Gay marriage in New York may be a distant dream now as Democrats Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens have defected to the GOP, giving Republicans 32 seats and a majority in the Senate. The re-shuffling of leadership puts the future of same-sex marriage for New York in doubt. Many have speculated that Senator Ruben Diaz a vocal opponent to gay marriage would also switch parties if any gay marriage legislation came before the Senate, but not today. Diaz remains a Democrat for now.

From the NY Times:

It was a noisy and acrimonious scene on the floor of the Senate as Senator Thomas W. Libous, a Republican from Binghamton and the party’s deputy leader, shouted for a roll-call vote, while Democrats attempted to stall the vote by asking to adjourn the session.

All 30 Republicans stood with their hands raised, signaling a vote for a change in leadership. Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate joined them, each raising his hand. Republicans won the vote by a 32-to-30 margin. The Senate will now be governed under a new joint leadership structure, with Mr. Espada serving as the president pro tempore, and Senator Dean G. Skelos, of Long Island, as the new majority leader.

A spokesman for former Democratic Senate Majority leader Malcom Smith called the action an “illegal and unlawful attempt to gain control of the Senate and reverse the will of the people who voted for a Democratic majority.”

It is unclear at this time why Senators Espada Jr. and Monserrate defected to the GOP. Both men are currently under investigation by the authorities, Espada Jr. for not living in his own district, and Monserrate for felony assault charges.

At a Georgia Republican Party convention over the weekend RNC Chairman Michael Steele said that gay marriage will create an undue burden on small business owners.

From the Associated Press:

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

Think again Mr. Steele.

Gay marriage has provided $111 million in economic stimulus to Massachusetts since becoming legal in 2004. If Proposition 8 had failed back in November, gay marriage would be pumping millions into the California economy according to this study.  Similar economic benefits have been projected in D.C., Maine and Vermont.

And just ask the florists, photographers, event planners and the whole range of other small business owners that would profit from marriage equality legislation.

This is simply another instance of forsaking party principals and letting bigotry and intolerance win out over profit. How un-Republican.

A full thirteen days after Rep. Virginia Fox testified that the anti-gay motive behind Matthew Shepard’s murder was a hoax, and that his death was being used advance hate crimes legislation, the Republican Congresswoman from North Carolina sent a letter of “apology” to Matthew’s mother Judy Shepard who was in attendance during her remarks. Let’s remind ourselves what Foxx said…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWm2zGTZBM0[/youtube]

Foxx’s written apology comes after multiple days of backtracking and damage control as her offices struggled with the flood of criticism received because of her remarks.

The Matthew Shepard Foundation has confirmed receipt of the letter but has refused to comment on it, choosing instead to focus on  getting the hate crimes legislation passed.

A number of gay and liberal bloggers have expressed grave concerns that Obama has not been the “Fierce Advocate” for LGBT rights he claimed he would be in these first 100 days. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, former Clinton adviser on gay issues Richard Socarides expressed those concerns:

What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven “change moment” in our country’s history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.

It is the memory of 1993’s gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president’s advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical “right time” to move boldly.

This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.

And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get “undecideds” to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, “If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew.”

First, let’s consider that 100 hundred days of the Obama presidency accounts for a whopping 6.8% of his entire first term. In all likelihood we will have hate crimes legislation written into law before we reach 10%. Certainly that must count for something. If Obama takes a firm stand on LGBT-supportive issues like gay marriage, as Socarides and others would have him, I fear the consequences would be more damaging than not, unifying the Republican party and religious conservatives in such way as to make them even more obstructionist, while simultaneously attracting more of the faith-based crowd who are typically apolitical. And it would alienate those people on the right who have drifted toward the middle and who likely voted for Obama in the past election.

There is also the notion that since Obama has admitted that his administration is capable of “multitasking” on multiple fronts,  that there should have been more focus on LGBT-supportive issues during his first 100 days. Honestly, with banks failing, homes foreclosing, unemployment rising, violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan increasing, car industries collapsing, carbon dioxide levels rising and the economy failing… I think I am going to give Obama a pass for now.

I do think there is truth in the idea that the Obama administration is just standing back, watching gay rights take root throughout the country. States are already moving in the direction of granting marriage equality or similar, and are becoming more amenable to LGBT-supportive issues. The passage of Prop 8 in California may have served as a catalyst of sorts swinging the pendulum of same-sex equality back in the opposite direction, energizing the gay rights movement.

Change is always more palatable when it comes from within, as opposed to being forced upon from the outside.

Another element of Socarides’ argument that I take issue with is that the administration should take advantage of the electorate while they are distracted by the war and the economy as to move the LGBT agenda forward. Didn’t the Bush administration distract the public with 9/11 and the war on terror, while they methodically stripped away many of our civil liberties and basic human rights? I liken it to dentist diverting your attention just as he plants the long needle into your gums. It’s uncomfortable and frequently hurts like hell, and it often leaves a bad memory.

Finally, all of this comes from person who provided advice to Clinton on gay and lesbian issues during his presidency. Did anything favorable come out of that advice? Hmmm?

So I’d suggest giving Obama a bit more time before denying him the title of “Fierce Advocate.” But all of this of course is coming from a bit of a political layman. I’m certainly open to having my mind changed, just not by Mr. Socarides.

Thankfully, I’m not the only one who thinks Obama is doing an alright job.

But to be honest,  Obama’s first 100 days hasn’t exactly been a bed of roses either. His handling of torture thus far has left much to be desired, and that he has five (four of which are LGBT-unfriendly) pastors on speed dial which he calls every time he has a crisis of thought, really, really bugs me. Tell me, why isn’t Gene Robinson at least on that list? And why is there an F’ing list at all?