• Grillin On The Bay - March 27, 2010

Sheepshead’s Senators Stand Alone In Gay Rights Battle


by Ned Berke on Nov 23rd, 2009

sheepsheadsShame

A distinction to be proud of? We think not.

Sheepshead Bay’s two state senators – Carl Kruger (D) and Marty Golden (R) – remain the only Brooklyn-area representatives standing against gay marriage in New York.

Of the nine members of the Brooklyn delegation to the State Senate, seven have publicly stated support for same-sex marriage rights, according to a survey by NY1. The majority of state senators from all five boroughs and Westchester support the bill, as do the majority of residents statewide, according to one poll.

And though the State Assembly passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in May, the Senate continues to put off responsibility in what is definitively the civil rights battle of our generation.

So what’s the hold up? Well, like the true leaders they are, 19 of the senators are shamefully keeping mum on the issue, hoping to stave off a hard vote indefinitely.

Kruger is a prime example of this. He’s refused to answer surveys on gay marriage for years. (Though he did slip in June, saying he opposed same-sex marriage. He’s since retreated back to his “no comment” stance.)

When Governor Paterson demanded a vote on gay marriage earlier this month, senate leadership balked in the face of an uncertain outcome. Kruger and the rest of the middling idiots succeeded in playing both sides, casting enough doubt that they were able to avoid taking a public stance and alienating voter segments.

In a pro-gay-marriage editorial, Brooklyn Paper pointed out that history has no patience for the wriggly worms who fail to rise up when equality is imperiled. “History has a particular contempt for politicians who don’t answer the call of the times, or, worse, remain silent when their voices are so urgently needed,” they write.

We couldn’t agree more. For our friends and family members, some of whom painfully hide their orientation because of this outward display of bigoted stupidity, we all suffer. Meanwhile Kruger and his ilk bully around a fractured Senate to satisfy their greedy appetites and inflated egos.

For Golden’s part, at least he has the spine to consistently go on record with his opposition. Like many Republicans, Golden stands against gay rights for religious reasons, stating marriage is between a man and a woman. But last we checked, this isn’t Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and the laws of our nation aren’t dictated by religious doctrine (and I thank God for that). Golden may be principled in his opposition, but applying antiquated notions to continue denying equality is hardly leadership. The ”master race” theory had many principled believers in Germany and Jim Crow America, too.

Sheepshead Bay’s senators better shape up. Their actions – or inaction – embarrass and shame us. It’s a black mark on the neighborhood and the borough. Instead of slinking in the background, they should pull up their britches and show some real leadership. This is Brooklyn, for chrissakes, not Pulaski!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Print This Print This
  • Comments
  • Opinion
  • Ray Johnson
    I think you made your point well. Can you tell me -- where is Pulaski? Isn't that a bridge somewhere?
  • I think its in Poland. Same Poland that the Revolutionary war general came from. That's the guy the Pulaski Skyway ( a series of bridges in New jersey) is named after.

    Even in the 21st Century a lot of people still have narrow minded attitudes about equality They want equality only as much as it benefits them. Extending their freedoms to those who are not like them is more than they tolerate.

    Sadly, a number of conservative religious sects with large numbers in the area have very strongly made their opposition known both to their members as well as local politicians.
  • Pulaski is a very small town in upstate NY. It's a bit north of Syracuse, and adjacent to Mexico.

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=pulaski+ny&rls;=c...
  • Jim
    The Pulaski Bridge connects Greenpoint with Long Island City. Named after Kazimierz Pulaski, the Revolutionary War fighter mentioned by Lisanne.

    I don't get the connection with backass politicians and Poland.
  • I forgot where NYC's Pulaski Bridge went. But I did remember that the Skyway is considered a series of bridges.

    Ned is referring to Upstate New York. That Pulaski I had no knowledge of previously. I do remember passing near Mexico once, and wondering how it got that name.
  • Boo on them. They need to be voted out of office ASAP.
    Ned: Don't you mean adjacent to Canada?
  • Ray Johnson
    Pulaski is such a notable person that they named a lot of places, bridges, and skyways after him. So, it's also a real place that is not exactly related to the notable person?
  • Atrhur, Mexico is a small town near Oswego. But yes, Pulaski isn't far from Lake Ontario.
  • Anna M.
    I didn't realize this site had a political agenda. I don't usually comment, but I was a frequent reader of this blog for the purpose of learning about current events in my neighborhood, and was disappointed at the assumption that everyone will share the opinion that this is a "shame" and "black mark on the neighborhood and the borough". The shame to me is that tolerance doesn't extend to people with different beliefs. (For the record, I am not religious.)

    I don't care to turn this into a debate about homosexual marriage because it's not the place for it, nor do I expect anyone to care that *one person* who doesn't follow the accepted doctrine has decided not to read this blog any longer. I just thought I'd raise my hand as one of the Brooklyn conservatives that aren't supposed to exist - or maybe I'd better just move to Pulaski, by your terms.
  • Sorry, Arthur. I fell over my fingers typing that.
  • Anna, I believe that newspapers have commentary and editorials that contain opinions of both local and other interest.

    The editor has the right to state his opinion. You have the right to disagree.
  • Ray Johnson
    Anna M., hopefully the need to know more about the issues that affect Sheepshead Bay will keep you coming back. If it wasn't for that, I would never read this blog! ;-)
  • Alex
    Ned,

    What's wrong with being against gay marriage? I think you should know what a definition of marriage is.
  • Anna: The piece is labeled as opinion. Still, if you're looking to consider my piece arguing that we ought to tolerate more people as intolerant, go for it. Also, being a conservative means you believe the government should interfere less in people's lives. If you're against gay marriage, you're arguing the government must interfere more in your lives, and thus you're a liberal.

    Alex: There are many definitions of marriage. In this case, I believe the following: "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship." If you believe in the religious definition - that it's a union between a man and a woman - than the government shouldn't be mixed up with that and everything should be civil unions. It's not the government's job to sanction religious ceremonies.

    And no, I don't believe it's okay to approve marriages between a man and a woman, but civil unions between people of the same sex. It's just another example of separate but equal.
  • Whose definition? In general terms it's a legal arrangement between two parties and the state. Traditionally those parties have been of the opposite sex. However, we live in a time where conventional definitions change, and out inclusions become many.

    The marriage of two person of the same biological sex should not be of concern to others. If wish a marriage sanctified by a religious body, then have the clergy person do that ceremony. But as you would not consider the marriage of two individuals not of your faith to be invalid, you can't by that extension of logic consider other forms of marriage, entered into with the same desire for legitimate and recognized union to be invalid.

    That may be coldly logical, but this is an issue that requires one to think objectively.
  • Alex
    Ned,

    No sane society would ever encourage homosexual unions. The society that does promote that dies pretty quickly (purely demographical issues). Furthermore marriage is purely a religious institution.

    Also by encouraging gay marriage, you will have more kids born out of wedlock. Statisticlly speaking kids born out of wedlock do substantially worse.

    That's just so called "on the surface" arguments....
  • Alex, you have no evidence to substantiate any of your assertions. And marriage is not a purely religious institution. If that were so then atheists would not get married.

    As for an increase in out of marriage births because marriage rights have been extended in their inclusions, its apples and oranges. The two have absolutely no relationship at all.
  • Anyone who thinks that marriage is purely a religious institution is living in another century. I guess some people believe that we should go back to enslaving Negroes too while we're at it right? I've heard the idea put forth that gay marriage will destroy the "institution". It's been destroyed many times over. The divorce rate in this country is appalling, women and men cheating on each other and endless so called "marriages of convenience". There are those who get married and stay in a loveless, hateful marriage "for the children". There are those who get married so they can get a green card. There are those who get married for money or political power. These same people think that gays are going to be far worse to the institution of marriage???? That's crazy. They couldn't be any better or any worse than heterosexuals who engage in the above descriptions. Why should anyone care what people do in the privacy of their homes and bedrooms? Why should we waste our time and minds on the subject?
    Why?

    Because some people don't have a life and only gain gratification by meddling in the lives of others. Those people should shut the F up and go their merry little way. The rest of humanity can do without your greedy, grasping power mongering and bigotry.
  • Vito Goldberg
    Kruger and Golden's personal views whether right or wrong ( and there are always gray areas when moral questions are at the forefront) are not the point here. Having representatives like these two, and Nelson and Recchia in the Council, and Velazquez in Congress, and Fidler and Hikind in the Assembly, are what you get, when the fact of the matter is that most of southern Brooklyn's best and brightest have long ago left the streets that nutured them to make their sterling marks elsewhere ( i.e. Coleman, Deorio, Boxer, Norelli, Sanders, Della Femina, I could go on and on). You have to expect such mediocrities, when such a void is there, and the gap is only being filled by Asians and Slavs, who though they have certainly saved our Real Estate values, they have yet to become acculturated fully in the ways of our Democracy. The only hope we have is that if the Coney Island revitalization does take place, and the boom in the homeland continues, many of those best and brightest will feel the pull again of southern Brooklyn's unique sunshine, and return to their homeland. Till then, welcome to the Age of Mediocrity!
  • Point taken. For the longest time successful people, and those on that road, have left southern Brooklyn in droves. Such people often wondered why some of us stayed. And yet they foolishly thought that everything would stay the same in their absence. Their parent got old, and were replace by new blood that had no emotional attachment to the past.

    I had forgotten that Jerry Della Femina came from southern Brooklyn. I met him a couple of times in the early 80s. Very fascinating person.
blog comments powered by Disqus