After New York II

David Link notes one staggering fact from yesterday's New York state senate debate. There was no debate. Only one senator spoke against marriage equality, and his rambling diatribe had no actual arguments in it:

Diaz’s oratorical contribution did not bother to include any explanation of what might be wrong with equality.  The first six minutes of his speech were an appeal to Republicans.  He is a Democrat, and wanted to stir up resentment among his colleagues on the other side who don’t get much gay support (e.g., in Diaz’s pretty naked words, money).  He then launched into a lengthy recitation of the obvious fact that there are religions that oppose homosexuality, and offered a complete roll call of the 31 states that voted gay marriage down.  Finally, Diaz urged his fellow popularly elected senators not to “do away with the people’s will.”

Amidst all of this, there was no argument against same-sex marriage (procreation, preserving the state’s economic resources, supporting heterosexual families), and it is telling that Diaz felt no need to do so.

It reminds me of this moment when a gay constituent actually confronted her own state representative with argument and evidence and civility and was greeted with a simple statement of no. No reason. Just no: