence that the older you are measurably actually makes you more likely to vote as opposed to older people simply being in a demographic that happened to vote more throughout their lives. Regardless though, the other demographic trends I talked about vastly outweigh the two issues you're concerned about in this area.

[Duckie]

I understand the statistical implications of that, however- the rate of increase in will slow, is what I am saying. The Baby Boomers are the least likely to change views, so until they die there's going to be no progress with a large segment of high-voting incidence society, unlike the current 65+ generation who actually shifted quite grandly from 1993 to 2009, as I said- 20%. You won't see a 20% shift in baby boomer opinions a decade from now. As such, the current 1-2% rise in support per year which is assisted by both replacement of voters and shifting of public opinion will drop to partial percents a year for a long time once the Baby Boomers retire, since retirees are statistically more likely to vote which will dilute the gains that more 18 year olds coming on line will produce.

Dilute, not stop. But it will take longer than it otherwise would.

[Omega18]

I understand the statistical implications of that, however- the rate of increase in will slow, is what I am saying. The Baby Boomers are the least likely to change views, so until they die there's going to be no progress with a large segment of high-voting incidence society, unlike the current 65+ generation who actually shifted quite grandly from 1993 to 2009, as I said- 20%. You won't see a 20% shift in baby boomer opinions a decade from now. As such, the current 1-2% rise in support per year which is assisted by both replacement of voters and shifting of public opinion will drop to partial percents a year for a long time once the Baby Boomers retire, since retirees are statistically more likely to vote which will dilute the gains that more 18 year olds coming on line will produce.

Dilute, not stop. But it will take longer than it otherwise would.

On the other hand if you look at the chart I showed you, the 45-64 demographic in California register around 47% support for gay marriage, so their impact actually won't be as great as you think in this case. Its the 65+ demographic which registers around only 30% for gay marriage which is the key reason Proposition 8 passed. When you're close to around 50% one way or the other, your impact is limited versus groups with the percentages more in one direction. (Its true though that you're realistically not going to see gay marriage legal everywhere baring federal judicial action anytime that soon.)

[Anguirus]

"This is an enormous victory," said Maggie Gallagher, the leader of the anti-gay marriage group, National Organization for Marriage. "What you saw was the will of the people. ... The culture really hasn't shifted on gay marriage."

New York's Democratic-controlled state assembly has easily passed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage three times, but the legislation was never voted upon in the senate until now.

New York is one of the most politically liberal states in the country. Recent polls showed a majority of New York voters favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, but one poll showed the public evenly split.

This is just classic doublethink right here. I wonder what procedural bullshit the gay-haters wreaked in order to put off the Senate vote for so long.

Anyway, sorry if I'm too flip. I know this is yet another in a line of serious blows. And yet...so much has changed. Gay marriage is part of the culture now and is changing it for the better. This will be remembered within our lifetimes as small-minded reactionism that didn't change a damn thing.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Also remember, in 2009, marriage equality was realized in Vermont, Iowa and Connecticut. That's three more states we didn't have last year. The move to overturn prop 8 is underway. Perhaps not next year but possibly in 2012. We're in the midst of conducting critical research to determine the right message and the right campaign strategy if we go back to the ballot. This kind of research for our side has never been done before. While NOM continually boasts about their 31 state record, we should also be mindful of the fact that the vast majority of those states fell one in massive slew of state elections in 2004 where barely anyone on our side even put up a fight. A lot of this work to undo the damage the homophobes have done have really just begun. We cannot give up hope for an upcoming victory and we have to keep on fighting for our dignity.

Duckie, which state are you from?

[Highlord Laan]

The only thing that will truly start moving equality forward in this country is when all the old throwbacks to the 50's finally start dying.

Rather sad that the only way for a nation that loudly proclaims to be a bastion of freedom for all can only be so once an entire dammed generation does the rest of the world a favor and dies en masse.

[Duckie]

Duckie, which state are you from?

Maine, if I can say I have a home or homeland at all.

[Molyneux]

All I can say is that I'm damn ashamed of my home state.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Duckie, which state are you from?

Maine, if I can say I have a home or homeland at all.

I feel your pain. As a gay man in CA, Prop H8 was like a sucker punch to the gut that still hurts to this day. At least the vote in Maine wasn't a damn constitutional amendment. The legislature can go back and enact marriage equality again. Of course, that means you'd have to have a populous vote on it again. This, I believe, was the way gay rights in Maine was eventually passed - by legislating it and voting on them multiple times until it worked. We all know the sole purpose of these marriage bans is to continue to keep gay couples socially invisible. As long as we make a ruckus and never stop putting on the pressure, they can never truly win.

[Darth Wong]

This "leave it to the states" bullshit has to end. If they can kill DOMA, then can't they force states to recognize out-of-state marriages, thus providing a (somewhat kludgy) workaround?

[Sea Skimmer]

This "leave it to the states" bullshit has to end. If they can kill DOMA, then can't they force states to recognize out-of-state marriages, thus providing a (somewhat kludgy) workaround?

Theoretically they could, except they sure as fuck wont. They don’t force states to recognize each others gun permits either because that’s another touchy subject. A fair number of other kinds of licenses and pieces of paperwork also don’t transfer even though they should under the constitution. Federal congressmen are not going to stick their necks out on a subject like this unless it already has support in a large number of states, in which case such intervention will probably already be unnecessary. Like Marina has said before, this is mainly a matter of waiting for old people to die off.

[Omega18]

Theoretically they could, except they sure as fuck wont. They don’t force states to recognize each others gun permits either because that’s another touchy subject. A fair number of other kinds of licenses and pieces of paperwork also don’t transfer even though they should under the constitution. Federal congressmen are not going to stick their necks out on a subject like this unless it already has support in a large number of states, in which case such intervention will probably already be unnecessary. Like Marina has said before, this is mainly a matter of waiting for old people to die off.

The Supreme Court could also potentially completely overturn DOMA as a violation of the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause (as opposed to just section 8 which is much more likely to happen), although its doubtful it will happen in the immediate future given the current court makeup. Justice Kennedy has given an impression to some degree that he might eventually support such a ruling, but he doesn't feel confident doing so until a larger number of states have already legalized gay marriage. (In other words he is personally worried about the Supreme Court potentially leading too aggressively on the issue and that leading to a public backlash against the court.)

However if the current lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8 is outright loses on its merits at the Supreme Court, overturning DOMA would be a way for a future court to effectively legalize gay marriage without outright having to go against prior court precedent since such a ruling would be based on different legal principles.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This "leave it to the states" bullshit has to end. If they can kill DOMA, then can't they force states to recognize out-of-state marriages, thus providing a (somewhat kludgy) workaround?

If we kill DOMA, we essentially pave the way for marriage equality in the entire country. Unmistakably, DOMA is the big fish in this fight. But that isn't happening anytime soon. I doubt we would even get a simple majority, much less a super majority, which apparently the Democrats need to pass any kind of major legislation. Even Barney Frank, one of our biggest LGBT advocates in the senate, doesn't think we should even begin to tackle it right now. And of course, you can forget about Obama or any other prominent Democrat standing with us. The biggest chance for overturning DOMA right now is through the courts but I'm not holding my breath for an impartial SCOTUS.

[Highlord Laan]

This "leave it to the states" bullshit has to end. If they can kill DOMA, then can't they force states to recognize out-of-state marriages, thus providing a (somewhat kludgy) workaround?

Much as this should happen, it won't, because of all the brainless fuckwads that will start waxing poetic about "what the founding fathers fathers intended," "States Rights," and "the price of Democracy" likely rounding out with some pithy phrase dug out of Ben Franklins journal.