UPDATE 5: 10:31 p.m. ET: 33-29 gay marriage bill passes the New York Senate. I'm going to take out the live video feed from this post since they've moved on to other business. We are encoding most of tonight's coverage, including the vote, so check back later for clips.
6: Also, the podcast should include most of the coverage, which, be warned, will make it a very large download.
UPDATE 3: Here's the live stream from the New York State Senate. As I mentioned below, the gay marriage vote is not expected until much later tonight. In the meantime the feed occasionally shows other business being taken care of.
UPDATE 4 9:01 p.m. ET: Word spreading that the vote could be as soon as 15 minutes away.
______________
The internet has lit up with word that the New York State Senate will definitely vote on same-sex marriage and though exactly when the vote will happen is unclear, the expectation is that it will be Friday night.
New York Times Albany Bureau Chief tweeted a quote from Senator Alesi a few minutes ago, "It's what I was hoping for" and "It'll be tonight."
If you're looking for where to watch the vote, the NY State Senate live feed should be here but the page is showing that they're not in session (which is true, but I was hoping to at least see a blank screen so I know it's going to be there). I did find such a blank screen here , so if it isn't carried on TV at least there's there. I should find out shortly if msnbc.com will be able to carry the live feed as well. MSNBC.com will have a live stream of the NY State Senate when they come into session. No link yet, but I'll post it here when it exists.
UPDATE: From Capital Tonight (New York State political news program): "Senate GOPers predicting things move v quickly from here. Predict #gaymarriage vote before midnight, or even 11 pm. 'Everyone's tired.'"
UPDATE 2: It looks like the live feed is broadcasting now, but reports are that the marriage equality voting will be the last order of business, still several hours away.
Leave a Comment:
I'm cheering for two victories right now.
1) THANK YOU NEW YORK FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING!!! :)
2) Thank you to the Rachel Maddow Show Blog for moving toward language like Same Sex Marriage and Marriage Equality. It means a LOT to activists like me.
I disagree on point two. I don't think it helps to not say gay. I think it just makes people who want to marry the same sex but don't want to be associated with "gay" feel better.
A lot of activists engage in horizontal oppression, and that's a sad fact.
The term "Gay Marriage" excludes bisexuals, pansexuals and some trans* folk. I don't think its that they feel better about not being associated with the word "gay", its that they would like their sexual or gender identities to not be erased as usual. Marriage Equality is the most inclusive, and imo, best term.
I appreciate what you're saying, but for those in the community who do not identify as gay, or people who are striving for something beyond traditional two-person family recognition, the word "gay" becomes VERY isolating. It's marriage, plain and simple. Not gay or straight or bisexual or polyamorous. It's marriage and it needs to be equal.
True, but as a queer individual (and New Yorker, woohoo!), I prefer "marriage equality" because it's a more euphemistic term. People are less likely to say that they're "against equality".
For the record, I'm not averse to the word "gay". I'd be happy to marry the woman of my dreams with a dress that says GAY all over it, so long as I were actually allowed to.
The NY bill isn't particularly equal. The marriages under this bill won't be entirely equal to heterosexual marriage. Polyamory is unrelated to sexual-orientation, although polyamory advocates sure do like to try and co-opt it.
That said, "gay" isn't isolating. It's part of the cultural and historical narrative named for the people who have lead this thing. While the Women's Rights Movement and Black Civil Rights Movement impacted more than just rights for women or rights for African Americans, they earned that title.
Calling it gay marriage doesn't change or erase anyone's personal identity. Identity is individual. Those who don't wish to identify as gay don't have to. People who don't want to be associated with something because it has the word "gay" in it, can go their own way.
Though that is a legitimate point. It isn't Black Civil rights, it isn't Gay rights. It isn't LGBT rights. It's Civil Rights, (I would argue Human Rights.)
The fact is that any oppression cheapens humanity as a whole. Preventing two people who love each other to get married because of their race or sex or religion etc. Doesn't make the "Traditional" marriages sacred. It makes them a lie.
When marriage is equal for all it makes it a special bonding, instead of a privileged hetero's club.
Sort of like how private golf clubs are really all about the golf if any race can join, whereas if it's race restricted it's about golf and about segregation. Sort of an unwieldy analogy, but you see where I'm going.
The Black Civil Rights Movement was about extending rights to people of color, rights that white people already had. The Women's rights movement was about extending rights to women, rights that men already had. The point of these movements wasn't to create human rights, but extended them to classes that lacked them.
To deny that's what they did is to deny any class was ever privileged or oppressed to begin with. To deny or ignore that same-sex marriage rights will largely benefit gay people is to ignore that gay people were ever targeted for discrimination as a class in the first place.
Never mind that "homo" is the Greek root for "same" and that same-sex marriage is literally a synonym for homosexual marriage. Never mind that gay people have been fighting to be defined by more than just who they have sex with.
Straight people now have the right to marry someone of the same sex in NY, because god forbid we let them think someone else was getting a right they didn't have.
WAIT ! WAIT! The vote is great, but it has to go back to the House for agreement to the exemption amendment! It may be a pro forma at this point, but it ain't a done deal yet! I expect it will be immediately transmitted, but it HAS to happen under parliamentary procedure. So the next question is when will the House address it again as amended? Then it goes to the GOV.
NY Gov. Cuomo signs gay marriage law
I disagree, saying "Black Civil Rights" and saying "Same Sex Rights" or "Gay Rights" or "Women's Rights" and saying "Rights were Extended to these groups" frames what happened in the wrong way.
It makes it seem like these rights were given to these groups. Which is not what happened, what happened was these groups always deserved these rights and they had been withheld from them.
The slave didn't become a human being deserving of human rights, or an American Citizen deserving of the protections that go with it when the fourteenth amendment was passed. These people were already humans, already Americans, The fourteenth amendment just made it official that white people were acknowledging it.
Saying Civil Rights and Human Rights gives some kind of acknowledgement of that and doesn't make it sound like they were given some kind of gift of liberty by old white men.
Immigration reform has that problem too. These people who came to this country as babies, who have grown up in our culture, been subject to our laws and morays, they're Americans whether we want to acknowledge their American Identity or not.
It's not that now Gay people are being given the ability for their marriages to be valid. Their Marriages were always valid and now they are being recognized by the law.
It's time for the Senate to do the right thing. I hope so much they do. I like to think of it as Marriage Equality because there is no gay marriage, no straight marriage, just marriage between two loving committed adults.
Thanks Will, and MSNBC. I've found myself in a bit of dilemma in wanting to know when it happens and yet not be driven crazy by obsessively following updates.
Wow. Is THAT how NY Senate dresses?
Seriously, do the right thing and get this bill passed.
Just so everyone's aware, the NY bill struck "and their children" from this bill. Meaning, the children of gay couples aren't protected from diddly?
And the religious exemptions are absurd.
Expect poison pills.
The last time I looked, the religious exemptions are pure window dressing, added to provide cover.
The First Amendment (plus 14th) already provide far stronger protections against clergy being forced to solemnize marriages contrary to their religions. I can live with some silly if it gets the parts passed that matter.
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8520-2011
Private schools will be able to continue to kicking out kids of gay couples. It should also be noted that religious organizations provide social services like homeless shelters, food banks and the like and do receive public funding for doing so.
I guess we're just going to have to wait and see the law in action. I think future changes will need to be made.
Wow. I don't know why but this is hitting me harder than I dreamed it could -- especially since I'm a long, long way from being personally involved.
However it turns out, it's a major accomplishment to get this far. Especially with some of the astonishing [1] decency that's been turning up in odd places [2].
For all of you who do have personal stakes in this, mazel tov and best wishes.
[1] Not that they should be, but there you are.
[2] I mean you, Sen. Roy MacDonald
If this passes, I bet the divorce laws haven't been updated.
To understand this, you need to understand the history of the Gay Agenda!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/pajaroentertainmentltd/the-gay-agenda-31ii
I suspect I'd rather gnaw my own feet off than follow a link that contains the words 'gay agenda'. Sounds far to0 right-wing bigot-y for me.
Hooray for the Gay Agenda.
MeddlingMonk, it's actually a semi-cute cartoon spoofing the concept of a "gay agenda". We should never turn away from something just because of its name, yeah?
OK. I'm a coward. I admit it. I'm just so, so afraid for my noble browser cache.
Yeah...I checked it out...it appears to be a bunch of spoof cartoons.
I'll wager the Divorce laws haven't been updated.
Why should they need to be? A marriage is a marriage and a divorce is a divorce.
Ah but the conservatives are trying to argue that gays get divorced at 70% (as opposed to straights at 50%)...see? Now us gays will truly destroy marriage because of our high divorce rates. We just can't stay loyal...we're sex fiends! Oy
Besides which, the right never give up. Which, in a way, is not such a bad thing in itself; but there's the matter of recognizing when a fight is lost and when you're on the wrong side. The right are still fighting the ratification of the Constitution, for Offler's sake. So even though the right in New York have lost this battle, I expect them to not only fight the main issue but to do all they can to interfere and make things related to marriage equality as difficult as possible.
I listened to part of the live debate in the legislature. I was furious. Imagine the word "gay" replaced by "black", then listen to what these bigots are saying. The legislators are offering "protection" to those who don't want to serve blacks/gays. This is backward step. They are making separate and unequal official! This is worse than the separate but equal blacks used to have to put up with. Could you imagine Martin Luther King going along with debasement like this? We gays are equal. There is no excuse to treat us badly just because someone's fruitcake religion demands it (among hundreds of other nutty commandments they ignore). We all enjoy freedom of religion, which includes freedom from other people's primitive barbaric irrational religions. This institutional religion-based discrimination is a constitutional right being brazenly abused. Sue them all!
Congrats, NY
I am happy ... good luck and best wishes!
Why is this guy questioning this taking up so much time... Does he not understand he is a dinosaur waiting to be fossilized be Histories Memories of disgust at the inhumane treatment of something so private as sexual relations..
Is this a real enough symbol to the Republicans Now?
Modern democracies have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. This has two purposes, to ensure the government does not interfere with your religious beliefs, and to stop other people from using the government to impose their religious beliefs on you by force. Christians are in the majority so manage to run roughshod over the religious constitutional rights of others and nobody says boo about this violation of law. They shamelessly use the government to impose their barbaric superstitions about gay people. They manage to institutionalise discrimination, particularly in banning gay marriage and banning sexual acts between people of the same sex.
The people voting no in New York should be charged with a crime, not treated as rational beings. They are violating their oath to the constitution.
Rachel:
It was so nice to have you shepherd us through tonight's vote. I know this means a lot to you as it means a lot to me as a NYS resident.
Scott
Dear Rachel, I know this is a subject dear to to your heart, but it's not worth devoting a whole show to just a NY vote.
Yes, it is. The right is overly fond of citing the number of states which explicitly forbid marriage equality, so every little thing that shows how they are steadily losing ground is worth hammering home. So there.
Congratulations New York! And good job to all of you, from the governor on down, who worked so hard to make it happen.
May we have the same in California very soon. My partner and I missed the last "window" of opportunity.
As to religious freedom and marriage equality, during the time gay marriage was allowed here in California some people did try to push churches to marry them and even filed lawsuits. All were thrown out of course because the constitution already gave the protections. So it may seem outrageous that these were included in the New York bill but some of the gay community needs to also take responsibility and not try to infringe on the rights of others no matter how hard it is not to want to get revenge.
Nice job Rachel. Thanks for the excellent coverage of this story which is important to ALL of us.
Another step forward to a society recognizes our common humanity not our differences.
Equal rights is not a zero sum game.
Thank you Rachel, and MSNBC, for covering this historic event live, and it was historic, and important, for everyone who cares about human rights. As far as I could tell, nobody else was. At the very least, it's always great to see democracy in action. Congratulations!
Rachel,
Three cheers for New York State tonight! However, yes there's always an 'however', the religious amendment does water down this legislation. Remember your interview with Rand Paul and he was sayng he was in favor of alllowing businesses to decide if they should allow blacks at their lunch counters? Well that's what the gay community has in New York State now.
The state is saying yeah it is not okay to discriminate against the Gay community, but we're not going to force any denomination of religion with acknowledging this discrimination. This legislation is a very important step forward for the Gay community in New York State, but their fight for their total equal rights has not ended.
Also, President Obama has stated as recently as last night that he is in favor of the states doing just what New York State did tonight: settle the Gay Rights issue within each and every state house. He doesn't feel this is an issue that the Federal government should, or is able to, decide at this point in time. Think about it; think about how our Senate and House of Representatives deal with important issues. Hell, if we leave it up to the Feds what happened in the New York Senate tonight wouldn't happen for another twenty years in our Congress!!
The more states that pass this legislation the more apt our Congress is to pass it as well. Just my opinion...
()
[]
[]
--D
Keep it Lit!!
I agree.
To me, true equality would be to separate legal rights from marriage rites for all couples, straight or LGBT. In other words, civil rights would be conferred by local government & blessings of unions, no matter whether LGBT or straight, would be religious ceremonies. That way, all couples are equal under the law & clergy (priests, rabbis, etc) can choose whether or not to perform blessing ceremonies. Just a thought....
Don't know if this has been posted yet, but courtesy of ThinkProgress: http://yfrog.com/ked8jqrj
I tweeted Will, Maddow, and Syn to put this up on the blog. I am hoping that they do. Now that is equality. So cool, so very cool!
Minneapolis 35W bridge goes rainbow in celebration as well:
http://yfrog.com/ke80269531j
Can't wait to see the Willis Tower in Chicago light up or the Space Needle in Seattle ;-) That'd be one hell of a celebration!
OH PS- All courtesy of @ThinkProgress
That is cool, Mouse
Those are amazing....
Last update for the night: I'm being told that Cuomo has signed the bill which means that marriage equality in NY is officially legal. He gave a press release and signed it on CNN. Congrats NY. I can now start planning my Niagra wedding....oh and BTW for you conservatives out there- just imagine how much 2 women can spend on a wedding in NY?! Can someone say stimulus!
LOL Mickey...too true. Women can spend some serious money on weddings. ;)
Lady+lady=stimulus OK OK OK don't nobody send me "that's sexist" jokes...ya OK I gets it lmao
The process of widespread adoption of gay marriage might be speeded up by launching lawsuits against anyone who funds a major effort to oppose it. This is a freedom of religion issue. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or morality . Those opposing gay marriage are trying to FORCE their religion on gays using the government. The constitution says they can't do that. Therefore it should be possible to sue them or criminally charge them for violation of constitutional rights. (It is parallel to what the blacks did). Christians have no more right to interfere with gay marriage than they have to force gays to take communion.
Christians should have no more right to dictate the rules on gay marriage than gays have to dictate Christian sacraments. It is simply none of their bloody business. They freely admit their crime.
Oy.
Take a look at this from Think Progress: thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/05/10/177405/ny-marriage-equality-rally/. Pay particular attention to the first paragraph, and follow the link in the phrase "religious leaders" and read carefully.
I think religions should be able to do whatever they want regarding marriage as long as it doesn't harm anyone. If that means saying they don't recognize one type of marriage then so be it. The problem I have, and the question I pose to you, is why in the hell are we allowing churches to issue certificates that have legal authority? Laws are upheld by the state. Why are we allowing the states to recognize religious practices. You want to get married and have legal rights ascribed to your marriage? Then do it via a marriage via the state. You want to get married for religious purposes? Then do it via a marriage via your church. The two should not be melded. Personally, while I think NY's marriage equality is AWESOME, I think we've only just begun to step forward towards true equality. I await the day when religious institutions can no longer dictate what the law does. I really do.
Thanks for this article! This is how this new legislation will evolve; by being recognized by more and more churches and thus giving LGBT members more places to marry other than state justices of the peace.
Did you notice, though that there were no Baptist or Presbyterian Pastors listed there? Their loss! When they begin to lose members because of their hypocrisy over this issue, they'll come around.
Yeah, they'll come around. Those who don't will end up like those "Christian Identity" cults: tiny little fringe groups shrieking in inchoate rage at a world they can't accept, and that largely doesn't even know they exist. Even the Mormons, who are such a major force in the anti-equality movement, will eventually come around. They'll kick and scream for a good long time, just as they did about race, but some day they'll get on the right side.
I have to say, I'm not sure what Mickey is getting at. Is the argument that weddings made in churches (synagogues, mosques, etc.) should not be recognized under the law?
Yes essentially, although I wasn't necessarily meaning that the location is the part I'm raising issue w/. What I meant to say was the church should not be allowed to issue marriage certificates that have legal bearings; only the state should be allowed to. The church would issue one that had value w/in it's congregation or w/in the faith, but that doesn't hold legal status.
Still confused. Are saying that if a couple are married in a religious service, it shouldn't legally count as a marriage at all?
The problem I'm having is that I'm not aware that churches issue anything at all. I was once best man in a wedding. So wrong on so many levels. Anyway, from my limited experience, the couple being married get paperwork from the state and fill out the bits that they are supposed to before the ceremony. Then the best man and maid of honor serve as legal witnesses to the paperwork after the ceremony. This red tape is what legally makes the marriage, to my understanding. The ceremony is just a ceremony and nothing of legal force issues from it, ever.
So to me what you seem to be saying is that if you get married in a church, you aren't allowed to have the paperwork that makes the marriage a legal thing. Not sure I see any sense to that.
"By the power invested in me by the state, I now pronounce you husband and wife...."
I disagree that religious leaders should be able to wield that power. You should have to get your paperwork signed independently of the church at the townhall or county clerk. This is how it is already done w/ civil unions. No exceptions. It makes no sense to have it tied up in the church even if that is where the ceremony is held because the second you do that the church takes it as an entitlement. It would be like having a wedding at a Comic Convention and thinking the ordained Han Solo had the right to comment on what did or did not qualify as a marriage.
I hope they pass this...I really do....if more states continue to do it, then eventually even the fed will have to catch up.