Jessica Tollefson Social Control article #2

NEW YORK TIMES ALBANY — The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and emotional divisions surrounding the issue. The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who poured close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure. Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Republican leader, said the public was gripped by economic anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state’s definition of marriage. “Certainly this is an emotional issue and an important issue for many New Yorkers,” said Mr. Libous, of Binghamton. “I just don’t think the majority care too much about it at this time because they’re out of work, they want to see the state reduce spending, and they are having a hard time making ends meet. And I don’t mean to sound callous, but that’s true.” The defeat, which followed a stirring and at times deeply personal debate, all but ensures that the issue is dead in New York until at least 2011, when a new Legislature will be installed. Since 2003, seven states, including three that border New York, have legalized same-sex marriage. But in two of the seven, including Maine last month, voters have reversed the decisions of lawmakers or judges in referendums, and effectively outlawed gay nuptials. Public opinion pollsters say that while support generally is building for same-sex marriage, voters resist when they fear the issue being pushed too fast. In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26. They had the support of Gov. David A. Paterson, who had publicly championed the bill, along with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Senate Democratic leadership. The defeat revealed stark divides: All 30 of the Republican senators opposed the bill, as did most of the members from upstate New York and Long Island. Support was heaviest among members from New York City and Westchester County and among the Senate’s 10 black members. Seven of the Senate’s 10 women voted for it. “I’m a woman and a Jew and so I know about discrimination,” said Senator Liz Krueger of Manhattan. Said Malcolm A. Smith of Queens, the Senate president pro tempore: “It would be easy for me to hide behind my church.” But, he continued, “I have to vote yes because of my religious beliefs, because I have experienced discrimination.” Senators who are considered politically vulnerable also voted almost uniformly against the bill, including four first-term Democrats. All but one of those whose districts border or lie within the 23rd Congressional District, where the marriage issue erupted in a recent special election, opposed it. In that race, a Republican who supported gay marriage withdrew after an uproar from conservatives in her district. “I think that there were political forces that in some respects intimidated some of those who voted,” said Mr. Paterson. “I think if there’d actually been a conscience vote we’d be celebrating marriage equality right now.” While gay rights supporters such as Mr. Paterson had prominently pushed for passage, the opposition was less visible but ultimately more potent. That was reflected in the floor debate Wednesday too. All but one of those who spoke on the floor supported the measure. The state’s Roman Catholic bishops lobbied for its defeat, however, and after the vote released a statement applauding the move. “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in the statement. “However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.” Several supporters said they felt they had been betrayed by senators who promised to vote yes but then, reluctant to support an issue as politically freighted as same-sex marriage if they could avoid it, switched their votes on the floor when it became evident the bill would lose. “This is the worst example of political cowardice I’ve ever seen,” said Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat. “Clearly people said things prior to coming to the floor and behaved differently.” It is rare for legislation to reach the floor in Albany when passage is not all but assured. And initially, gay rights advocates resisted bringing this bill to a vote, fearing the consequences of a defeat. But they shifted that strategy over time, becoming convinced that an up or down vote was necessary so they could finally know which senators supported the bill. That was in part because gay rights groups, which have become major financial players in state politics, wanted to know which senators they should back in the future and which ones to target for defeat. Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s largest gay rights group, hinted that senators who voted against the bill on Wednesday could face repercussions. “Had there been no vote today, we would not know who would stand by our community in a fight, and who would walk away. We wouldn’t know what work needed to be done in 2010. We would have vague commitments or promises on candidate questionnaires. But a hard vote is as good as you can get to understand if you don’t win the work that lies ahead.” Republican activists who supported the bill insisted that the agreement they struck with Democrats called for Democrats to deliver enough votes so only a handful of Republicans were needed to take such a politically risky vote. “Several Republicans wanted to vote for this,” said Jeff Cook, a consultant for the Log Cabin Republicans who lobbied Republican senators to vote yes. “But those Republicans aren’t willing to take a tough political vote when the bill has no chance of passage. And that’s the political reality.”

Deciding who, when, how, or why you are marrying someone is a form of social control and that is exactly how this is being used against people who cannot help their sexual attractions and can't change who they are and shouldn't have to. They are entitled to marriage just as any of us, and even if people don't agree with it, I don't believe it should be something that is this debated, this sought after and this hot of a topic. It should be legal, and if you don't like it, pretend you don't know its happening. I don't see the reason why it shouldn't be allowed in the first place, when abortion is legal but people who love each other and want to share that love and life together can't do so legally. This is something that is definitely concerning, and something that should be changed, and we shouldn't be being controlled by legal meetings, hearings, debates and judgment when it is something that should be an argument of the past.