Kevin Marshall's America
If you’re driving on the stretch of Interstate 787 that runs parallel to the border of New York State Senator Roy McDonald‘s district, you might notice a billboard urging him to support gay marriage:
The billboard is sponsored by Bombers’ Burritos and is the handiwork of its owner, local entrepreneurial socialite and blogging gadfly Matt Baumgartner. Gay Marriage is in a tight race in New York, and McDonald is one of the holdouts.
He claims he’s “undecided” on the issue. The legislative session ends June 20th, and Governor Andrew Cuomo has gone on the record stating he’d like to see gay marriage passed in the Empire State before then.
Anybody who’s ever read this blog before knows my position on gay marriage, but just in case: I’m for it. The concept of marriage is not owned by any specific church or religion, and any claims to the contrary are historical and contextual fallacies. Parishioners can have their objections noted, but it should not be used to refute any efforts to legalize it. Other arguments, even if we are to take the concerns as earnest on the part of those objecting, fail to hold water: marriage won’t make any person more gay or encourage more people to become gay, nor will any heterosexual marriage be threatened by the existence of a gay couple being granted a license to marry.
I do see it as a right, and don’t think one should be comfortable clouding it with concessions like granting gay couples the right to a “civil union.” As a right, it should not be held up to compromise or muddled with semantics. It should be clear what we are and aren’t willing to accept in this society, and no homosexual person in this country should be given a mixed message as to whether or not they are tolerated or, better yet, embraced by an American society in the throes of the 21st Century.
So I ask Senator Roy McDonald, who represents me in the State Senate: what, exactly, are you undecided on? How many of your constituents are also undecided? If you ask them, I think you’ll find a clear answer on either side.
Part of me thinks maybe you being undecided is a good thing. Perhaps you’ve grown up your entire life viewing homosexuals as one thing, but the last few decades and all the friendships and alliances you’ve cultivated with homosexuals in and around the Capital Region forced a change of heart. Maybe you’re undecided because for your entire life you were fundamentally opposed to the concept, but in your heart you now know that voting “yes” is the right thing to do.
Then there’s the cynic in me that just wonders if you’re a coward and/or are waiting for someone in the Legislature to approach you with a deal or compromise that benefits you in some way or another, wholly unrelated issue you want to address.
If you’re reading this, Roy, please don’t be offended. That’s just a part of my thought process that harbors ill will, and is granted space due to the past behaviors and attitudes of your fellow Senators. There’s a bigger part of me, though, that believes you can change and do the right thing.
I believe, just like so many others, that you can say “yes.” So please do so. Show them that you’re a better man than they think you are.
Share it!
37 Responses to Why is Sen. Roy McDonald “undecided” about gay marriage?
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
I hope that Senator McDonald does the right thing and votes no on this very bad bill. Marriage should be between one man and one woman.
He’s my representative, too. I called his office earlier this afternoon, left my full name, and politely asked the staffer to relay my request that he support marriage equality. If others in our district agree, call Sen. McDonald at 455-2381 or email him at mcdonald@senate.state.ny.us. Be polite! :)
SC Guy –
What is your primary motivation, especially after reading this blog, for wanting to deny same-sex couples the right to marry? I’m just curious.
I think you might be surprised. I think Roy McDonald is ‘undecided’ because he can’t choose between ‘pissing off all my constituents’ and ‘voting for clear and obvious bigotry’. And I think that is the choice he faces…Glad *I* don’t have to walk that thin line…
What Roy McDonald thinks is irrelevant; his job is to represent what the majority of his constituents think, whether it agrees with his personal opinion or not. I submit that he may be waiting to hear from as many of them as he can before he renders his decision. Take Roz’s advice and call or “e” your opinion to him. If you don’t then you don’t have a right to complain if the decision isn’t what you like or support. He is my representative, too.
Bill W.
Without getting TOO much into it, that’s not how representative democracy works (literally or conceptually). We elect a representative, not individual positions. Still, your point is well taken, and people should be contacting him to register their support.
I cannot believe we are still debating this. i hope someday my grandchildren live in a world where the concept of “straight only” is as foreign to them as “white only” is to my children.
I’m just curious why the billboard in the photo looks like “To Senator McDonald” is left over from a previous message and they only covered over the bottom part.
Folks should be entitled to be joined to who they love. My son and I have talked a lot on this and we have what we feel is a good compromise.
Here it is:
Legally- marriage licenses for ALL and these are “civil unions”.
Religious? Have the clergy perform your license requirement and your sacrament at the same time. If you are gay, your clergy may not wish to accomodate you and that is fine. Gov’t can’t impose.
Gay? Get ye to a JP or other qualified officiate and get hitched!!
Do we really need to be in Dark Ages on this STILL???
This reeks of belittleing a person because his beliefs MAY be different than your, how utterly hypocritical.
I do agree that it would be disgusting/shamefull and unethical to sell his vote the way liberals sold theirs for Obama care, it’s totally unscrupulous.
I have a feeling that this is going to fail in the way that every other vote in every other state has failed: It is, unfortunately and sadly, refusing to see reality. The anti-gay are virulently and savagely opposed to the notion of marriage equality; the pro-gay are trying to be civil and polite about it. Screaming and fear-mongering are winning the day. The pro-gay can be proud of their losses … and that’s it.
I have now seen fully and clearly that the pro-gay basically *refuse* to behave in any other way and will not pull out all the stops in order to fight for this by every legal means they can find.
Therefore, mark my words, it is going to take 6 to 8 years before you see any appreciable progress. It will not come faster unless you fight *as savagely as the anti-gay are fighting against it*. If you don’t mind waiting, fine. But I now routinely ignore complaints that it’s “taking too long.” OF COURSE IT IS; the pro-gay are politely pleading that people see their viewpoint. You tell me whether Brian Brown of NOM is EVER going to bend a millimeter to pleas and exhortations to see your viewpoint.
You guys don’t get it. Fortunately, the only real downside to that is that it’s going to take you three to four times as long as you thought simply to *begin* to get somewhere. I’ve watched and analyzed what’s going on for over two years now; you’ll see.
@ Kevin (comment #8) —
If you won’t get TOO much into it, fine, I will :p Because I think you’re getting at an important philosophical question about elected officials. While I tend to agree with your position rather than Bill’s, there are absolutely cases where Members should and do follow their constituents first. One example at the State level might be prison closures. If I’m a relatively progressive Member and I think we should be closing minimum-security prisons, I may still advocate for keeping them open in my District if they’re the only source of jobs for some small towns.
While cases like this could make Legislators look hypocritical, they’re also the difference between our system and a European-style party list system. With a party list, voters essentially endorse a nationwide platform and the individual Members they end up with are incidental. But once you create electoral districts, your system by definition demands that Members respond to the whims of specific constituencies. Lay aside same-sex marriage for a moment — most of the upstate Legislators (Repubs and Dems alike) are hugely in favor of a property tax cap and dislike rent control; most of the NYC Members, including Republicans like Golden and formerly Padavan, are supportive of rent control and more mixed on tax caps. Sometimes, Members really should simply “represent what the majority of [their] constituents think” because that’s the priorities of their people.
I’m prob. botching this by paraphrasing it, but Paul Wellstone explained his method with something like: “First I vote my conscience. If my conscience isn’t clear either way, then I vote with my District. If my District is split as well, then I vote with my Party.” This seems like a reasonable view of the decision making process.
i do not think it matters whether senator Mcdonald is for or against gay marriage. what matters in this situation is that he does not have the guts to tell us all the truth- YES or NO.
“What Roy McDonald thinks is irrelevant; his job is to represent what the majority of his constituents think, whether it agrees with his personal opinion or not.”
Yeah, that’s what Southern legislators said about civil rights legislation for a century after the Civil War.
If we wanted blind poll-followers as legislators, we could just buy a bunch of puppets. (It would be cheaper, and there would be fewer scandals!) Sometimes, though, politicians should lead — that’s how progress happens.
SC Guy, I hope he supports the right side, too, but the “right” side is in support of marriage equality for all citizens.
adx, I don’t see that at all, in fact I hardly know anyone who brings it up unless the media is publicizing some new comment on it.
Virulently. savagely, that’s a huge stretch… most people won’t even voice an opinion unless asked
I commented on a TU blog a few months ago regarding this issue and I got eaten up with negativity. However, I’ll stay steadfast in my “nay” to gay marriage.
It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the State of NY, via a County Clerk, granting a marriage license to two people, LEGALLY BINDING.
Whatever your moral stance, it simply comes back to whether or not it’s legal. It’s NOT. And it shouldn’t be.
What happens next? Can you pay $30 to the County Clerk and marry your pet?
Just my take.
Why do people turn to pets? Haha, its so funny because they have nothing else. This is not a slippery slope. Two human adults want legal rights to each other because they love each other. You don’t have to be “pro-gay”, these politicians need to be pro-equal HUMAN rights. Heterosexual people act like homosexuals are asking them to be gay. I find it so weird people are so against something that has absolutely nothing to do with them. Gay marriage not for you? Then don’t get gay married.
Thank you, Senator McDonald, for having the courage to crack open the door, and have a discussion. At the end of the day you will feel good, because you will have made the right choice to support equality rather than bigotry.
U2, I haven’t heard of any voting, taxpaying animals lobbying to marry their humans, or lobbying for anything at all. You probably got a bad reaction before because that’s a tired, overused, and utterly ridiculous analogy.
May I suggest sticking to the subject and actually stating why you think same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legal? Because very few people will take you seriously if you’re only argument is that you worry about the sanctity of our pets.
Short answer – because he’s a bigot.
U2, you were eaten up because you lack any sort of intelligent comment. Animals can not give consent. This is about what 2 consenting adults are able to do. It is about having legal protections relating to property, childcare, insurance, etc.
And you say the argument comes back on whether its legal or not and it isnt? well OBVIOUSLY thats what were trying to do by getting this bill passed and legalizing it!
Equal marriage exists in 5 states and many countries around the world (Canada, South Africa, Nepal, Argentina, Portugal, Belgium, etc, etc) can you tell me what problems have come from it there?
Christians tend to confuse the issue when they discuss Marriage,or Gay Marriage,with Holy Matrimony.Marriage is a union between two people that grants certain legal rights to those people.Property rights,legal rights that come into play at tax time,right as to who can enter a hospital room[Family],if your married,and your spouse commits specific crimes,both parties can be held accountable etc.We all understand that.Denying a specific group,especially consenting adults those rights simply isn’t equitable.This helps to bring about legal order.Holy Matrimony is a Holy Sacrament performed by a Priest,uniting a Man and a Woman,in Gods eyes.Society accepts that this ceremony fulfills the legal description of “Marriage”.
Well he doesnt want people from your camp hiding in his bushes at night and harm him or barge into his offices and not leave.
Also, the debate turns most people off because there is only one RIGHT position and the other position is WRONG and people are bigots and aholes for disagreeing with you.
I’m for it to get it off the legislative agenda and to stop wasting time on this small beer that effects ~10% of the population.
If it passes tomorrow, your camp will still find something to complain about and stick it even harder to the faith community.
stick it even harder to the faith community.
Quoted without comment, except to say WHOOOOOA NELLY
(Note: normally I wouldn’t dismiss any comment so casually but that first sentence was just too ridiculous for me to ever take seriously. The gays are hiding in the bushes, ready to attack the opposition!)
Is it safe to come out of the bushes yet?
EVERYBODY LOOK OUT
Camp? One time at gay camp …..
Gov. Coumo’s historical perspective is flawed. The historical perspective is the societal one, which represented the best interests of the majority of the population. He has no mandate to change or replace the existing marriage definition. If I need to get a license to get married then it is not a right but a requirement by the state of NY. In fact driving on the highway is not a right but a privilege, which is only allowed by obtaining a permit to do so via a license.
There is NO CRISIS here. The word crisis is now used to push any unpopular idea or concept. He is circumventing the will of the majority as he laughs it up at the podium, as he seems to do in all of these cases. He belittles and diminishes the moral relationships of married men and women. Even in his own live in arrangement is a shame! How DARE he to legislate to me anything such as this, while so many people depend on our leaders to set examples. What a disappointment he is on this issue.
THIS IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE BUT A RESPECT ISSUE
Main Entry: 1ho•mo•sex•u•al
Pronunciation: “hO-m&-‘seksh-(&-)w&l, -‘sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one’s own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex
“homosexual’ means people who have sex with others of the same sex. I will not elaborate on their mutual masturbation techniques but it is obvious they can only reproduce asexually by trying to convince others that homosexuality is a normal function of being human and therefore having a right that has been a virtue of men and women exclusively.
So what is the point of giving them the same level of respect as couples being able to bring children into the world and being there for them. I realize the problems that are inherent in relationships but this is about the undeserved respect that homosexuals are demanding. Although they have rights as humans to many opportunities in this world this is not one of them. They will never get my respect.
Whoa whoa whoa…you mean homosexual means dudes with dudes and chicks with chicks?
BUH BUH BUH WHAAAAAA
I’ve got the “mutual masturbation techniques” down pat, but I had no idea I could reproduce asexually. Should I be on some sort of birth control? Because a baby was NOT part of my plans this year…
28, good one :o)
Homosexual “marriage” leads to the homosexual agenda. People who do their research know this. Will you do YOUR research?
whatsworse - What on Earth are you talking about?
J.Adderson, this is indeed a Civil Rights issue.
jadderson constantly posts that exact parcel of stupidity. Pay it no mind and it may go away. And yes whatsworse, my partner and I will be attending a local “homosexual agenda” meeting later today to plot the demise of the nuclear family. We will be hearing from our recruiting experts and awarding blenders to new members.
Jeffrey – Blenders? Riiiight. When I was recruited back in the day I was told there was a toaster oven waiting if I joined up. Well, I went for it – based on the vision of that new, shiny piece chrome glowing softly in my kitchen while making breakfast for my beau de nuit. I’ve been in the corps for 36 years now and the only toaster ovens I ever saw were on display in Macy’s Basement.
Nice try, dude. I’m not falling for that free/give-away line again!
Signed,
Happily “married” to the same beau for 31 years.