If you missed Michael Barbaro’s report in yesterday’s New York Times about the road to gay marriage in New York, you really should take the time to read it. The public story until now has been that a few key Republicans responded to emotional appeals from gay couples who wished to be wed. Barbaro shows that this is not what really happened.
What really happened is that some wealthy Republican donors decided to give political cover to a handful of Republicans in the NY Senate. In Barbaro’s words:
“The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed.
“But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.”
Ineffective indeed. Read the rest here.
It’s a good article, but it does not negate the fact that some republican senators DID change their vote because they had come to a better understanding of the issue.
And, as a republican from Long Island I know pointed out, it wont hurt them that much in the short term to do this, and down the road a decade or so, it will help them. Most of those who oppose this have gray hair after all (even the Push Polls by NOM testify to this), and the Republicans, in an ever more diverse state (and nation) have allienated EVERY other minority then tried to play catch up. “We don’t need to make that same mistake again in New York” he said, and from a political standpoint, he is right.
Personslly, this guy (an engineer) did not want to see the look of embarassment and shame in his 23 year olds sons eyes again when they talked about the topic, or have his future daughter in laws parents look at him with disdain and a sense of “what kind of bigoted family are we letting our daughter marry into?” again ( it was appearantly a VERY awkward family gettogether)…so, he started to get to know some of his gay and lesbian acquaintances better, listen to their stories, and see why they needed the protections of marriage for their families. His Rabbi also helped him reevaluate his thoughts on this, and helped him change his position.
It was people like him who wrote and called his republican senator who, as much as the money from wall street, made the difference.
And will in the rest of the country, in time. I think that is the main story here.
Republicans swayed by big money! I’m absolutely shocked…
If it can be bought one way it can certainly be bought the other way too.
Omigosh! Those liberal Jews (who know the old testament better than we ever will) are unraveling the fabric of our Judeo-Christian society!!!!!!
sorry for the lack of attribution…post #4 will make no sense if you didn’t read post #1 all the way through.
Also, this is what you guys get for wanting to be the big tent party. Wall Street guys are more than happy to pay for your votes. But they’re also the ones with the gay sons, uncles and co-workers, and you can bet that those folks mean more to them than a bunch of southern baptists from Alabama.
What was Trotsky’s term? Useful idiots. And politically right wing Christians just got played by Republicans again. When will you guys learn and just stay home on election days?
(note: as a theologically conservative but politically liberal Christian, these things just don’t matter to me, because no one sends me the same propaganda they send to you.)
“When will you guys learn and just stay home on election days?”
You just sketched out my default plan.
Paul, We (theological conservatives/political conservatives) know that rich guys have their way, yes, even into the Republican party. Are we surprised? No! Are we ashamed? We should be… But there are at least some in our camp who actually desire conservative principles across the board.
Your political pals however abide by Marx’s dictum that religion is the opium of the masses. Which means they are playing you (theologically conservatives/politically liberals) for the fool and will continue to play you right up until the point the toss you into the abyss.
The problem at this stage in America is that all your democratic cronies are walking around in opium induced dreams. At least there are some republicans (see Tea Party) who haven’t drank the Kool-Aid yet. Not many, but some.
I think I’ve just decided that it is no longer worthwhile to participate in the political process, other than holding my nose while I vote. It is the gospel that changes hearts and minds, and money that changes politics.
Funny how people don’t see the destruction of marriage (derived from ‘mother’) as a problem. What next 3 men or 4 woman? Anything goes now. Children are having the right to a mother and a father taken from them so that others can indulge their self gratitude. What does Sodom, Gomorrah and Rome and New York have in common?
you know Peter, when they lowered the voting age to 18, some panicked and said “anything goes now! soon it will be 16 year olds voting, or 12!”
Anything does not go now. What does go is that families that already exist with two dads or two moms will be better protected, and the kids will grow up with the same legal safety you did, and I did. Nothing more.
Every major medical association will happily point out to you that such kids tend to thrive and do well when they are loved in a stable and happy married home. Just like the kids of hetersexual married couples.
Just be happy these kids and their families will have more legal protections, and stop selfishly making about you and your view of the world and faith. That’s the adult, and Christian, thing to do Peter.
Very well said Kelly on that last post. The slippery slope argument is used constantly when this topic comes up, but as you pointed out, there are no studies that back that up. Just plain paranoia