I know, I work in Queens, and it's devastating. I live in NH which does have gay marriage but my marriage means nothing here. U r right. Outside of Manhattan, New York state is redville. And those Log Cabin Republicans, shame on them. Their party has abandoned them time and time again. I try not to give up hope, but today's news was very demoralizing. Here we go again, 2nd class citizens and Obama does nothing.

Move to Iowa.

Our drawn-out constitutional amendment process may insure that there's enough time for people to realize it's not a big deal, and if (when, I'm afraid) it comes to a vote in 3 to 5 years, hate and bigotry will lose at the polls. Hopefully not for the 1st time by then.

The dominance of the Catholic Church in New York is as great as the dominance of the Mormon Church in Utah.

I don't think the Catholic Church wheels that much power. The idea of changing the definition of marriage has not gained wide support with Americans. Without exception when put to a vote it looses even in liberal states like California and NY it has not passed.

Marriage is a social contract. So the idea of society deciding the definition seems the most logical to me.

This is so frustrating, but as other folks have said, not a surprise. I live in Portland, Maine, and while my man and I can safely walk around town holding hands, Maine's more rural areas would definitely be another situation entirely. Portland voted in favor of gay marriage by a 3 to 1 margin, but we weren't enough to outweigh all the tiny towns. Still, I feel safer being openly gay here than I did in Philly and definitely more than in Arkansas.

I'm sorry that yet another state has failed its citizens. But we'll keep on fighting.

The NY Democratic Hall of Shame who voted against gay marriage:

Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens) – NO
Darrel Aubertine (D- Cape Vincent) – NO
Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) – NO
Shirley Huntley (D-Queens) – NO
Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) – NO
Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens) – NO
George Onorato (D-Queens) – NO
William Stachowski (D-Buffalo) – NO

Monserrate, you may recall, was arrested for beating his girlfriend and putting her in the hospital.

Thank you for posting the no votes from the Democrats in New York. The gay community needs to stop voting blindly for democrats. Marriage is a legal, civil contract, not a religious one. You don't get divorced in church, why then should the church get involved in politics? Where's the separation of church and state as promised by the constitution? I'm not a resident of New York so I can't vote in my district but every out and proud member of the GLBT community in Queens and Bronx needs to call their rep on the carpet on this. What a disgrace!

It's like California... outside the big urban centers of SF and LA, the populace is conservative, religious and uninformed (or uncaring) about social issues. This vote is a bummer to say the least. We posted about the "rainbow" lining, here:

http://open.salon.com/blog/justmarriedus/2009/12/02/ny_votes_against_marriage_the_rainbow_lining

The fight goes on!

First of all, please don't tar us all with the same brush. I live in a very liberal area, and several of my friends live out in the open here. But, I do think that it's time for New York to pay the piper. Just as I would suggest for any other state that had defeated gay marriage, I would suggest an economic boycott of the state. New York is fabulous at telling everyone else how backwards they are. It's time for us to step up to the plate, stand up for our gay brothers and sisters, and take our lumps from the rest of the nation for being unable to pass a same-sex marriage bill.
P.S. In the breakdown of the bill, how many of the Senators who voted "no" were from NYC or its close environs?

M Todd, marriage is not a social contract--it's a legal contract. We are denying every citizen full rights and protections under the law when we deny two consenting adults the right to marry.

Christopher,
The vast majority of Ds that voted against the bill were from NYC. So, how come you blame this whole thing on those of us who are wealthy enough to live in Manhattan?
I'm your ally, so please, do not assume it was me or any of my friends who put the reps in power who voted against this bill.

I'm sorry. Those votes hurt.

xo from Iowa

No surprise. Sad, but I'm getting used to it. xox

Neptune is both. It is a social contract that has legal binding rights and responsibilities. What the gay population is asking for is a redefining of what the mean in our society. Even same sex marriage is limiting the definition of marriage and excludes others with different ideas. That is OK, we as a society change the definition of institutions all the time, but my question is who decides the individual or the society as a group? The reasons marriage has succeeded as a social and legal institution is the majority throughout history have decided the definition.

What about polygamist, or poly monogamist, or any combination of humans? Can they claim the same right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage? If marriage means something different to each person the the word becomes meaningless. That would hold true with any law as well. Society decides and for now society has not seen the argument for same sex marriage.

Oh,

I think I have just solved that problem plus a few others that have plagued us on the progressive side of things since Obama took office. Both locally and nationally.

Please read both my latest blog and the link listed therein.

There is about to be a MAJOR FIGURATIVE EXPLOSION.

This is not my first battle with the White House, but so far, it's Marguerite 1, White House 0. You read those blogs and tell me who just won this round. For EVERYONE.

This vote is DISGUSTING. As are alot of other things going on. And I'm really tired of it.

So I'm kicking ass.

I hope you'll join me.

Because this IS DISGUSTING.

AND NO, NO MORE WAITING.

NOW.

And that is from one of your straight sista's.

Who's been losing friends since I was 18.

I'm 42 now.

And been in the fight for you all that time.

I'm building a website out at http://myblog-thatgoeswithoutspeaking.com. It's on the fritz right now because my ISP is doing something funky. But write it down sometime and pay a visit. You might find some stuff that's interesting.

In the meantime, please look me up on Open Salon under the Blog of the same name or at http://margueritearnold.wordpress.com, although the latest blog isn't on there yet. Just stick with open salon today. My blog here is named the same thing.

My Blog That Goes Without Speaking.

While it may sound self promotional it's not.

This is to give you hope.

This is called in some circles "political capital."

I too learned a great deal from Larry Kramer honey.

It's ass kicking time.

You know what I mean?

Silence equals death.

Peace out.

Keep your chin up.

The winds are a changin'

I'm not a native to NY. I moved to Long Island a few months back. I've been proud to tell people I live in New York. Today, I'm not proud. I'm saddened by yet another defeat. I'm enraged by an elected body that doesn't reflect the attitudes of it's people. I'm disappointed that those I know and love still aren't given the rights they deserve. I'm renewed with every challenge. We will rise up stronger and better prepared to fight the battle for equality, a long and arduous battle, but one I know we shall win.

for m todd...
"What the gay population is asking for is a redefining of what the mean in our society."

no, they aren't. they're asking to be allowed to participate in the same process that heterosexual couples now enjoy.

nothing else changes. this notion that "marriage" would fundamentally change because gay people were allowed to marry is as baseless as the notion that marriage would change because interracial couples were allowed to marry.

"That is OK, we as a society change the definition of institutions all the time, but my question is who decides the individual or the society as a group? The reasons marriage has succeeded as a social and legal institution is the majority throughout history have decided the definition."

society did not decide the definition. society threw a fit when mixed race couples tried to wed and that is why the court stepped in and defined it for us, in the only way that adhered to the constitution. we are all entitled to our first amendment rights of free association and free exercise. we are all entitled to due process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

"What about polygamist, or poly monogamist, or any combination of humans? Can they claim the same right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage?"

why not? are they not human?

but more to the point, why should anyone's rights be decided based on future groups petitioning for similar rights? i encourage you to read loving, so you realize that society is pretty bad at figuring out "equality" with regards to minority populations.

Well, it isn't all of upstate - pretty much every city except Syracuse is a Democratic stronghold, and the Democratic No votes didn't come (mostly) from upstate. My Senator voted yes, while 6 NYC Dems voted no. How about we quit giving downstate Dems so much credit they don't deserve? Monserrate is the most despicable, since he slashed his girlfriend, who coincidentally testified that it was all a big mistake right after he proposed to her. So he has no problem with marriage as bribery among straight people, but he's against allowing same sex couples to marry. Ruben Diaz goes on and on about his church - and led the opposition to the bill, from the Bronx - but he's divorced, which his church also teaches is wrong, and yet that's legal.

I grew up in NYC and upstate, and I'll say this - people are more comfortable voicing their biogtry upstate, but there's no shortage of people in NYC who think gay marriage is wrong, they're just not as comfortable voicing it because it's a lot more likely their neighbors will call them out on it.

There's comfort in saying "oh, we in the city would have done this so much better, we're all Democrats and we all believe in equal rights," but the sad truth is that those 6 votes would have made it 30-32, which was the original deal - bring 30 Democrats (we know you won't have Diaz and the other D Sen. who came out early against) as Yes votes, and the Repubs. will bring 3 of our Senators in safe seats. So, actually, if you want to blame anyone for this, it's the NYC Dems for not showing up when they said they would.

What happened yesterday is the Roman Catholic Church.

The New York State Catholic Conference basically functioned as a political action committee and made it clear to lawmakers in New York that they will not tolerate gay marriage.

Sources I have in both New York City and in Albany have confirmed that several state senators who originally planned to vote “YES,” after receiving phone calls and visits from members of the conference were told there would be "consequences" if they voted for marriage equality.

The only way to silence the Catholic church once and for all is to target their tax exempt status and hit them where it hurts — in their pocketbook.

Financially addled by the global, predator priest sex scandal, the Catholic church has paid out billions of dollars to settle claims and will shrink in size and influence were it to lose its tax exemption in the U.S.

The Catholic Church and all other churches/religions who inject themselves into these debates should no longer be able to avoid taxation, they are clearly political organizations and deserve to be treated as such. The exemption from taxation absurd.

New York already recognizes same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere. So gays can get married in New England and remain married in New York. That's what makes the defeat so surprising. All the legislators have really "accomplished" is to lose some tax revenue and wedding commerce for their state. It's also an inconvenience and extra cost for couples who then have to plan a wedding, and likely the reception too, from a distance.

I agree with Christpher: religions that interfere in politics deserve to lose their tax-exempt status!

I agree with the economic boycott of this city from another poster. My husband has cancelled our 3 dy December getaway in the city. As a gay couple married in New Hampshire, we stand in solidarity with the gay community in New York and since the GLBT community is not valued at all, then why should the state have our money? We were going to book a round trip on the Acela from Boston, a 2 night stay at a nice hotel in Manhattan plus meals/shows etc. Not going into the economy of New York state. We are spending the 3 days at home.

My parents suffered discrimination as a biracial couple in the early 70s even though it was legal. My mother especially endured most of it, and here I am, 37 years later, facing the same discrimination that she did. The gay community should be outraged.

bestrangely:

Granted what constitutes a marriage has gone unchallenged for centuries. Most law both civil and religious has defined marriage in terms of heterosexual and for the most part monogamous. Now that society has been asked to decide for now it seems that society is not willing to consider same sex marriage.

You mentioning mixed race marriages as an example of redefining, but really it is not defining marriage, but who is allowed to marry. What needed to change was the views on racism and once that happened racist laws changed. Until society in large changes its views on homosexuality the marriage laws will stay the same.

Some view marriage as a commitment void of any social contract. Some view just the social contract. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of sects, and social groups within this country that enter into marriage without even considering the state.

What I see happening is withing the next 10 years same sex marriage will become a reality in this country. This will give justification for polygamist and all manner of marriage definitions to gain legal grounds. Then the real fun will begin. The social contract of marriage is the foundation stone of wealth and estate distribution. In the case of same sex monogamy it would stay pretty much the same, but I would not want to be the judge overseeing the first estate dispute between a polygamist marriage or a polymonogamous marriage.

I tend to lean towards society deciding its laws not the individual. That does not mean I agree with all the laws, but unless there is a strong constitutional grounds the law should stand until society is willing to change it. It may not always be fair, but what is?

I was writing an email to the assemblymen (even though they wont read it b/c I don't live in New York) and remembering a talk I had yesterday about Pelosi and the Stupak amendment.

Then it sort of hit me as I wrote: "Granted, you may have decided that you can lose the gay vote and still be re-elected, or, worse, you reason that you will get the gay votes anyway because gay people have no other choice but to vote for you."

The Dems have reached (or reaffirmed the conclusion) that they can screw their constituents b/c they have no other real choice (or at least feel that they don't) but to vote democrat again.

Feeling like I was in an abusive relationship, wasn't what I was hoping would come out of the Dems being the controlling party.

Someone is running the numbers and determining that certain constituents can be thrown under the bus in order to get more moderate votes b/c those constituents have no other option.

I hope my suspicion is wrong b/c that seems inexcusably self-serving to the point that it is a violation of the spirit if not precise letter of office.

-Eric

A sad day indeed.

@ m todd

"What needed to change was the views on racism and once that happened racist laws changed. "

no, you are not correct. the court applied the constitution to racist laws and overturned them. society continued to be pissed and unequal for several more decades. really, you should check this out.

"There are hundreds (if not thousands) of sects, and social groups within this country that enter into marriage without even considering the state."

and if they are happy doing that, more power to them. we are however talking about the unequal application of due process, a constitutionally guaranteed right. we are also talking about de facto legislation of religious exercise, since priests cannot perform gay marriages and have them recognized by the state.

would you care to address the iniquity you are ignoring?

You are painting upstate New York with a friggin broad brush here. Yes, upstate had plenty of rednecks among its country folk. It also has a lot of progressives in its small towns and small/medium cities. Look in your own back yard: Staten Island is Republican and far more Catholic-dominated than any upstate county. Look at Long Island and Queens and all the homophobes within the cities. Six out of 8 of the Dem NO votes were from NYC, so STFU.

Also, czerny, if you really have NH same-sex marriage and work in Queens, you should KNOW that in New York out-of-state same-sex marriages ARE fully recognized by New York State. This has been a settled question for more than a year, and that is settled by both the executive and judicial branches. New Yorkers can and do marry out of state (Connecticut is a popular destination these days) and enjoy full marriage rights at home.