The Gay Empire State

[Brittain33]

This is reminiscent of the drumbeat of pro-equality statements leading up to the defeat of the DOMA amendment in Massachusetts several years ago. Create momentum. People know what's right and need to feel free to vote for equality.

[Brittain33]

Diaz out of the Minority Caucus, fwiw.

Important to note it's not the Dem caucus.

[Brittain33]

Massachusetts needed 3/4 to stop DOMA from passing at the last attempt, probably a few Republicans in the House were flipped after solidly supporting Romney the first time around.

[Brittain33]

These people have a history of overcounting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html

In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26.

A similar disaster happened in NJ, too. People are optimistic and think they're going to do well, but once it looks like it's going to fail, loads of people in the middle abandon it and vote no. That's why the momentum strategy is so important--you need to get people to make public commitments in drips and drabs, like the 3 Dems and Alesi today, to ensure that others know it's going to happen and so will go with the flow of yes instead of the flow of now.

[Brittain33]

How does marriage change the rules for adoption? One would think whether state law requiring groups taking state funds for adoption to not discriminate against gays would not be directly linked to marriage law. Gays are adopting *now*. This is an excuse not to hold a vote, not a genuine touchpoint for this issue, and yes, I'm familiar with what CC did in MA and IL. Note that IL doesn't have gay marriage.

[Brittain33]

Re: Knights of Columbus, are they currently required under state law (I know they aren't under federal law) to rent out for a gay commitment ceremony? If not, how would legalizing gay marriage change that.

It certainly appears that the demands by conservatives are either vacuous or intending to roll back gay rights in areas unrelated to marriage. In no case are they mitigating a change enacted by this law.

[Brittain33]

cinyc, a thought experiment. Does a law permitting women to walk on public streets with their lower arms or legs uncovered infringe on the religious liberty of orthodox Jews who feel that this is immodest?

I want you to keep that in mind when you think about how same-sex marriage affects other people's religious freedom. It's one thing to talk about not requiring a Catholic church to marry a same-sex couple, which, as I always point out when this comes up, is equivalent to the right Catholic priests enjoy now not to be compelled to marry people who aren't Catholic. It's another if your affinity for conservatism means you define religious freedom on this issue as the right for some people to wish I didn't exist and didn't have equal rights to function in the U.S., and as a compromise they have a right to never see me or deal with me and pretend that this is central element of their religion and I have to bend my life to respect that. Sorry, no deal. That's not religious freedom. Religious freedom governs religion and how it intersects with the government, and no extreme case mentioned has anything to do with gay marriage.

[Brittain33]

Many of the most vocal gay rights activists truly aren't interested in religious freedom, but forcing their secular humanist pseudo-religion down the throats of the rest of us, though.

Do you mean this ridiculous statement, or is this one of those times where someone accused one your allies of acting dishonestly so you have to throw out a mirror accusation whether or not it makes any sense? I don't want to waste your time if this is just a ritual thing.

[Brittain33]

Catholic charities was require not to discriminated because they took tax money.

My tax money.

Do I need to spell out the issues there and how it relates to religious freedom?

What if I'm a Baptist? Should I be required to subsidize another faith and its beliefs, as you argue?

[Brittain33]

You're presuming the point about the K of C and dressmaker. I state that they would not be required to accept same-sex marrieds as clients, and this law wouldn't change that. You're making assumptions that aren't borne out by law.

I've planned a gay marriage in Massachusetts and had vendors refuse us. They did it by quoting ridiculous prices or just being rude. It's absurd to think anyone who wants to get married, wants to force a vendor who doesn't like them and won't provide good service to work for them.

[Brittain33]

Sounds like you have a serious problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Heart of Atlanta.

New Mexico does not have legal same-sex marriage, so that undercuts your argument that this law changes things, no?