Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Morning Sweep

The Kingston Daily Freeman takes note of the support and opposition from mud-Hudson Valley legislators for the marriage bill in both the Assembly and Senate.

Nancy Goldstein explains why one of the Democratic presidential candidates will eventually get her vote, but none will get any of her money.

A transgender woman may be one of the four guests at a small-donor dinner with Barack Obama on July 10.

The new British prime minister may not be as pro-gay as Tony Blair was.

According to a CNN poll, the majority of Americans support: repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell;" allowing gay couples to adopt; and providing some sort of legal recognition to same-sex relationships (27% civil unions, 24% marriage).

A New York Times poll shows that young Americans are ahead of the curve (unsurprisingly) on support for gay marriage and other traditionally liberal issues. We'll have more on the poll later.

Liz Benjamin discusses Spitzer's (and the Senate Democrats') ideas for picking up seats in the 2008 election.

2 comments:

Donald said...

This Gay Pride was the first time I marched. I remember seeing the Cathedral barricaded and commenting to my partner on how I thought it was a rude gesture towards us.

I didn't know the history of protests, and I didn't realize the tradition of mayors entering below the Cathedral.

I guess the only thing I can say is....I wish politicians would stop kowtowing to the Cardinal. I'm not posting what I really want to say....Ah hell, I'll say it....Bloomberg....get your nose out of Egan's ass.

david said...

I understand that polls can convince politicians to take a stand they would not have the guts to take otherwise. But what I don't get is that people seem to think that because something is approved by the public at large, then it must be right. That's totally shallow. If the civil rights struggle had been left for the masses to decide, were would I, a black guy, be today? Equality is equality is equality. I don't care that 90% of the public won't allow me to marry because I'm gay, as a minority I ought to be protected from mob rule. I don't care that 90% of the public won't believe that I can change my sexual orientation even if I wanted to, as a minority the constitution protects me from majority abuses. These majority-minority situations have been applied to religions, which are clearly a matter of choice, and which one can clearly opt out of, and still know happiness, feel complete and whole, etc. How come we don't apply them to sexual orientation too?