Already Waking

Gov. Spitzer is going to follow through on his pledge to put through a gay marriage bill:

Gov. Spitzer said at a private fund-raiser that he wants a Democratic-controlled state Senate to legalize gay marriage - a highly divisive and controversial issue - as one of its first priorities in 2009, a witness to the remarks told The Post.

Spitzer, a gay-marriage proponent, pledged to help Democrats next November win the three Senate seats they need to gain the majority.

"One of the first things we're going to do when [Senate Minority Leader] Malcolm Smith is [majority] leader is gay marriage," the witness recounted Spitzer as telling some 60 people who paid up to $10,000 each to attend the event in Greenwich Village Wednesday night.

Of course this is from the NY Post, so maybe the lede and headline aren't the whole story:

Two other witnesses, including an elected official, said they couldn't recall Spitzer's exact language, but added that the governor suggested a Democratic-controlled state Senate would follow the state Assembly's action this year in passing, for the first time ever, a gay-marriage bill.

Spitzer spokeswoman Christine Anderson denied the governor said a Democratic-controlled Senate would make gay marriage a top priority. She said his reference to the Assembly passing a gay-marriage bill "was the line greeted with applause."

Whatever. Wingnuttia of course shits its collective underpants in delight, because they think bigotry is always a winner for them. Why, even the Staunch Libertarian Hero, Glenn Reynolds, agrees. This will rid them of that meddlesome Spitzer in 2010! At least, so says this asshole, who informs us that he "has no problems with civil unions" but regards gay marriage as an "idiotic social experiment." Uh-huh.

The thing about Spitzer's drivers license proposal was, it would have made New York roadways safer. The thing about gay marriage is, it's about equality under the law.

And I'm a bad person because I like to say "fuck." These conservatives and internetty libertarians, they are good people because they want to increase the chances of killing you in a car accident and want to tell  a certain class of Americans that they  can't legally marry the love of their life.

Fuck that shit. Spitzer won't lose anything by doing the right thing, in the long run. Especially given the clown-car quality of the NY GOP.

Comments

[actor212]

Thers,

Your analysis of the state GOP is spot on. They used to be able to draw on *someone* to win an office, but when they started having to prop up a small-town, failing graded mayor of Peekskill and back him with the money (and criminality) of the D'Amato machine, you knew the end was not far.

That said, Spitzer's comments were probably piped, or at least exaggerated from what was actually said.

[greennotGreen]

<...want to tell a certain class of Americans that they can't legally marry the love of their life.>

But they're perfectly happy for gay men to marry straight women and for lesbians to marry straight men in false, unfulfilling unions that would make all parties unhappy, but would *look* "normal" on the surface. Sort of like saying we have a culture of life while starting wars and denying people health care. It's all about appearance, not substance.

[Kevin Hayden]

Personally, I think every marriage is potentially an idiotic social experiment. I mean, either your alchemy works or the house blows up.

Why should gays be privileged and get to escape the neuroses created by that risk?

[Thers]

That said, Spitzer's comments were probably piped, or at least exaggerated from what was actually said.

Sure, timed to provoke the idiot wingnut response after the license "debacle."

It's silly. This is one of his campaign pledges, and he's said that he'll do it with a Senate majority. Some gotcha...

[JammieWearingFool]

Keep drinking the Spitzer Koolaid, asshole.

[Thers]

Keep drinking the Spitzer Koolaid, asshole.

Fuck you, bigot.

[JammieWearingFool]

Oooh, now I'm a bigot.

Pathetic.

[Thers]

Oooh, now I'm a bigot.

Pathetic.

A pathetic bigot = jwf.

About the size of it.

Bigot.

[julia]

You know, it's been sort of dispiriting watching the Albany press going after Spitzer, and I've tried to see something to it other than that he thinks he's all that, but I truly haven't managed.

I do know that months after the "Brunogate" "Scandal" was pretty much exploded there were around four hundred stories on it on Google News and there were a grand total of seven about Bruno's little friend with the privileged horseracing proposal being turned down by a judge when he tried to quash a subpoena from the feds into all the favors he did for Bruno.

Crook/guy who thinks he's all that.

Interesting if they applied their very emotional analysis to the national race, neh?

[Thers]

Interesting if they applied their very emotional analysis to the national race, neh?

They sorta do...

[julia]

Well, yeah.

I just kind of thought we were better than that.

I'm coming to think that's my achilles' heel.

[low-tech cyclist]

On a scale from 0 to 10, my knowledge of NY state politics is about 0.14, so I'll stay out of that part of the discussion.

But the larger point is blindingly obvious: the GOP is happy to kill stuff that they acknowledge is good for the American people, if its passage would make liberals smile.

That's their set of priorities. Items 1 through 12 on their to-do list are either 'piss off liberals' or 'throw more money at rich people.' (I think #13 is 'appoint wingnut judges to placate the fundies.')

Digby has gone into great detail about how the Pubbies killed universal health care in 1994 not because they thought it was a bad idea, but because it would have demonstrated that government can be a good thing for people, which would be a political loser for them.

And on it goes. We've got an illegal immigration problem, and even pushing the politics aside, the solutions aren't clear. But hell yeah, it would make our roads safer if we give them drivers' licenses. Not that what's best for us matters to the angry right, who are simply looking for an issue to exploit.

Fuck 'em. And more important, Dem pols, stand up to 'em. The American people are catching on to how right-wing anger and prejudice and bigotry and paranoia doesn't lead anywhere useful, but just exacerbates everything.

What's more, a new generation's growing up that is totally comfortable with gays being gays, and if we stand up for gay equality while the wingnuts fight it, that generation will vote Dem for decades. And those illegal immigrants will become legal citizens eventually, and they'll vote Dem too, if we stand up for them now.

We're at a remarkable juncture in American political life. For the first time in Lord knows how long, the electorate is ready to reward standing up for what is right. On Iraq, on global warming, on universal health care, on immigration, on the Fourth Amendment, on gay rights, you name it. This is our moment, or would be, if people like Rahm Emmanuel and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer had half a clue between them.

Unfortunately, they don't.

Grrrr. Argh.

[SteveB]

And those illegal immigrants will become legal citizens eventually, and they'll vote Dem too, if we stand up for them now.

Just a helpful suggestion: if you want people to vote for you in the future, don't be calling them "illegal immigrants" now.

Among people who work on the immigrant rights issue, the preferred term is "undocumented workers." A little euphemistic, perhaps, but "illegal immigrants" is a trademarked term of Racism, inc., that probably came out of the fevered brain of Frank Luntz.

Myself, I prefer just "immigrants" or "immigrant workers".

This has been a message from the Office of Political Correctness. Thank you.

[low-tech cyclist]

Steve: next, you'll want Thers to stop saying 'fuck.' And your 'undocumented' workers are undocumented because they're in the country illegally, so they're illegal immigrants. 'Undocumented workers' is as BS a term as 'differently abled.'

Yeah, I can see it now - the Dems will grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, but they'll lose the Hispanic vote because they actually use that terminology. Riiiiight.

[SteveB]

Steve: next, you'll want Thers to stop saying 'fuck.'

Oh, for fuck's sake...

And your 'undocumented' workers are undocumented because they're in the country illegally, so they're illegal immigrants.

Who died and left you in charge of the dictionary? The words we use are a choice, and your "illegal immigrants" is no more accurate a decription than my "undocumented workers." You may prefer "illegal" because it scratches some anti-immigrant itch you've got, but that's your preference, not some Iron Law of the English Language.

Yeah, I can see it now - the Dems will grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, but they'll lose the Hispanic vote because they actually use that terminology. Riiiiight.

More like: Because people like you frame the issue as "amnesty for illegal immigrants", the people in question get nothing, except more ICE raids and vigilante attacks, which does not leave them with very warm feelings for people like you.

If you want to cast yourself (or your party) as the savior of a certain people, you might want to check with those people about what terms they prefer to use. Just a suggestion, which I'm sure you'll ignore.

[low-tech cyclist]

Who died and left you in charge of the dictionary?

Funny, I was about to ask you the same question.

I don't like replacing more precise words and expressions with fuzzier ones just because I might offend the propriety of some idiot in a comment thread.

And I've already explained why 'illegal' is more precise than 'undocumented,' so I won't repeat myself.

And I think that if you want to change someone's choice of words in a way that affects the outcome of the debate (since you think it will), then you might want to work on someone who's got a much larger audience than I do. You seem to be confusing me with someone who has influence, so you're wasting your time here. So why don't you buzz off.

[Charlotte]

Civil rights are a priority. Check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

[SteveB]

I don't like replacing more precise words and expressions with fuzzier ones just because I might offend the propriety of some idiot in a comment thread.

Interesting how it still hasn't occurred to you that your choice of terms is offensive to the very people you hope to exploit for the benefit of the Democratic Party.

If you were interested in these people as people, and not just as the brown Lego blocks in your future Democratic majority, you might consider lending a hand with their cause. They could use some allies, especially allies who are citizens, and don't have to worry about being deported for speaking out on their behalf. And, if you did that, you might get around to asking them about this "illegal immigrant" vs. "undocumented worker" thing, and which term they prefer. And, if you were smart, you might even listen to them.

But probably not. More likely you'd get all huffy and defensive, and that conversation would turn out exactly like this conversation has.

[Mitch Haase]

Eliot Spitzer offered me $500 for a blowjob in a Bronx porta potty. I accepted.

Mitch Haase

[Dan Reese]

There is a really intense debate going on about this over at riled up: http://riledup.com/debate/303/should-gay-people-have-the-same-right-to-marriage-as-straight-people