Gay advocacy rhetoric grows heated

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | December 7, 2009 at 08:10 am

892 views | 40 Recommendations | 21 comments

"GAY ACTIVISTS PROMISE BLOOD-BATH" runs the headline in Gotham News.

With tensions soaring, and rhetoric upped , gay advocates are expressing their increasing frustration and anger.

Discontent has increased, stemming from the Maine referendum which overturned gay marriage in that state on the ballot in the November 3 vote, followed rapidly by the defeat by a large margin of 38-24 of the New York gay marriage bill on the Senate floor last week.

Regarding my own opinion, while understanding their considerable frustration, I think it would behoove gay advocates not to use terms such as 'blood bath', which is incendiary and brings the sort of reaction gleaned in this Now Public story by Hugh Askew.

The rhetoric is ratcheted up to 11 after last week's overwhelming rejection of same-sex marriage in the state Senate, which left gay-rights activists reeling. "It's going to be a bloodbath," one gay "operative" tells the Daily News. "We're going to use every single weapon in our quiver to take these people out. We either need to replace them or scare the hell out of them so they do the right thing." Activists say they'll focus their efforts on the Democrats who they feel betrayed them, and number one on the list of Senator Joseph P. Addabbo of Queens.
Some analysts believe that because the alphabetically-advanced Addabbo voted second in the roll call, his "no" sent a message to subsequent swing voters that the measure would not pass, creating a domi-no effect. Addabbo has sought to draw a line between his personal opinion on same-sex marriage (which he refuses to divulge) and the will of his constituency. Speaking to reporters about his vote,he said:

To this day, I have kept my personal belief out of it, and it's still personal...It is my belief, and it's only my belief. I voted, again, the will of the people in my district. First and foremost, I am very thankful to everyone who got me to where I am as a state senator. I am grateful to all those in the gay community that supported me—whether it be financially or with the hours of volunteer work. I'm grateful to them, but never once did I say to anyone or any particular entity what my position was on the issue...

We could talk about it on a morality level, a religious level, a civil rights level, so there's many levels to that one issue of marriage equality, unlike what we voted on here... I pride myself on being an advocate for equal rights, but marriage equality transcends just the issue of equal rights.

Gay activists say they spent more than $1 million to help the Democrats retake the Senate, and the big money gays are now planning to support challengers against some of the eight Democrats who joined the GOP in voting no. These include Sens. Shirley Huntley and George Onorato, both of Queens, and Sen. Bill Stachowski of Buffalo. Embattled Queens Sen. Hiram Monserrate, who faces possible expulsion for assaulting his girlfriend, cast a surprise no vote; he'll be challenged by Assemblyman Jose Peralta, who is backed by party leaders and has voted for gay marriage in the past.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

aurealeus

at 08:51 on December 7th, 2009

RIDICULOUS: "Some analysts believe that because the alphabetically-advanced Addabbo voted second in the roll call, his "no" sent a message to subsequent swing voters that the measure would not pass, creating a domi-no effect."

DANGEROUS: "It's going to be a bloodbath,"..."We're going to use every single weapon in our quiver to take these people out. We either need to replace them or scare the hell out of them so they do the right thing."

BUYING VOTES? "Gay activists say they spent more than $1 million to help the Democrats retake the Senate, and the big money gays are now planning to support challengers against some of the eight Democrats who joined the GOP in voting no."

worshipnaked

at 11:05 on December 7th, 2009

"We could talk about it on a morality level, a religious level, a civil rights level, so there's many levels to that one issue of marriage equality, unlike what we voted on here... I pride myself on being an advocate for equal rights, but marriage equality transcends just the issue of equal rights."

I have never met Joseph Addabbo. I do know something of trancendence. If I lived my life in such a way that I felt the need to segregate morals, religion, civil rights, and social justice, into spheres of influence, I would not sleep nor eat until I concieved an argument so compelling that it caused the Earth to stand still. My faith and morals cannot cast a shadow, otherwise my light would be diminished.

Hugh Askew

at 11:19 on December 7th, 2009

Can't wait to hear the argument that makes the earth stand still.

Wait til I'm off work, if you don't mind.

YankeeJim

at 15:32 on December 7th, 2009

Homosexuals are God's creation like everyone else.

Homosexuals are created equal like everyone else.

Whichever, equal treatment is the law in the USA.

aurealeus

at 16:08 on December 7th, 2009

Fine, then let them have civil unions then. As I've commented in a related post...

Marriage has always been a "Religious" tradition based upon the spiritual union of a man and woman due to the fact that only a man and woman can procreate.

If gays have a problem with "Marriage," then they should be petitioning Religion and not wasting tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 16:00 on December 7th, 2009

If I were gay - and I have said this elsewhere - I would stick to the civil unions, and leave the religion aside, which is what is causing the debate about nature and civilization. Of course, I have a bias, as I was raised without religion, and it is a puzzle to me, though I love the Old Testament for its literary value. Camille Paglia, when arguing against the "born that way" theorists, had said that in a truly pluralistic democracy, free choice and expression would be left to its privacy. I cannot help thinking gay marriage will be the undoing of the gays if pushed too far. After our American Civil War, feminism had to begin again almost from scratch. I know Spydermonkey has agreed with me on this.

Grace H

at 21:03 on December 7th, 2009

but all the same it should not be an issue in the first place. if you object fine teach your children intolerance and hate you will anyway(not you yourself but such in a general sense). when it comes to justice and human rights there should be no differentiation, no modifers, none of that nonsense. that is where humanity falls short and that is the source of so so much pain. and yet all of it is preventable and absolutely not neccesary and thus unacceptable.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 16:26 on December 7th, 2009

smk, thank for posting this. Civil unions is not the answer, and ending DOMA is essential as well, and for the following reason:

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.

Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049[2] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law) and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor.

A partial list of these provisions of federal law are available at the link.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 16:28 on December 7th, 2009

"Gay operative"? to Daily News.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 16:57 on December 7th, 2009

OK, Rhonda, I see with those facts. I have always thought the marriage argument gave a certain power to the religious traditionalists. Thanks for that info, I was not aware. Some wise person once said to me - several times - "live and learn"---now who WAS that??? ; )

And they said "Gay operative", not smk!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 18:48 on December 7th, 2009

Can't imagine who that was, smk:)! Those facts are often over-looked or not known -- it's a real problem and must be kept in mind when addressing the marriage debate at both state and federal levels.

I know smk didn't say "gay operative":). I find it an interesting choice -- gotta love the media:)!

Babel-Fish

at 17:14 on December 7th, 2009

Many great empires have seen same sex marriage no real hassle...

It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[46] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[47] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in AD 342 prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exis

Other than in Rome due to Christian intervention

aurealeus

at 17:22 on December 7th, 2009

Although I admit to not researching, it appears by the wiki/source that "same-sex unions" mainly took place during "ancient" times. Apparently civilization desires those times over the present?

Grace H

at 21:04 on December 7th, 2009

any moron may edit wikipedia. thats a sure-fire source there.

aurealeus

at 06:21 on December 8th, 2009

Wasn't my source/ choice. I was just referencing the previous comment. You appear out of sync with the comment flow if your comment is directed towards mine.

Grace H

at 14:54 on December 12th, 2009

not really. the comment wa to the post above which you also responded to. responses to comments appear chronologically beneath said comment. thus it is "out of flow" due to how the site works.

Rory Cripps

at 17:48 on December 7th, 2009

Who the hell needs FOX and CNN when you can read comments such as these! Thanks SMK!

aurealeus

at 17:53 on December 7th, 2009

NowPublic - All the news thats fit to print. (or is it, that fits to print?)

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 17:55 on December 7th, 2009

Oh, quite welcome , Rory---you know how I love to start a heated debate ;)

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 18:05 on December 7th, 2009

I used to write a lot on that, actually.......I was once in love with the new Testament, but then I found Nietzsche, and you know how it goes from there....RNG, please do me a favor, go up to the picture widget, and see the picture which is entitled, "Schmentel, you'll ......etc."---I got that from the gay livestream, it is their picture and their quote, PLEASE tell me you think it's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oops, its on the other story, rng, here:http://my.nowpublic.com/world/nj-judiciary-committee-debating-gay-marriage-bill

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 18:13 on December 7th, 2009

Yes, Philosophy really gets into the mind, and I see life always as Nietzsche does, and I read him 20 years ago....Yes, that was gay humor, so sharp and biting, I laughed out loud, it was too funny....