Spitzer's Gay Marriage Proposal

Gov. Spitzer’s bill calls for “civil marriage equality for all New Yorkers,” and would bar denial of a marriage license to same-sex couples. The bill would exempt clergy and religious institutions that don’t want to perform same-sex marriages.

Spitzer argues that the couples who cannot marry are deprived of a host of rights that married people take for granted:


Spitzer also made his philosphical argument for the gay marriage:



  1. gary condit says:

    Where is Liam Arbetman?

    Spitzer is giving tours of his own private Green Acres for folks that donate over a million to his re-election campaign.

    Arbetman, what say you?

  2. The Referee says:

    Leaving the issue aside, it seems like bad politics for Spitzer to push this forward.

    We all know the Steamroller is a very bright guy, so why would he push an issue the general public is solidly against?

  3. SmokinJoe says:

    #1 – 100 IQ points

  4. gigitygigity says:


    “Spitzerâ€™s Gay Marriage Proposal”

    Which gay guy did Spitzer propose to? This is a huge story!!

  5. gunga dan says:

    “Spitzerâ€™s Gay Marriage Proposal”

    I thought he was in a commited, monogamous heterosexual relationship; marriage even.

    Did something change on Day One?

  6. Free NYS says:

    The public is not against marriage equality. Crain’s just did a survey that 63% support it. Get over it…it’s happening sooner or later.


  7. JByrne says:

    The last two comments in this threat are exteremelly disappointing, especcially when topics on here often foster good debate.
    To many people, gay marriage is a very serious issue, and one of the largest hurdles that the gay community has had over the past several years is that no one will seriously consider their lives for a second, and the negative impact that not being able to enter into legally sanctioned marriage, with the full benefits thereof, has on them.

    Second off, numerous polls have shown that most New Yorkers support the issue. There is no definitive proof that the public is solidly against gay marriage- only the loud cries from many people who troublingly misunderstand homosexuals.

    If many people actually took the time to see this issue from a gay person’s point of view, it would appear glaringly obvious that in a country where we have the principal of separation of church and state, factors such as religion are being used to legally exclude same sex couples from gaining legal recognition that would enable them to better raise their children, own a home, and provide care for an ill loved one.

    Many people who are against gay marriage _ and I will accept that it is often a large, but not always a majority of the population_ do not clearly understand the legal inequality that is presented here. The rights to gain certain tax breaks that are identical to opposite-sex couples, rights to care for a loved one, to buy homes and cars, file joint tax returns, and numerous other items are fundamental principals, and it is clear discrimination to deny any one of them to a couple due to the fact that they have matching genetalia.

    This is a debate that transcends race, religion, and socio-economic class.

    Ill end this with a few facts: the portrayal of homosexuals as flagrant sex and fashion fiends is a terribly misguided media and entertainment conception, and obviously leads to a terrible mischaracterization.
    The amount of gays that have multiple sexual partners, go out partying while scantily dressed, etc etc is proportionate to the number of heterosexuals who do the same thing.
    Its a youth thing… many out homosexuals, presently, are young, an as they get older, will settle. Most older homosexuals, just like older heterosexuals, want to work a good job, own a home and raise a family.


  8. JByrne says:

    ooops… I didnt mean the last 2 comments… when I posted this, Free NYS’s comment wasnt up yet… I was referring to comments 4 and 5.

    Bravo Free NYS

  9. LuLu says:

    We should get with it in this country: marriage should be a civil institution, which can be entered into by two consenting adults. It should grant civil rights and responsibilities. Sort of like in Europe.

    If people want to then sanctify their unions in the church of their choice, great.

    But to impose one’s religious beliefs on others is well…Un-American.

  10. ruralgeek says:

    Agree with #7 completely. Also think that the state has an enormous economic opportunity associated with legalizing gay marriage– by adopting this social innovation early, we will reap the benefit of a tremendous tourism and wedding-event boom. We already have a very international, tolerant and accomodating tourist trade in this state, to which gay folks’ weddings (with their just-as-green-cash) will fit right in.

    Isn’t it interesting that the same people who have no trouble at all with the state funding and promoting technology that mixes the genes of, say, tomatoes and fish, via lab procedure, are unwilling to recognize human-to-human committed love, that has been in evidence since early human history, because it is purportedly “unnatural”? Give me a break!

  11. Ed Rooney says:

    Lulu, you and your love affair with Europe again. If the grass is so green why are you not there? Why isn’t anyone there. Their native population is dropping so fast the Old World is scheduled to disappear within our lifetime and become the new Middle East without the oil.

  12. LuLu says:

    Why does one have to move away from one’s country because he or she has observed that other countries have a more enlightened approach to things like same sex marriage or universal health care?

    Some of us want to make this country BETTER for its average working family, not just the corporations and filthy rich.

RSS feed for comments on this post.