April 15th, 2009
03:00 PM ET
11 years ago

Cafferty: What if New York becomes 5th state to legalize gay marriage?

 Join the conversation on Jack's blog.

Join the conversation on Jack's blog.

New York could become the fifth state to legalize gay marriage. Governor David Paterson is expected to introduce legislation tomorrow that would make marriage between same-sex couples legal in New York.

Paterson has previously said he’s committed to bringing “full marriage equality in New York state,” adding it’s a problem that gays and lesbians who live in a civil union aren’t entitled to around 1,300 civil protections that are available to married couples.

Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer introduced the same bill back in 2007 — it passed the Assembly but died in the state Senate. It’s expected the bill would pass the Assembly once again, but would need support from some Republicans in order to pass the Senate.

To read more and contribute to the Cafferty File discussion click here

Filed under: Cafferty File
soundoff (55 Responses)
  1. Jon

    I keep hearing about how most Americans are against gay marriage, but I personally don't know a single person who is against it. I'm all for the equality of all American citizens. I hope New York moves forward.

    April 15, 2009 04:51 pm at 4:51 pm |
  2. Joe

    Sorry, Jack; I don't understand the question.

    There's NEVER been a practical downside that ANYONE has brought up regarding gay marriage. It's an asinine excuse for a debate.

    April 15, 2009 04:51 pm at 4:51 pm |
  3. BJ

    We in California have voted against gay marrige TWICE...but what does the will of the people mean anyway?

    April 15, 2009 04:52 pm at 4:52 pm |
  4. Obama 08

    We're just another step closer to equal rights

    April 15, 2009 04:53 pm at 4:53 pm |
  5. Enlightened Voter

    Common Sense – I totally agree, the so called party of small government sure wants to govern your body and whom you can marry. They are true hypocrites! They tout pro life yet love war, love to hunt and are for the death penalty. Give me a freaking break!

    April 15, 2009 04:54 pm at 4:54 pm |
  6. Joe

    Jon in CA said....

    "It would mean NY will have to pass a State Constitutional Amendment as we did in California to protect the traditional definition of marriage."

    Protect it from what? Are you going to stop loving your wife if gays get married?

    MY hetero marriage won't be affected by gays getting married. Why would yours be?

    April 15, 2009 04:54 pm at 4:54 pm |
  7. Fernandez

    Who cares?. I think we have more important things to worry about than gay unions.

    April 15, 2009 04:54 pm at 4:54 pm |
  8. barking republican ankle biters

    I think anyone that wants to get married is insecure and crazy.Why buy the cow?

    April 15, 2009 04:56 pm at 4:56 pm |
  9. Doug in PA

    Maybe we'll see another tea party to protest it. All that spending may help the grocery stores!!

    April 15, 2009 04:56 pm at 4:56 pm |
  10. ck

    A marriage should be defined by ones religion / faith / belief system, etc.

    The government has got to recognize same sex couples as a matter of equal rights for all TAX PAYING citizens.

    And I have to wonder, WHY are hetero-couples so threatened by two same sex, consenting adults making a commitment to each other???

    Sounds like they have some SERIOUS issues of their own if this bothers them.... LOL

    April 15, 2009 04:57 pm at 4:57 pm |
  11. Frank

    Outrageous! What's happening to this country? What next? Marriage between three people..maybe four? God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve!!!!!!

    April 15, 2009 04:57 pm at 4:57 pm |
  12. Dick in Minnesota

    It would mean that New York would make more money on the state level (licensing fees, taxes on the liquor, taxes on the master of the ceremony, taxes on the flowers, the clothing). Jack, New York is going to make a killing.

    April 15, 2009 04:57 pm at 4:57 pm |
  13. Joe

    BJ said:

    "We in California have voted against gay marrige TWICE…but what does the will of the people mean anyway?"

    Nothing, if the will of the people is to take a right away from a minority. We didn't free the slaves or give women the right to vote via popular vote either.

    If you think "democracy" means "we do whatever the majority wants, all the time", all that means is that you don't understand democracy.

    April 15, 2009 04:58 pm at 4:58 pm |
  14. Mark

    "I think the energy of a lot of people could be better spent on more serious social issues of the day."

    An easy statement to make when YOUR rights aren't being abridged at all. If some religious sect you didn't believe in were trying to define rights and protections YOU were allowed to have with your loved ones, you might think differently.

    April 15, 2009 04:58 pm at 4:58 pm |
  15. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA

    I don't know what this country is coming to. I've always known marriage to be a sacred bond between man and woman. I do not agree with these same sex marriages. This will affect so many children. I don't have kids and I definitely don't want any being brought up in a society when they teach your kids that this is morally right.

    April 15, 2009 04:58 pm at 4:58 pm |
  16. SD,Michigan

    So what if it passes? The sky will still be up there. It'd be a step forward for equal rights.

    April 15, 2009 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  17. Independent

    Gay marriage is old news....who cares other than the right ring wing radicals

    April 15, 2009 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  18. CF

    "Always fascinating that the party of small government is always big enough to decide (and attempt to legislate) how people should behave."

    Quote of the day! Bravo CommonSense!

    April 15, 2009 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  19. Hopeful Optimist

    I'm a liberal Dem who supports just about every element of human rights, but I too have Gay Fatigue. Don't we have more pressing problems? My shirts need ironing. Funny, huh?

    April 15, 2009 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  20. AP in Illinois

    Being open minded and tolerant of others are not things Republicans do well.

    April 15, 2009 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  21. Me in Big D

    @Jon – well, here's one person (and I can name you 100s more) that is totally AGAINST GAY marriage. I'm against gay anything! I'm sickened by the use of a perfectly wonderful word, gay, to describe the sick life these people choose! Back in the 40s, gay had a totally different meaning and it still should be that way. We used to call them "queers"!

    April 15, 2009 05:00 pm at 5:00 pm |
  22. Lesley Anne

    With the divorce rate between men and women at something like 50%, that sort of union doesn't really solidify christian morals now does it? Men/women unions don't appear to view marriage as sacred. Many homes are run by single parents. There are all types of unions in this country. Why make a cause out of the biblical interpretation when you cherry pick biblical behavior? I'm talking about the hate and intolerance that I read about, and children killing themselves because they are outcast. The whole debate is not being played out honestly.

    April 15, 2009 05:02 pm at 5:02 pm |
  23. Mark R., Milwaukee WI

    David Patterson rocks! Get it right this time New York.

    April 15, 2009 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  24. Patriot from ATL GA

    It would mean NY had the common sense to understand the difference between religious ceremonies in some disapproving santuaries and basic non-discriminatory rights of some people. When they ban heterosexual criminals and other complete idiots that won't last 6 months being married, THEN I might have a problem with gays being married. Until then, everyone deserves the right to decide for themselves.

    April 15, 2009 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
  25. Heather in SoCal

    Go NY! I remember the tumult over Prop 8 - conservative churches were trying to scare people by saying that churches would be penalized for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Which, of course, is bull - churches don't have to marry ANYONE.

    April 15, 2009 05:07 pm at 5:07 pm |
1 2 3