I must say I am a little shocked at this one given how liberal NY is, but the NY Senate rejected a same-sex marriage (SSM) bill that passed in the NY House. The voted it down by a vote of 38-24.
So as of December 2009 five states allow for SSM: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. California was once on the list when the CA Supreme Court forced the CA legislature to legalize SSM (of course, SSM was already legal in practice, although not in name), but the CA voters amended their constitution in November 2008 to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling. Maine was also on the list until last month, when the voters of Maine overturned a congressional law that passed in May of this year legalizing SSM.
The NJ Senate is expected to vote on a SSM bill next week, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens there.
Thinking to Believe 
December 4, 2009 at 8:20 am
Hope for the U.S.A.?
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 9:26 am
Hope for U.S.? Ummmm, not hardly. This story is similar to plugging a hole in a dam with a large stone…It will hold the water for a while, but eventually the pressure will be too much and the dam will break loose and collapse.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 12:52 pm
cs,
I tend to agree with truthofgod. While the majority of the populace does not support SSM, there are three reasons I don’t think we’ll hold back the tide:
1. In many instances, the opposition to SSM is held by a slim majority. And when you trace public opinion on the issue, each year more and more people are accepting of it. The voters of CA and ME, for example, both defeated SSM laws, but did so only by a 4% margin (52% vs. 48%). Given a few more years, it’s likely that the numbers will reverse, and these states will approve SSM.
2. Even in those states where a large majority opposes SSM, there is the problem of supreme courts declaring SSM to be a constitutional right, and congresses approving SSM without the support of the very people who elected them. Think of Iowa. Clearly this is not the bastion of support for SSM, and yet the Iowa supreme court said SSM must be made legal.
3. Christians are not doing enough in the public square to defend our point of view. And when we do argue against SSM, we tend to make a religious case that will only be accepted by fellow religious believers. We need to be able to make a case using reason and secular concerns if we hope to persuade the non-religious and/or liberals.
One of the things we have not done a good job of is framing the debate. We have allowed the other side to do so, and they have done a good job at it. They have framed the debate in terms of equality and liberty. I think that’s a red herring, but it works! If you get people to think that a vote against SSM is a vote for inequality or a denial of liberty, they will be hesitant to vote for it even if they don’t support SSM. I like how The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has framed the issue: “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, [but] they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” That is a winning frame!
Jason
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Jason and truthofgod
I agree. One reason why I asked the question was to dig a little further into the issue and your thoughts on it, whether or not we have reason to celebrate.
I feel the small skirmishes we are winning may give us a false sense of victory only to sit back and lose the war. That is a winning frame, why don’t we all frame it accordingly? My thoughts for why we don’t are because it is becoming socially taboo to speak against, like abortion.
LikeLike
December 5, 2009 at 10:04 pm
cs,
Yes, it is becoming a social taboo to speak against same-sex marriage and homosexuality. What’s so ironic is that the majority do not support either. We’re in an interesting situation in our politically correct age in which those with the majority opinion are brow-beaten by those in the minority to keep their mouths closed. And when we do, we lose.
I don’t think abortion is as big of a taboo as homosexuality is. Given the increased support for the pro-life position, I think we should be all the more emboldened to speak out against abortion in these days. That debate is also about framing. It’s hard to fight against “choice.” I like the way Scott Klusendorf frames the issue in his talks. He often concludes by saying something like:
“In the past, we used to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender, but now, with elective abortion, we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency. We’ve simply exchanged one form of bigotry for another. A civilized culture ought to protect its weakest and most vulnerable members, not kill them on the basis that they are unwanted and defenseless. Pro-lifers argue that since the unborn are members of the human community, they deserve the same rights as the rest of us, including the most fundamental right of all: the right to life.”
Now that is a winning message!
Jason
LikeLike
December 6, 2009 at 1:24 pm
One nit as to Maine:
Where you have “a congressional law,” it should say “an act of the legislature.”
LikeLike
December 6, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Those words were fitly spoken. I think too that the homosexual propaganda in movies, tv dramas, and novels are a tad bit more easy to represent than abortion. It would be hard to make abortion glamorous.
LikeLike
December 6, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Arthur,
What is the difference?
Jason
LikeLike
June 28, 2011 at 5:14 pm
[…] a little over 1 ½ years ago the Senate of New York rejected a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, 38-24. On Friday June 24, 2011, however, they approved a […]
LikeLike