State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

The New York State Senate, by a count of 38-24, has voted down a landmark bill that would have made New York the sixth state in the nation to legalize gay marriage.

The floor debate and vote came after months of delays and behind-the-scenes arm-twisting of Senators who were sympathetic to the bill, but who represented conservative districts.

Democratic leaders had worried about having enough votes. Eight Democrats voted "no" on the bill: Joseph Addabbo Jr., Darrel Aubertine, Ruben Diaz Sr., Shirley Huntley, Carl Kruger, Hiram Monserrate, George Onorato, William Stachowski. No Republicans voted "yes."

It's the latest defeat for gay marriage advocates. Earlier this month, voters in Maine approved a referendum that struck down a gay marriage law before it took effect.

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect January 1.

In New York, Senate Democratic leaders say they will have to talk long and hard with members and know that they have a lot of work to do before the measure can be brought back to the floor for another try.

Speaker Christine Quinn released the following statement about the vote:

“Today the New York State Senate rejected an opportunity to declare that all citizens in New York are equal. The depth of sadness that I and many New Yorkers feel today is difficult to express. This is a loss for every family in New York. This is a loss for every Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender New Yorker.

“I want to thank Senator Tom Duane, Senator Sampson and the rest of the Senate leadership for bringing this issue to a vote on the Senate floor. I applaud them for their dogged leadership on this issue.

“I also applaud every Senator who voted in favor of this civil rights bill. Each of them stood up today and declared that all people should be equal and nobody should be treated differently. I thank all the Senators who spoke so movingly on the Senate floor. I want to deeply thank the advocates who have worked so long and so hard on this issue.

“Today is not, however, by any means, the end of the fight for same-sex marriage in New York State. We will continue to work and fight for equal rights, and if anything our efforts will only be made all the stronger by today's vote.

“My partner and I are not able to legally marry in New York State. My same-sex neighbors and constituents are not able to legally marry in New York State. But we will continue to work, to fight and to educate. We will continue to support those amazing advocates who spend every day fighting for LGBT New Yorkers equal rights. We will not accept defeat and we will not stop fighting until all New Yorkers are treated equally. I sincerely believe that some day LGBT New Yorkers will be able to legally marry.”

Tell us what you think about gay marriage in New York. Post your comments below.


More in:

Comments [57]


i love gay people!!!!!!!! they are so fun to be around. why would people want to stop them from commiting to each other if they dont like it when others what if they try to stop there marriages. let them be gay all they want there not hurting anyone JUST LET THEM BE!!!!!!!!!!

Nov. 17 2010 10:29 AM
Nancy Rutigliano

Yes, it is pretty hard to believe that Gay Marriage is legal in New Hampshire and illegal in New York. It is a very disappointing outcome, but not a surprise.

In response to Jacob: I have yet to see an unwanted pregnancy in the gay community.

Dec. 06 2009 02:28 PM
Ira M. Noone

"The people" have not "spoken" because there hasn't been an open public vote...and when did politicians start acting in the best interests of their constituents? "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and therefore state and federal governments should not have any authority over it.
Hate, intolerance, divorce and religion make children feel less loved; not two parents of the same gender.
This is a matter of civil rights, plain and simple. Those opposed better start getting comfortable with the idea.

Dec. 06 2009 11:57 AM

I'm Christian and married, but my question is why is it that homosexuality is the spiritual deal-breaker when we read in countless other places in the bible about how thou shalt not kill? In the 10 commandments, there is no mention of thou shalt not be gay. Even after Romans 1 God lets us know what he thinks of those who condemn:

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Romans 2:1 KJV

And when the argument against gay marriage is not religious, then it's pure and simple homophobia. Need I say it? ...Maybe those reacting so viscerally ought to take an honest look at what's motivating such a response.

Let all people get married. Let people who have enough love in them raise children. Let love be our criteria instead of this divisive "your sin is worse than mine" idea. It's just hypocritical and a waste of energy, and none of anyone else's business.

Dec. 05 2009 07:09 PM
Phyllis R.

It truly saddens me to see the disparaging, disrespectful comments so many posters feel comfortable making about those of us who hold religious beliefs. There are many who are deaf to the concerns of others on both sides of this debate.

Please understand that in my faith marriage is a sacrament - one of only seven. For those of us who "ignorantly" hold tight to our faith, it is offensive to take this sacred rite, one that has always been between one man and one woman, and politicize it.

I applaud all of those senators who saw fit to vote the will of their constituents.

Dec. 05 2009 07:07 PM
Arthur Gilman

I'm surprised that no-one has linked the Catholic Church and their recent political activism with this vote. It appears that the leaders of the American Catholic church have decided that loyalty to the Roman Catholic dogma is more important for elected officials than their duty to their constituents. This has been illustrated by the denial of Communion to legislators who dare to vote against the Catholic church's position on abortion. Next, we are likely to see attempts to pressure legislators who would dare to vote for Gay marriage!
I, for one, who has regularly donated to several charities such as the NY Times Neediest Persons Fund, have decided to only do so only if my money does not go to Catholic Charities. This is a somewhat quixotic attempt but the only one I know to do at present. I also would never vote for a Catholic who does not pledge to ignore the Bishops' demands and declare his vote on Abortion and Gay Marriage in advance.

Dec. 05 2009 11:48 AM

Here's the deal. Brian Lehrer are under the false impression that this is about a denial of civil rights.

Gay marriage has never been a right, thus, it is not a denial of a right. Gay marriage is a new right that this being sought, i.e., a special right for 4 to 6% of the population.

Where is this secret list of civil rights that I have never seen by the way? Gay civil unions are fully supported by me and the majority of the state.

The best gay marriage cannot equal the best hetero marriage for one reason: one can produce offspring with the combination of love and the mates. One never can. But gay relationships can thrive, be stable and loving but cannot produce that magic. They can nurture, love, care and all that but cannot produce. To allow gay marriage waters down marriage as an institution as an ideal.

Dec. 05 2009 11:31 AM
Hetero female 36yo

Gay Marriage is even legal in NH! The most conservative state in the Northeast!

it's shameful.

Dec. 04 2009 09:28 PM
Hetero female 36yo

for 8 years I was embarrassed to be an American.
Now, I am embarrassed to be a New Yorker.

thank god I was born & raised in Vermont!
time to move back.

nuf' said.


Dec. 04 2009 09:26 PM
Mrs. Gumba

Reading Christine Quinn's words, pondering carefully on her opinion, her charges and her wishes for the future I could come up with only one thought: what a despicable creature she is!

Dec. 04 2009 05:27 PM
alex lombard

I am for gay rights .When I was in the military there were a considerable amount of gays. However I do not like the idea of lo\inking it to civil rights when I was discharged down south by the way I am a so called Afro American I had to get on segrated bus to get home also I do not know of any gays being lynched and beaten by tyhe KKK anyway I am in favor of gay rights

Dec. 04 2009 12:03 PM

I'm very glad it was defeated. This is about the definition of marriage in this society, and I don't want to see it changed, and don't think it should be changed. See the video 'The demographic winter'. People's practices are covered by the right to privacy.

Dec. 04 2009 10:56 AM

minority rights count and must be respected by others if they consider themselves ethical, and naturally time and life will test all of us, as many of the sons and daughters and parents and grandchildren, or uncle, aunt, neigbor, teacher, soldier, and politican maybe homosexual... accept reality...reconsider, make up your mind, never give up

Dec. 04 2009 08:24 AM
Jen from Brooklyn

I'm a lesbian, and personally I'd really like to get the government out of the business of sanctifying relationships. Everyone should have a civil union and if you want your priest/rabbi/guru/imam to bless it, knock yourself out.

However, that would require the rewriting of about about six jillion pages of legislation, and people, I don't have that kind of time.

There are serious problems and extraordinary expenses I face because I do not have full equality. That needs to be addressed.

And why is it again that others get to vote on my civil rights? If we're voting on the civil rights of others, can I vote on the civil rights of SUV drivers? I mean, they choose to drive SUVs despite the clear absence of any off-road conditions in New York City. Their choice poisons my air and ties my country to expensive foreign wars. Plus, most of them act like jerks. They make me uncomfortable, they are different from me, and I don't like them. Can I vote on their civil rights now?

Dec. 03 2009 11:10 PM
Michael D. Byer

Gays should have the same rights as other citizens; anything less constitutes an infringement of civil rights comparable to Jim Crow laws. In the debate over gay marriage, it has been said many times that gays should have the right to the same privelages and protections conferred on a married couple by law that the rest of us enjoy, here I am saying nothing original. But I doubt that gay marriage will be approved in NYS for the next 50 years, either by referendum or by legislative decree, because there are too many people in the state whose religious or other beliefs are against it. Mostly they do not even seem to know why, they just say, "marriage should be between a man and a woman," and let it go at that. If you press them, they may cite their parents or their pastor or the bible. Well, look, their are those of us who DO NOT believe that parents, pastors, the bible, koran, torah or whatever is the final, unquestioned authority on anything, and reserve the right to question and/or to figure things out for ourselves. If YOU think, for example, that every word in the bible is right because it's God's word, OK, you are entitled to your belief as I am entitled to mine, and I respect yours. But if you think that I am evil, or maybe should even be punished, because I don't agree with you, I DO have a problem with that! It puzzles me that many people who consider themselves tolerant, who for example decry the persecution that the Jews have suffered and feel that Jews should have the right to worship as they wish, will yet deny others the right to define marriage in any non-traditional way. Look at it another way. Imagine that muslims were a large majority in your state, but you are Christian or agnostic. Muslims believe that women should wear head scarves in public. For as long as anyone can remember, ALL women in the state have been required to wear head scarves; in fact a violation of this rule carries the same punishment as appearing naked on the street. You, or your wife or sister or mother, finds the scarf oppressive in the sweltering summer heat, or just would like to show her pretty hair. But of course, the legislature, which reflects the demographics of the state, will not abolish the rule. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL? The point is, if YOU believe that marriage must only be between a man and a woman, that's fine for YOU. If you should happen to be gay, that would mean that YOU would not marry your partner, even if the civil law permitted it. But don't impose your beliefs on others who feel differently! That is just like telling others that they must practice the Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or any other ritual. If you believe that others have a right to worship as they wish, why do you have a problem with a same-sex couple who want to go through a ritual and consider themselves married? They are not infringing on YOUR beliefs, nor imposing their beliefs on you!

Dec. 03 2009 08:58 PM

It's funny, I am a straight person supporting gay rights,and every time I ask a fellow straight if he/she has seen "Milk," the answer is almost always "no." After what we thought was the mind-bending success of the Milk bio-pic, it doesn't seem to have made much difference. It was just preaching to the choir. My second comment is that I came to NY from the deep South, but considering the unenlightened view of a lot of New Yorkers, maybe I should have stayed there.

Dec. 03 2009 04:25 PM

I want to know why our legislators don't see the positive side of people forming stable, loving relationships - doesn't it mean that more married people will stay in NY and pay more taxes once they are married? Don't married people end up paying higher taxes anyway? And doesn't NY have to recognize and honor marriages from other states that allow it? You're not going to stop people living the way they want. Every time we try to legislate things like drugs abortion or whom we should marry people do what they want anyway - the 'no' votes are ultimately in a losing battle. Why does our state government waste so much time???? If you want to get religious about it, what happened to the golden rule? Do unto others only as you would have them do unto you. The bible wasn't written by God it was written by people - people who made mistakes and were much less educated about human beings than we are now. If there is a God then that god made all of us, so we all must be equal. And can't society only benefit when more people are supported in their care for each other? And I want to know why everyone needs to put their nose into other people's bedrooms! It's disgusting, and I agree that we should throw the bums out and start again in NY. I am highly ashamed of my state's government, and will show them in the next election with my vote.

Dec. 03 2009 03:25 PM
Jim Pharo

I find it humiliating to have to share a civil society with people who are so comfortable and easy in their bigotry. For someone like Jacob, who is statistically speaking likely to be the father of someone who is gay, a hazy thought about how gay parents turn out more rebellious kids (which to me is a feature not a bug) masks plain old unwillingness to deal with people that are a little different.

I agree getting people to put their views in writing is helpful, but there is so little opportunity to discuss this issue it's almost worthless. Almost.

I am nearly at my wit's end in finding charitable ways of interacting with so many of my fellow New Yorkers and Americans, who seem perfectly willing to sacrifice the happiness of thousands for nothing more than a vague sense of unease.

Allowing gay people to marry does not affect anyone. Concerns about the children are a rationale that has no basis in reality. I'm tired of being in a minority that only wants simple justice, thwarted by the forces of ignorance, meanness and hubris.

As OBama said during the campaign, "it's almost like these guys are embracing ignorance." I"m not sure about the "almost," but I agree with the rest 100%.

Dec. 03 2009 01:02 PM
Ric Brown

I am ashamed to live in the State of New York. Perhaps it is again time for those in the city to rethink what binds them to the rest of the state and whether those connections should or can be maintained.

Dec. 03 2009 10:36 AM

This isn't really the Republicans or the Conservatives. Gay Marriage is one issue that makes a lot of otherwise politically Disinterested people react viscerally, if wrongly. And a lot of politicians had their phone-lines burn up with religious outrage.

My Godmother, who never cares about anything political, who was never hurt or bothered by a gay person, who is only 'procedurally' religious-- becomes religiously militant against Gay Marriage and will start Bible-thumping in an instant.

And when she starts Bible-thumping, you will hear NO REASONED explanation why she is against it. And I think, that because God is involved in their argument against Gay Marriage, the people who are against it know that they don't NEED to explain their LACK of a Reason for their stance.

It doesn't make sense-- but the politicians are too aware of the many vocal NAYS.

Gay Marriage will take a long concerted effort to wear this visceral reaction down.

Dec. 03 2009 10:33 AM
Tommy Haynes

please /note : Brian/ just stated the vote was 38/ 14. It was 38/24

Dec. 03 2009 10:22 AM
George Hahn

Religion has no place in this debate. None. This is about equal rights... nothing more. The ONLY threat to marriage is divorce.

Amazing how we gay men and women are subject to full taxes but not full rights. I am a single gay man (registered Democrat), yet I pay the taxes that provide the education of the children of my heterosexual counterparts. Additionally, these senators will not allow me equal rights, yet they are happy to take my money to pay their salary. Now THAT is offensive.

I am embarrassed by and ashamed of these senators. They are lower, unthinking people, truly.

Dec. 03 2009 10:18 AM

How Ironic is it that we are giving the rights of a trial under U.S. law - the rights of an American - to Khalid Shaik Mohammed, a violent Al Kaeda terrorist and to our own most peaceful, responsible and decent American taxpayers we withhold the rights of marriage?

Dec. 03 2009 10:16 AM

I am a Gay man and am AGAINST gay marriage because.... why use the term "MARRIAGE" if it is so offensive to everyone. So use the term "Same Sex Union" or something and it would have been passed ages ago.

Dec. 03 2009 10:16 AM

Make ALL government "marrages" civil unions. If any couple wants a marrage, let them go to the faith of their choice. Plus, NYC should get their own statehood. Why be part of a backward upstate that is glad to take our tax revenue and discriminate against our citizens downstate?

Dec. 03 2009 10:10 AM
Kris S.

I am deeply disappointed by this vote. Discrimination based on gender has been struck down in the workplace, collages, government--everywhere but in the granting of legal marriages.

If I applied for a job and was rejected because I'm female, I'd have the basis for a big lawsuit. But if I apply for a marriage license to marry a woman, I'm rejected because I'm female. It's inconsistent and hypocritical. It has to change.

Dec. 03 2009 09:29 AM

One of the major reasons often given as to why gay marriage should not be legalized is that opponents view it as being in conflict with religious values. It is ironic then that as a gay woman I am able to find leaders of almost any faith who are willing to unite me and my partner in matrimony. What I am unable to obtain is equal civil rights. Due to DOMA those rights are denied even in states that have passed gay marriage.

Dec. 03 2009 09:18 AM
Alice Strauss

Another state joins the ranks of the behind-the -timers. When will we ever learn?

Dec. 03 2009 09:10 AM
erick amthor

Jesus said; "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?" Mathew 19:4,5

Dec. 03 2009 08:44 AM

support love and the legalitiy of others
to determine who to love...
stay out of others' hearts and lives...
let freedom ring? progressive = proactive = improving, not going backwards..."Spread the Love and the Word"
from a heterosexual male

Dec. 03 2009 08:02 AM
David Ezell

This decision a tragedy and I appreciate the thoughtful comments from most here. However, I have to challenge a fallacy I have seen in several posts. Many of you hold comfort in the future; believing in the myrh that the future is one where change will be gradual and events can only occur in an "onward and upward" trajectory. That, dear friends, is a fallacy. The future is unknown to us and does not guarantee success. The state of civil rights in America may become worse, not better, as the years unfold. What will guarantee the civil rights of sexual minorities? An organized resistance demanding equality and nothing less and a president who supports that stance.

Dec. 03 2009 07:26 AM

David, thank you for your simple yet effective comment. I am a white woman, having been in long term relationships with both men and women, and have always made this fight for equality for all people a priority. This issue encourages people to put their ignorant and judgemental views in writing, and it will likely help them to grow and mature, but will also be a record for them to refer back to. Equality is inevitable. It could take 5 years or 20 years, but I'm lucky to know that I will be here to witness it. I am only saddened for the older generations who may not witness it in their lifetime, and especially saddened for those who have put sweat and tears into fighting for their own (and their loved ones) equality.

Dec. 03 2009 07:05 AM
Gabriel Gonzalez

This is an step back, people is too keen to impose their moral to others. Unbelievable, I thought New York was ahead in this kind of matters.

Dec. 03 2009 03:50 AM
Harry Matthews

What on earth could we expect from our monumentally dysfunctional legislature? My favorite solution: vote out all the incumbents and start from scratch.

Alternatively, I can take the long view. Every poll taken across the state or across the country shows that marriage equality has overwhelming support from people in their 20's and 30's. As time passes, they will become a majority of voters, and gay people will attain equal rights. Maybe not this year or the next, but within a decade or two.

This may sound like a slow pace, but do remember that 30 years ago it was hard for gay people to buy a drink legally in this state. Step by step, a revolution has occurred.

Dec. 03 2009 03:19 AM

It should be noted that marriage can only be an equal human rights issue if marriage as an institution is primarily concerned with the people getting married. If, however, domestic partnership is NOT the primary purpose of marriage, then the interests of the children take precedence.

In New York, we clearly take the view that marriage is NOT for the domestic partnership of the principals, but for the children. We can clearly see this because Jack's suggestion, "If marriage is so sacred, ban the biggest threat to it–DIVORCE," has already been carried out as much as is reasonable: No-Fault Divorce does not exist in New York. Bored with your marriage? Tough. It's not about you.

Domestic partnership is a separate issue, and we desperately need our own version of the Pacte Civil de Solidarite, for gay folks who want to visit their partners in the hospital, yes, but more importantly for straight people--we need to be clear that marriage is for making more human beings, and once you do that, their interests come before yours. Hopefully such a shift would lead to fewer children falling victim to their parents' unthinking mistakes.

Parallels to race or miscegnation fall flat because while race does not have a significant effect on brain structure or neurochemistry, gender does--that's part of how we know gay men don't choose to be gay, remember? Their corpi callosa are bigger, like women's are. Men and women are demonstrably and significantly different in a thousand ways.

The question, then, is about the children, but it's not whether gay folks are "worse parents" than straight folks...Yes, there are thousands of married straight people who don't deserve their kids, and I'm sure Dan Savage is a great father... Rather, the question is "If we eliminate from marriage the diversity of brain structure, neurochemistry, and cultural experience that is inherent in opposite sexes, is anything lost from a child-rearing standpoint?"

Undoubtedly, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics about gay parents on both sides of the debate, so I would point to a set of data that has nothing to do with this controversy and so will not be biased by it. Our society views active, residential fatherhood as inherently valuable. In fact, it views it as so valuable that it trumps biology in child support suits: a cuckold can find himself liable for child support after his wife leaves him for the child's real father. ( More positively, boys who grow up with fathers are less likely to go to jail, girls are less likely to seek out or tolerate abusive relationships, and both are more likely to stay in school. It goes on and on; the studies demonstrating the specific value of fatherhood are legion.

If either fatherhood or motherhood is inherently valuable, if we feel our mothers gave us things our fathers could not, or vice versa, then we cannot also claim that in a same-sex marriage, nothing is lost.

Same-sex marriage's problem isn't Christianity, it's Taoism. Men and women are both vitally important to society, and vitally important to the raising of children. That's why so many people are both committed to gay rights but oppose same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is different from gay rights because it's not about the rights of individuals, it's about culture, and most people will indeed resist a cultural value that allows for the exclusion of either Yin or Yang, of either men or women, from the ideal.

Dec. 03 2009 01:57 AM

Will happen!! Such a high educated
leading driving state cannot be behind
for too long in such a basic right for opinion
choice or decision of partner. My family
would be positively influenced by this
decision; my sister has a well established
lesbian relationship and also loves NYC.

Dec. 02 2009 09:28 PM

This vote is on the wrong side of history. Gay marriage is coming, it's the right thing to do, and one day our children and grandchildren will wonder how we every could have allowed such inequality, much in the same way we look back at the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

As an aside, I wonder how many of the no votes came from people who had been divorced?

Dec. 02 2009 08:56 PM
Chad Harris

I’m gay and I do not support this. Why should we be subjected to 52 separate state decisions for something that is clearly a federal right? We may win battles but we are losing the war. State by state marriage is a red-herring that distracts from the bigger issue and protects spineless Democratic politicians.

The HRC wants us to believe in the power of the majority, a majority who has and will continue to fight against and rescind any progress we make. A majority our constitution protects us against. (See California and the plan to spend millions undoing an overturned decision that never made sense in the first place.) All of this struggle for something as simple, as clear, as cheap and as time-tested as equality.

Our leadership lived through a civil rights era but all of the sudden the promise of equality is now a privilege. I am in an 8-year bi-national relationship with a man who will soon face deportation. No state, state law, federal law, or foreign marriage protects my federal right to do what my own brother can do. Marry.

Barrack Obama needs to back away from the HRC and the likes of Barney Frank and go rogue. We need a champion for equal rights, anything less is discrimination. This is not a battle over gay marriage it is a battle for equality. Mark my words; anyone against full equality is and will be on the WRONG side of history. After all we all know how this turns out don’t we?

Dec. 02 2009 06:48 PM
David Anderson

As a human being and a straight black male, I am deeply disappointed in the New York State Senate's discussion. It is rather disheartening to witness another state endorsed act of bigotry.

Dec. 02 2009 06:35 PM
Mike Weyand

I feel that the Senate has shown that they do NOT have a clue about human rights or equality and are only looking at the next election. VOTE THE BUMS OUT!

Dec. 02 2009 06:08 PM
Gary Marantz

I am Canadian also and the U.S. has shown time after time in the last little while that they are a backward, reactionary country.
That Louis E actually considers himself a liberal illustrates how screwed up America's politics are. The far right blue dog Democrats are referred to as moderates. Only in America.
The American progressives have to suffer the embarrassment of being identified with this bunch of bigots.

Dec. 02 2009 05:48 PM
Louis E.

I am a lifelong Democrat who is largely liberal but where this issue is concerned I am horrified that treating same-sex relationships as if they were of as much worth to society as opposite-sex relationships (and therefore as worthy of the benefits of recognition as marriage) is even suggested.The tired analogies to interracial marriage are trotted out but are as offensive and inappropriate as ever...what color someone's skin is (turn out the lights and who can tell?) has NOTHING to do with a marriage,that the parties are of opposite sexes is the WHOLE POINT of a marriage.Civil marriage (never having been religious I can enter no other kind) exists specifically to guarantee opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment their being opposite-sex entitles them to.
Interracial marriage breaks down barriers,uniting different groups among humanity,while same-sex marriage creates barriers,permitting groups to turn inward among themselves.A homosexual's refusal to remain celibate is no more worthy of respect or acceptance than an alcoholic's refusal to remain sober,and those who have their best interests,rather than their selfish demands,at heart will never stop telling them to change their behavior.Right and wrong are not "equals",and it no more makes them "second-class citizens" to identify their sexual attractions as unfortunate than it discriminates against my "equal right" to "see differently" that my driver's license obligates me to wear lenses that correct my inferior vision to the only kind people SHOULD have in order to let me drive,rather than granting me separate roads with large type signs so I can pretend my vision is "equal" to better vision.

Dec. 02 2009 05:02 PM

This is a sad day for all New Yorkers upstate and down. And an even sadder day for the miserable politics of the State Senate. Can they not get one thing right or I should say correct? I believe we will have equality for all couples under the law, but until that day happens there should be some type of compensation for those who do not share in the full benefits of being a citizen in the State of New York.

Dec. 02 2009 04:53 PM

I am throughly disheartened that this failed. I trust that those who voted against this bill suffer the repercussions of their unconscionable, bigoted vote and are embarrassed in the not too distant future by not supporting this human right.
This subject should not be under the purview of the "people" to be doling out personal rights.
Who could possibly show more love for their children if they cannot show love for their brothers and sisters. It's laughable.

Dec. 02 2009 04:38 PM
Laurence Kaye

I'm going talk to my member of parliament here in the UK about the possibility of opening up asylum for Americans in Europe.

Dec. 02 2009 04:32 PM

so, i can't get married to my partner, but i can give you nearly a third of my salary in taxes? that's cool, thanks.

Dec. 02 2009 04:32 PM
Rodrigo Barrera

Sooner or later.....this its going to happen... but not know because this country mix religion and politics, and the worst is, law makers in this State, have not learned the lesson....leave religion topics for all this double moral politicians and start make laws based in Justice and equality for us... THE PEOPLE!!!

Dec. 02 2009 04:31 PM

All i have to say is this is really pathetic another example of America being in the stone ages... and THANK GOD I'M CANADIAN!!!

Dec. 02 2009 04:17 PM

@Jacob Long time ago "the people" also thought that it was ok to not permit interracial couples to marry.

Gay couples are a minority and if you think it is ok for the majority to remove rights from a minority then I say lets do it all the way. Lets outlaw interracial marriages, blacks from entering white restaurants, women in the work force, or Muslim churchs, etc.

Of course I am being ridiculously sarcastic. Its totally unacceptable to discriminate against a minority because of your own personal religious views.

Give it up, seriously. Gay marriage *WILL* be legal one day, you *WILL* lose the fight as history has shown.

Your thoughts on children being less loved is also absolutely ridiculous and has zero legitimate research to back it up. Its just typical FUD.

Dec. 02 2009 04:17 PM

I'm glad that Hiram Monserrate is telling people how to run their domestic affairs.

Dec. 02 2009 03:59 PM
Christopher M.

I just wanted to fix a few things in the first comment on the page:

Comment from Jacob
Date: December 2, 1966, 3:30 pm

The people have spoken. Most are against miscegnation, and the Court will reflect their view. As a married father of six, I feel certain that if my “partner” was black, my kids would feel less loved, be more rebellious, and would perform less well in school.

There, I think that more properly reflects where experts like Jacob are coming from. Keep on fighting the inevitability of history! It's not like such attitudes have ever looked foolish before!

Dec. 02 2009 03:58 PM

Responding to Jacob: Your belief that your children would feel "less loved" being raised by a same-sex couple speaks only to your views on love. I wonder how "well loved" they actually feel themselves to be, knowing their father's conditional outlook on it.

Dec. 02 2009 03:42 PM

I’m pleased with that vote. Every person deserves equal rights but leave the word “marriage” out of the equation.

Dec. 02 2009 03:42 PM

If marriage is so sacred, ban the biggest threat to it--DIVORCE.

Dec. 02 2009 03:42 PM
Barry Solow

If New York cannot see its way to granting marriage rights equally, across the board, it is ultimately because of the religious implications of the term "marriage". New York should not govern "marriage" at all; leave that to the various religions. The state should, instead, institute something like the French Pacte Civil de Solidarité (é ) -- but they should include adoption rights -- and get out of the marriage business altogether.

Dec. 02 2009 03:41 PM

Jacob, gay marriage *will* be legalized. It hasn't happened yet, but it will. And that bit about your children feeling less loved is ridiculous.

Dec. 02 2009 03:39 PM

The people have spoken. Most are against it, and the politicians reflect their view. As a married father of six, I feel certain that if my "partner" was male, my kids would feel less loved, be more rebellious, and would perform less well in school.

Dec. 02 2009 03:30 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


Latest Newscast




WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public


Supported by