Your News Now adds to the outlets reporting the post-SSM woes of the four flip-flopping Republican senators in New York:
Their votes in favor of same-sex marriage garnered them praise and campaign cash from advocates. But two of the four Republican senators who broke ranks and voted for the law are now facing challenges from their right flank.
Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, a Republican from the Capital Region, is gearing up to face Senator Roy McDonald. Senator Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo freshman, lost the coveted endorsement last week of the Erie County Conservative Party.
...McLaughlin, who said Wednesday in telephone interview that he was planning to make a decision on the race soon, is picking up support from the Saratoga County GOP establishment.
It's a potentially troubling development for Senate Republicans, who hold a narrow 32 to 29 majority. But lobbyists opposed to gay marriage said the opposition to the incumbents is more complicated than just their yes votes.
"Particular with Senator McDonald it's an issue of really a flip flop on tax increases, there's been some union issues there that Republican voters are concerned about. In Buffalo with Grisanti it's a question of integrity. People there are saying if you can't trust him on the vote for same-sex marriage, what can you trust him on," said Rev. Jason McGuire, from NYers For Constitutional Freedoms.
13 Comments
Who's getting the Conservative line in Alesi's district?
What's the point of voting Republican if they just vote like Democrats?
I don't care what party they are as long as they are 1. a good person and 2. can fairly represent my views. Usually that's republican, but not always. There are good people on both sides of the isle, and in third isles too. Not everyone who claims to be something, is.
@TC
I agree. The only reason why I vote for someone is because their views are reflectant of my own. But when they turn their back on the very values that I hold....it feels as if my vote was wasted.
Zack -You mean equality is not one of your values? What a shame.
Off the immediate topic, but . .
Just days ago, Maggie was braying that the marriage equality side was desperate, would do anything to keep their case from going to the supreme court. . .
Interesting, the anti-gay side asked for an en banc hearing before the most liberal district court in the United States and the equality side files motions against it . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm. (Things that make you go . . . )
So much money to be made in new economic and job creating markets through the liberalization of morals and social restrictions and taboos.
Of course many, many Republicans are going to fall like ripe fruit into the ssm basket when the time comes. We need to be aware of that.
And we need to keep fighting for one word to distinguish the opposite sex union and another word to distinguish the same sex union.
Civil union is not exclusive enough, nor sound attractive enough to take on the name of an emotional and heart affirming union. If the homo-movement wants it to, the definition of their union would have to include the gender-changed, the sex-changed; as well as heterosexuals who want to be part of this union.
@reformed
I'm all for equality under the law. I'm not for special rights such as this.
I'm a Conservative and I expect my representatives to hold the same Conservative values that I hold. If they have a sudden "change of heart" on some of them, then they're not the people who I voted for.
Also Reformed, don't ever twist what I say.
Comb your hair, Bloomberg, your horns are showing.
Thanks for the insightful comments Barb. Bloomberg has done an efficient job running NYC.
Barb - When one's "opposition" reverts to name calling I guess one has won the argument.
Bloomberg's egotistical nanny-stating is not good government.