Posts Tagged As: Andrew Cuomo
September 26th, 2012
New York has an unusual primary process by which the same candidate can run for more than one party. The result is that one person could win the Democratic Party nomination, but their Democratic opponent could still be on the November ballot as the Working Families Party. Or the Republican Party nominee could face his challenger again running as the nominee from the Conservative Party.
Sen. Roy McDonald was targeted by the National Organization for Marriage due to his vote for equality. And after absentee ballots came in, he lost the Republican Party nomination by around 100 votes. But he was elected the nominee for the Independence Party and, if he chooses to stay in the race, he will be on the November ballot along with Republican nominee Kathy Marchione and Democratic nominee Robin Andrews.
Today McDonald’s decision received a significant nudge. (WSJ)
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday pledged his “full endorsement” for a Republican state senator whose vote to legalize gay marriage is seen as a factor in his apparent GOP primary loss.
In a letter to McDonald released to reporters, Cuomo, a Democrat, said it would be “an honor to stand with you.”
If McDonald drops out of the race, gay support will go to Andrews, a lesbian who supports our community’s goals. It is also likely that a chunk of Wall Street Republican money would go towards ensuring that Marchione loses (several Wall Street Republicans put forward significant support for the marriage bill).
However, if he stays in, the organized gay support will rally around McDonald to keep NOM from holding his loss over the heads of other potential supporters. Other factors to consider are that the primary draws the “party faithful” which tend to me much more conservative than the significantly higher Republican turnout at the general election and that Andrews is a relative unknown.
June 14th, 2011
Andrew Cuomo must be pretty confident with his vote count. He’s introduced a marriage bill in the NY Senate.
In addition to providing for same-sex marriage, it has broad protections for “a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state or a religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporations laws.”
Some will no doubt be annoyed by this inclusion, but it appears that this will purchase safe passage in the Senate. And while there may be some religious universities that refuses to recognize a professor’s spouse for insurance purposes, this exclusion will not impact very many. Catholic hospitals already have to recognize the patient’s designation of who is “family”, and we really have no interest in making some anti-gay church rent us their reception hall.
A second Republican has pledged support for the bill, leaving only one more to go (New York
Post Daily News Courier Tribune Bulletin Times):
New York is within a single vote of legalizing gay marriage, after a second Republican state senator said on Tuesday that he would support the measure should it come to the floor this week.
The senator, Roy J. McDonald, from the capital region, made his comments to reporters amid growing indications that Republican leaders would bring the bill to an up or down vote on Thursday or Friday. Three other Republican state senators, speaking on condition of anonymity because their conference had not yet formally debated the measure, said they believed the bill was almost certain to come up for a vote and that it would likely pass, making New York the sixth and largest state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.
Earlier today, Sen. Alesi, the first Republican to pledge support, predicted that the bill will pass with 6 Republicans in support.
May 17th, 2011
Successful activism walks a fine line. If you get too cautious, you end up making excuses for the status quo, placing “alliances” ahead of goals, and end up as a politician rather than an advocate. To my way of thinking, some of our established organizations have gone way too far down that road.
On the other extreme, reckless actions that are not well thought out can have both immediate and long-term costs, some of which are catastrophic. Groups that come from an “I’m right so f*ck you” arrogance may place pissing people off as their highest goal without considering (or caring about) the consequences of their actions.
And when you have individuals or organizations that are in love with seeing their name in print, be it on a White House cocktail invitation or the screaming headlines of the New York Post, priorities are almost certain to become muddled. The goal becomes more about “visibility” than about what that visibility is supposed to accomplish.
It has become increasingly evident to me that Queer Rising, a small new activism collective, falls in the latter category. They are fond of public display, but seem to have little to no actual knowledge about what they are protesting and even less interest in finding out. Queer Rising’s sole objective appears to be getting their name in the newspaper.
I first became aware of Queer Rising back in March of last year when they lent their voice to the movement in opposition to DADT… and in opposition to HRC. While I have my concerns about HRC’s efficacy, I see little value in taking it to the streets.
Then in July when the National Organization for Marriage’s Tour of Empty City Plazas came to Providence, RI, a few Queer Rising members from New York decided to storm the stage and have a screaming match with Brian Brown. Who cares if the picture of angry screaming activists on someone else’s turf was was widely published by NOM? Who cares if we are now trying to appeal to the good will of Rhode Island legislators for relationship rights?
In March of this year, Queer Rising was back for some more media attention. This time they blocked traffic during New York’s morning commute to protest for the right to marry. Or do bad drag. Or something. But whatever “message” they were purportedly trying to relay, it was clearly secondary to their stated goals of “drag visibility”. Who cares if commuters now link marriage rights with fright wigs and stilettos?
This isn’t to say that they don’t have a flair. Bringing a cardboard cut-out of Senator Rev. Ruben Diaz dolled up in drag along with them on the AIDS Walk for photo-ops certainly drew attention (though I’m not sure how it squares with “drag visibility”.) And there is not only a place, but a necessity for those who are willing to confront the establishment, to challenge authority, and to behave outlandishly.
But Queer Rising seems, overall, to lack the wisdom and perspective to know when an action is going to achieve a goal and when it will only be a burden on the rest of the community. And again they have confirmed my estimation.
New Yorkers United for Marriage (a coalition of Empire State Pride Agenda, the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Log Cabin Republicans and Marriage Equality New York) has been working hard to achieve marriage equality in New York this year.
These are all serious organizations. And while some may at times put alliances ahead of achievements, I have great respect for a few of them. The visibility they seek has less to do with being either a chummy insider or an angry outsider and more to do with achieving tangible goals.
And tangible goals have been achieved. The Republican leadership in the Senate has promised to allow a vote to come up and not to punish Republicans who vote in favor of marriage (and the majority of funding has come from powerful high-level Republican donors). Democratic Governor Cuomo has made marriage equality a hallmark of his administration and is actively courting Senators. And while the Conservative Party has made a no vote on marriage to be a litmus test for their support, the Moderate Party leader has endorsed the change.
None of which seems to have been noted by Queer Rising.
Deciding to ignore those who have been working the hardest on this issue, Queer Rising came up with a unique political theory of their own. (WSJ)
But the group pushing for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights says Cuomo isn’t mustering support among lawmakers behind the scenes.
Allen Roskoff, speaking for Queer Rising Tuesday, says that if Cuomo doesn’t get the bill passed as promised, then he was only paying “lip service” to gay rights.
And they know that because… well, because they made it up. Who cares if the Wall Street Journal sees this as “a crack in the united effort to legalize gay marriage”? Who cares if New Yorkers United for Marriage now have to heal rifts created by this act? Who cares even if marriage becomes legal?
Queer Rising got their name in the paper.
October 14th, 2010
Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic candidate for NY Governor could have a lock on the gay vote simply by not being homophobic loon Carl Paladino. So it’s nice to see him actually make promises to the community. (Daily News)
“I don’t want to be the governor who just proposes marriage equality. I don’t want to be the governor who lobbies for marriage equality. I don’t want to be the governor who fights for marriage equality. I want to be the governor who signs the law that makes equality a reality in the state of New York,” said the Democratic nominee.
Sounds good to me.
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.