So the story behind this is that an Astoria guy and his mother went to State Senator George Onorato's office and tried to make an appointment with him to discuss gay marriage (they being for it). When they got there, they were told that he would not meet with them at his District Office about the issue but perhaps would in Albany.
No matter how you feel about this particular issue, you have to agree that the Senator's office staff needs some training in public relations.
47 comments:
Anonymous
said...
What is the big deal here? Unless you are Dutch Kills Civic (prodevelopment) or an Italian or Greek organization, this man has no time for you.
Never has.
But its worse than that.
Remember the problems that George "the Bricklayer" caused the people in Sunnyside Gardens when they tried to landmark?
Passed without comment from his constituents, the press, and the preservation community.
But now that the machine has decided to back gays, he is suddenly an issue.
The machine knows they are articulate and have lots of money and can make lots of trouble.
In my district, we have the opposite problem. Nettie Mayersohn supports gay marriage. I wrote her a letter expressing my opposition a few months ago, and her office has yet to respond.
How does she represent the largest Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Queens and still support gay marriage? Nettie needs to be held acountable.
I've never asked my elected officials for "discretionary spending" to support my projects and have been muted in my disappointment when some decline to support my friends' projects (like the Queens borough president being alone in not supporting Transportation Alternatives public tours). I also see enough gray areas in issues of development and other matters to work with them despite particular disagreements.
But I do expect them to love freedom and support the rights of my fellow constituents. This pains me.
Onorato has been a big zero in this community for years. Yet no one cares. Now the clubhouse has decided to back gays, its an issue?
Actually, the majority of the people in Astoria are against gays. But, since our community’s future is with the Tower People and what they want (bikes anyone?) that is not important, right?
I don’t like it. Call it a religious thing (but, being Christian that makes it perfectly ok to attack those values knowing full well that you would never attack a Hindu or Moslem article of faith).
Get over it. Many people find that behavior offensive. They don’t want their kids exposed to it either.
This is like another one of those things from Hollywood has forced down our throats as ‘normal’ and the clubhouse has picked up on –– like out-of-wedlock births (think of all those programs out there the clubhouse can sponsor that can substitute for the traditional family!) –– the clubhouse wants to neutralize the wealthy articulate gays and bring them into the tent.
There is absolutely on reason for the rest of us to go along.
Believe me, you are the one who will have to get over it, because the majority of people in NY do not believe in discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. You may still live in the stone age, but that is no reason to impose your discriminatory views to everyone else.
A majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage and Gov. Paterson's attempt to legalize it, a new poll shows.
A Siena College poll released Monday found that by 53% to 39% margin, those surveyed say the state Senate should pass legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, virtually ensuring it would become law.
Read more: "Has gay marriage reached a tipping point in New York? Poll shows majority approve of gov's bill" - http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/04/20/2009-04-20_has_gay_marriage_reached_a_tipping_point_in_new_york_poll_shows_majority_approve.html#ixzz0H8pMA2Qj&A
Actually, I'm not making things up. It was a topic on NY1's Road to City Hall this week and they made mention that the pendulum had swung in the other direction with a poll that came out in recent days and Hispanic opponents were stating it was because of their anti-marriage rallies.
"Over the past month, support for gay marriage dropped seven percentage points while opposition rose by the same amount, according to Siena poll spokesman Steve Greenberg."
"Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."
"I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.
Well, if the gays beat up on all the minorities that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage, then they would lose popularity among the white liberals that support them. It's much easier to beat up on the "Archie Bunkers" that go to mass instead.
Scary attitude that prevails on this site often. The macho,insular view of ignoring people having the rights to legally share things such as hospital visits, and other personal legal matters is down right sad.
The many states have a better understanding of this issue, not to mention even Iowa and other parts of the midwest. I dont live in the garbage LIC towers (bike tower people? wrong),and Im straight,but feel for people who have to put up with this discrimination. I bet if NYC allowed civil unions there would be a rise in attacks on gay men in Queens and Brooklyn. Pathetic!
Not sure I understand where you are coming from. You think that by increasing you rights by giving gays civil unions, which would allow things such as "hospital visits," as you mentioned, it would open you them up to violence when they walk through the streets of Queens? Well then what do you think marriage would do?
The best you could do was to reference a poll that NYers are evenly split on this issue.
Regardless, in this country we should not allow a majority group to deny fundamental equality and rights to a minority group. I agree that the attitude on this site is scary, but I'm not surprised at the pro-discrimination stances of the posters here.
People opposed to gay marriage do so because we believe that society (and in particular its children) is best served by focusing on the traditional nuclear family with a mother and a father. Does this model fall short when a couple divorces or there is abuse of children within a traditional marriage? Of course it does. However, just because people sometimes fail does not mean we change the ideal we should aim for.
You can argue the points of gay marraige until you turn blue in the face.
1. Everyone has ignored this bozo for decades.
2. The machine is aces when it finds a potential group that can give it a hard time. Ergo, throwing its support behind gays.
3. This is an issue of the clubhouse mandating everyone close ranks behind its directive.
4. Fellows like Onorato who have been out of touch for years, under the benign gaze of the clubhouse, is now about to be replaced to fit with the new party policy.
Like the co-opted greens, the gays, instead of being a force for community revitalization and empowerment, are now MERELY TAKING THEIR PLACE AT THE PARTY TROUGH.
People oppose gay marriage because they are bigots or ignorant and afraid of anything different from them. By your logic, anyone not able to have children should be disallowed from ever getting married. Stop trying to justify discrimination.
Marriage is whatever society defines it as. It wasn't too long ago that most of this country did not allow inter-racial marriages. The laws defining marriage did not allow it to include people of different races. That changed because it was the right thing to do in a country based on the principles of liberty. Denying equality and freedom in order to discriminate will not last very long in this country.
The problem seems to be that instead of rationally explaining why they should have marriage rites, the gays are attacking those who don't believe in exactly what they do. Time for you to make appointments with Ruben Diaz and Efrain Gonzalez and stop preaching to Archie.
Gays should have to explain why they should have equal rights?
You haven't given any reason why you think a "nuclear" family is better for raising children than a gay couple. And what if the gay couple is not interested in having children, you would be ok then if they were married? And if you would not support laws prohibiting single parenting, why support laws discriminating against gay marriage?
People oppose gay marriage because they are bigots or ignorant and afraid of anything different from them. ------------ No, we oppose it because it is unnatural and disgusting to say nothing about against religion.
People oppose gay marriage because they are bigots or ignorant and afraid of anything different from them. ------------ No, we oppose it because it is unnatural and disgusting to say nothing about against religion.
It is perverse.
-------------
Thanks for proving my point. Those are the same arguments that the racists who opposed interracial marriage used - that it was immoral, against "God's will" and "unnatural." Ignorance and bigotry run amok.
I agree with the poster nidway thru this thread. Gay people flocked to Obama, yet he has stated on MTV and MANY other medi outlets that he opposes gay marriage. On Meet the Press, while running, he clearly stated that "marriage is between a man and a woman." yet all the gay Americans hailed him and voted for him. So why should any other politician get a bum rap when all they are doing is agreeing with what another politician that gay people supported. The hypocrisy is mind numbing!!!
Funy how for 8 years of the Bush Monarchy, Homosexuals were screaming how Republican Rule has kept gay marriage from become a reality. Well people, here we have a Democratic White House, Senate and House, where is your gay marriage?
NYS has an all Democratic hold. The Governor, the Senate and the Assembly. Even the City Council! Where is your Gay Marriage now?
So sick and tired of the whining when Republicans have a hold. Well, now the Democrats are in charge, what are they waiting for???
1. You have no right to criticize anal sex until you've tried it.
2. Given the choice between Obama and McCain, gays were not going to vote for McCain, someone who didn't even know what LGBT stands for.
3. Young people support gay marriage by much higher margins. All you old homophobes will be dead soon enough, so your opinions really don't matter much at the end of the day. You'll share a paragraph with George Wallace in history textbooks.
What does Obama's view have to do with opinions about the views of a State politician, where the vote to legalize gay marriage would actually pass? Nothing, it is a stupid argument.
Beside, we all know Obama isn't against it. He said what he had to in order to avoid a major press issue during the campaign.
The campaign is over, Obama doesn't need to worry about any "press issues", he is still against gay marriage as he told Larry King! Stop making things up!
Actually Onorato supports civil unions and also supports GENDA, which has already passed in the Assembly again this year and has wide support in the Senate.
Maybe his thinking on the marriage bill will evolve...or maybe it will pass with or without his vote.
47 comments:
What is the big deal here? Unless you are Dutch Kills Civic (prodevelopment) or an Italian or Greek organization, this man has no time for you.
Never has.
But its worse than that.
Remember the problems that George "the Bricklayer" caused the people in Sunnyside Gardens when they tried to landmark?
Passed without comment from his constituents, the press, and the preservation community.
But now that the machine has decided to back gays, he is suddenly an issue.
The machine knows they are articulate and have lots of money and can make lots of trouble.
So they back them.
George doesn't.
NOW he becomes an issue?
Onerous Onorato strikes again!
In my district, we have the opposite problem. Nettie Mayersohn supports gay marriage. I wrote her a letter expressing my opposition a few months ago, and her office has yet to respond.
How does she represent the largest Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Queens and still support gay marriage? Nettie needs to be held acountable.
I've never asked my elected officials for "discretionary spending" to support my projects and have been muted in my disappointment when some decline to support my friends' projects (like the Queens borough president being alone in not supporting Transportation Alternatives public tours). I also see enough gray areas in issues of development and other matters to work with them despite particular disagreements.
But I do expect them to love freedom and support the rights of my fellow constituents. This pains me.
Onorato is a disgrace. How in the world has he been elected so many times?
Maybe Mayersohn thinks that the majority of people in her neighborhood do not believe in discrimination.
Onorato has been a big zero in this community for years. Yet no one cares. Now the clubhouse has decided to back gays, its an issue?
Actually, the majority of the people in Astoria are against gays. But, since our community’s future is with the Tower People and what they want (bikes anyone?) that is not important, right?
I don’t like it. Call it a religious thing (but, being Christian that makes it perfectly ok to attack those values knowing full well that you would never attack a Hindu or Moslem article of faith).
Get over it. Many people find that behavior offensive. They don’t want their kids exposed to it either.
This is like another one of those things from Hollywood has forced down our throats as ‘normal’ and the clubhouse has picked up on –– like out-of-wedlock births (think of all those programs out there the clubhouse can sponsor that can substitute for the traditional family!) –– the clubhouse wants to neutralize the wealthy articulate gays and bring them into the tent.
There is absolutely on reason for the rest of us to go along.
Believe me, you are the one who will have to get over it, because the majority of people in NY do not believe in discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. You may still live in the stone age, but that is no reason to impose your discriminatory views to everyone else.
The most recent polls actually show that the majority of people in this state do not believe gays should marry.
Stop making things up. From the Daily News:
A majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage and Gov. Paterson's attempt to legalize it, a new poll shows.
A Siena College poll released Monday found that by 53% to 39% margin, those surveyed say the state Senate should pass legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, virtually ensuring it would become law.
Read more: "Has gay marriage reached a tipping point in New York? Poll shows majority approve of gov's bill" - http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/04/20/2009-04-20_has_gay_marriage_reached_a_tipping_point_in_new_york_poll_shows_majority_approve.html#ixzz0H8pMA2Qj&A
Actually, I'm not making things up. It was a topic on NY1's Road to City Hall this week and they made mention that the pendulum had swung in the other direction with a poll that came out in recent days and Hispanic opponents were stating it was because of their anti-marriage rallies.
There's no way that Siena poll is accurate given that NYC people are almost evenly split on the issue.
Quinnipiac's poll says that NYers overwhelmingly support gay civil unions, not marriage.
"Over the past month, support for gay marriage dropped seven percentage points while opposition rose by the same amount, according to Siena poll spokesman Steve Greenberg."
Siena Poll: A Gay Marriage Split, A Stuck Governor and Diaz Sr. Takes Credit For Shifting Opinions On Gay Marriage
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/05/diaz-sr-takes-credit-for-shift.html#ixzz0H8t8FoOG&B
So I guess your Siena info was outdated...
What I find highly amusing is that almost all gays voted for our President, a man who opposes gay marriage!
If they voted for a man who is opposed to gay marriage, why should they have a problem for any other elected politician who opposes gay marriage?
That's an excellent point!
"Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."
"I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.
Well, if the gays beat up on all the minorities that are adamantly opposed to gay marriage, then they would lose popularity among the white liberals that support them. It's much easier to beat up on the "Archie Bunkers" that go to mass instead.
Put it to a referendum and see what happens.
did you ask for a constituent's representative when you called his office?
if you do you get a woman who does not know what that is and says she is the only one there. ever.
then she proceeds to not help constituents.
paid for by your tax dollars. I am sure there is a hungry recent college grad who would be GREAT in that job.
unless the job description calls for having it off w/ George. Yuck.
Scary attitude that prevails on this site often. The macho,insular view of ignoring people having the rights to legally share things such as hospital visits, and other personal legal matters is down right sad.
The many states have a better understanding of this issue, not to mention even Iowa and other parts of the midwest. I dont live in the garbage LIC towers (bike tower people? wrong),and Im straight,but feel for people who have to put up with this discrimination. I bet if NYC allowed civil unions there would be a rise in attacks on gay men in Queens and Brooklyn. Pathetic!
Not sure I understand where you are coming from. You think that by increasing you rights by giving gays civil unions, which would allow things such as "hospital visits," as you mentioned, it would open you them up to violence when they walk through the streets of Queens? Well then what do you think marriage would do?
The best you could do was to reference a poll that NYers are evenly split on this issue.
Regardless, in this country we should not allow a majority group to deny fundamental equality and rights to a minority group. I agree that the attitude on this site is scary, but I'm not surprised at the pro-discrimination stances of the posters here.
"The best you could do was to reference a poll that NYers are evenly split on this issue."
That's the best anyone can do because that's reality. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Our president even believes this.
People opposed to gay marriage do so because we believe that society (and in particular its children) is best served by focusing on the traditional nuclear family with a mother and a father. Does this model fall short when a couple divorces or there is abuse of children within a traditional marriage? Of course it does. However, just because people sometimes fail does not mean we change the ideal we should aim for.
You can argue the points of gay marraige until you turn blue in the face.
1. Everyone has ignored this bozo for decades.
2. The machine is aces when it finds a potential group that can give it a hard time. Ergo, throwing its support behind gays.
3. This is an issue of the clubhouse mandating everyone close ranks behind its directive.
4. Fellows like Onorato who have been out of touch for years, under the benign gaze of the clubhouse, is now about to be replaced to fit with the new party policy.
Like the co-opted greens, the gays, instead of being a force for community revitalization and empowerment, are now MERELY TAKING THEIR PLACE AT THE PARTY TROUGH.
People oppose gay marriage because they are bigots or ignorant and afraid of anything different from them. By your logic, anyone not able to have children should be disallowed from ever getting married. Stop trying to justify discrimination.
Marriage is whatever society defines it as. It wasn't too long ago that most of this country did not allow inter-racial marriages. The laws defining marriage did not allow it to include people of different races. That changed because it was the right thing to do in a country based on the principles of liberty. Denying equality and freedom in order to discriminate will not last very long in this country.
"By your logic, anyone not able to have children should be disallowed from ever getting married."
No, actually, it doesn't. The focus would still be on the traditional nuclear family, whether that be biological or adopted.
It would probably help the gay cause if their parades weren't full of go-go boys in assless pants.
Not for nothing, but when you project that image, it's natural that there will be a backlash.
So you are against single mothers adopting or having children? This "nuclear family" argument is just your pretense for hiding discrimination.
Yes, I am against single mothers having children. It is the number one cause of poverty in this country.
So you would support laws prohibiting single mothers from having children? Maybe you should try living in communist China.
I never said I would support laws prohibiting procreation. I support laws that nurture the nuclear family.
The problem seems to be that instead of rationally explaining why they should have marriage rites, the gays are attacking those who don't believe in exactly what they do. Time for you to make appointments with Ruben Diaz and Efrain Gonzalez and stop preaching to Archie.
Gays should have to explain why they should have equal rights?
You haven't given any reason why you think a "nuclear" family is better for raising children than a gay couple. And what if the gay couple is not interested in having children, you would be ok then if they were married? And if you would not support laws prohibiting single parenting, why support laws discriminating against gay marriage?
You're really not making any sense at all. Giving birth is a biological function. Getting married is a contract.
People oppose gay marriage because they are bigots or ignorant and afraid of anything different from them.
------------
No, we oppose it because it is unnatural and disgusting to say nothing about against religion.
It is perverse.
People oppose gay marriage because they are bigots or ignorant and afraid of anything different from them.
------------
No, we oppose it because it is unnatural and disgusting to say nothing about against religion.
It is perverse.
-------------
Thanks for proving my point. Those are the same arguments that the racists who opposed interracial marriage used - that it was immoral, against "God's will" and "unnatural." Ignorance and bigotry run amok.
No, sorry, I'm going to stick with the point that shoving your dick up a person's ass is both unsanitary and unnatural.
I agree with the poster nidway thru this thread. Gay people flocked to Obama, yet he has stated on MTV and MANY other medi outlets that he opposes gay marriage. On Meet the Press, while running, he clearly stated that "marriage is between a man and a woman." yet all the gay Americans hailed him and voted for him. So why should any other politician get a bum rap when all they are doing is agreeing with what another politician that gay people supported. The hypocrisy is mind numbing!!!
Funy how for 8 years of the Bush Monarchy, Homosexuals were screaming how Republican Rule has kept gay marriage from become a reality. Well people, here we have a Democratic White House, Senate and House, where is your gay marriage?
NYS has an all Democratic hold. The Governor, the Senate and the Assembly. Even the City Council! Where is your Gay Marriage now?
So sick and tired of the whining when Republicans have a hold. Well, now the Democrats are in charge, what are they waiting for???
You gays are sell outs to the machine.
You know what its like when people are unfair.
But now you are under the tent all is forgotten. So now like the hacks, you give it to the rest of us up the ass.
So in that sense, I guess we are all gay now.
1. You have no right to criticize anal sex until you've tried it.
2. Given the choice between Obama and McCain, gays were not going to vote for McCain, someone who didn't even know what LGBT stands for.
3. Young people support gay marriage by much higher margins. All you old homophobes will be dead soon enough, so your opinions really don't matter much at the end of the day. You'll share a paragraph with George Wallace in history textbooks.
Wow, gays calling Obama a homophobe! When he believes the same thing the Archie Bunkers do!
What does Obama's view have to do with opinions about the views of a State politician, where the vote to legalize gay marriage would actually pass? Nothing, it is a stupid argument.
Beside, we all know Obama isn't against it. He said what he had to in order to avoid a major press issue during the campaign.
He's the leader of the party and for all intents and purposes sets the agenda for it.
The campaign is over, Obama doesn't need to worry about any "press issues", he is still against gay marriage as he told Larry King! Stop making things up!
People oppose gay marriage because they are bigots or ignorant and afraid of anything different from them.
-----
Why stop there? Have sex with kids! Have sex with dogs!
Telling that no faggot has commented on their capitulation to the machine in exchange for recognition.
If gay is ok, then kids and animals too?
After all, to use your arguement, why descriminate?
Besides, there are many historical references of ages that thought those forms of sex were fine and dandy, too.
Actually Onorato supports civil unions and also supports GENDA, which has already passed in the Assembly again this year and has wide support in the Senate.
Maybe his thinking on the marriage bill will evolve...or maybe it will pass with or without his vote.
Post a Comment