Stonewall Democrats' Reaction To NY Vote

Please....

....8 Dems voted against it. 8.

With a Senate controlled by Dems, I don't really find the good ole "blame it on the GOP" argument particularly compelling.

When will we realize the Dems aren't really there for us either?

---

by: Cinderoo @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 16:55:52 PM CST

I'm reading that as a response

to the Log Cabins earlier statement.

Now let's see if they follow through on that strong language against intolerance in the Democratic Party.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:03:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Like here in Illinois

Lots of talk. Not much action. Talked to my dem State Senator here about the Civil Unions bill last week. Probably won't get voted on "because next year is an election and downstate dems are afraid their opponents will use it against them". Boo hoo.  He claims he's all for it, but oh well. Dem gov. Dem house and Dem senate, but nada to show for it. They're glad to shake my hand and take my money but somehow it just never seems to happen.  

---

by: xeric @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:07:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, it's Illinois...

But I thought that was a marriage bill that was up in the Senate (not out of committee).

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:09:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Stop

giving them money.

---

by: Bruno @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:16:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Read that last sentence again

I think this is the first time I heard someone acknowledge that the Democratic Party has been too willing to suppoort bigots in order to gain political power.

---

by: rdm24 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 20:32:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good statement actually..

One, they finish off by stating that they want to primary all the Dems that voted against it.  That's a strong statement I believe.

Two, it is certainly a response to the stupid statement Log Cabin Republicans put out blaming the whole thing on Democrats, even though not a single rethuglican voted for it.  

I say Kudos to Stonewall Dems for this statement.  They put the blame squarely where it belongs: Republicans AND Conservative Democrats.

---

by: RaleighRob @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 07:53:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The "control" is razor-thin

Democrats get to live in a "big-tent" party that includes a number who may be "good" on many issues, but who find themselves on the wrong side of the line when it comes to women's reproductive rights or LGBT rights.  Yes, there are pro-choice and pro-LGB (and maybe even pro-T) Republicans out there, but NONE of them seem to be in the New York State Senate, at least with regard to marriage.

A QUARTER of the Democrats are bad on marriage, though they are not bad on all LGBT issues, or the Senate would never have passed Hate Crimes in 1999 or SONDA in December 2002 (both of which required a number of Republican votes).

Some of those unanimously-opposed-to-marriage Republican senators are not 100 percent bad.  Had either the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act or the Dignity for All Students Act been brought up for a Senate vote, BOTH of these have enough support (still not all the Democrats, but there are a few Republicans who are good on these issues) to have passed.

Had the Governor (who is responsible for all legislation that is considered in a special session) and Senate leadership taken my advice, they would have brought these bills up in order - first DASA, then GENDA, and then, finally, Marriage.  The momentum of passing the first two bills might have loosened a few more votes on the third, perhaps even enough for it to have passed.  But having them consider marriage equality alone, the bill among the three with the least chance of passage, the Governor did poorly.

In this time of economic crisis, I wonder why marriage equality was not pitched to the Republicans (and the recalcitrant Democrats) as a revenue-generating bill - it would have given Niagara Falls, New York, a shot in the arm to pick up weddings now being performed (and receptions, honeymoons, etc. held) on the other side of the river in Niagara Falls, Canada.  New York coffers would have gotten direct fee income from the issuance of marriage licenses, and the taxes generated from increase in wedding-related businesses would have helped tremendously in this budget crisis.

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:09:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

NYT coverage

here. Some reactions:

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, "These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying."

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."

In the end, it was not an issue that broke down along racial lines, or even religious and agnostic divisions. In fact, nine of the Senate's 11 black members voted in support of same-sex marriage.

"When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out," said Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who compared the law preventing same-sex marriage with laws that kept blacks and whites from marrying. "I believe there are certain moments here where we can benchmark our lives by the votes we took."

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:00:27 PM CST

They do not reject discrimination

They supported the repressive anti-gay laws in Nigeria and Uganda, and opposed the Lawrence decision. They are lying, their actions prove it, and we need to be loud and bold about the Catholic Church's actual agenda in regards to us:
Imprisonment or Extermination

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:04:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They reject "unjust" discrimination --

where "unjust" is read as "not in accordance with Vatican-endorsed doctrine".

---

by: M @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:26:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But since they think

all discrimination against LGBT people is "just," just exactly what are they rejecting?

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  

-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:46:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

lgbt people

Duh!

Given Maine and New York, it really seems like these latest hits may be coming because the Catholic Church has decided to go the full mormon on gay rights and have begun exercising their emotional abuse of their constituents to tell them all to vote against gay marriage or be excommunicated and go to hell.

We'll need to put forth some effort also into toppling this goliath along with the mormon church.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 22:02:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They can't win votes in strongly Catholic European nations

like Ireland, Spain and Portugal, so they need to come here to peddle that crap.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:42:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, and for you folks that looooooooooooooove

to bitch about black homophobia, remember this:

In fact, nine of the Senate's 11 black members voted in support of same-sex marriage.

And some of those Senators (like Malcolm Smith) represent socially conservative districts.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 17:06:18 PM CST

This is true

black politicians tend to be some of our best supporters.

---

by: tbaxfer @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:30:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Someone mentioned either here or on another blog

The "African-American leaders" who are against LGBT rights tend to be the Bible-thumping ministers. African-American politicians, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, have a great record of voting for our rights. The split is not about black and white, but about religion, and there is certainly no shortage of white Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. who are out there voting against us and are plenty loud and proud of their bigotry. Unfortunately, members of a minority group are often seen as representing all members of that group, so a few loud hateful black ministers gets extrapolated into "African-American leaders." No one thinks Fred Phelps speaks for all white men, or all Kansans.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:38:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

good one kev!

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:39:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Addabbo, Kruger, Onorato and Monserrate et al

represent neighborhoods no tourist goes to and the people that live there don't want tourists and "foreigners" walking their streets. Italian/Irish/Latino Catholics with working-class mentalities in spite of moving up (Howard Beach), Orthodox Jews. Caribbeans in private homes. Tourist dollars don't reach these areas, so boycotts will not affect these politicos, who are scared that without being elected term-after-term, they will have to look for real jobs. They are misreading their constituents, however, and may have voted incorrectly.

...Ready to Go!!

---

by: Fired Up @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:38:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Stonewall Democrats --position is disappointing to say the least.

I find it both ironic and sad that the two partisan queer organizations can do nothing more than stroke the party line when it comes to this vote in statements that mock the complexity of our civil rights struggles.  

Yes - Shame on Republicans for not delivering a single vote.
Yes - Shame on Democrats for continuing to support candidates and platforms that are anti-equality, anti-civil rights.

the LGB(t) community needs to look long and hard at where our dollars are going. It is clear to me that paying National Party expenses (DNC I'm talking to you) is doing absolutely nothing to advance our causes. We need to take a hard look at how we endorse and fund candidates (HRC, Victory Fund, I'm looking at you), and offer support to less-likely to win primary candidates who can at least SHIFT the debate on this issue.   I would rather support a candidate I know isn't going to win, but who can articulate a progressive vision rather than candidates (such as in my home state: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) who will just as easily towe the party line as care about our rights, liberty, or justice.

Shame on you Stonewall for towing the party line.
Shame on you Log Cabin for not owning that not a SINGLE Republican voted for this bill.

If my generation were running the show in this community, headlines would read like this:

"Queers abandon Democratic Party to form Progressive Party with allies for Civil, Environment, Social and Economic Justice. Democrats Dismayed at the new Left Flank and exposed as "America's Center-Right" party."

Food for thought.  

---

by: danielleaskini @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:04:20 PM CST

Eight Is Enough!

or it shouuld be, enough defecting Dems to keep the GAyTM closed in New York State except to committed, pro-LGBT Senators and Representatives.

And to embrace the tactic of Cato as regards Carthage during the Punic Wars, I will add my new closing:
"Diaz must Go!"

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:22:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Vote Socialist

That's who I'm giving my money to these days.
No more lesser of the two evils.

Hell, even Greens would be better than the Dems.

---

by: PurpleLove08 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:58:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Next steps

- Democraps without a spine: primary them
- Rethuglicans without a heart: vote them out
- GLBT New Yorkers: move to MA if you can afford to
- GLBT tourists: do not visit New York

I will not settle for anything less than the same rights as everyone else.

---

by: infodriveway @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:19:49 PM CST

GLBT New Yorkers

Come out and stay out.

Get your friends, families, co-workers, etc to lobby their "representatives" to vote FOR Marriage Equality.

Everyone else: vote for Socialists and you won't be dissapointed. =]

---

by: PurpleLove08 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:00:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you're trans don't bother with Massachusetts

They have marriage equality but still can't get their trans nondiscrimination law out of committee.  Similar to Connecticut and New Hampshire.  Vermont and Iowa have both marriage equality AND trans inclusive non discrimination law.  I'd suggest those places are better for the (t) community to move to.

Of course, moving requires resources.  Dang, damned if ya do and damned if ya don't.  No job?  We're stuck where we are.

---

by: Emelye Waldherr @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 21:43:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gay and Lesbian transfolks CAN get married in New York . . .

. . . as long as our birth certificates have not been amended, and as long as our spouses are not trans (or are trans, but have had their birth certificate sex designation changed).

The current law discriminates against the straight transfolk (at least, if they have not had their birth certificates changed).

A post-op born in Ohio, Tennessee or Idaho, where they can't change their birth certificates, can have legal lesbian (or gay) marriages in New York.  (And one can perhaps include Texas, Florida and Kansas on that list, since their courts don't recognize a correction of sex designation, it may be more difficult to get a correction in those states these days.)  One can even include post-ops who strategically postpone getting their birth certificate corrected even in states where they can get the correction done - but there isn't any statutory or case law in such a circumstance, only those cases that go the other way.

I took advantage of the current New York law's legal loophole on November 8th, when I married my sweetie.  Considering I don't have other civil rights on a statewide basis, I may as well take advantage of the rights I do have, even if it's the result of a legal absurdity.

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:20:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Do the bigots know

that out of state gay marriage is already recognized by NY State? Why can't they just extend that right to its citizens?

---

by: Donica @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:03:10 PM CST

We should be mad as hell and not take it anymore

Our GLBT organizaitons have go to use these temporary defeats as an opportunity to "regroup" and restart a new FIGHTING strategy.

They need to start hiring MARKETING FIRMS not so called "political consultants" that cost an arm and a leg but get us nowhere.

MARKETING consultants .. . people who do TV Advertising, consumer behavior, marketing of a product, etc.

Sorry but that is what it will take.  No more politics as usual.  Will the major GLBT organizaiton FINALLY start fighting back with the right message?

It's all in the message and how we position ourselves.

Whatever it takes to finally achieve equality faster.

And in the meantime, the GAYTM is definitely closed, especially to those Democrats who keep failing us.

Fight back!

---

by: Juan @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:04:41 PM CST

any NO votes from closet cases?

if there were they won't hide in a closet for long...BANK ON IT.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:17:32 PM CST

with 38 NO votes, it's likely 3-4 queers in this woodpile

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:37:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Targeted GAYTM Goal

When the dems deliver 24 yes votes (all the yes votes), and the republicans deliver 30 no votes (all of the votes they had), then it is clear that closing the gAyTM off to the dems fully (in absence of a viable 3rd party) will only allow for more republican no votes to be there next time.

We must resist the temptation to judge the dem party group as a whole, and instead we have to be very discerning about helping those who are pro-equality, and challenging those who are not.  If we use a chainsaw for this problem that requires a chisel, then the result wont be pretty.

I can only speak from my own experiences.  While the democratic party here in NC isn't perfect, without their support we wouldn't have the bullying bill which I believe passed by 1 vote in the legislature, and the comprehensive sex ed bill, we wouldn't stand alone in the south with no constitutional ban against marriage equality, and democrats support was certainly important in the first gay mayor we just elected in Chapel Hill by about 100 votes last month.

My point is our victories here are so narrow, and while the dem party support hasn't been unanimous, the republican party opposition is strong, and if we don't use a chisel instead of a chainsaw and if we unnecessarily lose one vote in the legislature then that is the whole ball game.  Our GAYTM must be carefully targeted, not closed.

---

by: Jake Gellar-Goad @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 20:04:49 PM CST

I agree

give money to individual politicians who are doing a good job, not party organizations unless they have proven their commitment to equality.

---

by: tbaxfer @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 21:00:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly

What this vote does is remind us how important Primaries are!  We can't assume a plain Democrat majority makes all the difference.  You have to work hard in Primary Season to get the RIGHT Democrats elected.  

Use the so-called "GayTM" to support progressive, pro-equality Democrats in their primary battles....that is what will get things improved.

---

by: RaleighRob @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 08:47:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I wonder how many of the 8 Dems who voted NO are Catholic?

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:56:46 AM CST

From Senator Duane

"Today's vote against Marriage Equality makes me very angry.  Promises made were not honored.  The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, and all fair minded New Yorkers have been betrayed.  I am enraged, deeply disappointed and profoundly saddened by the vote today.

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-...

Enraged, deeply disappointed and profoundly saddened?  I know how he feels.

---

by: Emelye Waldherr @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:03:40 AM CST

Senator Duane had a head count that included at least three more Democrats

What I think happened was that when the three Democrats defected and did not vote for the bill (five other Dems weren't going to be voting for the bill), the five or more Republicans Tom had lined up to get the bill over the top decided that they would not vote for a bill that was not going to pass.

Had the three or four Dems who turned coat not done so, those five or more Republicans would have come out and supported the bill, enough to let it pass. I don't know who the Republicans were and can't really speculate, though I would like to think that Senator Morahan (Rockland County) could have been one of them - he did not commit one way or the other when he was being lobbied this year.

I agree that we were betrayed. Strangely enough, Ruben Diaz, Sr. is NOT one of the ones who can be counted as a betrayer.  He has always and steadfastly been an anti-Christian Christianist idiot, and would not have voted for the bill no matter what.

The count I was aware of from June had the bill losing by five votes.  Losing by eight means there are turncoats among the Dems who failed Senator Duiane and our people.  Some of those Democrats, like Diaz, are never going to vote for the bill, and are so well entrenched in their districts that they are not going to be easily rooted out.

We can now try to elect eight or more additional senate districts with pro-marriage senators (I don't care whether they are Democrat or Republican) in the 2010 elections, while still keeping those 24 who were with us.

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:36:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

VOTE THE HYPOCRITES OUT

and replace them with gay legislators.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.-- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Mykelb @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:22:53 AM CST

I think we need some transsexual senators

It's obvious that gay issues are being heard, at least.

---

by: Emelye Waldherr @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:49:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The "I heartbreak NY" t-shirts are very effective image I hope they catch on

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:21:15 PM CST