Saland To Be 32nd Vote To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage (Updated)


Sen. Stephen Saland said tonight he would vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, giving the Senate the 32 votes necessary to make New York the sixth and largest state in the nation to allow gay couples to marry.

In a statement provided to Gannett’s Albany Bureau, Saland, a Poughkeepsie Republican, said while he voted no in 2009, he has changed his position.

“My intellectual and emotional journey has at last ended,” he said in a statement. “I must define doing the right thing as treating all persons with equality in the definition of law as it pertains to marriage. To do otherwise would fly in the face of my upbringing.”

Saland’s decision assures the bill’s passage. A vote was expected later tonight after Senate Republicans agreed to put the bill on the floor.

Updated: On the Senate floor, Saland spoke about how the bill includes protections for religious organizations, saying he feels comfortable with the language. He voted in favor of the amendment to the bill which provides those protections.

The amendment passed 36-26, but at least one senator, Kemp Hannon, a Republican from Long Island, said he would back the amendment but not the bill.


About Author


  1. May his error of capitulation to a lobby of self-righteous wrongdoers cause his name to live in infamy.There is NOTHING more fundamental to the definition of marriage than the requirement that the parties be of opposite sexes.

  2. “There is NOTHING more fundamental to the definition of marriage than the requirement that the parties be of opposite sexes.”

    -Louis E.

    Nothing Louis? Not even love itself?

  3. Zac, Louis doesn’t think that homosexuals deserve to enjoy love and happiness, simply because, in his deluded opinion, homosexuality is just plain wrong and gays should not be allowed to act on their feelings.

    Let me be immature for a moment: IN YOUR FACE, LOUIS!

  4. The sad thing is that Louis probably thinks his life has diminished somehow. I wish I could allay his fears and convince him that this bill will not affect him in the slightest, that the happiness of others is not an attack on him, and should not cause him sadness.

    But enough about that. High Five, JETSS!

  5. Rod, I have to add the the happiness of homosexual couples is not an attack on society, either. And if the families of the couples involved are fine with their children’s happiness – and what else is society but families? – then it’s nobody’s else’s business.

    This news sure beats the hell out the Mets game I was watching! As soon as my husband told me that Rachel Maddow was reporting on the amendment vote, I couldn’t put up a post on our blog fast enough!

    High Five back atcha, Rod! :D

  6. On Anderson Cooper right now, someone said that this weekend’s Gay Pride Parade in NYC is going to be led by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Way to go, Andrew! I’ll bet that the parade is going to be extra festive this time. :D

  7. Zac,there are many kinds of love.Marriage is ONLY appropriate when lovers are of opposite sexes.
    Rod,while SSM remains legal in this state,marriage in this state is totally worthless.
    JETSS,the disgusting effrontery of deriving happiness from something as unconscionable as a same-sex sexual relationship IS an attack on society.

  8. louis – its ok to come out of the closet now – stop redirecting the hate you have towards yourself to the gays and everyone else

  9. I pray for you Louis. I pray one day you can release all the unnecessary anger and aggression that burdens your heart.

  10. Zac,I hope that one day you will realize that anger is necessary when confronted with denials of the intrinsic indefensibility of same-sex sexual relationships…not violence,but implacable dismissal of every such claim and frustration of every attempt to further it until its makers recant or retreat in despair.

  11. lorelie edles on

    dadt getting vetoed, ny allowing same-sex marriage. theres a lot of good left in the world. the future holds much promise for my boy. congratulations to all that worked and continue to work hard for this !

  12. Senator Saland is my representative in the Senate. I have consistently voted for him for years because I believe he represents our district well. I applaud his vote to confirm SSM in New York. He votes for what he thinks is right and just. I wish all our politicians did so. I will continue to vote for this man. Congrats to all advocates; this was, as the VP said, a BFD.

  13. Lorelie,
    There’s no good in increasing acceptance of unacceptable things like same-sex sexual relationships.
    that Senator Saland thinks something “right and just” that is entirely the opposite is a strong argument to vote against him.The advocates of SSM are totally wrong and always will be.

  14. 39 states have laws banning same sex marriage so this could be the last state to pass it for a long time. Thank goodness mainstream America had the common sense to hold to the natural state of marriage betwenn one man and one woman. Don’t children deserve a mother and father? Oh no, that’s right it’s all about me.

  15. @ Louis, I don’t understand why something that has no affect on you should create so much anger within you. What makes you right and others wrong. Perhaps that everything you say should be preceded with “in my opinion’.

    I think the hypocrisy of the whole thing is marriage itself….till honor…till death…etc. Maybe ssm will decrease the divorce rate and lend credibility to the institution of marriage.

  16. Les,the institution of marriage has no credibility whatsoever unless the partners being of opposite sexes is acknowledged as its fundamental defining characteristic.Otherwise it’s just a way for best friends to get tax breaks.

  17. Louis; I guess you forget to say “in your opinion”. If you notice, I said “I think…….” before I spoke.

    Ironically, I’m heterosexual and I married my best friend. We did it because we were in love, not for the tax break.

  18. Les,I don’t think that there is room for credible denial of the partners being of opposite sexes being the entire justification for the existence of marriage.In my opinion,this can not be treated as a matter of opinion.

  19. Louis, I guess I need to follow my own advice. I do not discuss topics with people that tell me that my opinion is wrong and theirs is right, when, in fact an opinion cannot be right or wrong.

    I am thankful that we live in a country that people can voice their opinion. I respect that you do not agree with ssm, however, you apparently are now in the minority. Perhaps soon enough you will understand how others felt when they have been forced to adhere to the will of the majority even though it went against their own beliefs.

    Simply put, suck it up.

  20. Les,you are trying to portray everything as a matter of opinion.Treating the nature of marriage as open to debate was inconceivable until recent decades,and those who demanded that we consider it debatable would doubtless jump at the chance to declare it irreversibly non-debatable now that their misconception of it has rendered it a harmful rather than a helpful institution in the State of New York.

  21. Loius, I have to discontinue this conversation as you are a narrow minded individual who probably has other idealistic viewpoints that might set this country back 100’s of years if people would take you seriously. You would have been better off in the 1950’s as I think you are still living there.

    The reason it is now a debatable topic is a testimonial to the FACT that this is the 21st century. Wake up

  22. Les,you don’t want to see your stereotype of me held up to scrutiny?
    It wouldn’t matter if it was the 121st century…what’s debatable in nature doesn’t change,and attempts to debate the undebatable don’t become rational over time.

  23. Like I said, your a narrow minded individual. It is debatable, it was debated and the vote is in. End of story, period.

  24. As I said,you are the narrow-minded individual,you never want this debate that came to an indefensible conclusion repeated lest a correct conclusion be reached instead.