Stachowski & Gay Marriage in the NY Senate

15 May

Buffalo Geek runs down the way Democratic State Senators will likely vote for the pending marriage equality bill.

Bill Stachowski says,

“He’s not going to vote for it,” Stachowski spokesman Bob Koshinski said. “He has no problem with same-sex civil unions, but does not want to get into the marriage-classification area.”

Kudos to Antoine Thompson for signing on as a co-sponsor of the bill. The New York Post identifies four likely Democratic “no” votes:

Darrel Aubertine (Watertown), Ruben Diaz Sr. (Bronx), William Stachowski (Buffalo) and David Valesky (Syracuse)

Thanks, Stack.

The law makes amendments to existing Domestic Relations Law as follows:

So, it permits civil marriage between gay people. It expressly prohibits anyone from forcing any clergy from performing a gay marriage if they don’t wish to do so. It doesn’t get more clear-cut and fair than that.

Ask Stack what his problem is with this bill.

34 Responses to “Stachowski & Gay Marriage in the NY Senate”

  1. You go Patterson... May 15, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    Number one: If you don’t want a gay marriage – don’t have one. No one is forcing you.

    Number two: The term marriage should be thrown out of any state/national law. Regardless of sex, the term should be civil union.

    Number three: See number one and two.

  2. Terry May 15, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    This crap frankly puzzles the living **** out of me. Having been married myself, I can’t understand why gays are foaming at the mouth to jump into it…….

  3. Haterade May 15, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    Kudos to Antoine Thompson for signing on as a sponsor ? I wonder if he read it ? That guy is a joke.

    As hard as it is for you enlightened types to comprehend … some people aren’t in agreement with this bill. It took more guts by “Stack” to oppose it than it did for Thompson to “sign on”.

    Kudos to Stack.

  4. The Humanist May 15, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    “some people aren’t in agreement with this bill”

    Yeah….they’re called bigots who are against civil rights for all New Yorkers.

  5. Chris from OP May 15, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    It’s time for a real Democrat to primary that empy yet ill-fitting suit before a Republican finally wins that seat.

  6. Chris from OP May 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Clarification: It’s time someone primaries Stachowski, no Republican will even win Thompson’s district no matter how worthless he is.

  7. mike hudson May 15, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    Fuck him. and Francine DelMonte, who voted against in the Assembly.

  8. Joe Smith May 15, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    It’s not a big secret in political circles that Jim Rogowski, the Cheektowaga Councilman, is pretty serious about primarying Stack. I think Stack will retire at the end of this term and set off a huge primary for that seat though.

  9. Foxylady May 15, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    Thompson……..dumb as a box of rocks. Kudos to Stack even if I don’t like him either.

  10. STEEL May 15, 2009 at 8:48 pm #


    What’s not to agree with? I don’t agree with eating broccoli but I don’t go around trying to make it illegal.

  11. Mike Walsh May 15, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    “He has no problem with same-sex civil unions, but does not want to get into the marriage-classification area.”

    As far as the state is concerned, issuing of a marriage license and the ensuing legalities such as asset distributions, tax issues, next-of-kin, etc. IS a civil union. That’s what the whole premise of state involvement in marriage is about. Why would we need a special “same-sex civil union” when a marriage license already accomplishes the same thing?

    As far as the marriage-classification area is concerned, this has nothing to do with law. It has everything to do with religion and culture. You notice the proposed law was careful to draw a distinction between a civil marriage and a religious marriage. If Stachowski is worried about his constituents he could easily point that out.

  12. Haterade May 15, 2009 at 10:05 pm #


    He isn’t “trying to make it illegal” … it isn’t currently legal is it ?

    @ Humanist

    Is it possible for someone to have an opposing viewpoint without you resorting to name calling ? If the answer is no … I’d be more than happy to throw some insults your way.

    Some people don’t agree with it on religious grounds. Does that necessarilly = a “bigot” ?

  13. Haterade May 15, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    @ Humanist

    I also am not so sure that marriage is a “civil right”.

  14. LT May 15, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    After 27 years Stachowski finally got something right- – -not enough to stop making me wish that Delano had won that election—call me naive but I thought marriage represented a special relationship between a man and a woman, even if historically it wasn’t always based on love. You can call a pig a shoelace but it’s still a pig.

    As for Thompson jumping on the bandwagon, all I can say is that I can’t disagree with Carl Paladino’s references to plant life.

  15. Mike Walsh May 16, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    This all brings up an important question. Why does the state have to be involved in any personal choices that a supposedly free citizen makes?

  16. Pete at BS May 16, 2009 at 5:38 am #

    Why does the state have to be involved in any personal choices that a supposedly free citizen makes?

    Because then they can charge a fee/tax……….duh.

  17. mike hudson May 16, 2009 at 8:34 am #

    lest we forget, too many “democrats” like francine delmonte in the state assembly also opposed the measure.

  18. hank May 16, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    Ade—well put.
    Humanist—remember after you do it not to come home with fresh dookie on your johnson—could be a problem for you.

    If homosexual activists would stop the “I’m GAY—YOU MUST ACCEPT ME AND I WILL STAY IN YOUR FACE UNTIL YOU DO” meme, the cause for equal rights for homosexuals wouldn’t need to be litigated. Nobody would give a damn.

    All the Gay Pride parades and suchlike only rile up the straight populace, and many homosexuals feel it is a dis-service to them and the causes that they support.

    I’m 100% for homosexual couples to have all the civil and legal rights of any other citizen. Just don’t call it marriage. Doing that denigrates the vows I exchanged with my wife entering into a holy sacrament in the eyes of God. And that’s my only objection.

    But the activists MUST HAVE THEIR WAY, mustn’t they?

  19. Chris from OP May 16, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Poor Hank getting all riled up watching gay pride parades…

    Nowhere does the bill say that homosexual marriage is a holy sacrament. That is or churches to decide. Just like churches have had the right to deny marriage to divorcess despite the fact that those unions would be legal in the eyes of the law.

  20. Eisenbart May 16, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    Hank, so if a gay couple goes to a church that does allow gay marriage and gets hitched in the eyes of God that is okay as long as you don’t know about it and they aren’t granted any civil rights because of it?

    The state shouldn’t marry anyone, at all. That’s a churches job. The state should focus on equal rights. Period.

    PS Hank, no one gives a shit about you and your wife and your marriage OR how you feel about it.

  21. Mike Walsh May 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    @Pete at BS:

    “Why does the state have to be involved in any personal choices that a supposedly free citizen makes?

    Because then they can charge a fee/tax……….duh.”

    Not only that. Busybodies and people who think they’re smarter than everybody else attempt social engineering.

  22. Mike Walsh May 16, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    “PS Hank, no one gives a shit about you and your wife and your marriage OR how you feel about it.”

    “Obama on Gay Marriage: ‘I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.’ “

  23. Peter Farrell May 16, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    Aren’t New York gays already allowed to have their marriages recognized by the State of New York if they bring in a license from another state(or country) that performs them?

    If so, State Senators can vote however they wish. Though it appears to be not much other than symbolism if a local gay couple can get a license in Ft. Erie….Boston….Hartford….and have it treated as a legal document once it’s shown to a clerk here in Buffalo.

    They can either pass it now….or pass the bill at some point in the future. Going to happen either way.

  24. Jon Splett May 16, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    Hank- If marriage is really the religious institution you say it is, all we should completely eliminate the state’s role in any of them,

    This country isn’t a theocracy no matter how much you and your Jesus freak friends want it to be.

  25. Haterade May 16, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Why does it have to be labled a “marriage” instead of “civil union” if the end result is the same – the same legal rights as heterosexual couples ? Isn’t that what the uproar is about, the same legal protections ?

    I’m still pretty sure that marriage doesn’t fall under “civil rights”.

  26. The Humanist May 16, 2009 at 6:04 pm #

    Separate, but equal, eh? Where have I heard that before..

    the state should have one category for all unions between consenting adults….call it “civil unions,” call it “marriage,” call it “Shirley”…..all unions should carry the same rights and privileges. Let the churches marry whomever they wish….or not.

  27. Haterade May 16, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    So if hetero couples were referred to as ‘civily united’ by the government everything would be okay ? Is the whole problem just the label that is put on it ? The stinking WORD can’t be different even if all the rights , benefits and penalties are the same ? That just strikes me as a lot of problems over nothing. If gay people get the same rights, why does it matter what it’s called ?

  28. Haterade May 16, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    So then it’s really NOT about getting the same rights , benefits etc. as hetero couples ?

  29. pegger May 16, 2009 at 11:24 pm #

    Why don’t we let them have the opportunity to be as miserabe as everyone else?

  30. Mike Walsh May 16, 2009 at 11:37 pm #

    How come you all ignored Obama’s statement on the matter?

  31. hank May 17, 2009 at 7:42 am #

    That’s easy Mike—-They don’t want to admit that their immactulated messiah doesn’t agree with them.

    Never said I agreed with churches marrying homosexual couples. I said they deserve the same legal standing.

    I also think that if a heterosexual couple desire to wed, that should be between them, their church and their God. Any Church that agrees to “:Marry” homosexuals needs to consult the Bible., and figure out where the hell they lost their way.

    “Jesus Freak?” That’s hilarious. First time to get called everything I guess.

    Though I belive in God, and the sacremental bonds of Marriage, I do not regularly attend any church,. Jesus preached the message of salvation to thousands, and never took a dime from anyone. Every time you walk into a church, they’re looking for your money as much as your patronage. Or as is written in the Book of Bocephus, Preacher man says”Send your money to the Lord–but he gives you HIS address”.

    Why does it matter if they call it Marriage? If you have to ask you’re to ignorant to comprehend.

  32. The Humanist May 17, 2009 at 8:39 am #

    @ Hank – “Though I belive in God, and the sacremental bonds of Marriage, I do not regularly attend any church”

    Hank, everytime you skip church, an angel is forced to work the glory hole.

  33. Haterade May 17, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    So it appears to me from the posts in this thread that even though “equality” in terms of the legal benefits can be achieved with a civil union, without using the term “marriage” it is not true equality ? That just seems stupid to me.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: