Truly, some people are never happy, always complain, and will use any platform to bash politics.

It's just the right this to do. Move on.

Legal gay marriage has been avaiable for years its new york not tehran

......can you hear all those Bibles, Torah's and Quran's slamming shut????

you mean EXPLODING because gay marriage will immediately DESTROY ALL RELIGIONS

it's not about money, it's just the right thing to do. Peroid

this is brilliant. when you can't appeal to conservatives' sense of reason or equality or justice, appeal to their wallets! 

Except, who will profit?  Just like, venues & small businesses.  Actual people.  Conservatives only care about making giant corporations richer, not actual people.

Don't worry, I'm sure some of the businesses that will profit will be corporate, and in any case the idea is that an influx of money will boost the economy even for those who don't profit directly at all.

ya know, for such an obviously informed and intelligent person, i'm surprised by how often your comments contain cheap partisan jingoism. in those economically-stagnant republican strongholds of Suffolk co. and upstate, i'm confident there are a wealth of conservative hoteliers, restaurateurs, bakers, jewelers, florists, photographers, printers, and bridal shop owners who would love to drum up some new business. 

it's the constituency we're after -- actual people -- not merely the party leadership. self-interest makes the world go 'round, baby!

If I can't get off a couple of cheap shots on Gothamist, where CAN I?  You're right-- I mean, if we want to elevate the discourse (blech!) there are tons of "conservative" reasons to allow gay marriage-- like, minding your own business & letting people live their own lives without government intervention, right?  I mean-- respecting individual liberties is a big deal, at least on paper, for the more conservative talking points, right?  I've said it before, though-- I might think someone is crazy & unreasonable for supporting supply side & trickledown economics, for slashing taxes for the rich & cutting off social programs, but I can at least TALK to them about it.  "Fiscal conservative" is one thing.  It is the "socially conservative" stuff that I can't have any truck with.  How do you argue with someone over stuff like basic human liberty?  What do you say to the person arguing AGAINST civil rights?  Nothing, you can't say anything.

ha, cheap shots are a def good time but this issue is so sensitive and it feels like we are so damn close.

i've had this discussion with a number of socially conservative christians and tried to frame it in a variety of ways (equality and human rights didn't cut it). so i was excited about this economic argument as a means of attracting support. its really too bad that people reply with tired talking points to shield them from the reality that their views are outdated, dehumanizing, and hurtful ("hate the sin not the sinner," "man-dog marriage" etc).

i guess the optimist in me wants to believe its all in how you frame the conversation, but alas, some people (esp. fundamentalist religious types) are beyond reason.

See, here is where I disconnect.  "Equality & human rights didn't cut it."  I'm like-- if these issues aren't fundamental to your understanding of participation in society, then you are doing it wrong.  I mean-- I'm comfortable with a fundamental nihilism, you know?  An understanding that civilization stems from selfishness.  But...that is WHY we should care about equality & civil rights-- because they AREN'T inalienable.  They are very alienable, in fact-- people are alienating them RIGHT NOW.  That is why we have to defend & support rights-- because OUR butts are on the line as well.  When something becomes a privilege, it becomes so much easier to take it away.  So yeah-- the economic argument is quaint, & true, for what it is worth...

...I just don't think these are people for which there ARE arguments.  What can you say in the face of reckless discrimination?  These people can change their OWN minds, but I don't think there is any way we can change it for them.  I don't think there is debate possible.  Heck, what concessions am I willing to make, for a compromise?  How about...none?  No concessions?

(Okay, to be fair, I'd agree to a compromise where ALL marriage is abolished & the state ONLY provides civil contracts, but other than wags on the internet, I don't think anyone is seriously offering that as an alternative.)

i totally agree, it is extremely frustrating to attempt to reason with backward ideology and dogma. i certainly don't claim to have the skills necessary to change hearts and minds.

IMO there are generally two parties that are against marriage equality -- those who hate homosexuals, and those who think homosexuality is a sin and forbidden by god.

how can we reason with hatred or "god"? honestly, we can't. we can only keep hammering away on the side of social justice and, as you point out, not deliver concessions when fundamental human rights are being infringed upon. 

we may appeal to their sense of goodness, appeal to their humanity. but most importantly (and most difficult) in personal discussions always maintain the higher ground -- treat social conservatives as people worthy of respect, just as we are asking them to treat people who happen to be gay as worthy of respect.

in the end, we cannot eradicate ignorance and bigotry from society, but it is our duty eradicate it from our laws.

But I don't WANNA rise above it, I wanna sling some mud! 

No, no, point taken & well said, all that, promotions all around.  Doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor.

"comments contain cheap partisan jingoism. /

in those economically-stagnant republican strongholds of Suffolk co. and upstate,"

Ahem. Don't mean to point out the obvious but you can make a fortune delivering home furnishings to all the gay city refugees & semi-snowbirds up by Montecello.

yeah, i was kinda painting with a big brush. i am abundantly aware that there are pockets of progressives and relative wealth in upstate: Monticello, Saratoga Springs, Ithaca, Cazenovia, Hamilton, Woodstock -- to name a few.

but in the overwhelmingly conservative rust-belt upstate, these locales are the exception, not the rule.

Way back in 2005, the 'Cuse commissioned a business study in which they recommended to themselves that the direct marketing of central new york toward gay couples would be good for business. All those D.I.N.K.'s running around, or something.

You are too smart to fall or the "divide & conquor" political games the sate legislature plays. Appealing to a small urban subset of homosexuals is exactly the home court advantage the conservative ideology has xploited so well in the first place - but it is mostly an illusion.

Nowhere in New York is okay to be homophobic in public any longer, 12 person hamlets we've never heard of that dont have any power nonwithstanding. 

As soon as you frame it as a statewide issue not an urban issue, you get majority support.

since i am not a politician, i'm talking more about personal conversations: how to sway friends, family, and acquaintances to see the value of marriage equality. and as someone intimately familiar with small town upstate culture -- espousing negative opinions about homosexuality is still very much accepted, from the pulpit and town hall meeting to the backyard bbq. and it is a substantial voting bloc.

the whole point is that activists and politicians should not have been exclusively appealing to the "small urban subset of homosexuals" since that is obviously akin to preaching to the choir. framing the discussion to avoid alienating conservatives is the lofty and, quite possibly, unreachable goal.

more than likely this measure will pass in the near future, and they will just have to live with it -- like Roe vs Wade.

Obviously we agree about the issue in general, but I actually HAVE done political work upstate & grew up there - what some people say in their BBQ or pulpit isn't any more representative of the way voters vote than a particularly provincial city councilperson, financial yuppie,  or SI saint Pat's march organizer.

When you look at upstate ny as a whole, according to district maps, by the raw numbers, you find that the economic and population centers trend blue more often than red. I've surveyed alot social issues where its age/lifestyle, not downstate/upstate, that correlates to how people feel.

The urban/rural divide still exists, but most upstate voters  are in urban and suburban islands - not rural backwaters. A 'traditonal' family BBQ'ing in Utica is likely to feel the same about gay marriage as a 'traditonal' family from one of the bouroughs.

thanks for sharing your experiences.

not to beleaguer the issue -- but since you have experience i wonder how you account for the rather slim 80-to-63 margin in the Assembly for marriage equality, and also the 2009 Senate 38-to-24 margin against gay marriage bill. are these 63 and 38 politicians voting in response to their regressive personal views or that of their constituency?

i can't seem to find a county-by-county election map.