Regardless of how you feel about same sex marriage, the Times article about Cuomo's masterful orchestration of the politics of the issue would probably appeal to some of you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?emc=eta1

I found it interesting that when the Democrats held a majority the proposal failed, but when the Republicans got one, it passed. Clearly the stereotypical partisan lines are not as concrete as some like to imply.

Dan, this issue succeeded because of leadership. The prior governor, Governor Patterson, was not a strong leader and, as a lame duck, he couldn't twist any arms. Gay marriage was approved in NY because Governor Cuomo wanted it to happen and worked the legislators to make it happen. Politics is a skill and if nothing else, this vote showed that Cuomo knows what he's doing.

I think it is great. It doubles the number of people in this country who can have same sex marriages. Also, my understanding is that NY is only the 3rd state to get there via the legislature. The other 2 are Vermont and New Hampshire which are very small states, relatively speaking.

This is not directly relevant I suppose, but I read a fascinating article today on the subject of gay marriage and the culture wars around it that would be well worth a read for people here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10646/

For what it's worth I'm personally in favour of gay marriage without really giving a damn about it too much. I'd vote in favour of it given the choice in a referendum but I can totally understand the point the author of this article is making.

Congratulations to NY for passing a law the correct way. (Still waiting on DOMA being repealed, zzzzz)

You can get gay married in the US now, but you can't get gay married in the UK. So I guess that makes Sass and Dan the knuckle draggers on this topic.

Here's a weird thought. Women are twice as likely as men to have bisexual experiences. It appears to be more likely for them to be able to go either way. I assume that could be in part with the tendency for their sexuality to be more passive, more touchy feely, etc. (etc. is for whatever the real reason is, I'm sure it's way more involved than what I'm able or willing to comprehend).

That being said I suspect it will become more and more common for women of multiple marriages to have gone both ways. Not exactly out of sexual confusion, but just because they can. I'll be confused, but they won't.

Neal Anderth wrote:You can get gay married in the US now, but you can't get gay married in the UK. So I guess that makes Sass and Dan the knuckle draggers on this topic.

Yeah right. Because:

1) individuals are the same thing as their countries of residence, regardless of there stated positions on the laws and policies of those countries.

2) The gay marriage that's legal in NY has the full equivalence as heterosexual marriage in the US, can be undertaken across all jurisdictions and is recognised in all 49 other states of the Union, whereas the civil partnerships in the UK are in no way close to being 'marriage in all but name'



And yes, I suspect you will be confused.

Sassenach wrote:This is not directly relevant I suppose, but I read a fascinating article today on the subject of gay marriage and the culture wars around it that would be well worth a read for people here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10646/

Oh dear. Frank Furedi? He's still playing the RCP-game, I see.

The Revolutionary Communist Party used to try and provoke 'debate' among the far left by coming up with reactionary positions and seeking to defend them as in line with Marxist doctrine. By the nineties they had decided that the revolution was over - and in Blair, had been successful (!) - and wound up, along with their magazine, Living Marxism. many of them, including good old Frank Furedi, moved on to Spiked magazine, which to this day (as above) seems to do the exact same thing.

It's annoying, because I really want to agree with what 'Sense About Science' say, but the Furedi influence is strong there too.

For what it's worth I'm personally in favour of gay marriage without really giving a damn about it too much. I'd vote in favour of it given the choice in a referendum but I can totally understand the point the author of this article is making.

My position matches yours. Luckily, all it would take here would be a renaming of the civil partnerships, whereas in the USA it would involve undoing a lot of laws that restrict same sex legal partnerships whatever they are called. Which is why Furedi is barking up the wrong tree - the UK debate is in a completely different place to the US one.

Not quite passed "the right way" but close. I would have preferred a vote by the people. While such a measure has never been passed by vote (that should tell you it is not wanted by the majority) I think it may have passed in New York and I (living in New York) may even have voted FOR it even though I loosely oppose same sex marriage. Why?
Unless we have an equal option such as 100% similar civil union, then I simply could not support NOT allowing it. And since there is no other option out there, it would have forced me to vote for it. I may be against it in name, but I am not for discrimination and the way it currently is certainly discriminates. (I happen to like the UK's system)
So New York didn't quite get it done the right way, it was better than through court order, but not quite right either and just think if we actually voted for it how much more meaningful that would have meant?

tom

So New York didn't quite get it done the right way, it was better than through court order, but not quite right either and just think if we actually voted for it how much more meaningful that would have meant?

Loving v Virginia ended the discrimination against couples of different races who wanted to marry. No vote. And yet in only a couple of decades after the event, mixed race mariages were largely accepted. And certainly universally tolerated if not accepted.
Although it may have been a demonstration of a noble generous gesture by the voting public at large to vote for gay mariage, as society adopts new norms it rarely matters how we got to the new norm.
There's also something strange about providing the legislature the power to make laws, and then condemning when they do as a kind of half measure.

Still i applaud your tolerance Tom.

From the article:

New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage and would deliver every possible Senate vote from his own party.

Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.

But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.

I was thinking that social conservatives might feel betrayed by how this happened, as in: "We gave you billionaires 15% tax rates so you could create jobs and save our country, and here you are not creating jobs but using your wealth to bring Sodom & Gomorrah to America!" Anyone feeling a little bit betrayed?

Also, I wonder if the Manhattan socialites feel just a little bit betrayed too: can you imagine how difficult it's going to be to book the Waldorf Astoria for a big wedding now!!

George:

I was thinking that social conservatives might feel betrayed by how this happened, as in: "We gave you billionaires 15% tax rates so you could create jobs and save our country, and here you are not creating jobs but using your wealth to bring Sodom & Gomorrah to America!" Anyone feeling a little bit betrayed?

Also, I wonder if the Manhattan socialites feel just a little bit betrayed too: can you imagine how difficult it's going to be to book the Waldorf Astoria for a big wedding now!!

Weddings are a big business. For those billionaires who partially own hotels and airlines this will be helpful. It's also good for those people working in hotels, taxis, restaurants, etc. Lawyers get to write pre-nups and adoption agencies may see a little more business. All in all, a good day for freedom and a good day for capitalism.

Apologize for the off-topic response, but you know I need to respond.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Side bar: Billionaires don't pay 15% tax rates. I find it difficult to believe that any billionares are earning less than $34,500.

Randy, I've written about it many times in these forums, but the ultra rich, those for whom earned income is a trivial portion of their income, pay very low tax rates. [The rates you quote only apply to earned and ordinary income.] Here's a story about when Buffet went public with his 17.7% tax rate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

But that's more than the hedge fund guys pay:

The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent.

You're not alone in mis-understanding how the ultra rich pay so little. Normal folk don't quite understand how the tax code is so tilted in favor of the ultra rich, who generally pay a rate in the teens, much less than someone like yourself who works for a living.

So with all deductions, the "ultra rich" pay 17.7%? Are you saying that you think that ALL people should pay 17.7% of their pay? I could sign off on that. That is exactly what I am looking for. Pick a number, and make everyone pay that.