Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.
Their behind-the-scenes financial support — about $1 million in donations, delivered in recent weeks to a new coalition of gay rights organizations — could alter the political calculus of Albany lawmakers, especially the Republican state senators in whose hands the fate of gay marriage rests.

The donors represent some of New York’s wealthiest and most politically active figures and include Paul E. Singer, a hedge fund manager and top-tier Republican donor, as well as two other financiers, Steven A. Cohen and Clifford S. Asness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/nyreg ... ml?_r=2&hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great to see this become a bi-partisan push, and some Republicans going against the grain.

The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

“I’m a pretty straight-down-the-line small-government guy,” said Mr. Asness, who described himself as a libertarian who favored less government intrusion in both markets and personal affairs. Mr. Asness, a frequent Republican donor, has praised Tea Party activists on his blog and last year attended a conference of right-leaning donors held by Charles and David Koch, among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation.

“This is an issue of basic freedom,” Mr. Asness said.

Some of those involved have made what might be termed the pro-business argument for same-sex marriage, arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would help keep New York economically competitive.

dbackjon wrote:The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

“I’m a pretty straight-down-the-line small-government guy,” said Mr. Asness, who described himself as a libertarian who favored less government intrusion in both markets and personal affairs. Mr. Asness, a frequent Republican donor, has praised Tea Party activists on his blog and last year attended a conference of right-leaning donors held by Charles and David Koch, among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation.

“This is an issue of basic freedom,” Mr. Asness said.

Some of those involved have made what might be termed the pro-business argument for same-sex marriage, arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would help keep New York economically competitive.

So, jon...is this simply a case of "An enemy of my enemy is my friend..."

Or are you also supporting their thoughts on "less government intrusion" in everything, including the markets...or are you just happy that they are supporting your position on ONE issue...

And, like these people you praise for supporting your position on ONE issue, do you also praise Tea Part activists???

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

“I’m a pretty straight-down-the-line small-government guy,” said Mr. Asness, who described himself as a libertarian who favored less government intrusion in both markets and personal affairs. Mr. Asness, a frequent Republican donor, has praised Tea Party activists on his blog and last year attended a conference of right-leaning donors held by Charles and David Koch, among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation.

“This is an issue of basic freedom,” Mr. Asness said.

Some of those involved have made what might be termed the pro-business argument for same-sex marriage, arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would help keep New York economically competitive.

So, jon...is this simply a case of "An enemy of my enemy is my friend..."

Or are you also supporting their thoughts on "less government intrusion" in everything, including the markets...or are you just happy that they are supporting your position on ONE issue...

And, like these people you praise for supporting your position on ONE issue, do you also praise Tea Part activists???

dbackjon
dbackcats
dbackwildcats
UNHWildcats
UNHHatecats

The amazing, morphing, one litmus test pony!

I'll defend dback's thread. The libertarian strain of Republicanism favors a hands-off approach to social issues. That includes gay marriage. And if it has the incidental effect of getting more donations from wealthy gay Republicans, that's OK.

Ivytalk wrote:I'll defend dback's thread. The libertarian strain of Republicanism favors a hands-off approach to social issues. That includes gay marriage. And if it has the incidental effect of getting more donations from wealthy gay Republicans, that's OK.

I don't disagree with you about the libertarian strain of Republicanism...

But jon, while celebrating one benefit of that strain (money to support same-sex marriage)...he argues against most of the other tenants...such as minimal government intrusion into the markets...

So, my disagreement with jon is that he wants one benefit (his) but is opposed to other benefits...

Is that guys last name reallly ASSNESS???

Just a thought - but there is also the possibility that they are doing this for other reasons:

1. There are those Republicans who realize opposing this puts them on the wrong side of history.
2. Putting the issue on the ballot in many states worked as a HUGE GOP turnout tool in 2004 (they are doing it in MN this time around)
3. The GOP in the northeast is realizing that being virulently anti-gay is a long-term loser for them, and are trying to court this bloc of voters.

or Jon is correct that they are honest about their intentions and are truly libertarian at heart... just tossing out a couple of other theories

AZGrizFan wrote:Is that guys last name reallly ASSNESS???

That's A-s-n-e-s-s... unless the NYT fact-checkers goofed!

Was he born in ManAsses, Virginia?