In case you need a refresher: O’Donnell was the candidate for Congress that, after an embarrassing clip aired from an old [...]]]> I’m largely indifferent towards CNN personality Piers Morgan and his “news” program. But he had a great moment this week in an interview with Christine O’Donnell.

In case you need a refresher: O’Donnell was the candidate for Congress that, after an embarrassing clip aired from an old episode of “Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher” where she told a story about going on a date with a witch and dabbling in “witchcraft,” released the classic “I’m not a witch” political ad that revealed her as a complete moron: she didn’t even get that people weren’t criticizing her for once being a witch, they were laughing at her for being such an obvious liar making up a ridiculous story to gain points with a live crowd.

Well, she’s got a book out now where she talks about her life as a…uh, failure? I’m not quite sure. She says it’s quite inspirational. Morgan, naturally, turned to one of the topics she covered in her book: gay marriage. He asks her for her opinion on the matter and…well, watch for yourself.

The two highlights for me:

Morgan: “Do you answer that question in the book?
O’Donnell: “I talk about my religious beliefs, yeah, of course. I absolutely do.”
Morgan: “Do you talk about gay marriage in the book?”
O’Donnell: “…what relevance is that right now?”

…

Morgan: (incredulously) “Why are you being so weird about this?”

Oooo! I can answer that last one! Piers, me! Me! PIERS! Over here!

Christine O’Donnell is being weird about this because she is weird. She’s a bit vapid and prone to tall tales about her activities and non-accomplishments, one of which includes her story about how she was supposed to be one of the original hosts of “The View.” Not true. But that’s the sort of weirdness we can laugh off. Not so laughable is her stance on gay marriage and homosexuality in general, which is in line with one of the last culturally acceptable forms of bigotry in our nation. Her vehemently anti-gay stance, rooted in writings thousands of years old that are not very far removed at all from text once used to defend slavery and other abhorrent practices, would be laughable if there weren’t so many people nodding their heads in approval when she spews it.

Still, we can be dismissive in this case, because her relevance to the political mainstream right now is nigh non-existent. There are worse, though, that are still out there: people that hold beliefs even more strongly rooted in paranoia, hatred, and ignorance that are not only relevant but considered front-runners for the GOP nomination.

The O’Donnell Walk-Out makes me laugh, think, and in a small way, hope. It’s my hope that O’Donnell ran away from her beliefs because she is ashamed of them. And rightfully so. Which means that this outrageously outmoded approach to homosexuals and active pursuit to derive them of basic human rights – including the right to exist as who they are – is something that will very soon be chased off into the shadows.

Not yet, though. Not while Michelle Bachmann is running for President while her husband actively seeks to deprive homosexuals of their right to exist by using medicinal malpractice to “reform” those which do not fall in line with his insecure view of the world.

I hit the brakes when I read that last part. For several weeks, independent polling organizations from throughout the State showed that not only did a majority [...]]]> Last night someone linked me to a story about  same-sex marriage and in particular a recent poll showing that a slim majority of New Yorkers now opposed it.

I hit the brakes when I read that last part. For several weeks, independent polling organizations from throughout the State showed that not only did a majority of New Yorkers support same-sex marriage or marriage equality (whatever term floats your boat), but the support had been steadily trending upward for some time now. What changed in a week?

I looked into it and found out: nothing. Because the poll was commissioned by anti-same-sex marriage advocates the National Organization for Marriage, and the poll it self was conducted using some very questionable methods that I was taught to steer clear from when I briefly worked with a polling organization. Most damning of all, the organization only polled 302 people and tried to portray it as a state-wide consensus.

302. Out of all of New York State.

I wasn’t surprised, since there have always been polling organizations that play fast and loose with their methods to achieve desired results. I was surprised, though, that so many had fallen for it.

Polling, unfortunately, gets a bad rap. I have a unique perspective in that I spent one summer interning for the Director of Polling at the  Siena Research Institute many years ago. I learned a lot from the Director, a guy named Joe Caruso who had formerly worked on Hillary Clinton’s successful Senatorial campaign. It also opened my eyes to how shockingly accurate polling could be, particularly when it came to elections. They didn’t just accurately predict  winners, but also the margin. In one gubernatorial poll, when the “undecideds” were split in half and distributed evenly to the two candidates, it called the result to the exact percentage point.

One of the first things I learned on the job was that size matters…sample size, that is. In order to get an accurate number, pollsters need to ensure that the number falls within an acceptable threshold. Additionally, in order to maintain integrity and ensure fairness, any polling organization with any sense of credibility will go above and beyond to ensure the most accurate results possible.  There were also other variables that needed to be accounted for: demographics, age, and geographic area needed to be accurately represented. So, for instance, if we had eight hundred responses and six hundred of them were from people under the age of 25 and all from the metro New York City region, you kept going until a balance was achieved. It was a meticulous system and there were complicated formulas which escape me now (and baffled me at the time – I wrote the press releases and helped provide analysis of the results since math was never my strong suit).

The end result was that, at minimum, we would poll no less than 800 people if our pool was likely registered voters and 1,000 if it was a poll of the general population. So for a professional polling organization to only poll 302 likely voters on a social issue is more than just skewed, it borders on fraudulent.

There’s also a matter of the wording. It didn’t ask if people supported or opposed same-sex marriage. Rather, it asked “Do you agree or disagree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?” Many of you are probably asking “well, what’s the difference? Isn’t that just arguing semantics?”

Yes and no. If this were a conversation between you and I, in private, then it wouldn’t matter. That’s because for the most part, if we were having a private discussion we’d have some sort of candor and be comfortable enough with our views to honestly express them. However, in a line of questioning from a stranger, anything that might load it is going to skew the results.

Think of it this way: essentially, the real responses aren’t to the full questions, they’re to everything after “do you support or oppose” or “Do you agree or disagree”. If I ask “do you support or oppose same-sex marriage” you’re more likely to give me an honest answer, because the important phrase is “same-sex marriage.‘”  That’s what you hear and react to. If I ask “Do you agree or disagree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman,” what they’re reacting to is the statement “marriage should only be between a man and a woman.” That’s heard as a statement or proclamation. The way we’re wired, we’re more likely to agree with the assertion of a stranger over the phone in order to avoid any potential awkwardness or discomfort. But if that same stranger is simply saying “same-sex marriage,” the tone of the question is neutral and the person will be comfortable giving their opinion no matter where they fall on the issue, because it is asked without any loaded terms or prequisites.

What also stuck out to me was the breakdown of the age of the respondents of this poll:

7% 18-39 years old
15% 40-49 years old
31% 50 ² 59 years old
38% 60+ years old
9% NO RESPONSE

Only 7% of the population under the age of 40. New York, apparently, is Bizarro Logan’s Run.

In all seriousness, it goes back to the two fundamental flaws of this poll: only asking 302 individuals and only sampling from likely voters.  When conducting a poll to project results of an election or referendum, it makes logical sense to only poll likely registered voters, but when asking opinions on controversial legislation – especially social issues – a poll should sample the entire population. Politicians will cater to the segment of the population most likely to vote, which is usually older. But if they have any real expertise in their field, they’ll tell you the danger of only going to that pool on an issue like same-sex marriage. Social issues can, and have in the past, create and mobilize new voters, even if it’s just for a single election cycle.

So when you read a news article that cites a poll result, the first thing to look at is who did the poll. The first red flag will be that the actual organization conducting the poll isn’t mentioned in the lead (and especially if it isn’t at all). Then you need to look at what’s being asked, and who. Because when it comes to polling, the important thing isn’t the numbers. It’s what’s behind it.

In 1974, I married a man of a different race. [...]]]> The mother of local writer and artist Alan Ilagan, a homosexual in a committed relationship with another man he considers for all intents and purposes (except legal in NY) his husband, sent a letter to the Times Union that was published in yesterday’s paper:

In 1974, I married a man of a different race. At that in time, there were places right here in the United States where my marriage would have been viewed as a crime. The Alabama state Senate did not repeal the ban on interracial marriage until 1999. Yes, 1999.

The full letter is here. You should read it before you cast your vote.

You’re thinking of hockey.

Last night, after the Boston Bruins won game seven of the NHL [...]]]>

Fans in Vancouver riot after the Bruins defeat their Canucks 4-0 to win the Stanley Cup on Wednesday evening. (Photo: Associated Press)

The most important lesson to take from the events of the last twenty-four hours is that passage of legislation legalizing same-sex marriage will not lead to moral decay and the destabilization of all we hold dear in our society.

You’re thinking of hockey.

Last night, after the Boston Bruins won game seven of the NHL Stanley Cup Series to take home their first championship in nearly forty years, the fans of Vancouver reacted…poorly. Rioters, some of whom took the street after the game and many others who were already there to attend the watch party outside Rogers Arena, flipped over cars and set multiple fires while the Vancouver police tried desperately to contain the carnage.

My friend Joe was covering the events in Vancouver for NBC’s Pro Hockey Talk and thankfully made it out alive. He told me that CTV (the largest privately owned broadcast network in Canada) was insinuating the riots were encouraged by the Black Bloc, the same anarchist group that created problems for police and security forces during the Olympic Games, though as of this writing it still appears that the perpetrators were primarily angry hockey fans.

Regardless, it got me to thinking about gay marriage. No, really, it did.

Admittedly, a parallel could not be drawn without the timing of the two events, but bear with me.

Assemblyman Dov Hikind holds up a photo of Lady Gaga with a telephone on her head to support an argument against gay marriage. Seriously. (photo: Lori Van Buren, Times Union)

Detractors of same-sex marriage often cite a degradation of society if same-sex marriage is legalized. It saddens me that people can’t get over environmentally taught prejudices to see past such a ludicrous notion, especially when society needs nothing less than a game played by grown men on ice skates – one whose result will be rendered moot in the Fall when a new season begins and all records, numbers, and accomplishments are reset to zero – to completely fall apart.

I kid, of course, but only to show a point: of all the things that could go wrong in this world and all the things we should be afraid of, the last of them should be love, no matter what form it takes.

The existence of hockey itself didn’t create the violence that occurred  in Vancouver, and no politician would deign to blame the game itself and call for its banishment. Partially because hockey is a popular and accepted sport, but also because it’s a ridiculous suggestion. Yet some people like State Senator Ruben Diaz (who the last several days has been stomping his feet like a child around Albany and generally acting like a complete imbecile) put forth an even flimsier argument that suggests that somehow the marriage of the most devoted couples I know – Alan and Andy, Jenn and Nikki, and others – will make otherwise straight kids turn gay and create a moral decay that will send us into a tailspin.

It’s ludicrous, embarrassing, and would be amusing if loving couples weren’t being denied their civil rights.

“I’m not out to alienate anybody. [...]]]> What made me proud to be a constituent of State Senator Roy McDonald wasn’t his public proclamation that he would be the 31st confirmed vote for gay marriage on the floor of the Senate. Rather, it was the fallout and what he told Times Union reporter Jimmy Vielkind:

“I’m not out to alienate anybody. This is driven by compassion,” the Saratoga Republican said. “I’m not out to hurt some gay guy, gay woman. Live your lifestyle. That’s not my lifestyle, but God bless ‘em — it’s America. Be nice to people, and let’s all just live our lives.”

….

“I’m not one of these guys that lives and dies, at this age of my life, for politics,” he said. “I’ve accomplished more than the average guy around here. I’m going to go and see my family when I leave here. I’m going to go, turn around, and if I get out of politics I’ll be a professional like I’ve been in the past. I’ll make money. My grandchildren will have money to help them through the problems they have. I’ll go play golf, see my wife and spend time with my three kids and grandkids.”

Even better, though, is what he told New York Times Albany bureau chief Danny Hakim:

“F*** it, I don’t care what you think, I’m trying to do the right thing.”

Right. On.

Admittedly, my first reaction to the news that McDonald had changed his vote was a bit cynical. I was reminded of the words of Congressman Steven Derounian, who dissented from his fellow committee members on the Subcommittee for Legislative Oversight that was investigating the quiz show scandals of the 1950s, telling the lauded academic Charles Van Doren that he didn’t think “an adult of [his] intelligence ought to be commended for telling the truth.”

Yet here was McDonald going even further: not only was he declaring his vote, but disavowing his previous votes and damning the consequences.

It matters to me that those remaining Senators who are “undecided” join suit, but it matters more that they do so because like McDonald they could not reconcile any other choice with their conscience.

The bill is expected to come up for vote on Friday. My hope is that history will finally be made and, at long last, New York can lead the way in steering us away from intolerance and injustice. If it doesn’t, though, I’ll still be proud of Roy McDonald, and he’s still proven himself to be the kind of person who not only deserves but demands my vote and recognition.

In the interest of keeping things “fair and balanced,” there is evidence that the institution of marriage is, as opponents insist, dissolving in the face of this issue:

My God. What have we done?

Naturally the parade drew its protestors. They came last year and they will be there next year, [...]]]>

Protestors chant at homosexuals during Capital Pride 2011. (Photo: Philip Kamrass, Albany Times Union)

Yesterday was Capital Pride 2011, Albany’s annual showcase for its gay community to show its unity and strength in the face of what is, despite what many insist to the contrary, the last acceptable form of discrimination.

Naturally the parade drew its protestors. They came last year and they will be there next year, espousing their rhetoric and quoting passages that they believe justifies their insecurities and hate. They’re small in number and marchers are encouraged to ignore their voices and instead embrace the many, many more who are there to cheer them on and encourage them to be who they are: gay, bisexual, transgender, or as I was in last year’s march, a heterosexual ally.

Yet our efforts to dismiss them underscore a very salient point that their presence makes: in the United States, and even in liberal New York, it’s okay to hate gays.

Many will point to increased scrutiny and say otherwise. The last few years have seen an uptick in sensitivity in sports, entertainment, and media towards the homosexual community, with major stars like the NBA’s Kobe Bryant having to apologize for shouting a homosexual slur during a game. Still, it’s not enough evidence to state conclusively that we’re anywhere near where we need to be when it comes to embracing and accepting homosexuals. For every person that accepted Kobe Bryant’s apology, there were many more crying foul and accusing people of being overly sensitive. Many of these detractors cite common use of the word as their defense and state that the meaning isn’t to disparage homosexuals per se, as if that makes calling someone “f*****” any more acceptable than using the word “n*****” as a perjorative.

Words, however, don’t speak nearly as much to our shortcomings as actions, and the protestors at Capital Pride 2011 displayed that. Call them a small handful of kooks if you must, but their presence and the degree to which they are tolerated speaks volumes. Imagine, if you will, a white supremacist group demonstrating at a visible portion of the Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City yesterday.

Now tell me they don’t matter.

As New York finds itself in the waning days of the legislative session, it has a chance to make history but, more importantly, can help steer us away from discrimination that’s been perpetuated by thousands of years of abuse, torture, and oppression of homosexuals. They can pass, if they have the courage to stand up to bigots like Ruben Diaz who dresses his hatred in scripture and calls it concern, a bill that will legalize gay marriage.

Sadly, part of me thinks that it won’t happen. I have met too many Assembly and Senate members who are afraid to upset one of their own on minor issues to say with certainty that this will happen. There aren’t enough selfless individuals, and not enough courage, for them to do the right thing. On the other hand, I do believe that it’s possible, but only withincreased external pressure.

Which is why in these last few days we need to contact our represenetatives in the Assembly and the Senate – particularly those that are “undecided” – and urge them to get this on the floor and pass it. Tell them that when it comes to civil rights, “not yet” is not only inexcusable, but indistinguishable from “never will.”

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. [...]]]> In a recent post (Why is Senator Roy McDonald still “undecided” about gay marriage? Friday 6/3/11) , a commenter made the assertion that marriage is a privilege, not a right:

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.

Firstly, it’s a false comparison. The confusion comes from the term “license” which is used in reference to the legal documentation required for both. There is a difference, though, in that while you do need a license to get married restrictions  aren’t placed on them like they are a drivers license. Ergo, there aren’t laws prohibiting a person from getting married or revoking a marriage because s/he is convicted of a felony.

More than a conceptual problem, there’s also legal precedent that explicitly states that marriage is a right. In 1967, the Supreme Court established marriage as a civil right in their ruling of Loving v Virginia, which struck down state laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages.

It’s one thing to say you disagree with gay marriage because you think it should be between a man and a woman. I and now the majority of the population believe otherwise; that the genders of the two parties involved are moot so long as the love and desire for companionship is present. But to deny it on the basis that it’s not a right of the general population but rather a privilege that the government can claim ownership to and arbitrarily revoke is wrong, both in the moral and literal sense.