• 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!

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Print This Print This
  • Comments
  • Opinion
  • Quite simply,the constitution gives each person the right to believe and express that belief. It does not allow one individual to impose those values on others.

    Thusly, if two individuals of the same legal sex wish to get married then there should be no legal objection. In fact the state should protect that right by legally endorsing it. Scalia should recognize that the constitution is a sacred document also. And that he is sworn to uphold its principles.
  • Sir
    I'm not sure you understand the concept of freedom as it is applied to religion or an individual.

    Allowing Gay's to marry in no way shape or form attacks or otherwise maligns your freedom of religion. That particular right ends at your self. You may follow and preach whatever you damn well please, even hate if your heart desires it, thusly is the spirit of the First Amendment. If people choose to listen to your ramblings that's their religious freedom. But at no point does the act of gay marriage infringe on you in any way. It doesn't concern you or your community. The Church doesn't have to perform gay marriages and the law shouldn't force it, but The Law SHOULD recognize gay marriage as a legal entity.

    The freedoms and equalities that make this nation so great apply to everyone (except illegal immigrants, not them). Our Constitution was designed to be a living and breathing document because our forefathers understood that as time passed it would have to change to reflect society.

    To Marry in the eyes of the law is everyones right. If you want to deny someone religious marriage go ahead. If you're that bothered by gays getting married then make a choice and move away. They'd love you in the south.
  • The Framers of our Constitution risked their lives to protect religious liberty. A reference to our Creator is written in our Constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution states, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Framers found it necessary to add the first amendment to protect religious freedom. Even with these protections, more laws were created to uphold our religious freedom by requiring "reasonable accommodations" to religious people in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Today, religious citizens of the United States are now faced with a new adversary threatening to take away our religious rights. This comparatively new group was once referred by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, as the "Homosexual Agenda".
    This group lies to the public, claiming that they just want to be "married" just like everyone else, and that they don't mean to harm anyone. The real truth is that they want to force the religious citizens of the United States to provide sinful accommodations to the homosexuals, such as a Church requiring to rent their space to a lesbian wedding, a Christian photographer required to take photos of a lesbian wedding, a NYC taxi driver required to watch homosexual activity in his own car, a social worker in ME prohibited from speaking freely, a lawyer barred from practicing due to his religious beliefs, a mayor in CA asked to resign, and the list is endless.
    Our education is being attacked as well. At every chance possible the Homosexual Agenda is forcing religious students to believe that homosexual behavior is not sinful. They are forcing young children, as young as 2nd grade, to normalize homosexual behavior against the religious beliefs of the parents. They are manipulating the educational system by having public school teachers and college professors falsely instruct our students that people are born gay.
    Civil unions is just a slick way to take away our religious freedom. This is the equivalent of saying we don't have heart beat, we have heart tones. NJ recognizes civil unions, but not same-gender marriage, and the homosexual agenda was able to take away our religious freedom with civil union laws.
    Our religious liberty is being attacked at all ends, and there is only one solution. Make same-gender marriage your number one issue and vote against it.
  • Are these gong to be members of this community, or are they coming from all over?

    Protests may make the participants feel like they've accomplished something but they aren't going to do much to sway these politicians.

    How about trying to get some support from the community organizations that have some influence with local politicians? Kruger in particular needs to know that there is some local support for this sort of legislation. Golden, OTOH is not likely to change his position under any circumstances.
  • Rich from Brooklyn
    Kruger and Golden are warned: protests are a-comin' your way. Haters, come on out to counter-protest, too. Don't forget to bring your white sheets!
  • Alex,

    The current problem with numbers of retirees was caused by the Great Depression , which was followed by World War 2. Practically an entire generation forstalled marriage or chose not to have to children because of the economic instability of the 30s, followed by the immediacy of World War 2. The end of the war brought the perception of prosperity (the economy didn't really improve until 48') there were a lot of marriages, and childbirth numbers were significantly higher than they had been for at least 15 years. This trend lasted for 17 years, and yes, it certainly did fuel an economy that was ready for expansion. Everything would have worked out fine save for the fact that many members of that generation, which we call the baby boomers, failed the earn the same real income (i.e; adjusted for inflation and factored in to consider changed needs) as their parents. This was often despite the fact they were better educated. Given that, as well as changed attitudes about the place of family in their lives, they tended to have less children than their parent did.

    The earliest baby boomers will be retiring in a few years. Their retirements will not crush the system, in part because this has anticipated for some time now,and they have been contributing higher percentages of their incomes to FICA than their parents have. I could tell you that from experience, and when I was self-employed my FICA payments were considerable. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, it leverages as best it can the difference between contributors and recipients.

    One can, by the simple omission of relevant data, *prove* that Social Security's intake-outtake system is flawed, and will go bankrupt eventually. But I think its a rather complex scenario here. And as there will never be such the disparity between the numbers of retirees and the number of recipients again the soon to unfold scenario is unique.
  • Alex
    Lisanne,

    In a developed economy (USA/Europe), zero population growth is never a good thing.
    I can give you many many reasons but lets just stick to the Social Security issue. If there is going to be zero growth, who will take care of all retirees?

    Europe has come around on this issue heavily by promoting (with very mixed results) population growth.

    As I said before, I do not want to go deeply into this because this is a very long discussion. If you are interested, I suggest you check out Mark Steyn. He discusses many sociological/economical/political issues that currently/will be facing the west. You cna look into one of his books or plentiful lectures on youtube.
  • Alex,

    The problem with that is that it potentially endangers children that had no say as to whether they were born. However, there is a workaround which, while it won't stop these women from procreating, it will take the children out of the system. Presently there supposed to be limitation on the time period in which one is eligible for financial support. Place limitations on the "Aid to Mothers With Dependent Children" program and then place the children in foster care. While foster care is not the best solution (that system needs a serious overhaul) it takes away any possible financial incentive to have children in these cases.

    You'll notice I said it has the tinge of eugenicism. I was sure that you were not advocating a eugenicist approach, but one of the problems with some solutions is that they can lead to other actions which cross that line. When that happens, the earlier allowance can be used as a legal precedent, which often leads to a revocation of the that policy.

    Zero population growth exists in many countries not by public policy but merely by practice. Even in the United States there has been a trend towards smaller family units. A smaller amount of people competing for resources will keep prices from rising. The inherent problem, of course is that it has the effect of nulling the growth effect on business that comes from a larger consumer base. The counterbalance is that businesses become more dynamic as they have to innovate and promote better to sell their products and services.
  • Alex
    Lisanne,

    Again my argument is about smart governments promoting good behavior with financial incentives. The reason that I brought up welfare moms was to show the contrary point. Meaning bad behavior should NOT be promoted with financial incentives. (If a single woman is on welfare her welfare check should not increase if she decides to have more kids). I do not understand how that has anything to do with eugenics. She can still have as many children as she wants as long as the family is self sufficient.

    The countries that will have a law of zero poulation growth are the ones that are going to physically and culturally die out but that is beyond the realm of this post.
  • Alex, we're not even talking about welfare mothers here, though that suggestion has the tinge of eugenicism. When we start going there we are crossing over to having the government decide we should have children, a course that leads to places we simply don't wish to go. After we limit the ability of the poor to have children (and in our current economic situation there are lots of poor people) who gets discouraged next? Or even worse, legislated out of the right to have children.

    On a personal level I favor the notion of people having small families. But such decisions should be intelligent based, rather than forced upon society. Unfortunately, I suspect that the day will come when zero population growth will be the law in many countries.
  • Thanks, Matt. You beat me to it.

    In the spirit of full disclosure, Matt in DC is an ordained minister, and will be officiating my wedding.

    ;)
  • Matt in DC
    I think his point is that right and wrong does not have economic motivations.
  • Alex
    Ned,

    You are totally missing the boat here. I can not believe you are getting slavery involved here. Slavery was morally reprehensible for a number of reasons that I do not need to repeat. Your Germany argument is even worse. To BrooklynQ and Lisanne: that's right smart governments promote good behavior through financial incentives!!! I am not promoting breeding welfare moms here.
  • Of all the arguments you've made, that's easily the most detestable. Slavery was excellent economically. Our government and our country's influence never grew so rapidly as it did while we enslaved human beings.

    It was also very good for the majority of Germany to seize the assets and end the lives of 12 million people, and to nationalize an industrial military complex to violate the rights of other sovereign nations.

    Also, Lisanne is right. More people does NOT make economic sense. But let's not go there. Instead, let me ask: how does allowing gay marriage mean a decrease in straight couples having children? People are gay and will be gay whether same sex marriage is legal or not. They have been for thousands of years and they'll continue to be.

    Alex, are you married? Do you mean to tell me that if your hypothetical gay neighbor got married to another man, that you would be so disgusted that you wouldn't be able to make love to your wife and produce offspring? Will your marriage crumble because someone else you don't know can marry a person of the same sex?

    That's a ridiculous notion. Unless, of course, you are a closeted homosexual teetering on the boundaries of coming out, and will only be encouraged to do so if the state legitimizes same sex marriage. Does that sound familiar, Alex?

    ... ::pause for dramatic effect::

    Okay, Alex, I'm not really suggesting anything about you. But I'm making a point: the only way those arguments make sense is if that's the situation, so maybe you ought to reevaluate your logic and try again.
  • Alex,

    "It is good business from economical point of view for the government to promote (through tax incentives) large families. Amongst other things it increases the tax base. Hence it would pay off for the government to offer tax incentives for kids. The more dependents you have, the more you can deduct from your taxes."

    That is the most absurd argument against gay marriage I have ever heard.

    Maybe, just maybe, who knows, if gays were allowed to marry, and establish households with all the rights, respect and dignity of the str8s, there would be a major surge in adoption, which would in turn solve the abortion issue.

    Government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for any two people who want them.

    If you want to get married - go to the religious institution of your choice.
  • Matt in DC
    Honestly dude, who cares if two gay people want to get married and live happy and fulfilling lives the same as any straight person. I think it's pretty obvious you're grasping at straws here trying to reason yourself out of a mental situation that is either too unpleasant for you to realize or too embarrassing to state outright: you don't condone homosexuality or find it acceptable in public expression.
  • Alex,

    You need to understand something. No matter how much support the government gives Gays and Lesbians they will never outnumber "Breeders" to the point where our society becomes threatened in any way. Not even taking into consideration the Gays and Lesbians who want to pro-create despite being Gay.

    The impetus to have a large family was a side effect of an Agriculture Based Economy that we had. The more kids you had the more people were available to work the farm, for free.

    This is no longer the case.

    Marraige as we know it needs to be split into two catagories. Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Religious Marriage should have no legal standing what so ever. If a Church refuses to marry gay people that's fine, but they should lose their tax exempt status when doing so.

    Every person, of every race and age and sex and orientation should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This means Gay Marriage.
  • Yes, 7 Billion people on this planet is not quite enough.

    And more children mean expense for government. And it means that resources will be used more quickly. We are running out of oil, we will run out of natural gas. Maybe not in my lifetime, but possibly in yours, Alex.
  • Alex
    Ned,

    Even if you do not want to look at gay marriage from the religious perspective, look at it as purely business. It is good business from economical point of view for the government to promote (through tax incentives) large families. Amongst other things it increases the tax base. Hence it would pay off for the government to offer tax incentives for kids. The more dependents you have, the more you can deduct from your taxes.
  • I guess that there are probably a few who would like to go back to the days when marriage was a 'sacred" institution and horrid things like miscegenation were illegal acts.

    Apparently our society still has a long way to go. Its no wonder that more advanced nations look down upon us, with our guns and our prejudices.
blog comments powered by Disqus