That is good:Sorry but Marriage is between a man and a Woman.
In Fact it was the Clinton Administration that passed DOMA.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

People in power seldom do the right thing unless forced to do the right thing.  May the protests continue until a change happens!

I am confused as to what this article is about. What is it that they're actually doing that's backtracking?

But I do agree that these issues should not exclude each other. If the government screws the economy up, it can stop doing its job on everything else until it fixes its mistakes?

Obviously, those opposing "any Senate majority leader" who supports gay marriage are not putting the economy above civil wrongs. It's amazing that they actually care SO much about denying people the right to marry that they would oppose "any Senate majority leader" who supports this one issue. Apparently they're more afraid of homosexuality than they are of the economy.

Hi Luella,

Thanks for the note!  The backtracking that I reference in this post is that many Democratic senators in the NY State Senate said that if they won control of the Senate in the 2008 Elections, they'd make passing gay marriage a priority.  Now they are trying to go back on that promise by couching it in arguments like "The economy has to come first," or "Now isn't the best time," etc., etc.

Thanks for the comment!

I don't think they're allow Diaz's position decide the fate of this. To be perfectly honest, I find it ridiculous that this is even an issue three weeks after the election. When do they go back into session? February? I think it's best to let them get back to work, get the more important issues (sorry, NY's economy trumps gay marriage) taken care of, and then address the social issues. I understand that this important to many, many people, and that they're anxious to have it resolved, but, you have to wait a little while longer. I support gay marriage fully, and I think New York does owe the LGBT community that right, but all things in due time. African-Americans had to fight for a very long time before they were recognized as more than three-fifths of a person (and suffered many losses in the process), so I don't see why or how this is different.

My friends and I are very liberal but do not support gay marriage for several reasons.

First of all as in politics if your cause will lose you support, consistently and for years, if not decades, then find another way.  Look at how many Democrats lost over the progressive idea of busing students.  It didn't really work, ticked off millions, cost a fortune, and helped the right wing for years.

Why not a civil union from the state, with a blank place for them to write in what they want?  They get their rights but the state does not recognize it as "marriage."  Way too many people will vote for nutty Republicans, and get us into more wars, more corporate greed, if this issue is pushed beyond what the general public will stand.

This is not a civil rights issue as was voting for blacks in the 60's.  It will only cause moderates to lose!  About as counter-productive as gay high schools, which only serve to alienate voter's and tax support.

Richard, I'm referring to the struggle that black Americans endured in the post-Reconstruction Era, which includes but is not limited to the CRA and VRA. Think in terms of Plessy v. Ferguson, lynchings, Brown v. Board of education, Jim Crow laws, KKK intimidation, etc. We were treated as less than human. There's a whole history you seem to be unaware of. This is a civil rights issue...tax-paying, law-abiding citizens are being denied the basic right to marry whomever those choose based on what other people think is right. I compared this to the AA community's struggle against discrimination because it's exactly the same thing, only not as violent and all-encompassing as it was in those days.

I don't get the civil union argument, and quite honestly, it's insulting that people seem to view that as a happy medium. Why are American's so threatened by same-sex couples? I'm not gay, but I don't have a problem with it. They should be afforded the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

Personally, I support the civil union argument because *I* don't care what legality is attached to my marriage.  A civil union between my husband & myself wouldn't change the fact that we love each other or how we view our level of commitment - it would ensure us rights & privileges under the law.  I personally think this fine.  If we want a religious union, we know where our church is & how to ask our pastor for the ceremony.

As for the NY Dems... all politicians are concerned about is keeping "support" and not upsetting the constituents so they get re-elected in 2, 4 or 6 years.  They can't see the issues directly in front of them without worrying about the election down the road.  It's sad.

To Canadians, Belgians, Spaniards, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes - all ruled by Kings and Queens....and South Africa....yes S.O.U.T.H.   A.F.R.I.C.A. - have federal laws for universal civil marriage for all adult citizens...and in Canada's case, all persons regardless of nationality.

I am an American, and gay-affirming clergyman. I have a 32 year relationship with a Canadian national. We have a 5 year old marriage and a 6 year old son. We live in Saint Margaret's Bay in NS during the year, and my native Plymouth, MA during the year.

The problem is simple. There is confusion between religious ceremonial and civil marriage because we have the right as clergy to sign legal documents as well as church sacramental documents. It is because we can act as civil magistrates while performing a religious ceremony that confused the situation.

This weekend, in Niagara Falls, ONTARIO - there will be a marriage performed between two friends from NYC. They will walk across the border - get married legally - and return across the border as legal strangers.

Politicians measure political risk and political capital by gauging the perception of the issue, not its reality or its moral imperative.
" You can be right, Dr. Sawyer", one parishioner who was a state legislator, " dead right".

NY state activists have reiterated the REALITY that no MA state legislator who supported marriage lost their seats. Moreover, the anti-marriage legislators lost and were replaced by supportive ones.

May I respectfully suggest that the pentacostal hispanic minister's views on LGBT rights did not form AFTER the election of a Democratic tight Senate majority!

May I also respectfully suggest that there were moderate Republican votes from "safe" seats willing to vote affirmatively for universal civil marriage.

The PERCEPTION SINCE ELECTION DAY is that Proposition 8 in CA passed....and passed because the Democratic Party nationally- led by pragmatic centrists - do not support civil marriage for us.
PE Obama stood before CA's Saddleback Church (minister on cover of TIME) and stated that marriage was heterosexual only.

Yes, of course, the caveats are understood.....FOR the end of DOMA and DADT ( then, I wonder NOW).....FOR some federal rights "similar to marriage".....and AGAINST a federal marriage amendment....and NO on 8 and FOR the states deciding what to call the document on a state basis .....civil union, RDP or marriage....but remember the federal NEVER RULE.

And again, NY supposedly states that if you bring in a MA or CT or Canadian, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, South African, Norwegian or Swedish marriage license - NY will honor it on a statewide level. 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS, GAY AND LESBIAN AMERICAN COUPLE.......AMERICA RESPECTS THE FACT THAT YOU ARE LEGAL STRANGERS.

Mr. Ross....I respectfully disagree with you on several statements that you wrote in your posting.

The first statement states that Civil Rights for gay and lesbian American citizens is not synonymous with African American struggle of the 60"s. I could state the ironic and ask if you meant 1860's or 1960's - because that is the length of the struggle after emancipation....from 1863 to 1967. This statement also negates statements by Mrs. Martin Luther King, Jr. who disagreed with your assessment. Could I suggest that African American gays and lesbians are especially offended by that remark?

The reason why I, an ordained clergyman in a mainline Christian denomination, am gay affirming is that I know the difference between what the bible "says" and what the bible "reads" - between literalism and contextualism. I affirm that I know that abomination is a cultural offense, and not a theological one. I am not a heterosexual pagan temple prostitute alluded to in Romans.

The Democratic Party under President Lyndon Baines Johnson took a hit for supporting human rights. It lost the "Southern Democrat" or "Dixiecrat" who was a stain on the nation for their bigotry and racism. The Republican party in the South was merely on paper and for blacks. It was the Party of Lincoln.
Today, if you understand this, blacks became Democrats ....and the Party of Jefferson Davis became the Party of "Lincoln".

This is a civil rights issue, Mr. Ross. Mr. Obama would be considered legally illegitimate had his parents lived in 16 states who were left in 1961 out of 50 who still denied interracial heterosexual marriage for reasons they now use against us. THE VERY SAME ONES.....CHANGE NEGRO FOR HOMOSEXUAL ....IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

The Democratic Party's stand on civil rights cost the Party greatly. It enabled Nixon, Reagan and the two Bush's to use the so-called " Southern Strategy". Obama is change....and maybe he can grow in courage as well.