Majority of New Yorkers say: Separate, but equal, is good enough, but some will think about marriage

[WillParkinson]

Poll: New Yorkers split on same-sex marriage
By The Associated Press
05.14.2009 1:16pm EDT

(Albany) The latest poll shows New Yorkers are split on whether to legalize same-sex marriage even as the state Legislature moves closer to the landmark action.

The Quinnipiac University poll finds 46 percent favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and 46 percent were opposed. In a 2004 poll, Quinnipiac found 55 percent of New Yorkers opposed same-sex marriage.

But the poll finds most New Yorkers _ 65 percent _ support civil unions that could provide most or all of the legal and property rights already given to married heterosexual couples.

The poll released Thursday comes two days after the Assembly approved the measure and sent it to the Senate.

Quinnipiac questioned 2,828 voters from May 5 through Monday. The poll has a margin of error of just under 2 percentage points.

http://www.365gay.com/news/poll-new-yorkers-split-on-same-sex-marriage/

[Renew Deal]

1. I would be surprised if it passed in the state senate.

The dems barely have an edge and word is that a few dems oppose it.

[TheWraith]

7. FiveThirtyEight.com has a whip count.

It's currently 20 in favor, 26 opposed, 16 up for grabs. Five of the 16 are leaning no. 32 votes are needed. So yeah, it's probably not going to pass.

[bluestateguy]

2. Just wait around for some old folks to die off, and majority support will be there

We move a little closer to marriage equality each day because more old folks croak every day, and old folks oppose gay marriage by the biggest margin of any age group.

[ejpoeta]

3. separate but equal is bullshit. i believe civil unions or civil marriage (which is

what i have btw)are the only thing there should be. when i get married by a justice of the peace, i am being married by and officer of the state, and therefore my marriage is legal by the state. if i were to go into a church with that license and get married by a priest or minister, then i would be doing the civil marriage AND a religious one at the same time. i do not see why anyone should require 'separate but equal' anything. if churches don't want to perform marriages for gay partners, no one is forcing them. odds are that if i would have gone to a church to be married there i would not have been allowed because i don't attend there.

it is inconcievable to me that religious beliefs should ever be legislated. the church should have no role in marriage. if a couple wants to participate in a church wedding, that's their business. without the license, however, such a marriage would not even be recognized by the state. i think we should think about that. it is because there is a license obtained by the town or county you reside in. you go to a priest or a justice of the peace and perform a ceremony, which can be either religious or civil and then the paper is signed and sent to the state or county. without that piece of paper any marriage would not be legal. this means that there is no cause for anything other than the obtaining of a license and an ceremony performed by a legal officiant. the religious aspects are non existent unless a priest or church is involved.

[sui generis]

4. I wonder how they feel about civil broom jumping?

I wonder if they will allow us to call it what WE want?

It feels so good to have our paternal wiser co-Americans making decisions for us.

:nuke:

[LostinVA]

5. Freestate posted a good link on this here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x131293

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Unless DOMA is repealed, even the best state laws are

'separate but equal'.

If the public will accept civil unions but shy at marriage - go with civil unions. It's just a stop-gap anyway. As soon as DOMA is repealed it doesn't make any difference.