:thumbs up: New York

[MrFun]

I'll provide evidence once you provide a coherent definition for what you mean by "happiness".

This is a type of question that would involved philosophy. And given your anti-intellectualism track, I'm surprised you presented such a question.

[Asher]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/how-new-yorks-governor-persuaded-lawmakers-to-take-a-historic-leap/article2076506/

How New York's governor persuaded lawmakers to take a historic leap

In the 35th-floor conference room of a Manhattan high-rise, two of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s most trusted advisers held a secret meeting a few weeks ago with a group of super-rich Republican donors.

Over tuna and turkey sandwiches, the advisers explained that New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage and would deliver every possible Senate vote from his own party.

Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.

But the donors in the room – the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb – had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totalled more than $1-million.

The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed. The gay pride parade in New York city on Sunday became a huge celebration of the victorious vote Friday, and a thank you to Mr. Cuomo.

But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.

And it was about a Democratic governor, himself a Catholic, who used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap.

Over the last several weeks, dozens of lawmakers, strategists and advocates described the closed-door meetings and tactical decisions that led to approval of same-sex marriage in New York, about two years after it was rejected by the Legislature. This account is based on those interviews, most of which were granted on the condition of anonymity to describe conversations that were intended to be confidential.

Mr. Cuomo was diplomatic but candid with gay-rights advocates in early March when he summoned them to the Capitol’s Red Room, a ceremonial chamber with stained-glass windows and wood-panelled walls.

The advocates had contributed to the defeat of same-sex marriage in 2009, he told them, with their rampant infighting and disorganization.

This time around, the lobbying had to be done the Cuomo way: with meticulous, top-down co-ordination. “I will be personally involved,” he said.

The gay-rights advocates agreed, or at least acquiesced.

The Republican caucus – a group of 32 senators who had seized control of the Senate in the elections last year but held just a single-seat majority – was far from unified. And, crucially for same-sex marriage advocates, the Republicans’ relatively untested leader showed no interest in forcing them to reach a consensus.

Mr. Cuomo was determined to exploit the leadership vacuum by peeling off a few senators from moderate districts.

A major target was James Alesi, a Rochester Republican who seemed tormented by his 2009 vote. Cameras in the Senate chamber captured him holding his head in his hands as the word “no” left his mouth.

On June 13, aides to the governor left urgent messages with same-sex marriage advocates, who had just left a meeting in Mr. Cuomo’s office, to return there immediately, offering no explanation.

As the group assembled around a conference table, the governor opened the door to his private office and peeked in. “I want to introduce the first Republican to support marriage equality,” he announced.

Mr. Alesi walked into the room, which erupted into applause. In emotional remarks, he apologized to them for what he called his “political vote” against same-sex marriage in 2009.

The next day, Bill Smith, a lobbyist for Gill Action, a gay-rights group, turned to the governor and asked, “How many rabbits are you going to pull out of the hat?” he asked.

The governor’s real worry was the simmering tension in the Senate Republican delegation.

Some questioned whether homosexuality was genetic or chosen. Others suggested that the same-sex marriage legislation be scrapped in favour of a statewide referendum.

Mr. Cuomo invited the Republicans to visit him at the governor’s residence, a 40-room Victorian mansion overlooking the Hudson River, just a few blocks from the Capitol.

There, in a speech the public would never hear, he offered his most direct and impassioned case for allowing gays to wed. Gay couples, he said, wanted recognition from the state that they were no different than the lawmakers in the room. “Their love is worth the same as your love,” Mr. Cuomo said, according to someone who heard him. “Their partnership is worth the same as your partnership. And they are equal in your eyes to you. That is the driving issue.”

In the late hours of Friday night, 33 members of the State Senate agreed with him.

[MrFun]

interesting article, Asher

[Asher]

I can only hope that is the future of the Republican party. But, looking at the nominees for 2012, obviously that will not be true.

It's time for the Republicans to get back to being about smaller government, not Christian morals.

[giblets]

Yeah, that'll never happen.

[Tupac Shakur]

interesting article, Asher

I already posted the same article. Where's my love?

[MrFun]

Ooops - I never opened your link in that post of yours.

BUT - back to you asking a philosophical question when you have no appreciation for philosophy.

[Asher]

I already posted the same article. Where's my love?

People don't click links.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It's amazing to me that people on both the left and the right are so willing to get spun up about relatively unimportant culture war issues while paying comparatively little attention to important economic issues.

They are much easier to deal with and in this case much less controversial. A legislative "made a poopie" congratulations are in order.

[Lorizael]

The thing is, these culture war issues that affect a relatively small number of people do need to be dealt with at some point. If legislatures continually postpone such issues until the economy gets better, or this war ends, or what have you, it ends up never getting done. Better to do it now and get it out of the way so that we don't have to remember to be decent human beings down the road.

[MikeH]

Yep.

[MrFun]

People don't click links.

Hence, my love for you, instead of Drake.

[Ben Kenobi]

Speaking of ridiculous generalizations...

If they people were behind this, they would have taken a vote.

[giblets]

If they people were behind this, they would have taken a vote.

That doesn't even address the comment you were quoting. Also, if this argument was sound here it would be applicable to every piece of legislation. Why not just do away with representation and have every piece of legislation done by referendum? Also, statewide opinion polls show that legalizing gay marriage is supported by a majority of new yorkers, so the evidence shows that the people are in fact behind this. But why would you bother to check to see if your argument has any basis in reality?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Now if you ever do get married in NY you can get divorced at a 50% rate. Congrats.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/d...ySYn4pLWPUFwBJ

That didn't take long.