Eliot Spitzer | Gay Marriage | New York | News

Eliot Spitzer to introduce New York Gay Marriage Bill Today

As promised earlier this week, Eliot Spitzer today will deliver a gay marriage bill to the New York legislature.

SpitzerA senior official in Spitzer's office told Gay City News: "The governor is fulfilling his promise to the community and a taking a courageous and historic step toward making equal civil marriage rights a reality in New York."

According to the paper, "A lawyer from the office of the governor's counsel with deliver the bill and an accompanying memorandum, with a statement of support, to the offices of the Assembly speaker and the Senate majority leader. Also, on Friday, the state Department of Civil Service will order a policy change mandating that any entity participating in the state health plan - including hundreds of municipalities and local school districts - recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages for purposes of spousal and family benefits."

Said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda: "Today is a watershed moment in our community’s struggle to win the freedom to marry in New York and have our relationships treated the same as any other relationship under the law. We are extremely proud to have a Governor who understands that all New York families need access to the protections and responsibilities that the state provides through marriage. We thank Governor Spitzer for keeping his promise to act on marriage equality and for his commitment to seeing that this bill becomes law."

More on the bill's chances of success, via Gay City News, after the jump...

Via Gay City News:

"According to Gottfried's office, the marriage equality bill now has 43 sponsors in the Assembly and the Empire Pride Agenda's running vote count shows 61 ayes out of the Assembly's 150 members, with only 25 stating their opposition. To achieve a majority of 76, then, gay marriage advocates need to identify at least 15 votes out of the remaining 64. All but three of the marriage supporters are Democrats, who hold a total of 108 seats in the Assembly.

The picture in the Senate is less promising, at least in the near term. There, only 18 of 62 have indicated support, with 24 opposed. A minimum of 14 additional votes, out of the 20 undecided senators must be secured for passage (with the ability of Democratic Lieutenant Governor David Paterson to break a Senate tie currently under scrutiny in the attorney general's office).

Republicans hold a slim two-vote margin in the Senate, and upstate Majority Leader Joe Bruno opposes marriage equality and would block a vote on the issue at this point."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Eliot Spitzer is a sexy fraggle!

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 27, 2007 12:15:15 PM

  2. Stephen will be here to tell us how marriage should be limited to people who can (or at least if they weren't too old, infertile, sterile or uninterested in procreating WOULD HAVE BEEN able to) "naturally" contribute eggs AND sperm to their relationship, in 3, 2, 1 ....

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 12:28:32 PM

  3. LOL@Zeke! Maybe someone should legislate Stephen's ability to comment or read any blogs at all. See how he likes that...

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 27, 2007 12:33:05 PM

  4. Yes Zeke,
    Or MJ will be here to tell us we should love Giuliani and ignore his stance on gay rights because TEH TERRORISTS!
    Or Cyd will sprout similar pro-Republican nonsense.
    I thank Towleroad's comments section for giving me a glimpse into the brains of gay republicans. They are truly delusional.

    Posted by: Adam | Apr 27, 2007 12:39:05 PM

  5. Not at ALL!! lol. I really like Eliot Spitzer. He has a lot of integrity, he is really a man of the people, and I think he is VERY fair. I could see this guy as president some day. This Republican is a BIG fan of this Democrat!!!

    Unfortunately, it's the leaders of both houses that are the problem. Sheldon Silver (a Democrat) is the head of the Assembly, and gay Democrat politicos have told me that, while he hasn't said so publicly, he strongly opposes gay marriage (he is an Orthodox Jew). Both he and Bruno (a Republican) will likely block votes on this; and if those two guys don't want to vote on something, they have the power to stop it, which is a crappy rule.

    But again, kudos to Spitzer!! Finally, a politician who does what he says he'll do!

    Posted by: Cyd | Apr 27, 2007 12:55:35 PM

  6. Well Cyd, it seems I spoke to soon about you, at least regarding Spitzer:
    Spitzer for president!!!

    Posted by: Adam | Apr 27, 2007 1:05:54 PM

  7. My response to gays who are against marriage equality is the same as it is to straights who are against marriage equality.

    If you're against "gay" marriage then DON'T F'N HAVE ONE! But don't try to deny marriage those of us who want and NEED marriage to protect OUR families.

    I've been called "familist" and "elitist" here for bringing up why my family needs marriage. I've even been accused of sounding like a Focus on the Family shill. I think that is unfair. I have never pushed marriage on anyone who doesn't want one. I've never supported forcing churches to endorse or perform marriages against their beliefs. But it really pushes me to the point of fury when I have someone who doesn't have a family, has no intention of having a family and hasn't had a relationship that lasted longer than it took to put his pants back on, stand in self-righteous judgment of what marriage is, what it's for, who deserves it and who doesn't and standing against any gay persons right to marriage simply because they personally don't need or want one.

    Everyone, gay and straight, deserves the SAME rights in this country. If you want to make all partnerships Civil Unions, I'm cool with that, but I will never be willing to adopt the inferiority complex of Stephen et al, and I'll be damned if I'll sit silently by while he and others try to explain why I, my husband, our son and our family are inferior simply based on our "unnaturally matched" reproductive plumbing.

    In Stephen's world, mass murderers on death row are intitled to marriage as long as the inmate and his/her spouse WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to conceive a child "naturally" under different circumstances, but my kid, WHO ACTUALLY EXISTS, doesn't have a right to married parents.


    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 1:09:39 PM

  8. DOA.

    Like Florida... the state of New York is surprisingly regressive on gay rights, especially given its reputation as a pro-gay haven.

    NYS did away with its antiquated sodomy law in 2000 (Illionis did it in 1962, California in 1975).

    NYS banned employment discrimination against gays in 2001 (Wisconsin in 1982, California in 1992).

    NYS has no statewide domestic partnership or civil union law, despite the fact that most of its neighbors recognize same-sex unions (New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont).

    NYS state courts have voided a NYC ordinance requiring companies doing business with the city to provide health insurance for partners of gays, even though other major cities across the nation now have similar laws.

    Posted by: John | Apr 27, 2007 1:15:13 PM

  9. Sorry for the typos and grammar.

    This is one of the few topics that really gets my blood boiling.

    The result is, my fingers type faster than my mental spellcheck can keep up. :)

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 1:16:29 PM

  10. John, I agree with you.

    Even though the bill is most likely DOA, it was still the right thing to do.

    It is a first step in the long fight for justice and equality.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 1:19:07 PM

  11. "But it really pushes me to the point of fury when I have someone who doesn't have a family, has no intention of having a family and hasn't had a relationship that lasted longer than it took to put his pants back on, stand in self-righteous judgment..."

    I love the irony of this statement-condemning the self righteous judgement of those that disagree with you by self righteously stereotyping, judging and condemning their lives.

    Posted by: Charles | Apr 27, 2007 1:25:01 PM

  12. No, Herr Zeigler, it's not "the leaders of both houses that are THE problem." They are symptoms: symptoms of the disease of some 10% of the population which results in their refusal to stand up for themselves— thus empowering religionist extremists who will go to their graves hating us and signaling to average nongay non extremist Americans that we are not worth of full equality.

    "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt
    "A man can't ride you unless your back is bent." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Leading this parade of voluntary second-class citizens are people like Anderson Cooper and every "gay Republican."

    Bravo to Spitzer. Repugnant Governor Arnold: the alarm on your place in history just went off again.

    Posted by: Leland | Apr 27, 2007 2:02:53 PM

  13. Until this is law I won't be happy. If the bill fails to reach the governor's desk then I would hope Eliot wouldn't not let go of gay issues or marriage because of it.

    Posted by: Jack! | Apr 27, 2007 2:07:53 PM

  14. Charles, I wasn't judging anyone.

    The complaint I mentioned had nothing whatsoever to do with the people's relationship status or their sexual proclivities; my circle of friends would attest to that. My issue is when those who have no desire to have a long term relationship (which is fine by me) actively work against marriage rights for those want to get married. There is a huge difference between an observation and a judgment.

    I could care less what other people do or don't do, but people shouldn't actively work to deny a right to others simply because they don't want or need it.

    I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing the difference.

    I'm also sorry that you have personal issues with me that cause you so much distress.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 2:17:39 PM

  15. Eliot Spitzer is a wet dream of a politician. He is on the right side of *every* issue, and he isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in. I can't wait until Spitzer runs for President of the United States of America.

    Posted by: peterparker | Apr 27, 2007 2:24:39 PM

  16. "I'm also sorry that you have personal issues with me that cause you so much distress."

    I dont have issues with you, I have issues with how you get your point across, but if that slam makes you feel better, then more power to you.

    Posted by: Charles | Apr 27, 2007 2:25:49 PM

  17. As for the line about having a relationship that lasts only as long as it takes to put your pants back on; I actually borrowed that line from a good friend of mine in Tampa. That's how he describes his relationship status to anyone who asks. I think it's a funny line. If you know him you know it fits him to a "T".

    He tells me that he has no desire to EVER get married, but he sees why others might want or need to and he would never try to deny the option to others. He respects my relationship choices and I respect his; just as it should be.

    No judgment there at all.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 2:27:03 PM

  18. Charles, I think you take issue with what you thought I said more often that with what I actually said.

    At least twice now you have accused me of saying something I didn't say and then taken issue with it. That's what you call a straw man

    That's why I offered you the non-apology apology. When I'm actually guilty of what I'm accused of, and I think I messed up, I offer a real apology. I've done that MANY times here at Towleroad.

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 2:33:43 PM

  19. Really, Charles, try using some lube with that dildo. It might minimize some of the crankiness, though one doubts it will in any way eliminate your halucinations about what people write.

    Posted by: Leland | Apr 27, 2007 2:49:33 PM

  20. I had the opportunity to speak with Eliot this past week at an event, and I thanked him for this. Nice guy.

    Posted by: Andrew | Apr 27, 2007 3:14:02 PM

  21. Leland, Leland, Leland!

    As much as I appreciate you and your support, I really don't want you to be uncivil on my behalf. :)

    Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 3:22:42 PM

  22. The majority of Americans believe that marriage is - and always will be - between one man and one woman. I happen to be part of that group.
    I fully support civil unions that bridge the gap of inequality, but it is not marriage when two people of the same sex come together as one. It is different.
    Is that so difficult to fathom?

    Posted by: Stephen | Apr 27, 2007 3:51:08 PM

  23. As far as I can tell the sky isn't falling in Massachusetts, Steve. (The majority of Americans also believe in alien abductions and angels too...)

    Posted by: anon | Apr 27, 2007 4:09:54 PM

  24. And not only that but many churches ordain marriages for gay couples. Since such rites are performed even in states that do not grant benefits that 'bridge the gap of inequality' it seems quite possible for marriage, even purely religious marriage, to be between whomever people think worthy of it. Every one is allowed there own opinion Stephen, but you're limiting your own possibilities and the possibilities of others unnessecarily.

    Posted by: GBM | Apr 27, 2007 4:18:51 PM

  25. Stephen, what is difficult to fathom is your inability to see any colors other than black and white. How is it possible for you to be so limited in your ability to reason? I suppose I'll have to look that up and find out what makes people into single-dimension thinkers instead of like the many others of us who regularly exercise the capacity of multi-dimensional thinking and logic. I still have YET to hear anyone of your ilk sit down and write a plausible sentence to fully explain your concept of marriage other than simply stating "marriage is between a man and a woman". That is an absolutist statement and I don't live in a universe of absolutes. Maybe you're not really from here. Or perhaps you should be discriminated against for just lacking the capacity to understand anything outside that infinitesimal microcosm.

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 27, 2007 4:42:00 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Jake Gyllenhaal Practices Playing Daddy« «