Republican State Senator Greg Ball ended weeks of speculation, saying he will vote against the same-sex marriage bill which he had been publicly negotiating.
In a public statement, Ball said the bill “still lacks many of the basic religious protections I thought were vital.”
In recent weeks, Ball garnered a lot of attention for criticizing the lack of religious protections in the bill, while maintaing he was open to voting for it. In a recent CNN appearance, he declined to say what it would take for him to vote yes on it.
A group of three undecided Republican State Senators have been meeting privately with Governor Cuomo to carve out protections for religious organizations, which was an issue Ball had been championing. Cuomo, yesterday, said there were “no obstacles” in his negotiations with the Republicans.
The exact language of what Cuomo and the three Republican State Senators ultimately agreed to has not been made public, and Ball did not elaborate on his complaint of the bill.
Right now, advocates have 31 votes for the bill, one short of the minimum needed to pass it in the State Senate.
Update: Ball’s spokeswoman said the final legislation protects “religious corporations” but not employees of those “religious corporations” like pastors and ministers, who actually do the work of marrying people.
Follow Azi Paybarah via RSS.
All of that “send me your tweets” was a complete waste of time. Senator Ball never had the slightest intention of voting in favor of marriage equality. Merely a publicity stunt.
It was not a publicity stunt, but a representative doing his job and voting the way his constituents would have wanted. If anything, Ball is a perfect example of a proper elected official.
If it wasn’t just a publicity stunt, why didn’t he do what the bulk of his “tweets” & Facebook comments TOLD him to do?
No Balls. Saw him on CNN a few nights ago and knew from his body language that he would be a no then. Wrong side of history, he will be shamed.
Kudos to Greg Ball! At least there are some senators who are making the right decision and not folding to political pressure. Hopefully the other two will follow suit.
Well Hello Mr. Ball. Nice to see you have a backbone …..
‘Marraige equality’ ….. the new catch phrase! What the hell does that even mean? Comparing heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage is like comparing a moth to a butterfly. Even though they look similar, they have different properties. Hint ….. the union of two men or two women cannot procreate. They cannot….”have” babies, to use Kirstan Gillibrand’s word. The reason why marriage has been classified and defined as it has been FOR THOUSANDS of years, is because of that one property, which sadly the gay community and the liberal left has managed to discount and minimalize. There are millions of hetero couples who choose Not to get married, and who have children. And they’re fine, and their children are protected. And after a certain amount of time they become ‘common law’. So what’s this big deal about ‘marriage equality’ and legalizing gay marriage. It’s political BULLSHIT, and Cuomo ought to be ashamed of himself. Here’s the deal for all you left wing(nut) rocket scientists. With all due respect to my homosexual brethren, when same sex couples can produce a third autonomous independent life, naturally ….. (many people consider that to be a miraculous event! ), then maybe they can apply to have their commitment to each other legalized as ‘marriage’. But nature did not arrange it that way. I wonder why. Two people’s commitment to each other has absolutely nothing to do with the legalization of anything. A butterfly will never be a moth, no matter how you spin it.
notice that sterile adults also can not procreate. Should the marriage of sterile people be outlawed, as well, according to your reasoning?
I knew Zic2 wouldn’t answer.
I’ve never really liked the “they can’t procreate, they can’t marry” argument. I mean, obviously that’d screw over infertile couples and old folks.
Nature having not arranged it as such means nothing when, well, we as a species don’t really abide by nature’s rules anymore. (Which… isn’t saying much when there’s been plenty of evidence of homosexual activity in species besides our own. Nature, you so crazy!)
Seeing as the world we live in, you don’t need marriage to have children, in fact 7 out 10 weddings tend to fail. A moth will never be a butterfly, yes. But who would want to be a prideful butterfly that thinks its superior to the moth just because it can get married. No, the Moth is better than that, it knows love, it knows know pain the butterfly will never understand, it grows stronger every passing day from all the hate the butterfly spreads. The moth knows it should be the bigger man because it knows from all the butterfly’s ego… it will end up destroying it’s worthless self. Love knows no gender.
[...] night, shortly before he sent out a statement announcing he would vote ‘no’ on same-sex marriage, Greg Ball explained his thinking to the Regional News [...]
[...] the bill didn’t contain the basic religious protections he thought were vital. According to Politicker NY, “Ball’s spokeswoman said the final legislation protects ‘religious [...]
@e2449cf67a8175626f5c47bbaf9bac83:disqus your logic is flawed. Can a man a woman marry and choose not to have children? Yes. Can a man and woman marry and adopt children? Yes.
Your asinine logic would mean that hetero couples who cannot have children for biological reasons or who choose not to have children cannot get married. Also, obviously gays can have kids the same way some hetero couples choose to have kids (adoption, in-vitro, etc.)
There are no logical reasons to oppose the “catch phrase” marriage equality, only religion-based and bigotry-based reasons.
I love you, NY, despite despicable fame-mongers like Ball.
[...] Republican holdouts Sens. Steve Saland (R-Poughkeepsie) and Mark Grisanti (R-Buffalo), persuaded by the act’s religious protections, were responsible for contributing the decisive 32nd and 33rd votes; Sen. Greg Ball (R-Putnam), one of the fence-sitting Republicans who solicited opinions from his constituents via Twitter, decided earlier tonight to vote no. [...]
The only thing that should be said is that love knows no gender. So according to these religious groups… Two men getting married is the end of the world, while a church molesting a little child is okay? INTERESTING WORLD WE LIVE IN. The United States of America, Freedom for all or Freedom for Some?
What religious group ever said molesting a child was okay? Does your bullshit know no bounds?
One could argue strenuously by the DECADES of not just inaction, but SHIELDING of priests from their just deserts that the Catholic Church does just that.
despicable fame mongers? Looks like someone has got their emotional override switch engaged! I personally cannot see a logical argument against gay marriage, but I’ve seem too many illogical arguments FOR gay marriage. Stop being such goddamned pussies, saddle up, and put some well thought out ideas on the table instead of calling people names (like I just did… ironic, huh!)