Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

New York gay marriage vote could be decided on Wednesday

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Friends in New York tell me the republicans still have not ironed out the language in the bill for protecting individuals from prosecution. Its quite possible they will delay the bill altogether since the majority of them don’t want it to come for a vote. The republicans apparently are notorious for killing (filibustering) a bill they don’t like so their religious bigot constituents are appeased and which will guarantee the party votes in 2012 during the general election.

  2. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2011, 11:49am

    They keep stalling this.
    They already know the safeguards to religion so get it over with and pass the damn Bill already!!

  3. Jock, yes they do know the safeguards and they know Gov. Cuomo will concede additional protections for them, although that might conflict with the current state law protecting gays from discrimination enacted in 2003. The republicans know they can’t get every single piece of religious exemption but they’ll use it to delay the bill getting voted on. They just don’t want it to happen, even with two of them supporting it. Even if the democrats had enough votes, 30 plus the 2 republicans, they could still delay it to appease their religious bigot constituents. They are looking at re-election in 2012, a general election year in America. That’s how corrupt the system is. Religious bigotry takes precedence sadly.

    1. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2011, 1:02pm

      Agreed.

  4. Its going to be interesting to see how powerful the christian homophobes still are in NY.

    1. New York is very Roman Catholic and Jewish, and along with the other religious nuts, area powerful.

  5. The use of the terms ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ are increasingly beginning to sound like mud-slinging. Even the Republicans and religious are allowed a say in how their country is run (though we might strongly disagree with their reasons or rationale). If it takes time figuring out the complexities that will best avoid a civil war on the matter, then so be it.

    1. You are incorrect.

      While Republicans and religious people are certainly allowed a say in how their country is run, they are absolutely not allowed to interfere with the human and civil rights of law-abiding, tax-paying minority groups.

      Civil marriage is a civil right, so if Republicans and religious people are asking that rights not be extended to LGBT people, then they are indeed ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobes’.

      If a Republican weirdo or religious freak is opposed to marriage equality then they should not enter a same-sex marriage. But if they try to deny a gay couple access to marriage then they are no better than someone actively campaigning to ban interracial marriage.

      It’s that simple

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 22 Jun 2011, 4:03pm

        Well Said………

      2. This explains what I’m trying to say probably better than I can. I hope people will watch it with an open mind.

  6. eddy two, they are very powerful. Better organised and by far outnumber supporters of marriage equality. They have unendless financial resources funded by right wing religious groups and right wing billionaires, the Koch brothers. In America, elections and politicians as well as laws can be bought apparently. Corporations are now viewed as human entities and as such, are allowed to donate vast sums of money to make sure an opponent is defeated, thanks to a republican stacked Surpreme Court which ruled in favour of corporations having control over elections and their outcomes. Democracy is doomed with republicans in power and so are gay rights.

    1. I know you’re right. But I hope you’re wrong.

  7. Thank goodness that the LibDems have promised introduction of gay marriage in Britain by 2015.

  8. Flamineo, nobody is saying religious people and others shouldn’t have a say, mud-slinging or not, there’s enough of that on both sides of the argument. What is wrong is when they want to ban a group of people from enjoying equal rights under the law based on religious beliefs. There is much that gays find offencive in the behaviour of religious people, but we don’t demand a ban on religion or preventing them from worshipping or having a religious marriage. They should stay out of civil matters otherwise, the mud-slinging will continue, deservedly so. We give back what they give us. Why should they have free reign to tell lies about us and our lives just because they find same-sex civil marriage offencive to their beliefs? Bearing false witness against one’s neighbour is one of the tenets of monoetheistic religions. Very few of them adhere to or live by the ten commandments. Bigot and hypocrite are apt words in this context.

    1. Let not forget the Republicans and/or Christians that are also endorsing the bill. Tarring everyone with the same brush doesn’t do a great deal for keeping them on-side and is kind of a bigotry in its own right.

      1. So you think its bigotry to point out someone else’s homophobia? How weird.

        1. I suppose when each side thinks the other side is a bigot, the word becomes a little redundant, that’s all. And ‘homophobia’ is easily countered with ‘Christianophobia’, so I suggest we drop them altogether.

        2. If you are gay you need to have a rethink. I don’t try and take any freedom away from christians. I want them to stop being homophobic and bigoted towards me, and stop trying to take my freedom and equality away. Pointing out that someone else is bigoted does not make them a bigot. So, no I won’t drop it. But you need to drop trying to stop gay guys from pointing out that the majority of christians are homophobic. The term homophobia is not redundant and is not easily countered with christianophobia, whatever that is. Homophobic christians stop us from having equality and freedom. What exactly do these christianophobes do? Stop christians from being bigoted?

          1. I am gay. I just recognise that by calling someone a homophobe for expressing their view is a passive aggressive means of censoring their viewpoint.

            It’s just the same as when people are called ‘Islamophobic’ for criticising certain practices sanctioned by the Koran. It’s a label that is designed to stifle conversation, when we surely we should be engaging if we are both to move forward happily.

          2. Yes, that is what I am trying to do. I am trying to stop christians from being homophobic and trying to take away my equality and freedom. That’s the point. Like when a black guy calls someone racist for being racist to try and stop them from treating them as inferior because of their skin color. Its not passive aggressive, thats what the christians do, ‘We love you, but we think you’re an abomination,’ you must know the lines that you’re trying to defend. I’ve told you what homophobic christians do to us; they take away our equality and freedom. But you didn’t mention what these christianophobes do to the christians. What do they take away from them? What power do they have? Who are they? What freedoms have they taken away from christians? How are they making christian life less equal? How are christians suffering because of them? If you reply, please answer the questions only. Anything else will be more of your blah blah blah nonsense.

          3. Except you’re not going to stop them being homophobic, are you? You’re not making them agree with you by stopping them saying what they really think. You’re just stopping them saying in public what they think (and say) in private. How do you tackle something if you’re in denial of its existence? I won’t go any further than that, because it’s obviously just blah blah nonsense to consider that someone else’s point of view might also be worth listening to occasionally.

          4. So you didn’t answer any of my questions about what these christianophobes do. Funny that. And yes, some of us are doing a very good job of stopping christians from being homophobic thanks very much. Why do you think we’ve got any equality in the western world?

          5. Eddy, I no more endorse the use of Christianophobia than any of the others. If you want to know the answer to any of those questions, ask someone from the Christian Institute; I’m sure they’ll happily tell you as they invented the stupid word.

          6. If you think the word is stupid, why use it? You’re wasting mine and everyone’s time talking about things you don’t even believe in. Get your head together and defend gay rights for your friends instead of your enemies.

          7. What would really be a waste of time is having everyone agree that those ‘homophobic’ Christians were pure evil, when that is not the case, and we would do better with understanding the attitudes we’re actually dealing with.

          8. Evil, who said anything about evil? Its you that has evil on the brain, not me. Putting words in my mouth. I know someone else on here who does that. Like I said. You’re wasting everyones time. You could have an argument in an empty room defending things you don’t even believe in. You should get in touch with Stu that posts here sometimes. He talks as much shlte as you. Like I said, defend your friends, not your enemies.

          9. Besides which, how do you legislate for a phobia? If someone has a phobia, it’s a physical aversion or feeling of disgust towards something (in the case of gay men, towards anal sex). ‘Homophobes’ don’t have any control over it any more than an arachnophobe does. Telling them it’s wrong to have that aversion won’t make it go away. And, interestingly, the prevalence of gay characters on television at the moment only seems to be fanning the fire.

            The way we’re dealing with homophobia at the moment is obviously so effective that attacks on gay men are actually increasing. So, please, let me congratulate you and yours on a job well done.

          10. Thanks for the congratulations. Its good you realise you can now report homophobic hate crime so we have a true picture of how much hate is directed towards us. Guess what, if you went to the police 15 years ago in the UK, they wouldn’t be interested that you were attacked because you were gay. Whereas now, it’s against the law to abuse someone based on their sexual orientation. So of course the figures have gone up, because now its actually recorded. If the christians that you want to defend had their way, there would be no such thing as gay hate crime – they’ve been committing that for the last two thousand years and getting away with it. And yet you’re still banging on about defending christians. Poor little christians who have no power in the world, but control the western lands. LOL. And arachnophobia? Maybe the christians all need psychological treatment to cure them like arachnophobes. And TV representation fans the flames? Should we just disappear so we don’t offend?

          11. I’m not defending them, really. I’m trying to understand where they’re coming from. But, of course, I believe that we are entitled to equal rights. We just need to find a way of doing it that ensures they don’t get snatched away the moment a Republican party gets into power. I read this recently, which I think is very true about where we’re at at the moment: ‘morality is really a team sport, and that the harder one side fights, the more it rallies its opponents to greater exertion’.

        3. So now you think we shouldn’t fight because it rallies the republicans and the christians that you were defending? Come on Flamineo. We need to fight, fight, fight. If we don’t fight, they win because we’ve lost before we even started. The harder we fight, the more likely it is we will win. The stonewall rioters were fighters, Harvey Milk in the US, Peter Tatchell in the UK, every gay rights activist is a fighter, they fight for their rights. They don’t give in to their enemies. They don’t excuse them, and they certainly do not try and get people to drop the word homophobia, which is what you were doing when we began this little detour from the issue of gay marriage in NY. It is the christian republicans who could stop gay marriage in NY. It is not bigoted to point that out as you have previously suggested. They are the bigots, not us.

      2. But only 2 out 32 Republican state senators currently support marriage equality in New York. It seems reasonable and fair to tar the party with the same brush.

        The Republican Party is comprised in the main, of hateful, bigotted scum.

    2. However, I do agree with your argument; in the public (secular) sphere, religion has no right to impose its will on people who don’t subscribe to that belief. Which is why those who oppose equality on religious grounds will ultimately lose. The problem is with the word ‘marriage’ which they consider to be a sacred, religious ceremony, with specific criteria — hence all the trouble. If there were a different word for civil marriage, as opposed to a religious one (though both should be considered equal in the eyes of the law), all this would be avoided. And I’m sure there would be plenty of straight folk who’d be happy to keep religion at arm’s length too.

      1. Sadly not, Flamineo. I accepted the idea of CPs in the UK because I thought that avoiding the word’ marriage’ would appease the religious objectors. It didn’t. The hate has just continued.

  9. Like I said, Flamineo, we give back what they give us. Only 2 republicans out of 32 doesn’t say much about who they are as a party? Aside from losing votes in 2012 and beyond and putting religious beliefs aside, why aren’t we seeing 3 or more if its not about bigotry? Kow-towing to religious beliefs in a civil matter is just that. Bigotry! I’m grateful that 2 “frenemies” have reversed their opinion, but I’m in no way going to give the rest of them a free pass because of it.

    1. This is the thing: they don’t think it’s bigotry. They think they have a valid point that we’re refusing to acknowledge by sticking our fingers in our ears and calling them names. They think they’re the good guys for trying to protect an institution that they believe has worked well enough for 2000 years. They are also worried that changing it will increase the depth of social decline that we are witnessing as a result of the increase of individualism (which at a social level has manifested itself as a culture of selfishness) at the expense of community values which have vanished as religion becomes increasingly devalued.

      You’ll probably think I’m as mad as they are for ‘getting’ the gist of their argument, but it’s really more than simply a matter of them hating us, even though that’s what it feels like to us on the receiving end.

      1. Nobody hates the opposition though they are a vile tyrannical bunch, not least of all Maggie Gallagher of NOM whose own marriage failed spectacularly, perthaps she mistakenly blames gays for that.
        As the opposition are quite willing to lie and to distort facts and misrepresent research as wel as to cite junk science research to achieve their discriminatory aim, perhaps we should simply refer to the opposition as highly motivated , well funded and pathologically biased anti-gay-equality activists.

        1. Lol. I imagine they’d equally refer to us as “highly motivated, well funded and pathologically biased gay-equality activists”, so that sounds fair.

          As for the underhanded means by which those that DO hate us spread it around, I agree, it’s unacceptable. I suspect that it’s because they fear us rather than hate us, and they’re acting in desperation. We’re going to be facing some tough times when the religious right reassert their dominance and I fear that what we see going on in Uganda will pale in comparison. Which it’s why it’s important to ENGAGE now, and let each other have their say, and COMPROMISE.

      2. Commander Thor 22 Jun 2011, 6:00pm

        Well they used to protect marriage against miscegenation. Didn’t make it right.

  10. Today is Wednesday not tomorrow.

    And I’m disgusted that Pink News stil refers to ‘gay marriage’. Have they not learned that there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’. There is however civil marriage equality.

    How difficult is it to remember that?

  11. Flamineo, I agree and I do get what they’re saying, but I think they are dead wrong.

    The reason why religion is on the decline and society is changing in many different ways has nothing to do with gays marrying though. These changes have been going on for decades. Straight divorce, adultery, philandering whatever it is straights get a free pass on as well as immunity from condemnation by these same foes of marriage equality, has been happening long before marriage equality was a reality. Religious people have to get it out of their heads altogether that civil marriage in no way shape or form has any religious connotation. The state governments, like it or not, authorize marriage, not religions. Religious and civil marriage are two totally different things. If you ask any of them to provide the evidence of the negative impact of same-sex marriage on marriage, they can’t produce one shred of factual evidence.

    1. Still the evangelicals are uniting and increasing their extremist influence, although there are many different denominations they will cooperate and work together against the common enemy as they have designated homosexuals and who are being defamed as Satanic and spreading satans influence. These people are Christian dominionists and as has happened in Uganda Manipulative US fundamentalists like Ed Silvoso of Harvest Evangelism (Sarah Palin ordered his video series) have groomed and recruited people in high places and government, they have recruited Mrs Museveni the First Lady of Uganda who introduced abstinence programs to tackle HIV and cancelled the distribution of condoms so that consequently HIV diagnosis doubled, the government is populated with her selected religious cronies. It’s an evangelical takeover, dedicating the nation of Uganda to Jesus Christ and to eliminating what they call Satanic influences like homosexuality.

  12. NOM preemptively declares victory in New York, then pulls statement.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/nom-preemptively-declares-victory-new-york

    Such asses.

    1. They clearly think they’ve got it sewn up already., total arses (as we say here)

  13. Dana, even if it doesn’t get voted on today, its hardly a victory for NOM, just a delay for us, inconvenient and frustrating as it is.

    A friend of mine in New York texted me a few minutes ago saying that a group of right wing religious hispanics and some clergy were headed up state to demonstrate against the bill claiming it will lead to polygamy. Truly amazing that such a claim would pass for rational objection to same-sex marriage. This has more to do with hatred than religious beliefs I think. Polygamy appears several times in the old testament, Abraham, David, Jacob were all polygamists and nowhere in the bible is it explicitly condemned. So they’ve lost the argument. Ignorance is bliss for some.

    1. Yes, Robert, and polygamy is the very least of it. Next comes incest, beastiality and the complete downfall of western civilization as we know it. Good grief, sometimes I have to shake my head and remind myself that I’m living in the same century as these people!

    2. jamestoronto 23 Jun 2011, 2:01am

      And don’t forget the Mormons. One of their basic beliefs WAS that polygamy was divinely ordained. The mainstream Mormons don’t practise it now although some breakaway sects still do. With their track record, they should be careful about throwing stones.

  14. Dana, they’re already saying that too. I’d like them to provide factual evidence for it. Holland and Belgium have had marriage equality for a decade. I doubt if there’s one case of polygamy, bestiality or incest caused as a result of same-sex marriage being legalised there. Those aberrations have been going on since the dawn of hetero civilisation. They say nothing of course about Islam that allows polygamy, no fewer than 4 wives at one time. I wonder who they’d blame for that? Notice how they keep their mouths shout about that, damned hypocrites. If you ask any of them how same-sex marriages harm theirs, they can’t come up with one rational response. They revert to the bible because they can’t think for themselves and the majority of them haven’t even read the old testament in which there are several references to polygamy being acceptable. Abraham, David, Jacob, Solomon et al were all polygamists and nowhere is it condemned.

  15. I just received another text from New York. Apparently, the language in the marriage bill is being “tweaked” to accommodate extra protections for religious denominations and individuals. A vote could come later this evening (New York time 5 hours behind) or by tomorrow latest. Its alledged there are 32 votes to pass it.

  16. If the Republicans fail to pass the bill, then they must face the electoral consequences in the future. The general public are following all of these debates and in a place like New York state, must be thinking, what is all the fuss about and why cant same-sex couples have recognition of their relationships. It will worth a lot of money for New York State and I imagine many same-sex couples will consider moving there as well from other more conservative states. The Democrats need to get control of the New York Senate like they did finally in Hawaii, where the nosie of the minority religos has gone very, very quiet.

  17. Why hasnt Pink News reported the great referendum result in tiny Liechenstein where the mainly Catholic population voted 58% against the religious forces trying to stop the bringing in of domestic civil unions for same-sex couples! The 3 political parties in the Parliament all had agreed to support the legislation and can now introduce these further relationship rights for same-sex couples.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all