Gillibrand support Marriage Equality.

[cali]

Gillibrand's Gay Marriage Evolution
January 23, 2009
The Empire State Pride Agenda released a statement this morning saying it has received assurances from the junior-senator-in-waiting, Kirsten Gillibrand, that she supports gay marriage - an issue that could prove troublesome when she has to defend her new seat against a potential challenge from the left in 2010.

ESPA Executive Director Alan Van Capelle and Gillibrand apparently chatted last night after it became clear she was Paterson's pick (although supposedly that wasn't a sure thing until sometime around 2 a.m. this morning).

"After talking to Kirsten Gillibrand, I am very happy to say that New York is poised to have its first U.S. Senator who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples,” Van Capelle said.

“She also supports the full repeal of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law, repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) and passage of legislation outlawing discrimination against transgender people. While we had a productive discussion about a whole range of LGBT concerns, I was particularly happy to hear where she stands on these issues.”


This is a huge issue for ESPA, especially given the tenuous state of the gay marriage bill in Albany in the wake of the state Senate leadership battle.

Evidently Gillibrand is moving fast to push back against criticism from the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party that she is too conservative to hold Clinton's seat. Keep in mind, Clinton herself supported civil unions, but never went the whole way and backed same-sex marriage - a bone of contention in the gay community.

<snip>

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/01/gillibrands-gay-marriage-evolu.html

[ErinBerin84]

1. good

I wasn't really crazy about some of her voting record, but if she adjusts some of the issues (I don't really care if she's a flip flopper if she ends up on the right side) to represent a less republican constituency, I'm fine with her. As long as she brings the votes I guess.

[cali]

3. I think her going on the record in support of marriage equality is

very big deal. And it may put some pressure on other dem Senators.

[Lucinda]

6. Schumer addressed that in the presser.

He talked about how his own views in some areas evolved as he moved from local constituent issues to a broader state and national perspective when he became as senator, and said he expected hers would as well. I thought it was an interesting comment to make at her announcement presser.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. That's probably because she voted more with Repubs than Dems. Here's a link:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/g000555/votes/against-party/

She's got to nearly turn 180 degrees now she's no longer only voting for her 80% repub constituency in upstate.

The questions is, will she?

[TheWraith]

12. That chart is completely misleading.

The WP is specifically listing only votes against the "official" party position, not the hundreds of others that she was with us on. Gillibrand not only votes with the Dems almost exclusively, but is considerably to the left of most Democratic Senators, supporting gay marriage, Medicare for all, etcetera.

[paulk]

13. she voted with the Democrats 93% of the time

you just listed the other 7%.

iow - she didn't vote more with the Republicans than the Dems...

[Lucinda]

22. "Kirsten Gillibrand has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 93.8% of the time"

Perhaps you should have backed up to the main section:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/g000555/

I think Schumers remarks were more about pointing out to the NYC folks that she would adapt to represent their interests as well....

[ShortnFiery]

2. Oh stop, she's a fucking chameleon. A TRUE dyed in the wool, Blue Dog warmongering DLCer.

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

14. please provide links to demonstrate that she's a "warmonger"

not that you will. your reactionary nonsense gets wearisome.

[ShortnFiery]

28. She announced in her opening comments within today's presser she's focused on TERRORISM.

Put "Terrorism is my FAV topic to focus on" AND "a Blue Dog DLC Democratic Senator" and I'll give you more WAR-MONGERING and increased funding for the Military Industrial Complex. :scared: :nuke:

Here's her priorities:

1. Fighting terrorism - A tactic? :wtf:
2. Cutting taxes - typical Blue Dog Democrat priority.

http://www.saratoga.com/news/interviews/gillibrand.cfm

[ClarkUSA]

4. "Mitt Romney" Gillibrand changed her mind in the past 24 hrs re: this, as she has with gun control.

Link to proof by the #1 Blogger in the country who happens to be gay and a supporter of Prop 8: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/gillibrand-on-m.html

She's Mitt Romney in a bleached blonde bob.

[TheWraith]

10. No, she did not switch positions.

She was asked to elaborate on her existing position about gay rights, and she did. As far as guns go, she mentioned that she'd voted in support of strong background checks. That's not a reversal either.

[ClarkUSA]

16. The Empire State Pride Agenda's executive director, Alan Van Capelle says she did.

Link: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/gillibrand-on-m.html

So does Andrew Sullivan. You are wrong.

[dsc]

17. yes she did

on her website she was opposed to same sex marriage just yesterday, today she is in favor of it. That is a change of position.

[TheWraith]

23. "Supports civil unions" is not the same thing as "opposes gay marriage."

She's been very clear about her position: she supports creating a federally mandated civil unions law, plus giving individual states the option about whether or not to use the word "marriage." She personally supports it but she notes that some people are uncomfortable with the word, particularly the older generation, so we should give them a chance to get used to the idea.

[ErinBerin84]

5. wait, she switched her

stance on Don't Ask, Don't Tell too? Well, that's good, I guess. I mean, I prefer someone who had supported it in the past.....Do we know if she reversed on the Bush tax cuts yet too?

[Justitia]

9. I'm curious if she still opposes Medicaid for low-income AIDS patients.

Medicaid is a serious state & federal issue and within her anti-gay package she vehemently opposed letting poor HIV patients have Medicaid coverage.

Wonder if she'll do a 180 on that too?

[TheWraith]

11. You're completely and totally wrong. She SUPPORTS Medicaid for HIV patients.

Try getting facts right.

http://buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/blogs/2009/01/23/kirsten-gillibrand-is-new-yorks-newest-senator/

[Justitia]

15. So, when exactly did that change? It is completely opposite from her voting record.

http://www.politickerny.com/1460/spotlight-moves-slowly-toward-two-more-non-kennedys

"On the issue of gay rights, Gillibrand received an 80 out of a 100 rating from the LGBT advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign. That was the lowest score out of New York’s Democratic representatives. According to the Human Rights Campaign, she voted against the repealing of “Don’ Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation, opposed legislation that would grant equal tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners, opposed legislation to grant same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents the same immigration benefits of married couples and opposed legislation to permit state Medicaid programs to cover low-income, HIV-positive Americans before they develop AIDS."


I keep hearing positions that are 100% different from her voting record - what is up w/that?

[TheWraith]

19. The only source on that claim is one factually inaccurate press release by HRC.

Gillibrands actual record shows she voted in favor of ENDA:

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand_Civil_Rights.htm

Supported more funding for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP:

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand_Health_Care.htm

(Which was, by the way, an effort originally instigated and pitched to the Congressional leadership by the Blue Dogs.)

The nonsense about opposing Medicaid for HIV patients is because she didn't sign as a cosponsor of the bill supporting it, which is an absurd standard.

Try reading today's statement by the Human Rights Campaign: they fully endorse her and are thrilled that New York has a senator in favor of gay marriage, repealing DOMA and DADT, et al. It actually reflects reality, not the purity test of whatever intern assembled that one dubious press release.

[Justitia]

21. the stmt from just today is the result of a "late night chat" w/her, get real.

But hey, NY is stuck w/her now, I hope she works out.

I figure she won't last the next primary, just like Paterson.

[TheWraith]

25. They asked to elaborate, and they were thrilled with what they heard.

But hey, you know better than the Human Rights Campaign.

Apparently it's not enough that one of the most hard-to-please gay rights groups endorses you. :eyes:

And she's going to be in that seat until she gets bored.

[Justitia]

27. In any event, it's too late now, isn't it? NY and the US is stuck w/her. -eom

[dsc]

18. then why did she refuse to cosponser a bill that would provide that funding?

[TheWraith]

20. Not cosponsoring a bill that had 100+ cosponsors isn't the same as opposing a bill.

And to try and pretend otherwise is patently absurd. Read the Human Rights Campaign's statement today: She's practically their new favorite senator. Don't be fooled by one inaccurate press release put together by some low-level HRC flunky months ago.

[dsc]

24. This isn't from one press release

it is from their own score card, the one she got an 80 on. I am not claiming she opposes it but I do wonder why no cosponsership. She did cosponser ENDA so it isn't that she doesn't cosponser legislation. I think it is a legit question to which we should get an answer before we say she is a great senator.

[TheWraith]

26. Perhaps, in the reddest district in NY, she didn't want to step on a third rail.

There's a profile difference between supporting something and cosponsoring it when it comes to campaign ads. Or maybe she simply thought that over 100 cosponsors in the House was enough, and put her time into something else that affected her district more directly, like expanding SCHIP.

In any event, I think it's a nitpick. The legitimate questions have been asked and answered, including an answer that neither Clinton nor Schumer would give, i.e. endorsing gay marriage. Being worried about whether merely supported a measure versus cosponsoring it strikes me as losing the forest for the trees.