New York

Civil Union Supporter Scott Murphy Wins Sen. Kristen Gillibrand’s House Seat

scott-murphy

Whew, finally, it’s over. After Hillary Clinton left the U.S. Senate to become secretary of state, New York Gov. David Paterson appointed (gay marriage flip-flopper) Rep. Kristen Gillibrand to take Clinton’s seat. Which meant another vacant spot to fill: Gillibrand’s House seat. Finally, after a dragged out ballot count that’s giving Franken-Coleman a run for its headlines, a winner: Democratic millionaire venture capitalist Scott Murphy — who supports civil unions but wants to leave marriages up to religious institutions — will become Congress’ newest member, with opponent Jim Tedisco, a Republican, conceding after beginning the race as an early front-runner; he served in the State Assembly for 27 years. “Tedisco’s loss could have a significant fallout for Republican leaders from the very top of the party on down. The GOP has lost control of every statewide elective post, seen losses in Congress and its minority in the Assembly, and this past election lost control of the state Senate, which Republicans controlled for all but one of the past 70 years.” [Albany Times Union]

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #hillaryclinton #jimtedisco stories and more

5 Comments

  • Bruno

    If he wants to leave marriage up to religions, then he shouldn’t be for civil unions. But it doesn’t matter as much in the NY state Assembly anyway.

  • Chris

    @Bruno: The election Murphy won was for a seat in the US Congress. Factoid: Not only do the GOP hold no statewide posts in NY, they only hold three of the 29 congressional seats. They seem to be going for zero though.

  • Bruno

    @Chris:

    Oops, brain fart. Thanks.

  • andy_d

    Once again, the pols get it wrong. MATRIMONY is the religious rite, MARRIAGE is civil.

  • Robert, NYC

    So he thinks marriage should be left to the various religions? Does he imply then that religions should determine who can and cannot get married? No religion can marry anyone unless the state provides a marriage license, so how could he argue the case for religion deciding the issue? Or am I missing something? Since when does religion trump state rights?

Comments are closed.