BY Celeste Katz

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/06/ny-senate-votes-for-marriage-equality

It's over: The New York State Senate has voted to legalize gay marriage by a vote of 33 - 29 tonight.

After a session at times charged with heartbreak and at others with anger, Republican lawmakers voted to put the legalization of same-sex nuptials just over the 32-vote threshhold needed.

The bill will go to Gov. Cuomo, who's made it a top agenda item, for his signature. As supporters of the bill burst into applause, cheers and chants of "USA!" Cuomo himself strode onto the Senate floor.

During the discussion, watched on a Senate livestream by well over 46,000 people, State Sen. Tom Duane spoke of telling his parents that he was gay, and their fearful response that gays lived lonely lives subject to discrimination and even violence.

Duane, who is also HIV+, spoke of making the case for domestic partner benefits and protections against hate crimes as a City Councilman and a senator. He thanked Gov. Cuomo for his "incredible and truthful and strong leadership" on this issue. He also thanked Skelos.

"Marriage says that we are a family. Louis and I are a family," a sometimes-tearful Duane said, speaking of his longtime partner. "It provides security and peace of mind... Marriage recognizes that love and commitment."

State Sen. Mark Grisanti, who was targeted by Lady Gaga and other activists, took the floor -- and ended up receiving a major ovation -- to say he'd "struggled with this immensely... As a Catholic I was raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman... I'm also here [with] a background as an attorney."

He said that those who voted for him may question his integrity because of his vote to legalize marriage equality, but "I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage," he said, adding that his research shows civil unions lead to chaos rather than true equality. "I believe that you can be wiser today than yesterday, if you do the work."

Under-indictment Brooklyn Sen. Carl Kruger, who voted against legalizing same-sex marriage last time it came up, said tonight's vote was not a big change in his position, but "a reaffirmation of what a family is." He said on behalf of his community, "the right and the freedoms that this Empire State has built its reputation on should live forever. I vote yes."

The religious exemption amendments applied to the bill passed by a vote of 36 - 26.

Sen. Steve Saland, one of the last GOP fence-sitters, spoke at length about the exemptions for religious organizations built into the legislation after much debate.

"What's important about this bill is that it contains a number of additions and a number of changes and very, very critically important is the presence of an inseverability clause at the conclusion of the bill." In particular, he said the exemptions were meant to protect religious or religiously affiliated groups, non-profits, etc. from civil or government actions.

He also noted the initial proposal said a clergyman or minister did not have to solemnize a marriage, and refusal to do so would not create a civil claim cause of action. Saland said protections would also extend to houses of worship by providing that state or local government could not penalize them for declining to perform gay weddings.

"I would really like to add on a personal note that I have as many people are aware, certainly struggled over this issue. It has been an extremely issue to deal with, coming from a rather traditional background and having been married for some 46 years," as well as coming from a family that preached tolerance and respect for others.

"My quandary was all the folks who wrote me all the thousands of letters (and) emails... They all asked me to do the right thing. I'm not sure I can do the right thing by all the proponents and opponents. My decision (is) going to disappoint (some)," he said. "I feel to do otherwise would fly in the face of my upbringing. I know my vote is a vote of conscience and I certainly am at peace with my vote... I feel that if my parents were here, they would tell me I would have done the right thing."

Saland declined to yield to Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. on the religious exemption portion of the vote. Diaz, of course, has been one of the most fiery opponents of gay marriage throughout the debate, and suggested Saland's refusal to yield might be construed as Saland being "ashamed" of his vote.

"For the second time, we are trying to redefine marriage," said Diaz, who is also a minister.

"They are making the Republican party do what the Democrats failed to do when they were in the majority," he said, calling the GOP the party that "always protected traditional values" has become a "tool of the Democratic voters."

He and Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy, who is presiding over the Senate, got into an procedural argument about the amount of time alotted to Diaz to speak. He similarly accused Duffy of being ashamed to allow further floor discussion of the bill. "I am proudly voting no," he concluded.

Hey, at least they did it the right way and they protected the religious community. I approve, although a change at the federal level (to get the Federal Government out of marriage) would be much preferable.

Good job, New York!

New York, the nation's third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

I am all in support of gay marriage and but I am only of rlegalizing it if the majoity of the voters are for it. For instance in California the voters shot it down, then that needs to be respected. If New York take it to the ballot box and it gets overturned then so be it, even though I think it would be a mistake and wrong.

I am also for protecting the religious places the way they did where they cant get nailed for discrimination if they refuse to proform the marriages if its against their beliefs.

That to me is what I don't like about democracy. You can have discrimination against another group of people, just because they have the majority. That isn't right.

It is right. Why would I want someone elses lifestyle forced on me if I don't get a say?(Devils advocate here, since I support gay marriage).

The US isn't a democracy, it's a Republic. A Republic is a democracy that has laws to protect the minorities. Because of the way the US handles marriage, there are no laws protecting the minority on marital issues.

We need a Constitutional Amendment that allows any number of adult men or women to enter into a civil union. The Government should then quit issuing marriage licenses and marriage solely becomes a religious institution. Any adult could enter into a civil union with one or more adults of either gender. Churches could perform any marriages that they choose to perform. I know that they are a tiny minority, but there are some people who are into polygamy and I don't think we have the right to prevent that. I would note that Civil Unions should be between two adults of 18 yo or older, a parent or guardian would not be allowed to authorize a minor to enter into a civil union. So no 16 yo bombshells marrying washed up 51 yo actors.

Only problem with that is, you're still discriminating, because you're saying some people are good enough for one title, but others aren't.

Certain people don't even think its a Republic, they think its governed by a shady one world government based out of Buildeburg.

It's deeper than that even, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Freedom of religion is from the 1st Amendment. If a church doesn't want to marry a couple, they have that right. There would be churches that would perform a homosexual marriage, but a homosexual couple's desire to be married does not trump the freedom of religion enjoyed by anyone else.

Would you be ok if people were allowed to vote away your right to marry for any reason?

No one is forcing you to be gay, to marry someone of the same sex, to attend a gay wedding or to even associate with anyone who is gay.

this is an idea I can get behind(no pun intended)

leave marriage between a man and a woman

let the CIVIL side of it be called a CIVIL UNION to reflect as such and allow ANY consenting adults who wish to be so joined (As a matter of contractual right) to do so, it would reflect that they are joining their assets and sharing power of attorney and other CIVIL matters,,,,and relatives, neighbors and friends would also be permitted to sign on to such 'contracts',,,,

and CIVIL UNIONS could have the same legal benefits of MARRIAGES

THAT , would be hard to argue with,,,as it would have nothing to do with an assumption of a sexual relationship and would ony deal with the CIVIL and LEGAL issues,,,,

That's still discrimination, you can't make something for one group of people and not another like that without a valid reason to separate them. And no, the religion argument does not qualify as valid.

I don't get why people are getting their panties in a bunch over a label like that for. It's not like your personal marriages are gonna change because some other group of people can marry too. Get over yourselves, you're not the only people that matter.

That. Democracy basically is a two wolves and lamb deciding what's for dinner. That's what it boils down to.

try this reason,, biology

it is the reason we define some of us MALE and some of us FEMALE, yet males and females enjoy equal rights,,,

another reason,,

taking the SEXUAL component out of it and addressing the issues supposedly at hand 'equal rights'

there is something called CONSUMMATION of marriage, because marriage has an EXPECTATION of sex,,probably why we dont allow GROWN UPS to marry children because we dont feel (biologically) they have the maturity to deal with a sexual commitment

certainly if we took the assumption of sex out of it, it would be just another contract, and children would be permitted to enter ONLY if parents consented(which is how it is many places in america)

take the 'sexual' component out of it as far as the law is concerned and just deal with the 'civil' aspects, and then we open up the door for 'true equality' where ANYONE who can enter into any other contract is 'equally' able to enter into this one,,,



I truly dont want to be in a society in which the government openly regulates or supports ALL Types of sexual relationships just because they support the one kind NECESSSARY for life,,,

First of all, I don't give a damn about the biology argument. For one thing, it doesn't really work anyway because there is a sect of animals that are homosexual too, so it doesn't really hold up.

Second, you cannot own the word marriage, I don't care how you wanna try and justify it. You are trying to own the term, and you can't do it. If you're gonna be fair to all couples, they all should have the right to the same thing, not just one side.

As for the last part, while I don't like the government being involved in marriages and relationships as a whole, I say too bad. This society is not all about you and never was, learn to deal with it.