Late Night Open Thread – Tears of a clown edition

The GOP Will Pay a Grave Price
June 24, 2011 11:49 P.M.

By Maggie Gallagher

New York Republicans are responsible for passing gay marriage. The party will pay a grave price.

Here is what we know. In state after state, Democrats who control a chamber in support of their base have prevented votes favorable to marriage: Iowa, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania.

When Democrats are in the minority, they’ve demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to their base — in Wisconsin and Indiana fleeing the state to prevent a vote.

N.Y, Republicans did not have to bring gay marriage up for a vote: What does it mean that they passed gay marriage in N.Y.?

Michael Long, the Conservative-party chairman, has vowed to withhold his endorsement. The National Organization for Marriage has committed $2 million to persuading Republicans: Voting for gay marriage has consequences.

Sad that the N.Y. GOP has caved. Consequences to be continued.

ETA:

EATA:

Slide show of Josh Marshall’s photographs outside Stonewall:

Josh Marshall/TPM

H/t: JGabriel

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






175 replies
  1. 1
    TBogg says:

    Blow it out yer ass, Maggie.

  2. 2
    Yutsano says:

    Bitter woman is bitter.

    And I am now throwing a long hard stare down south at Olympia. The everything-but-the law sucks massive donkey balls.

  3. 3
    JaneGoth says:

    What Mr TBogg said.

    I think she needs to take up a soothing hobby such as flower pressing and forget about the hating other people.

  4. 4
    PIGL says:

    Yes, a grave price indeed.

    The homophobic, sexist, racist, fucktard contingent, as well the entire block[head] of grotesquely cultish “Christians” will be voting straight Democratic Party from now until the End of Days.

    Poor Republicans. Who will vote for them now?

  5. 5
    gocart mozart says:

    When Democrats are in the minority, they’ve demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to their base

    Maggie has a very dry sense of humor. Hope she is able to keep it going after the NYPD forces her at gunpoint to gay-marry Cindy Adams.

  6. 6
    Hill Dweller says:

    She is planning revenge because a group of people got a basic civil right. How does someone reach that point? What went so wrong?

    Is it all about ‘team’? Self-loathing resulting from her own sexual identity issues?

  7. 7
    JGabriel says:

    Photos from outside Stonewall Inn, by Josh Marshall @ TPM.

    .

  8. 8
    JenJen says:

    Suck it up, Mags. Suck it up.

    Happy Day. :-)

  9. 9
    Xenos says:

    Following along a line of comments in earlier, now dead open threads…

    Bouncing off the WPR discussions and the discretion of Treasury when the debt ceiling is exceeded, a new idea seems to be circulating courtesy of Bruce Bartlett and DDay: that the debt ceiling law may violate the XIVth amendment. This had never occurred to me, but makes a fair bit of sense.

    After the build-up over the debt ceiling over the last year it will be a huge fuss if Obama just says, when the GOP walks away from negotiations, ‘who cares?’ The structure of the US Constitution seems to lead inexorably to such crises being resolved by increasing executive power.

  10. 10
    Brian S says:

    Nice speech. I’m really happy that it passed and that they got some Republicans to help push it through in the state Senate. Can’t say I’m wild about the fact that religious organizations will be able to keep getting their hate on when it comes to renting their halls and such, but if that’s the compromise that had to be made in order to get the law passed, then I can live with it for now.

  11. 11
    Mnemosyne says:

    You know, I understand being bitter because you couldn’t convince your boyfriend to marry you even after he knocked you up, but that’s really no reason to take it out on innocent people. Most people who are bitter that way just decide that marriage sucks and no one should get married. Very few decide that their boyfriend ran out on them because of Teh Ghey.

    Unless there’s something that Maggie has forgotten to mention about the father of her child. Why do I have a sneaky feeling that Maggie is convinced that her boyfriend totally would have married her if only he’d kept that whole gay thing to himself?

    It’s the only thing I can think of that would make sense.

  12. 12
    Dennis SGMM says:

    Good to see that Kate O’Beirne has mentored Gallagher in that special sort of looking-into-a-camel’s-mouth ugliness of soul that seems to be the province of many conservative females. They can always be counted upon to take the ladies against women stance on any issue.

  13. 13
    Ruckus says:

    Again, What Mr TBogg said.

    Haters got to hate. Anything else might make them seem…

    human.

  14. 14
    Silver says:

    Maybe Maggie will eat the NY GOP?

  15. 15
    Mnemosyne says:

    BTW, if anyone missed the “Stonewall Uprising” episode of The American Experience on PBS, it’s really good.

  16. 16
    Yutsano says:

    Happy Day. :-)

    Oh frabjous day calloo callay fits here. Also.

  17. 17
    Nic says:

    Humanity has been on a progressive push since the dark ages ended. The cat is out of the bag. Pay no mind to the setbacks. On we march!

  18. 18
    anderj says:

    So there were NY Democrats and Republicans whose thought have “evolved”. Too bad Gallagher does not accept the existence of evolution.

    Let’s lick her tears. They taste good!

  19. 19
    Yutsano says:

    A thought exercise for Miss Maggie there. From Real Merika even!

  20. 20
    Steeplejack says:

    @JenJen:

    Suck it up, Mags. Suck it up.

    Fix’d.

  21. 21
    SRW1 says:

    The National Organization for Marriage has committed $2 million to persuading Republicans: Voting for gay marriage has consequences.

    We haters will be hatin’ and we got some dough! What else is new?

    Here’s to you future losses, Maggie!

  22. 22
    JGabriel says:

    Thanks for the hat tip, Sarah!

    .

  23. 23
    Bruuuuce says:

    The Empire State Building celebrates, brightly, brightly, and with beauty.

    I am deeply proud to be a resident of New York tonight, and am looking forward to becoming the second-largest state with marriage equality when Prop 8’s overturning is finally upheld.

  24. 24
    burnspbesq says:

    @Brian S:

    “Can’t say I’m wild about the fact that religious organizations will be able to keep getting their hate on when it comes to renting their halls and such”

    I’m inclined to think that this won’t have a lot of practical effect. Yes, there are crappy little semi-abandoned towns in rural upstate where the Knights of Columbus hall is the only place to hold a wedding reception (my dad is from one such town). It seems likely to me that anyone who grew up gay in such a town got out at their first opportunity and never looked back.

  25. 25

    oh for the love of mary, maggie, dire consequences? shirley you can’t be serious. er, um…

    no, no, more of this, i agree, there should be consequences, this is a shot across the bowel of heterosexuals. your damned right the republicans should demand consequences from their brothers and sisters(no homo!) that let down the hetero movement.

    see, what happens, gay marriage passes just a few hours ago, and i am already ratfucking, santorum was right!

  26. 26
    burnspbesq says:

    Daily News front page nails it.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....pages.html

  27. 27
    Yevgraf says:

    Permit me, if you will, a mighty wry yawn.

    “History”? Please. Basically, it is a lot of sturm and drang (and a lot of spent political capital) about an expansion of an institution that is actually steeply declining among the target heterosexual population. Oh, sure, given the tiny fraction of gay folk who are married, there will be a veritable explosion of the number of gay marriages, but it will still be a fairly negligible number given the size of the population as a whole. Plus, once the novelty and fun of getting hitched fades away, and once gay folk get to endure the joy that is a dispute over nonmarital property and maintenance, then you’ll see some twinges of regret – the inevitable “I signed on for this?!?”

    Still, it’ll be an awesome wedge issue for midwestern Republicans to use in states like Indiana and Ohio.

    Wake me up the day that all of the gay political activists start working for economic justice for the far more numeric lower and middle classes as opposed to working for GOP causes and candidates from closeted (and some of those barely that) lives.

  28. 28
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Here’s hoping Mags has a steak dinner at a restaurant, chokes on a chunk of steak and ends up being saved by a gay person.

    Naah. As bitter as she sounds she would probably be upset and angry that a gay person had the audacity to touch her.

  29. 29
    Kobie says:

    Been a while since I’ve been this proud to be a New Yorker (yeah, a dirty upstater, but whatevs). Bout fucking time we decided to start treating gay people right.

    And Yevgraf, take your parade pissing elsewhere. This is a good thing.

  30. 30
    PurpleGirl says:

    I like my state this morning. I like the state senator from Poughkeepsie this morning. (My state senator was a supporter of marriage equality early on.)

    (My governor can go take a long walk off a short pier; he ain’t the progressive he pretends to be. I’m pleased he pushed for marriage equality but he also is using it for a cover as he does other bad stuff.)

    As to Maggie G. — she can join Cuomo taking a long walk on a short pier.

  31. 31
    stuckinred says:

    Yevgraf

    Damn, I have to wake up to a fucking asshole like you?

  32. 32
    Yevgraf says:

    And Yevgraf, take your parade pissing elsewhere. This is a good thing.

    Lots ‘o drama and distraction, and there’s always the Next Big Battle for gay desires to worry about and obsess about 24/7. Meanwhile, we investors can’t sue our investment houses for fraud, the debt ceiling problem is still there, and rich people still demand that they not be taxed.

    Pardon me if I’m reacting with indifference over the notion that Jeff Gannon and Ken Mehlman (or any of the horde of conservative gay GOP activists) can now marry one another in yet another state while fucking over the rest of the county AND while using their ability to marry as a wedge in some states.

    And in advance, understand that when given opportunities to vote about it, I’ve always voted pro-gay, and voted against my state’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. I’m just a lot disturbed that at a time when we are so economically fucked, that this becomes the focus of activist energy.

  33. 33
    harlana says:

    Maybe gays will have a higher success rate at marriage than us heteros. But can I just say that this guy on Dylan Ratigan pissed me off last night, saying that married people are taken more seriously and considered better people than single people! With a 50% divorce rate, this is ludicrous! However, considering America’s obsession with marriage and/or procreation (Birth Worship, forget about whether you can afford them), he may be right. I just hope we can continue to attack the right’s determination to force women to have babies with the same vigor and determination as the gay community on this issue.

  34. 34
    Carol says:

    Yevgrav, blow it out your….This is a great day. No marriage won’t be a novelty.
    For many, having a legal life partner means a lot of benefits, from the legal side, the financial side, and even the social side, like being recognized as a permanent part of the family.

    A lot of those church halls will find “exceptions” eventually. Weddings are moneymakers, and in those small picturesque towns, they need the money. And Niagara Falls needs a tourist boost. And Buffalo.

    But the real benefit will be that the rest of America will really see gay marriage and how it plays out bigtime. When it sees that the world doesn’t collapse, and New York isn’t smitten with fire, then the rest of America could follow suit eventually.

  35. 35
    stuckinred says:

    Yevgraf

    Oh, you’re a investor, that explains it.

  36. 36
    harlana says:

    The National Organization for Marriage has committed $2 million to persuading Republicans

    Isn’t this sort of, I dunno, like chickenfeed to Republicans? Perhaps they voted their conscience on this one, although I admit, the shift in attitude of some republicans, after so much gay-bashing, has surprised and puzzled me.

  37. 37
    Yevgraf says:

    Oh, you’re a investor, that explains it.

    Not much of one, given the state of what’s left of our pathetic mutual funds. I’m going to cross the threshhold of birthday number 50 next year with the equivalent of nothing once the debts and savings net out.

  38. 38
    stuckinred says:

    Yevgraf

    xin loi mofo

  39. 39
    Yevgraf says:

    No marriage won’t be a novelty.
    For many, having a legal life partner means a lot of benefits, from the legal side, the financial side, and even the social side, like being recognized as a permanent part of the family.

    The cynicism reflected from the family law side of my practice suggests differently. Every blown relationship that sits on the opposite side of my desk represents something that started with a lot of hope, and when humanity is involved, hope turns into shit all to often.

    But the real benefit will be that the rest of America will really see gay marriage and how it plays out bigtime.

    I’ll grant you that. I think, though, in the end, the world will react with a collective yawn once they see that bad consequences failed to occur and SkyDaddy didn’t smite us. The enthusiasm you predict, however, is far less likely to occur because in the end, marriage is both boring and not that big a deal in terms of the economic benefit to the participants.

  40. 40
    Patrick Phelan says:

    “An injustice against historically oppressed people has been rectified in another state of the country? …Yeah, sure, but it’s not an injustice that ever affected me, so shut up.” That is not a helpful reaction.

    I like when people who lack rights get rights! Hooray for rights.

  41. 41
    Carol says:

    Looking forward to the first big blowout “celebrity-style” wedding in New York City. Plaza Hotel, some other over-priced spot, with a spread in the New York Times, and more big names than at the Oscars. The first gay wedding in Niagara Falls. The first one period at an NYC justice of the peace.

    And don’t forget, it’s not just the ceremony. It’s the receptions and the honeymoons, the registry and even the catering. Cha-ching. And for those talking about gay divorce, people these days marry more than once, and they no longer do the “second” wedding as if they just need the paperwork done anymore. There will be second receptions and all of the rest-not to mention all of the anniversary stuff, burial plots (legal recognition means that the cemetery can no longer blow off your desire to be buried next to your partner because you aren’t “married” legally), even an increased amount of jointly held purchases.

  42. 42
    burnspbesq says:

    @Yevgraf:

    “I’m going to cross the threshhold of birthday number 50 next year with the equivalent of nothing once the debts and savings net out.”

    And whose fault is that? Teh ghey?

  43. 43
    Carol says:

    But those benefits work as long as the marriage lasts, and sometimes well after. I’ve seen instances where a long-divorced spouse can collect on a deceased (usually husband’s pension under other circumstances). It beats simply being put out on the street with nothing at all after a relationship ends.

    Being in marriage law, you see the failures. The successes don’t come your way, and there are far more people who have managed to make marriage work than seem apparent. Maybe sometimes it isn’t the first, but many second ones go the distance. (Older and wiser helps).

  44. 44
    Rihilism says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    BTW, if anyone missed the “Stonewall Uprising” episode of The American Experience on PBS, it’s really good.

    Agreed. Also, awesome that this passed so close to the anniversary of Stonewall.

    @Yevgraf:

    You can shove your mighty wry yawn up your foul ass, you feculent twit. Plenty of LGBT activists fight for gay rights AS WELL AS the rights of ALL disenfranchised populations. Some people are actually capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time…

  45. 45
    harlana says:

    The successes don’t come your way, and there are far more people who have managed to make marriage work than seem apparent

    Erhm, upwards of 45% end in divorce. That number increases with each divorce and remarriage.

    Of course, with economic circumstances being what they are now, people are staying in unhappy marriages for economic reasons only. Perhaps the number of “successful” marriages will increase, but not because all partners lurve each other.

  46. 46
    Carol says:

    My morning earworm:

    New York, New York
    The Frank Sinatra Version.

    Here’s to the National Organization for Marriage going bankrupt in about 5 years, as they run through their money trying to keep the blue states from legalizing gay marriage, and the Feds from repealing DOMA.

    Here’s to election-stealer’s Carl Rove’s chagrin as gay marriage becomes legal even though he maneuvered and scared enough Ohioans to vote for Bush through putting a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage through, and got Blackwell to do election tampering. Hoping your closeted fuck is having stomach cramps today for preventing other people from being honest partners.

  47. 47
    Calouste says:

    @Yutsano:

    What exactly sucks about the everything but law? Do you think it would have been better to include that single word and get a 47-53 like in Maine instead of the 53-47 that Washington got?

    (I admit that my view is somewhat colored by the fact that I would prefer a civil partnership over a marriage, but I didn’t have that choice.)

  48. 48
    Carol says:

    And there will probably be efforts to “amend” those objections internally. The choir director who can’t have a church wedding will probably cause more than a few ripples in some congregations. The long-term relationships of children of members who can’t marry in the church they were raised in.
    That’s probably a better approach anyway than risking some First Amendment issues by forcing the matter through the law.

    What this law means is that the Ramada Inn can’t say no, the Wedding Chapel can’t say no anymore. And if you want a church wedding, there are a few denominations and even religions who are fine with gay marriage and will perform, and can now perform, a legal ceremony.

  49. 49
    harlana says:

    A thought exercise for Miss Maggie there. From Real Merika even!

    she looks like she could use a little exercise.

    ba-dump-dump

    thank you, I’ll be here all week, try the veal

  50. 50
    Yevgraf says:

    @Rihilism

    Plenty of LGBT activists fight for gay rights AS WELL AS the rights of ALL disenfranchised populations.

    Plenty on the L side do that, but not so much on the GBT side. Some might say that it is about the differing economic standing of the subgroups within the demographic.

    Lesbians are reliable supporters of progressive causes across the board, but aren’t even close to being as economically supportive because, as a whole, they don’t have the assets. The gay male side is more of a mixed bag – they’ve got more money and education per capita than the populace as a whole, so there is a benefit to acting as selfishly as any conservative.

    And that selfishness shows – there are hordes of folks working in conservatism – some out, most closeted, many of whom ratfuck progressive causes by bringing up (and then demagogueing against) issues that would presumably be of interest to the gay demographic.

    And yes, some people are actually capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time. Unfortunately,what I’ve seen of gay male activists, the other issues they seem to be able to multitask on seem to be other gay issues.

  51. 51
    drkrick says:

    She is planning revenge because a group of people got a basic civil right. How does someone reach that point? What went so wrong?

    You do know you’re describing about 60% of all GOP electoral strategy since 1965, don’t you? (There’s also hippie-punching and billionaire fellating – not everything is backlash against blacks and women). It’s sad, but hardly uncommon or a surprise.

  52. 52
    Brian R. says:

    I’m a married straight, and this change doesn’t threaten my marriage in the slightest.

    Maggie must have a shitty, shitty marriage for it to be such a fucking house of cards that could be brought down by other people getting married.

  53. 53
    Mox Nix says:

    Now gay men in New York will be able to legally marry someone other than Liza Minnelli.

  54. 54

    SUCK IT, MAGGIE GALLAGHER!

    As I wrote this morning, this is what happens when we work together, people.

  55. 55
    Brian R. says:

    “Can’t say I’m wild about the fact that religious organizations will be able to keep getting their hate on when it comes to renting their halls and such”

    They’ve long been allowed to pick and choose which straights get married in their churches. My wife and I got married in a Catholic church (her family’s preference), and it took a lot of asking around and begging before we found one that would marry us.

    Sorry, I don’t see this as a big deal, in the grand scheme of things.

  56. 56
    Cheryl from Maryland says:

    NY does the right thing. Great news for the morning.

  57. 57
    drkrick says:

    @Yevgraf:

    Dude, we get it. You don’t like gays, and you want to pretend it’s because they’re not sufficiently aligned with your political preferences because admitting it’s really about not liking what they do with their naughty fun bits is kind of embarrassing in this day and age.

    How about you stop pretending that you’re fooling anybody and take your whining over to someplace like Maggie Gallagher’s site so we can get on with the celebration here. Anybody who can’t take some joy from the end of any injustice like this isn’t as progressive as you appear to think you are.

  58. 58
    burnspbesq says:

    Here’s what needs to happen next.

    Governor Cuomo needs to show up for Mass at St. Patrick’s on Sunday, march his ass down the aisle at the appropriate time, and dare Archbishop Dolan to refuse him Communion.

  59. 59
    Jon Doughe says:

    I thought Maggie got Raptured?!?!??! Why did she get Left Behind??

  60. 60

    Wow. Did y’all know that to comment over at NRO you have to watch an ad to reveal the Capcha code?

    I won’t be doing THAT again.

  61. 61
    UncertaintyVicePrincipal says:

    “History”? Please. Basically, it is a lot of sturm and drang (and a lot of spent political capital)

    I’m guessing that you’re not gay. That is, some basic human right of yours hasn’t been denied and isn’t now, after a long battle, going to be given to you like everyone else. If it were, you might *yawn* a little less, but that’s just a guess.

    but it will still be a fairly negligible number given the size of the population as a whole. Plus, once the novelty and fun of getting hitched fades away, and once gay folk get to endure the joy that is a dispute over nonmarital property and maintenance, then you’ll see some twinges of regret – the inevitable “I signed on for this?!?”

    I’m sorry your marriage has been so disappointing. Really. The idea here however, if I may just underline it, is that you have the freaking legal right to have one to be that miserable about. Or, you know, not.

    Wake me up the day that all of the gay political activists start working for economic justice for the far more numeric lower and middle classes as opposed to working for GOP causes and candidates from closeted (and some of those barely that) lives.

    Shorter: There are gay Republicans so who cares if gays have rights?

  62. 62

    Dear mHaggie:

    Ooo. We’re fwightened.

    Bwahahaha! Ha ha ha ha! [Snerk].

    Consequences to be continued.

    Christ, I wonder if she intends to sound like a Persian-cat stroking villain in a B-movie. Or maybe it is a side effect of being a bigoted dipshit.

    p.s. Yo, mHagster: Phhhhbbbbt!

  63. 63
    PaulW says:

    Dear Maggie:

    Anyone notice that GOP teabaggery doesn’t work as well in New York as it does in most other states?

    And that most New York voters will be more concerned with the national GOP platform of nuking Medicare and Social Security to care about who voted on a gay rights matter?

  64. 64
    Mainer says:

    Go ahead Maggie! Punish the GOP!

    I dare you!

    Primary away! Dig up some more witches, some more Angles, more tealiban morons for the rest of us to shoot down in the general eections.

    Destroy the Republican Party! Please!!!!! You’re making it small enough to drag into the bathtub. And flush down the drain of history.

    You go girl!!!!!!

  65. 65
    PaulW says:

    Now, will the nation turn its attention to the more important virgins’-right-to-marry debate? ‘Cause all you sex-positives out there are making us single guys look like total losers, you know?

  66. 66
    JohnR says:

    Good on NY. I’m pleased to see that occasionally a Republican can still discover that he has a soul. It almost makes me think that there’s a faint hope that our lemming’s march to religious Reichism could be averted somehow. Almost.
    As for that bit at the top – I can’t be the only one to notice that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. It seemed so clearly to be a case of picking lines at random from a bigger piece that I felt I had to give that bedpan of a site a view. I’m most dreadfully sorry to have doubted you, Miss Sarah. What a putz that woman is.

  67. 67
    evinfuilt says:

    To Maggie G,

    Go fuck yourself.

    Signed,
    New York State

  68. 68
    GregB says:

    No doubt Maggie voted for man on horse sex advocate Carl Palomino, err, Paladino.

  69. 69
    Gravenstone says:

    Someone seems a trifle, bitter. Good. Times change, people grow and learn. Ms. Gallagher appears intent on not doing so. Let history pass her by.

  70. 70
    Dennis SGMM says:

    Consequences? What consequences? Are Gallagher and like-minded conservatives going to recruit a pack of unelectable loonies in tricorn hats to primary those GOP state senators who voted for the bill? I guess Gallagher would rather shoot herself in the foot than walk as an equal among gays.

  71. 71
    Citizen_X says:

    I thought Maggie got Raptured???! Why did she get Left Behind??

    Too heavy. The Rapture Crane broke.

  72. 72
    MikeBoyScout says:

    And Santorum cried.

  73. 73
    Dennis SGMM says:

    After Googling “Maggie Gallagher” I realize that she probably hasn’t been able to see her feet for years. Please consider my comment @71 to read, “I guess Gallagher would rather hire someone to shoot her in the foot…”

  74. 74
    JPL says:

    The best thing that happened to the marriage equality issue was the preaching that it will devalue my marriage. A majority in this country are wise enough to know that it shouldn’t affect your marriage. There are many things that affect marriages but the gays aren’t one of them.

  75. 75

    What Mainer & D SGMM said, also. Too. I’m in MD (feh) but I look forward to the antics of the flock of Dementors NOM/CWA hauls out to challenge the sitting NY Republicans.

    Too heavy. The Rapture Crane broke.

    [LOLs. Feels guilty. LOLs a little more.]

  76. 76
    Stefan says:

    Best comment of last night from my sensible Canadian ex:

    “I don’t get it, if these conservatives are so against gay sex why do they want to stop them getting married? Then instead of ten times a night in the club bathroom hot gay sex you’ll only have once a week after the kids are asleep not really so hot anymore after ten years is it gay sex….”

  77. 77
    Yevgraf says:

    Are Gallagher and like-minded conservatives going to recruit a pack of unelectable loonies in tricorn hats to primary those GOP state senators who voted for the bill? I guess Gallagher would rather shoot herself in the foot than walk as an equal among gays.

    Actually, the more likely consequence is coming next year. In some markets where voting outcomes are decided by genuinely centrist independents, the message will be “the GOP is far from monolithic on social issues, like we said. And y’all like gay folks. Vote for us if you like to see some give and take, since the liberals want to give your money to the sp*cs and ni99ers”. That message will actually get some play. On the converse side in red areas, the vote will be red meat to draw out the goobers in Redneckistan – who won’t care that there were some Republicans who signed on. Those Republicans are New Yorkers (makes them suspect to begin with) and RINOs to boot, all of which will justify promised Federal Constimatooshinal amendments to sanctify the sanctified holiness of the sanctified institution of marriage.

    And in all of that, the Ken Mehlmans, Karl Roves and their fellow pals will collect a paycheck. More Larry Craigs and Lindsay Grahams will be elected, some new Ted Haggard will arise and life will continue to be phat for that cohort of activists, thereby pleasing Sullivan.

    BTW – I tend to find that Sullivan is more of a feature than a bug when one examines the political stances of gay men.

  78. 78
    Brian R. says:

    Maybe she meant the GOP would “pay a grave price” by pursuing a set of policies that ensured its only supporters would be senile old octagenarians and, once they all go to the grave, the GOP (Get Off-My-Lawn Party) will too.

  79. 79
    Ash Can says:

    What great news to wake up to. And who cares about Maggie Gallagher? She’s a whole lot of noise and no action.

  80. 80
    Joey Maloney says:

    @Calouste:

    What exactly sucks about the everything but law?

    Among other things, it provides no basis to attack DOMA. In terms of concrete benefits, the Federal level is still where the action is.

  81. 81
    RalfW says:

    Wanna really tell Maggie to suck it? Donate to Minnestoans United for All Families or to Standing on the Side of Love — we need just a bit of cash to fend of her bitter tears (and venomous lies) here in Minnesota.

    We can be the first state where voters turn back a marriage amendment. Nov. 2012 is not that far away…

  82. 82
    Ronbo says:

    Now that Obama has seen what real leadership is like, maybe we can see if he is just incompetent leader or a lyin’ jackass. At this point it is “either / or” – no more excuses!

    My hat is off to Gov. Cuomo. My back is turning to Obama.

  83. 83
    Cat Lady says:

    Eight years into this, Massachusetts says “duh”. Everyone should worry about some sex marriage, not same sex marriage.

    Oh, and Maggie Gallagher can bite me. Karma’s a bitch, bitch.

  84. 84
    Anya says:

    One more step forward for civil rights and human rights! Well done, New York.

    I still despise Andrew Cuomo, and I am wondering what other regulation busting or setting back labor laws bills did pass these few days under the radar.

  85. 85
    cmorenc says:

    I notice that the New York Trial Lawyers’ association supported passage of this marriage bill.

    Think of all the additional divorce litigation this will eventually produce, and the opportunities this creates for lawyers to specialize in this area.

    This is a win-win proposition for both gay couples, and for matrimonial lawyers.

  86. 86
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ Yevgraf: So you would rather improve the Democrats’ tactical position than improve people’s rights?

  87. 87
    Yevgraf says:

    @ronbo

    Now that Obama has seen what real leadership is like, maybe we can see if he is just incompetent leader or a lyin’ jackass. At this point it is “either / or” – no more excuses!

    My hat is off to Gov. Cuomo. My back is turning to Obama.

    There’s that helpful LBGT activism across multiple issues I’ve come to love and expect.

    There’s a reason why I call it “firebaggotry”.

  88. 88
    Jesse says:

    Yevgraf:

    As far as stirring up the Republicans goes, I have a great idea: we Dems could reap an enormous political advantage by repealing the 13th Amendment and sending that question back to the states. That’s cool with you, right? I mean, since we made a huge mistake by according some citizens their fucking fundamental civil rights, we should make up for it by stripping those rights from other citizens, right?

    Ronbo: Yeah! Let’s burn Obama at the stake because he’s all about screwing over the gays by like, not defending DOMA in court and pressing Congress to repeal DADT!

    I will give you this: he shouldn’t call himself a fierce advocate anymore. That’s embarrassing at this point. But since he’s actually *done* more on this issue than any other president ever, I really don’t feel like punishing him about it. Call me crazy.

  89. 89

    Fools and their money ….

    ST. PAUL, Minn. — New York retiree Phyllis Hornung has never been to Minnesota and has no ties to the state – other than the steady stream of campaign donations she sends to Michele Bachmann.
    __
    Almost every other month last year, Hornung sent the conservative Republican congresswoman a check for $25, or sometimes $75.
    __
    “She captured my heart immediately,” said Hornung, a former commercial real estate broker who recalls first seeing Bachmann two years ago on television – an appearance that prompted her to make a small contribution online. “There was no question in my mind that she was a straight talker and I should support her.”

  90. 90
    RalfW says:

    Erhm, upwards of 45% end in divorce. That number increases with each divorce and remarriage.

    But if you factor in the serial-divorcers, a good chunk more than 50% of first marriages do last.

    To simplify, if there are three couples (and some singles out there to be re-marrying), and one of the dudes divorces, remarries and divorces again, that’s 4 marriages and 2 divorces = 50% divorce rate. But 2 in 3 couples stay married for life.

    Ahh, statistics! Is marriage a disaster (50% divorce rate!) or decently stable (66% last a lifetime). Each number is correct. Huh.

  91. 91
    Yevgraf says:

    @omnes

    So you would rather improve the Democrats’ tactical position than improve people’s rights?

    I tend to prefer to consolidate gains, look at the landscape, regroup and decide on the next goal to strive for. I think that this has to be a matter for reflection and consideration, and then to allocate political capital and campaign assets to ensure that there will be an overall set of gains for everyone.

    If you think President Perry or President DeMint with a GOP senate will be good for progressive causes overall (our SCOTUS liberals aren’t exactly getting younger), I suspect you’ll be disappointed. Taking on new battles at this moment on this one topic may be ill advised.

    Of course, I’m conservatively progressive, and am marked by a caution which makes me inadequately pure.

  92. 92
    Yevgraf says:

    @RalfW

    But if you factor in the serial-divorcers, a good chunk more than 50% of first marriages do last.

    It isn’t just about the divorce rate. Youngsters are now less likely to marry at all.

  93. 93
    RalfW says:

    Yevgraf @51

    There are plenty of G’s working for broader causes in my home state of Minnesota. I’m not sure where you base your notion that Lesbians work for all but gays are selfish. Sounds a lot like a bullshit meme I hear a lot from the right – that the fags are so into themselves, they don’t care about community.

    Utter crap.

  94. 94

    I tend to prefer to consolidate gains, look at the landscape, regroup and decide on the next goal to strive for ^jerk off in front of anyone who’ll pause long enough to watch.

    fxillated.

    Internet Rule #239: For any event that warrants celebration, there shall be at least one Very Serious Twatwaffle who will wag his finger and tell you – at length – why you shouldn’t be so happy.

  95. 95
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ Yevgraf: I guess that my thoughts are that this is not a new battle, getting a victory is good, and improving people’s lives by making sure that more people have equal rights is a definite victory. As a straight, married guy in Wisconsin, this only affects me tangentially, but I am happy that it has happened. I also think that it will not have a significant effect on 2012. Finally, sometimes, you have to make progress where and when you can, even if the sensible option would be to try to do something else.

  96. 96
  97. 97
    John 2.0 says:

    I don’t understand the quote. In North Carolina, Republicans are the majority in both legislative chambers (in fact, they seem to toying with the idea of the unitary legislature. The Pro Tem of the Senate called the Democratic Governor ‘irrelevant.’ The budget directs constitutional officers to act in specific ways in regard to his or her constitutional authority, which is a pretty clear separation of powers violation. They’ve also turned out part-time legislature into de facto full time with monthly special sessions planned).

    Of course, when the Democrats controlled one or both chambers they did prevent DOMA constitutional amendments from coming up. Is that what she’s talking about? I’m not getting out of the boat.

  98. 98
    Jesse says:

    Yeah, since we stirred the Republicans up they might take over a bunch of state legislatures and start passing crazy laws de-facto banning abortion. Why, in Alabama, they might even start prosecuting pregnant women who are insufficiently zealous about safeguarding their precious belly-fruit!

    It appears the Reps are about as stirred-up as they can get.

  99. 99
    Anya says:

    @Ronbo ~~ it’s amazing how morons like you turn every progress, setback or action as an excuse to attack President Obama, or to question his leadership. Fuck you asshole.

    I really am tired of jackasses like you. I don’t know what would it take for you assholes to realize that the President is not the enemy, he’s on our side. No matter how furiously you wave that magic wand, change does not happen overnight—it takes a lot of effort and the building a huge coalition.

    Despite your assertion (no doubt as a result of your blind hatred of the President), the President has led. He has done so under the most sustained opposition from a well resourced and determined opponents, while he had to deal with his own divided party and the assholes who claim to be the base, attacking him at every turn. Instead of turning their arsenal against the true enemy of progress and civil rights, they attack the President.

    Why do I even bother with the likes of you. Go ahead, keep on knocking Obama and attack him for perceived, imagined or real faults. Maybe, just maybe, you will get your wish and he will lose the next election or better yet, maybe your hero Cuomo (the new firebagger god) will primary Obama, and hand the WH back to the Republicans. Because eight miserable years under them was not enough.

  100. 100
    scav says:

    Ah, the sad sad comments at the ChiTrib are a sheer joy to read on a sunny Sat. am. Now I’ll try to catch up here.

  101. 101
    Yevgraf says:

    @RalfW

    …that the fags are so into themselves, they don’t care about community.

    Then consider yourself lucky to be part of such a community. Washington’s gay conservative activists are precisely the opposite, however. They will destroy people, and will celebrate doing so.

  102. 102
    Yevgraf says:

    It appears the Reps are about as stirred-up as they can get.

    Peak Wingnut is one of those asymptotal limits. You’ll never get there.

  103. 103
    JPL says:

    Anya @ 100… Shorter Ronbo, This is good news for McCain, now get off my lawn.

    lol

  104. 104
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Anya @ 100: If Obama came out for gay marriage today, the Professional Left would declare it doesn’t really count, because he only did it because he was terrified of the awesome power of their blog comments and he’s still the biggest homophobe since Anita Bryant, and move on to their next Great Disappointment, which of course has always been the most important issue to them, and anyone who says otherwise is just an O-Bot hater.

  105. 105
    cathyx says:

    Isn’t President Obama against same sex marriage?

  106. 106
    Valdivia says:

    @Anya–you go girl. I have not had enough coffee yet but would have written pretty much the same as you if I had.

  107. 107
    gbear says:

    Happy happy morning for New York and elsewhere.

    I came to this thread thinking that 100 comments was too much to read through this morning, but realizing that I could scroll past the troll made it a pretty quick read.

    I second RalfW @ 82’s plea for donations in the MN fight to defeat the anti-gay marriage constitutional ammendment that’s going to be on the 2012 ballot. The anti-gay movement in MN is probably freaking this morning. I wouldn’t be surprised if I see them in force around the edges of Mpls Pride today.

  108. 108
    Kane says:

    Marriage equality is passed in New York, and not a single heterosexu­al marriage is harmed in the process. Go figure!

    It’s only a matter of time before Maggie and fellow republicans are taking credit for the bill they now condemn.

  109. 109
    jon says:

    The figleaf of all the supposed religious exemptions was enough to make some Republicans cave in to the inevitable, but I can’t believe anyone is angry about the fact that religious institutions can’t be forced to conduct marriages they don’t agree with. I’m an atheist and could be very rightly prevented from having a wedding in a Catholic church, even if I was marrying a woman. Allowing gay marriage to be legal wouldn’t have changed that in New York, California, Massachusetts, or Timbuktu wouldn’t change a church’s right to say “No, you can have your marriage elsewhere” one bit. The religious exemption is just a way for some GOP guys to say they’ve preserved some sort of sacred church marriage thing that wasn’t really threatened anyway. The churches with the gay members have that cute guy the grandmas all have crushes on calling out the bingo combos, so the churches that don’t adapt will lose everything if they don’t change. The money gays bring in may not change churches in New York faster than a Mormon Elder with a tax audit will have an Enlightening Revelation about The Negroes, but the change will come.

  110. 110
    lamh34 says:

    Hey,

    can’t blame Ronbo, it’s not his fault that “‘President Obama Is Against What Just Happened’

    I know this is true cause Rachel said so.

    Anyway, congrats to NY LGBT community.

    I watched the vote on Rachal Maddow last night, and when the vote went through, I was so happy for the LGBT community of NY.

    But then, Rachel Maddow completely pissed on that elation, by saying “President Obama is agasinst what just happened…”.

    Now I know LBGT activists are not happy with Obama’s “evolving” status on gay marriage, but damn Rachel, can the supporters of the bill have at least the damn weekend to enjoy the warm and fuzzies that this moment brings.

    I watched the show, and this President Obama statement by Maddow seriuosly came out of no where. I’m sorry, it pissed me off.

    STILL, this doesn’t take away from my joy for the LGBT community, I’m sorry, but I expected better of Rachel.

    My opinion only…

  111. 111
    Dennis SGMM says:

    @gbear

    The anti-gay movement in MN is probably freaking this morning. I wouldn’t be surprised if I see them in force around the edges of Mpls Pride today.

    Yeah, they can do their famous synchronized teeth gnashing.

  112. 112
    gnomedad says:

    The Republicans will a grave price

    Never. No death tax!

  113. 113
    Kane says:

    The religious exemptions are a roundabout way of allowing certain religious institutions to impose their Sharia law.

  114. 114
    Carol says:

    Jon-for some congregations it may happen as the older members die off and they have to somehow recruit or retain younger, more open-minded members. For others, they get to see what split-offs look like.

    As for Obama, I’m tired of the Obama bashing on this issue. This is the guy who ended DADT, would sign a DOMA repeal if it made it to his desk. He certainly isn’t going to discourage change in the states, and has already done much behind the scenes in governmental agencies to help gay partners. But he still has a race to win, states where people are still skittish about gay marriage, not to mention some cross-over Republicans who will be skittish over the teabagger on the ballot. He needs to at least reassure these people that he isn’t for radical change.
    Sorry if political reality interferes with the “bully pulpit” whining.

  115. 115
    scav says:

    And, how sweet of some of you to bring variants of the sorrowful sorrowful ChiTrib comments here so I didn’t have to go without. It’s like a weird form of echolocation: if one can hear the lamentations, teethgnashings and uulations coming at you from two directions, you’re probably well within the realm of the feasible. And it goes well with coffee!

  116. 116
    Joey Maloney says:

    There’s a reason why I call it “firebaggotry”.

    You’re a douchebaggotry?

  117. 117
    lamh34 says:

    Not to belabor the point, but isn’t it interesting, that it’s ok for the NY GOP Senators stance on SSM to have “evolved” enough for them to vote for support of the SSM bill, but Obama’s “evolution” obviously means he “against what just happened here” as Rachel Maddow said last night.

    It’s all about politics

  118. 118
    harlana says:

    Southern Beale: This represents pretty much what the right-wing wants; they actually want to return to old testament times where they are all Solomon, rich and privileged and oozing with subservient, fruitful wives. And there are too many women out there eager to take the bait for reasons that elude me.

  119. 119
    hueyplong says:

    Congratulations to all the long engaged, now about to be married in New York State.

    Enjoy Maggie Gallagher’s bitter pout and resolution to become even more soul destructively hateful as a small wedding gift.

  120. 120
    Jennifer says:

    @lamh34 – yeah, not helpful. I certainly understand that if it was one of MY rights at stake I would probably be much less flexible about giving anyone a pass on a political nuance. But Rachel’s savvy – she knows damn well that Obama’s public position from the campaign was yes to civil unions, no to marriages, and that a full-on yes to same-sex marriages might well have put states like N. Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, etc. into the R column. And then we’d have the spectacle of watching the Justice Dept. piss away money vigoroously defending DOMA, and DADT would continue as policy for who knows how much longer. But hey, we’d be able to respect that feller Obama who ran for president once for his courageousness, even thought it set back our goals by god knows how many years when he lost the election.

    Fuck that noise. Who gives a shit what the man said in the campaign so long as his actions are bringing about the desired result, albeit more slowly than Rachel and others might wish for?

    And also, too: who gives a shit if it’s called a “civil union” in the law if it grants the exact same set of rights, etc, as exist for marriage? Call it french vanilla ice cream and it still will confer equality of rights. This kind of hair-splitting is bullshit and not conducive to winning ANYTHING. And I’m disappointed in Maddow, because she’s smart enough to damn well know better.

  121. 121
    gelfling545 says:

    I was personally pleased that Obama made no comment in support of the NY effort because the republican votes were needed and the official republican position is “Obama is in favor? Then hell no!” He will do better to leave this to the states.
    I have also written a nice thank you note to my state senator (Grisanti) for being able to look beyond political consequences to support equal rights. I had no personal dog in this fight and, as a philosophic principle, I’m not sure what useful purpose marriage serves in our society but I DO know that if the rights of any are abridged, the rights of all are in danger.

  122. 122
    J.W. Hamner says:

    I’m going to do my best jeffreyw impression:

    Mmmm strawberries.

    Everybody cool now?

  123. 123
    shortstop says:

    The anti-gay movement in MN is probably freaking this morning. I wouldn’t be surprised if I see them in force around the edges of Mpls Pride today.

    Just how many bushes do you have in your downtown? I mean, they can contain Bachmann, who doesn’t weigh much, but when you start getting teabaggers in scooters, you’re talking major yardage.

  124. 124
    RalfW says:

    Washington’s gay conservative activists are precisely the opposite, however

    I don’t give a rats ass about DCs kloset kadets in Rove’s rat-fuck army.

    I’m talking about the network of progressive gay activists who are at work across this country on all sorts of issues, from racism in employment issues, to health care rights, etc.

  125. 125
    gbear says:

    Yeah, they can do their famous synchronized teeth gnashing.

    The gnashing of teeth is almost audible as they clutch their bibles and march through Loring Park in silence and a self-engulfing fog of see-no evil, hear-no-evil. They’re in total fear and disgust of people walking around holding hands and laughing.

    I wouldn’t mind hearing some wailing along with the gnashing this afternoon.

  126. 126
    shortstop says:

    And also, too: who gives a shit if it’s called a “civil union” in the law if it grants the exact same set of rights, etc, as exist for marriage?

    But it doesn’t. There are approximately 1,000 legal rights, big and small, that are conferred by marriage, and relatively few of these come with civil unions. CUs are a step along the way. They aren’t the whole way.

    Having said that, I’m in total agreement with you about the way that actual legislative change happens and Maddow’s lack of helpfulness in her remarks. The thing is, she understands the process things you laid out very well, so I’m not sure why she’s doing this.

  127. 127
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    And also, too: who gives a shit if it’s called a “civil union” in the law if it grants the exact same set of rights, etc, as exist for marriage? Call it french vanilla ice cream and it still will confer equality of rights. This kind of hair-splitting is bullshit and not conducive to winning ANYTHING.

    This this this.

    A ‘civil union’ is the same as a ‘marriage’ for all practical purposes. The blessing of some invisible sky buddy isn’t practical.

  128. 128
    Kane says:

    @Jennifer-

    Let’s say that two individuals of the same-sex are joined in a civil union rather than a marriage. One of these individuals applies for a loan, a job, or some place where such applications are necessary and in-depth information is required. If such an individual were to state that he or she is married, then it could be argued that a lie was commited on the application. If one states that they are joined in a civil union, then it gives those in a position of power a way to discriminate on the basis of one’s sexual preference. Classifying all married couples as married regardless of sexual orientation prevents such possible discriminatory and prejudicial scenarios from occuring.

  129. 129
    demkat620 says:

    Maggie and her fellow bigots can suck it. This is a great day and I expect each and every wedding to be FABULOUS!

    Bite me, Maggie.

  130. 130
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    I’d like to echo the same displeasure of hearing Rachel go after the president last night. I watch her every day and love her show but she pissed me off with that ‘observation’ of hers. She’s one savvy lady but at times she is just as capable of saying stupid shit as anyone else is.

    Obama stayed out of it and he was wise for doing so. I think his evolving on this issue is a smart move. Gay advocates know that he was for gay marriage in the 90’s, as he stated on that quiz he was sent. You would think that they would consider that while he may have ‘retreated’ on that issue to boost his chances of winning in 2008, if he was there once then it’s more than likely he will head back to that position when he thinks that it makes tactical sense. Every indication he gives is that while he says that he is against gay marriage, he sure is for gay rights nonetheless.

    I don’t know if Obama plays chess but if he does I bet that he’s good at it. He seems to prefer to think ahead and not live in the moment like so many passionate advocates (of whatever cause) do. He is patient, they are not.

    IMO patience is a winning strategy, impatience is not. I’ll take a slow but steady plan to accomplish something over giving it a shot all at once and possibly losing.

  131. 131
    Valdivia says:

    I mentioned this in the thread we had last night, but after spending hours watching the NY State Senate at work I came to the conclusion that Lt Governor Duffy is The Hawt.

    Anyone from the Rochester area (where he was mayor) can tell us what his politics are like?

  132. 132
    HRA says:

    I love NY! Well, it has been my home state for many years.
    I will write a thank you to Senator Grisanti as well.

    I have a gay relative and gay friends who had to move in order to get the rights we all usually take for granted.

    I, too, had watched Rachel and thought her comment about Obama was not necessary.

  133. 133
    shortstop says:

    Good point, Kane.

    And VDE, I don’t think anyone is talking about “blessings” or religion; the fact is that marriage and civil unions are far from identical from a legal perspective. Some states’ CUs do better than others in that regard, but no one has made the two institutions equal yet.

  134. 134
    Kane says:

    Like many others, I was watching Rachel when I saw the vote. It was an emotional moment. I had tears of joy flowing down my face, and I was thinking about friends and family members and many unknown individuals who had worked so hard to see this day come but who are no longer with us.

    And then just out the blue, Rachel goes out of her way to insert that President Obama is against this. I don’t mind Rachel informing viewers of Obama’s position, but her timing couldn’t have been worse. She came off as mean-spirited and petty and out of touch with where her viewers were emotionally.

  135. 135
    Anya says:

    @Valdivia

    As the City’s chief executive, Bob Duffy navigated the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression by reducing the cost of government, yet improving services. Under his stewardship, the value of property in Rochester has risen, while the tax rate has declined. He reduced the city workforce to its lowest level since the Truman administration, while attracting millions of dollars in private-sector investments.

    He was also a police officer and Deputy Chief of Police. I am guessing not that progressive. But I agree with you that he rates high on the hotness meter. I mean for an older guy.

  136. 136
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Yevgraf

    Then consider yourself lucky to be part of such a community. Washington’s gay conservative activists are precisely the opposite, however. They will destroy people, and will celebrate doing so.

    @RalfW

    I don’t give a rats ass about DCs kloset kadets in Rove’s rat-fuck army.
    __
    I’m talking about the network of progressive gay activists who are at work across this country on all sorts of issues, from racism in employment issues, to health care rights, etc.

    This. The problem with gay conservatives is not that they’re gay, it’s that they’re delusional enough to be on the side of conservatives. That’s their problem.

  137. 137
    Valdivia says:

    @Anya thanks I’ve been trying to read about him but sometimes it’s hard to know in-between-the-lines how the person governs from these pieces.

    ETA–I was impressed with how he handled himself last night. Firm but civil.

    And yeah hot. But I tend to like them on the older side/runs out blushing.

  138. 138
    RobNYNY1957 says:

    It’s hard to believe that Maggie Gallagher went to Yale. Not because she’s stupid (cf. George W. Bush), but because it is the gayest place on earth. Years ago Yale president Benno Schmidt, Jr., (a man whose name I am not making up) denied exactly this, but somehow that seemed to reinforce the idea instead of dispelling it.

  139. 139
    Joey Maloney says:

    I forget where I saw it first – it might’ve been here on this self-same blog – but I recommend reading Dan Savage’s take on Obama’s “evolution” as an anodyne to Rachel’s comments.

    FWIW, I heard her as kind of half-seriously needling Obama rather than criticising him, more in the way of “we both know this is ridiculous…” – but I could be projecting.

  140. 140
    handsmile says:

    I know it gets me a little chubby to watch hot GOP-on-GOP domination action!

    First, the Pope of the Senate, Jim DeMint (R-SC/Bedlam) threatens to excommunicate those disciples who vote to raise the federal debt level. And now the poorly-hinged Maggie Gallagher raises the lash on NY State congregants for supporting civil rights.

    How these good Christians do love to discipline! And we heretics get to watch the spectacle on-line from the privacy of our homes.

    @burnsbpesq (#59): I suspect we may never agree on football matters, but must say your suggestion that Gov. Cuomo pay a Sunday visit to the Archbishop at St. Patrick’s is a truly inspired coup de theatre!

  141. 141
    Chyron HR says:

    President Obama is against what just happened.

    Whatever happened to “Obama’s words are meaningless, only his actions matter”? What exactly was he doing to prevent this bill from passing?

  142. 142
    lamh34 says:

    @140 Joey Maloney,

    needling is fine…but having watched it live, I can tell you with almost certitude that the comment came completely out of the blue. And if you see the whole segment from the conclusion of the vote and the passage you’d see that it was completely from left field. It should not have been the most pertinent thing in my mind at that moment, IMHO.

    btw, maybe Cuomo should primary Obama….Lt Dan just said so on twitter.

    Seriously, Cuomo handled this beautifully, and I suspect his presidential hopes if he has any are elevated by this turn of events.

  143. 143
    Valdivia says:

    @ 143 lamh34

    I agree he was masterful but I think–as I mentioned in the next thread–that he was able to do it this way precisely because he is working with a particular set of Republicans in a State like NY. Plus, he also pushed through a lot of the agenda that favors the upstaters that most Dem Governors would not have favored. I think there was a lot of horse-trading that worked well, but if Obama had done that they would have called him naive and in fact, many have, when he did the same to get ACA passed. He got nothing but grief for it while Cuomo gets a standing ovation. The same with DADT.

  144. 144
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    btw, maybe Cuomo should primary Obama….Lt Dan just said so on twitter.

    Oy, I don’t think there is a single feature of the Professional Left that drives me crazier than this kind of instant apotheosis. One speech, one vote, one issue instantly and permanently sanctifies a politician. The Dean-Feingold Syndrome.

  145. 145
    RobNYNY1957 says:

    One speech, one vote, one issue instantly and permanently sanctifies a politician.

    Cuomo is better on a lot of issues than Obama. This is just one.

  146. 146
    lamh34 says:

    @144.

    I agree, like I said upthread, it’s so interesting to me how it’s ok, that the NY GOP who voted for this bill who’s feelings “evolved” on this issues are being celebrated and taken at face value, but Obama alleged “evolution” means that he “against what just happened” as Rachel said.

    Credit where credit is due, but not surprisingly Choi and his compadres are taking it overboard.

  147. 147
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Cuomo is better on a lot of issues than Obama. This is just one.

    And how effective would he be on those issues if he had to deal with John Boehner and Claire McCaskill?

  148. 148
    Joey Maloney says:

    @lamh34, Well, I watched it from start to finish, too. Actually I listened to it first because the video podcast for some reason took forfuckingEVER to download. Then I watched it from start to finish just because I love a happy ending.

    Dunno, she might’ve let her mouth get ahead of her brain. I just don’t think it’s that important; I’m pretty confident she won’t be joining forces with Grover Norquist any time soon.

  149. 149
    jayjaybear says:

    Cry, Maggie! Cry! Your tears taste so sweet!

  150. 150
    RobNYNY1957 says:

    @148

    Non sequitur much?

  151. 151
    Valdivia says:

    ha ha ha ha. Cuomo is better than Obama on a lot of issues? Really?

    I just love how Cuomo is now a progressive hero erasing everything else he is doing, while Obama repeals DADT and he is still a homophobe. Just wow.

    @lamh34–yep. exactly.

  152. 152
    jayjaybear says:

    shortstop: Considering that they’d be hiding in the bushes at Loring Park, I think I’d bring a blanket or a can of Lysol or something. They might not catch the gay from whatever’s on the ground in that shrubbery, but they just might catch something else…

  153. 153
    Brachiator says:

    I had been away from most of the Internets, so I am just getting this happy news about the New York vote this morning. Well done, New York.

    So now the GOP presidential candidates will have another issue to rant about, and I look forward to them spouting off about how they will save America from teh gheys.

    I also look forward to the holiest of the holy faux progressives watching the GOP clown show and declaring, “See? No difference between Democrats and Republicans. “

  154. 154
    Anya says:

    @ RobNYNY1957 ~~ Name the issues?

  155. 155
    lamh34 says:

    @146,

    Cuomo is better on a lot of issues than Obama. This is just one.

    Issues like Cuomo’s shitty budget that just last month/week progressive and liberals were pissed about is negated by this vote then?

  156. 156
    Cacti says:

    I just love how Cuomo is now a progressive hero erasing everything else he is doing,

    As I mentioned in the other thread, I’m sure minority voters would instantly put aside his “shuck and jive” Clinton campaign dog whistling, and would swoon over the very thought of him as POTUS.

  157. 157
    Yutsano says:

    Issues like Cuomo’s shitty budget that just last month/week progressive and liberals were pissed about is negated by this vote then?

    I personally am enjoying watching the firebagger brigade go through Flavor of the Week syndrome. It’s hilarious to watch them throw names up at the drop of a hat just to get than damn near one outta there.

    @Calouste:

    Sorry sleep hit me early last night. :) But Joey Maloney got there before I did. Plus no matter how much you doll it up, it’s still separate but equal.

  158. 158
    chopper says:

    pfft, what about my 401(k)? and this certainly isn’t going to do anything to end the war in afghanistan. if you’re trying to impress me, you’ve failed.

  159. 159
    shortstop says:

    Non sequitur much?

    The point, and it’s a good one, is that the Republican caucus in the NY lege is not totally batshit as are the GOP and many of the blue dogs in the U.S. House and Senate. Cuomo can get things done because he doesn’t have total, stonewalling opposition at each step — and because he horse trades, as Valdivia eloquently argued at 144.

  160. 160
    RobNYNY1957 says:

    Well, take last night. President Obama went fundraising on Wall Street. As Attorney General, Governor Cuomo brought numerous lawsuits against the same Wall Street powerhouses that Obama is now cultivating. That’s a big difference for me.

  161. 161
    Valdivia says:

    @161

    Yeah, riiiight, fundraising at Wall street while trying to win an election in 2012 is a sin even if you pushed for regulation of that said industry and signed Dodd-Frank. God, I guess the financiers hating him is an act eh?

    And while Cuomo did things like while ATT Gnrl look at his present budget as Governor before you talk out of both sides of your mouth about how much better he is as a govt executive than Obama.

    Can we get better Obama haters please?

  162. 162
    Mnemosyne says:

    Cuomo is better on a lot of issues than Obama. This is just one.

    Yep, nothing says “progressive hero” like screwing over unions and college students.

  163. 163
    Tonal Crow says:

    Go Maggie! The Party is infested with stealth liberals, and more are joining everyday! Let’s get the purges underway! Break out the guillotines! Hey! I see a communist! Witch! Witch! Witch!

  164. 164
    burnspbesq says:

    @ Villago Delenda Est:

    “A ‘civil union’ is the same as a ‘marriage’ for all practical purposes.”

    No, it’s not, and your apparent inability to grasp that is sadly typical of a certain mind-set around here.

    For ordinary people who have not reached your exalted plain of consciousness, symbols matter. And marriage is a whole portfolio of powerful symbols.

    Get a clue, willya?

  165. 165
    Calouste says:

    @Kane 129:

    If one states that they are joined in a civil union, then it gives those in a position of power a way to discriminate on the basis of one’s sexual preference. Classifying all married couples as married regardless of sexual orientation prevents such possible discriminatory and prejudicial scenarios from occuring.

    Yeah, right. Because people couldn’t possibly work out what the situation is when the application form mentions Jack & Will rather than Jack & Jill.

  166. 166
    Mnemosyne says:

    This is what kind of drives me nuts about the “let’s just do civil unions!” argument: we already have a way for people to contract a partnership in the eyes of the state without a need for religious affirmation. It’s called marriage.

    Despite the propaganda dribbling from idiots like Gallagher, marriage has been a civil contract in the West for hundreds of years, not a religious one. Anyone who’s ever been married knows that if you show up to your wedding and you don’t have permission from the state (aka a license) with you, you ain’t married no matter how many religious words your clergy mutters over you. And you certainly don’t need to have a clergy member perform your ceremony — there are plenty of secular people like judges who have the power. Heck, here in California, most counties will let you have your friend be sworn in for a day so s/he can do the ceremony and sign the certificate.

  167. 167
    Calouste says:

    @Yutsano:

    So you think it would have been worth gambling the additional benefits of the everything-but-law for that single word? I’m not talking strategy here, full marriage equality is still the end goal. I’m talking tactics, what do you do in the mean time until all the old bigots die off.

  168. 168
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    165: OK, smart guy, explain how they are not essentially the same thing, from the perspective of the state, which is the only thing we’re worried about here?

    I do not give a rat’s ass what boy-buggering dogshit of the Roman Catholic Church heirarchy have to say about this. I only care about the legal, contractual aspects, which are all that really matter in nearly every case. Who can visit in the hospital? Who owns the property? Who has responsibility for the kids? Who gets on the health insurance plan? Etc.

    If not calling it a “marriage” solves the issue for most of the homophobic assholes out there, or even for a few of them, then what is the big damn deal if from the perspective of the state they are equivalent?

  169. 169
    JGabriel says:

    Villago Delenda Est:

    OK, smart guy, explain how they are not essentially the same thing, from the perspective of the state, which is the only thing we’re worried about here?

    Here, let me Google(tm) that for you:

    Why Gay Marriage and Not Civil Unions? — Answers.con

    What is a Civil Union? — Factcheck.org

    .

  170. 170
    JGabriel says:

    Yevgraf:

    Peak Wingnut is one of those asymptotal limits. You’ll never get there.

    That’s one school of thought, but it’s not currently the prevailing paradigm. Most scholars of the subject now believe that when Peak Wingut is reached, it collapses into a Wingularity: a black hole of stupidity and delusion which no fact can penetrate — creating an epistemically closed, self-referential brew of rhetoric and stances which are held and “understood” by all the members trapped within the Wingularity, but which is puzzling gibberish to those outside of it.

    Most scholars believe the Wingularity has already been reached, but disagree on the date. Was it the late 1950’s, when the Birchers were formed? Was it in 1967, when Nixon adopted the Southern Strategy? 1980, when Reagan was elected President? 1994, when Gingrich became Speaker of the House? 2003, when Bush invaded Iraq? Or 2009, when the Tea Party was founded?

    Possibly, each of those should be viewed as a stages in the creation of the Wingularity, just as a star goes through stages in its own collapse — converting most of its hydrogen to helium, then fusing into carbon, and oxygen, and through several more stages up the ladder of elements until it reaches iron and completely collapses.

    .

  171. 171
    Bulworth says:

    The National Organization for Marriage has committed $2 million to persuading Republicans: Voting for gay marriage has consequences.

    $2 million?! That’s it? The Koch brothers probaby got that in loose change in between the sofa cushions. I sure hope they waste more money on primary challenges or whatever than that…

  172. 172
    Ken says:

    @127, 128, 129, then again @165-170:

    How about this for a solution.

    Have a type of contract between two persons, which gives the two parties various rights involving estates and inheritance, insurance, income taxes, custody of children, visitation rights, health care decisions, and other such legal matters. These contracts are defined and enforced by the state, as legal matters are the provenance of the state.

    Have a separate type of covenant which the religions may define however they want, and choose to offer to their congregants. These covenants provide the involved parties (as the IRS phrase goes) “intangible religious benefits”, but have no legal effect. Denominations are perfectly free to permit, or deny, the recognition of these covenants to anyone they choose.

    The legal contract and the religious covenant are totally independent of each other. For convenience, states may choose to allow the legal contract to be made at the same time as a religious covenant ceremony, but cannot limit this by denomination. (This is the current approach; to the state, it’s the marriage license duly signed by officiants and witnesses that forms the contract, and the religious ceremony is irrelevant.)

    I suppose if you want names for these, the contract would be a civil union, and the covenant a marriage. But note, the state has nothing to do with defining or providing marriage; it only provides civil unions, and it does so to any persons wishing to form this type of contract. Conversely the denominations cannot be forced to marry two people if it is against their beliefs.

    This also cleans up some of the establishment-of-religion issues that currently exist – e.g. the UCC has marriage equality, but is prevented from free exercise of this religious belief by most states.

  173. 173
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    I’m going to go absolutely bonkers on the next person who does not understand that if a “marriage” is legally indistinguishable from a “civil union”, then there IS NO MOTHERFUCKING DIFFERENCE.

    That is ALWAYS the assumption I make…that there will be absolute equality in the eyes of the law in all respects between the two.

    Or, in other words, precisely what Ken outlines in 173. If the two things are different names for the same set of legal conditions, then I don’t care what it’s called…IF, and only if, they are identical in terms of the legal protections and processes that they encompass.

  174. 174
    Ken says:

    @174, I’m actually going a little further – using the terminology I suggested, “marriage” would not be a legal term, and the state would be entirely out of the business of defining what “marriage” is. To the state, the only thing that should matter is the contract, or “civil union”, and the associated legal rights and responsibilities.

    The Catholics, Mormons, UCCs, Baptists, Orthodox Jews, Santerians, and all the rest are then perfectly free to define what a “marriage” is, and set the terms under which two people can be married in their respective faiths. If they want to prevent persons not of their faith, or of the same gender, or of different races, or non-blondes from being married in their denomination, that’s entirely up to them, but it won’t have any impact on the legal rights those people can obtain through a civil union.

    The religions are also equally free to consider the civil unions established by the state, and the marriages affirmed by other faiths, as having no religious validity. They do this now, although most are fairly polite about it, at least in public.

  175. 175
    giantslor says:

    I can’t decide what’s more enjoyable: Winning, or the other side losing. Screw it, it’s a twofer.

    The best part is that we win for all time, and they lose for all time. No rematch, fucksticks. Go pound sand.

Comments are closed.