01/05/2007
Spitzer Aide Insists: Gay Marriage Still on the Agenda
The New York Sun takes a fresh look at recently sworn in New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's gay marriage promises, noting that gay marriage, which he has been vocal and specific about in the past, was glossed over in his hour-long "State of the State" address on Wednesday.
The Sun reports: "After Mr. Spitzer finished his speech, environmentalists, medical researchers, unions, and education activists released statements applauding the governor for taking up their issues. Gay-rights groups were noticeably missing from the chorus of cheers. In a press conference afterward, a reporter asked Mr. Spitzer if his remarks about the chapters yet to be written was a reference to gay marriage. Mr. Spitzer responded: 'It was a reference to a range of areas where the civil rights movement has not yet been completed, and I think that subsumes all of them.'"
Certainly a more general statement than those he has made in the past.
In his most recent pledge, Spitzer told a roomful of guests at the October Empire State Pride Agenda dinner that "We will not ask whether this proposition of legalizing same-sex marriage is popular or unpopular; we will not ask if it’s hard or easy; we will simply ask if it’s right or wrong. I think we know in this room what the answer to that question is."
This statement was a follow-up to a declaration he made in July against his Democratic opponent Thomas Suozzi, in which the Gov-to-be promised, "I have said with great clarity that I think that same-sex marriage should be legal. I will propose a bill to permit that to be the case here in the State of New York. And I will act on that if I'm fortunate enough to be elected governor."
So why the lack of specifics? Openly gay State Senator Thomas Duane notes that Spitzer may simply be exercising caution and learning from the past: "When President Clinton came in he got very specific about his plans … and it became a distraction for some of the other things he wanted to accomplish. And he didn't get a win on gays in the military. It was probably a lesson learned for Eliot Spitzer."
Spitzer's communications director Darren Dopp said that at the moment it's a back burner issue after ethics and economics, but it's definitely still on the agenda: "The governor made a commitment to advancing it this year, and he will do so...We have to prioritize and that's how we prioritized."
In the meantime, just continue to crush...
Spitzer: Gay Rites Ahead [the ny sun]
You may have missed...
Eliot Spitzer: "We Will Make [Gay Marriage] Law in New York" [tr]
New York Legislators Pressed for Positions on Gay Marriage [tr]
Posted 9:30 AM EST by Andy Towle in Democratic Party, Eliot Spitzer, Gay Marriage, New York, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
nevermind politico crush, he's kinda cute anyways. Then again, I used to think McGreevey was cute too...
Posted by: Derrick | Jan 5, 2007 10:03:35 AM
And so the old shell game begins.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Jan 5, 2007 10:27:57 AM
I don't get gay men who say vote democrat. They all (Republicans and Democrats) pander to us during the elections and then leave us hanging.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 5, 2007 10:34:28 AM
Marriage, a religious institution?
I have difficulty trying to understand why allowing gays to use the term “marriage” rather than “unions” to be such a sticking point. I have heard it often said by people that are opposed to gay marriage; say that marriage is a religious institution. Or using the term marriage will somehow make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or on a mountaintop, it seems to me it just doesn’t matter and that there are no restrictions. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.
I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages; they seem to be doing a damn good job of their own, making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t seem last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple, and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together, do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver Saugatuck, Mi 49408 269 561 6789 www.aaronjasonsilver.com
Posted by: aaron jason silver | Jan 5, 2007 11:38:36 AM
Let's face it, we faggots are not a high priority on too many lists that will do us good. We are, however, at the top of many lists that would do us harm. Despite all the remarkable, creative things we bring to the table, we still are more likely to be the servers at the table than the served. And I don't mean that in a good way!
Posted by: Bill | Jan 5, 2007 12:46:40 PM
"Let's face it, we faggots are not a high priority on too many lists that will do us good. We are, however, at the top of many lists that would do us harm."
...Hence why we have to fend for ourselves! And the internet is a good place to do that and reclaim our rightful place in society.
Posted by: Da | Jan 5, 2007 1:21:12 PM
Bill-
I hate your use of the word faggot to describe "us." I'm a gay man, not a faggot. Your using that term in like a black man calling another black man a nigger. It offends on so many levels.
Ogden
Posted by: Ogden | Jan 5, 2007 1:44:54 PM
Would agree with Ogden. While I'm sure Bill thought he was being all "gay ghetto" with the term, it's really not a word that should be used. It's history speaks of grammar/H.S. abuse for many a gay man while still coming to terms with who they would be.
Posted by: Brandon K | Jan 5, 2007 2:21:30 PM
Marriage, a religious institution?
I have difficulty trying to understand why allowing gays to use the term “marriage” rather than “unions” to be such a sticking point. I have heard it often said by people that are opposed to gay marriage; say that marriage is a religious institution. Or using the term marriage will somehow make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or on a mountaintop, it seems to me it just doesn’t matter and that there are no restrictions. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.
I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages; they seem to be doing a damn good job of their own, making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t seem last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple, and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together, do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver Saugatuck, Mi 49408 269 561 6789 www.aaronjasonsilver.com
Posted by: aaron jason silver | Jan 5, 2007 7:23:28 PM