Personally, I feel this is a travesty. I support same-sex marriage. It is hard for me to understand why my gay and lesbian friends should be denied the right to marry. As far as I'm concerned, this is a civil rights issue.
As far as who voted for and who voted against, here is the vote count. Note that four of the eight democrats that voted against come from Queens. They are Joseph P. Addabbo Jr.; Shirley L. Huntley; Hiram Monserrate; and George Onorato.
Now, George Onorato represents Astoria, which has a sizeable GLTBIQ population. I'm going to give you his contact information if you want to contact him to express your opinion on his vote yesterday:
District Office:
28-11 Astoria Blvd.
Long Island City, NY 11102
Tel: (718) 545-9706
Fax: (718) 726-2036
Albany Office:
310 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Tel: (518) 455-3486
Fax: (518) 426-6929
Email address: onorato@senate.state.ny.us
http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/george-onorato/contact
Discussion on yesterday's results is happening here and here. Please join in if you feel so inclined.
Finally, here is a video that I found particularly moving on this issue:
5 comments:
I was very disappointed in the vote by Onorato, and the other Senators who voted against marriage equality.
I wrote an email thanking all of the Senators that voted "Yes" for equality and added a special message to Onorato that I would do as much as possible to make sure he was not re-elected.
Please contact his office and let them know if you disagree with his vote.
Here are the email addresses of NY Democrats in the state senate who voted against marriage equality for NYers. addabbo@senate.state.ny.us
kruger@senate.state.ny.us
diaz@senate.state.ny.us shuntley@senate.state.ny.us monserra@senate.state.ny.us onorato@senate.state.ny.us
stachows@senate.state.ny.uson
Seems to me there was a time when women getting the right to vote "threatened" marriage or "allowing" women in the workplace "threatened" marriage. Seems to me there was a time when freeing slaves "threatened" one's family and by extension their marriage. Marrying across religious faiths was a "threat" to the institution of marriage. Bi-racial marriages were a "threat" to marriage. Come on people. Get a new argument.
I honestly do not understand why we are worried about changing a definition of "marriage" that has rarely, if ever, been officially defined as a heterosexual anomaly, when failing to do so outright changes the constitutional definition of "equal."
Honestly I'm agree with her.
Laby[mens dress shirts
Post a Comment