Wow! Great news, and totally unexpected (I haven't lived in NY for a few years, haven't kept up with events). It will be a long time before this kind of change comes down South where I am now though. I'm happy for everyone in NYC who's been waiting for this.

Source? Have you not heard? New York legalized gay marriage.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEIVRfpYxttjIIAT4vDoBfqUMA4g?docId=72cb42a4a58d4c778631e2d5d6f223eb

happy, contrasting with Ireland: it is a pity it will be many years, if ever that Ireland follows suit, civil partnership is a nice comfy compromise which will stand the test of time i fear, the creation of second class citizens where in the past they had no rights it is now possible for the opponents of gay marriage to make the case that these rights are good enough...

we can only hope that the first (openly) gay president will be elected and some social change will be effected.

Speaking as a Masshole, I call you late to the party!

...But what the hell, congrats anyway! :)

As a Tennessean, I'm jealous that I live in a socially backwards state...

I'm with Dave. Not to mention New York is going to grab a big share of the gay wedding market. Poor Boston economy.

No, I did not know, and thank you.

wow, there is actually money in the gay marriage economy... i never really thought of this personal rights issue as having this economic dimension...

Finally, something Putin and I agree on.

Sad that here in California they had that whole Pro 8 thing...hopefully it'll be repealed, it's already been overturned in court, they just need to lift the stay and finish this...

I'm with Smiley, except make Tennessee Louisiana...

"i never really thought of this personal rights issue as having this economic dimension"

Everything has an economic dimension. In addition to the tax revenues generated by the additional marriage ceremonies, there is also the marriage license fees, the influx of residents (and attendant tax revenue) attracted by the new legal situation, the tax effects from gay married couples filing joint tax returns, etc. Keep in mind also that gays, on average, have higher incomes (and therefore are hit with higher income taxes) than breeders.

It wouldn't surprise me if the New York state public employee unions lobbied legislators to pass this to improve the state's financial situation in the long run (and consequently the government workers' compensation packages).

Who is eligible for a New York wedding?

Speaking as a smug Canadian, I'm a little incluned to agree with what Dave H said, only about Canada instead of Massachusetts. And just to make a point, the state of New York was beaten to the party by that great bastion of social justice, Argentina...and as much as that says about New York, it says even more about other states which actually prohibit gay marriage in their constitutions.

Having said all that, I'm glad that New York has decided to allow gay marriage. I think it'll be a long long fight to see marriage equality everywhere in the states. But every victory along the way is important and worth celebrating.

You know, I might start some trouble here, or get blasted, but it's me and that's my lot here, so in any case...

Does anyone else see this whole "It's up to 'the individual States' to allow or disallow gay marriage," which is clearly a civil right, as being eerily reminiscent of ANOTHER instance in which presidents repeatedly either didn't care to extend the right to certain people, or were afraid to grant them that right...

1840s-60s America, anyone?

And if you doubt that, look at the States that abolished--at elast in name--slavery, and the ones that didn't, and the one's that are now allowing gay marriage, and the ones that are not only againt gay marriage, but are probably the most against it...

Just saying, is all--maybe gay marriage isn't equal to slavery in terms of being a civil rights fiasco, but it is interesting that, 150 years after the Civil War, we DO seem to have, on average, the same general divide (and I suppose if you really wanted to extend that comparison you could point out that in both cases California took the "The Side of the North," ie, with the Union/pro-gay marriage, and then left that group for a while...parts of Southern California seceded, but were quickly brought back into the Union, and now we have Prop 8 taking California out of the "gay marriage group," so to speak, but the ruling of it being unconstitutional has it teetering on rejoining that group, just like So. Cal came back...so yeah, interesting...)

Obi, I think yours is a valid and important point. It's worth noting that if this issue were arbitrated on a national basis, gay marriage would be a crime throughout the entire country. I believe Obama has gone on the record in opposition, even. The folks celebrating this victory for gay rights are also celebrating (whether they like it or not) a triumph of states' rights to set their own laws over the power of the federal government to decide all matters. If we had the unitary state many are eager to advocate for, this would be a dead issue and the permittance of gay marriage in New York and other states would be impossible.

Obi:

This is the reason that the current Prop 8 litigation has a lot of legal scholars on both sides hoping the Supreme Court makes a particular choice, because as it stands, sexual orientation is not recognized as a suspect class like race is.

Not to get into the entire history of equal protection, but if sexual orientation is defined by the Court as a suspect class, it invokes a heightened amount of scrutiny upon equal protection claims, and would basically mean that much of the current state laws prohibiting homosexual marriage would be in trouble.

In addition, there is some unresolved legal questions about homosexual marriage as related to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (Article 4, Section 1). It would seem that on the face of it, that clause would require states to recognize any marriage performed in another state... however the Court has never ruled on this, and many southern states refused to recognize interracial marriages prior to Loving v Virginia. Law was never argued before the Court, therefore questions remain.

I am curious to find out if Justice Scalia is going to wizard something up in this matter. Despite the fact that I'm opposed to his interpretation of the Constitution in many ways, he's a hell of a legal mind.

Or as I prefer to call it, "marriage".

I wonder, and this is a question...

How do you think President Obama really feels about gay marriage?

Because I've always gotten the impression that while it's not top of his list by any means, not something he really intends his legacy to be based on, I've always thought he was at least neutral on the idea, and maybe a bit Left...

I know he's on record as saying...well, I'll take your word for it he's said he's in opposition, I heard him this morning on the news say it was up to the individual states, but it's striking me, really, that since he's going to have a hard enough time getting elected as it is, he's NOT going to go and be very Left right now and lose the middle ground and center voters completely...

So my question is:

Assume Obama DOES win in 2012--and I'd put that at about a 60% chance now of happening, 60/40 that it happens, as incumbent presidents generally have better luck getting elected despite hard times (just look at Bush II and Clinton) and I don't think the GOP yet has a 5-star candidate that can take him down (again, see Bush II and Clinton, you could argue in both cases that with better candidates than John Kerry and Bob Dole, those elections might have swung differently) and he hasn't been a total failure or a terrible president, really, he just set the bar of expectations so high coming in that he's suffering now from those unrealistic expectations--and he gets four more years, and then, of course, in 2016, he's done (and I say go Hillary then, as a side note, I used to hate her, but she's really won me over...and while I hate her, who DOESN'T think a Clinton/Palin showdown in 2016 would be the most hilarious political catfight ever?) ;)

Do you think, in his second term, with nothing to lose, that he might try and push for the kind of social reform that the Democrats have wanted for decades now, and, among that, push for gay marriage?

Being something of a political right winger I am of course hugely in favour of gay marriage (more power to the individual and all that), so well done New York.

That sentence did not go where I expected it to go Octavious.

i hope so.

Also, and this is an aside but you brought up the chances of incumbent presidents, it has been shown that taller presidential candidates do better in elections, infact almost every presidential election has been won by the taller candidate, and i don't think we should forget this... (or perhaps that is elections where the incumbent is not running)

Do the republicans have a taller presidential candidate?

Do the republicans have a more charming presidential candidate is the real question.

What about whasthisface that used to be a ambassador. He at least has the white temple's charm, and that date rapist vibe republicans seem to like.

So who thought we'd see the day when Christian fundies backed a Mormon over another Christian?

Kingdroid:

That is because there is a serious schism between what I call "decent conservatives" and "fucking batshit religious conservatives".

Basically, if you rant on about the individual and the individual's rights, but then turn around and say the majority can impose their views on say... religion, you're basically an ass who doesn't understand what they're talking about.

I assume Octavious is actually one of the increasingly rare honest conservatives that I feel we on the Left can actually do business with. I know more than a few right leaning people who aren't fans of Obama, but basically refuse to vote for people like Bachmann, Palin, or Santorum.

"I know more than a few right leaning people who aren't fans of Obama, but basically refuse to vote for people like Bachmann, Palin, or Santorum."

sup

heard you called for right-wingers with a modicum of intelligence

Why, do you know any?

I know a few. And I was happily shocked to see a comment from Putin that I agreed with. There's a first for everything.