Conservative Financiers Supported Cuomo's Gay Marriage Initiative

[TM7]

Conservatives/repubs supported Cuomo's gay marriage initiative and 'bought' it through....fyi....TM7


     ..The Financiers Who Helped Back N.Y. Gay Marriage Campaign
 
MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED, On Monday June 27, 2011, 6:46 am EDT
Much of the attention around the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York has revolved around the back-room politicking involved: the deals, the cajoling, the organizing.

But as The New York Times reported over the weekend, a crucial fount of support came from a seemingly unusual source: Wall Street donors known in large part for conservative leanings.

According to The Times, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo sought the backing of three financiers: Paul E. Singer, the founder of Elliott Management and an ardent Republican donor; Clifford S. Asness, the head of the quant fund AQR Capital; and Daniel S. Loeb, the leader of Third Point.

From The Times:

Would the donors win over the deciding Senate Republicans? It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.

But the donors in the room -- the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb -- had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: they were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.

Mr. Singer's backing of Republican causes is well-known, as is his friendship with politicians like Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Both Mr. Asness and Mr. Loeb backed Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race, only to have since raised substantial criticisms of the president. Two years ago, Mr. Asness wrote a widely disseminated jeremiad against Mr. Obama's treatment of hedge funds in the Chrysler bankruptcy case, while Mr. Loeb used his famously acidic pen against the president last year.

But the news isn't as surprising as it may seem. Both Mr. Singer and Mr. Loeb have lent support to gay-marriage efforts in the past, including at an American Foundation for Equal Rights event last fall.

The Times's Frank Bruni found a direct quote from Mr. Singer about the issue:

At a fund-raiser for same-sex marriage last year, he recalled leafing through the wedding album of "my son and son-in-law," married in Massachusetts. "At the moment they are pioneers," he said, according to a transcript, "although I felt like a loving father and father-in-law, not a pioneer, as we were looking at the pictures."

[magooch]

What's your point?  If it is to try to insinuate that all queers are conservatives--nice try.

[powderman]

At a fund-raiser for same-sex marriage last year, he recalled leafing through the wedding album of "my son and son-in-law," married in Massachusetts. "At the moment they are pioneers," he said, according to a transcript, "although I felt like a loving father and father-in-law, not a pioneer, as we were looking at the pictures."




All that shows is that not all Reps are Christians. What sickos and perverts. They want to go to hell, their business. POWDERMAN. 

[Hooker]

The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that the government actually thinks they should have a say in the matter of marriage period.
If two people want to get married I could care less. It wont effect my rights one way or the other if two perverts want to play house.
I do know that they are wrong for doing so ,and if they want to thumb their noses at God that's on their heads not mine.
But we never needed to make a law to tell them they could or could not do it. Not only are such matters none of the governments business they are a waste of the peoples money.

Getting back to the thread topic I'd say there were no conservative support here at all only socialist big government support.

Pat

[lakota]

The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that the government actually thinks they should have a say in the matter of marriage period.

Pat

I agree. Government has no business in the marriage business. I am starting to view this gay marriage issue as an item they are using to hold our attention while they destroy whats left of our country and liberty behind the scenes.

[Casull]

Guys like you and IG, and other idealogues try to 'insinuate' (prove) that depravity of lifestyles is a libber monopoly

Seems to me that the title for this thread and the above statement are both meant to deceive.  According to the article, we have ONE Republican donor with a gay son and TWO persons who supported Obama in '08.  Now, how in the hell does this equate to "Conservative Financiers" supporting the homosexual marriage initiative?   

[BUGEYE]

the mayor of NYC calls himself a republican, but he is neither conservative nor christian.
so I would pay no attention to anything coming out of the times.

[yellowtail3]

My position on this: I don't mind 'gay marriage' so long as they designate one of them to be "the man" so the courts will know who to screw over when the other decides to call it quits, with the expectation of getting paid.

Attach that condition, and... why the hell would a fellow want to take the risk?

[Casull]

tm, that doesn't change the fact that these guys are NOT conservatives, and the title of the thread and the underlying article are both deceptive in trying to claim that they are conservatives.

[jimster]

Conservative Financiers Supported Cuomo's Gay Marriage Initiative

Doesn't make sense to me either...so guess they are not really conservative.  Just the fact they would blow that kind of money on such things is the opposite of conservative.  Now if they would have invested all that cash into a small private business to make profits and hire people and the business and employees pay taxes to hold up the people that don't work and the corrupt governments and unions...now that's conservative.  I think they just might as well have burned all that money, didn't do anyone any good.

[powderman]

tm, that doesn't change the fact that these guys are NOT conservatives, and the title of the thread and the underlying article are both deceptive in trying to claim that they are conservatives.

CASULL. Yep, very deceptive. POWDERMAN. 

[45-70.gov]

The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that the government actually thinks they should have a say in the matter of marriage period.

Pat

I agree. Government has no business in the marriage business. I am starting to view this gay marriage issue as an item they are using to hold our attention while they destroy whats left of our country and liberty behind the scenes.

that  is what  i have said for years

why a different tax  code  based on marital status

i was raised you only get married  once....and that didn't work out

a disciminatory tax code  is just wrong......and has nothing to do with queers

marriage  keeps the lawers  in business  that is for sure
and lawers run the country..............right down to your intimate relationships
how is that for GOVERNMENT INTRUSION

[Doublebass73]

The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that the government actually thinks they should have a say in the matter of marriage period.

Pat

I agree. Government has no business in the marriage business. I am starting to view this gay marriage issue as an item they are using to hold our attention while they destroy whats left of our country and liberty behind the scenes.

Good posts guys. The root cause of this whole problem is allowing the government to define marriage in the first place. Anytime you let government define something that only God should define then liberty goes straight down the toilet. We need to get government out of the marriage business period.

The fact that the government discriminates based on marital status is absolute insanity, there is no liberty in that concept. I'll use myself as an example to make my point:
I am recently divorced, my ex-wife had an affair and also stole my identity causing me numerous credit problems. I have custody of our 3 children. Now that I'm divorced the Federal Government taxes me at a higher rate because I'm no longer "married". How unfair is that?

[45-70.gov]

The 'Log Cabiners' are well known for Guns, God, and Gays.....so not just idealogues claiming its a libber plot to normalize this lifestyle.

..TM7
=======================================

well  if the  gays  are pro-gun.....welcome aboard

just  excuse me if  i don't shake their  hands....[no telling where they been]

but really does it matter  what other people do
if you think  its  wrong  for religious reason........
you  think  GOD  can't take care  of that without you.
...you have a high opinion of yourself  if you do  think  that

[briarpatch]

If I write it, it must be true. Everyone should believe it.
Political rants slant away or toward a position of the writer. We must be very careful of descriptive positions attached to OPPORTUNISM. Such as conservative and liberal.
The media has helped to misrepresent the word conservative by calling men like john mccain conservative. The most liberal man in the senate. 
The men and situation in this article do not represent the criteria for conservative. Far from it. Yes there is a criteria.
These men are ELITIST. Beholden only to that which fills their bank account. Nothing more.     

[magooch]

My concern about homo-marriage is why they have to hijack well established definitions in order to justify their deviant behavior.  I don't really care if two, or more queers want to live together and have some kind of legal partnership--just don't call it marriage.  Other than thinking this will legitimize their lifestyle, I'm pretty sure that their prime aim is to secure job and government benefits.  In that regard, I'm wondering why then must two (or more) people of the same gender actually be partnered in some kind of deviant sexual relationship in order to qualify for spousal benefits?  Why can't two, or more good friends form a living partnership--where sex is not involved at all--and also be able to get benefits?  Why not a guy and his dog?  I think the can of worms is open and where it leads is anyone's guess.

[Casull]

I really don't care what 2 or more consenting adults do, but I do not condone a gay/les lifestyle. I do not condone or support any lifestyle, if universally practiced would lead to demise of our species.....If I did it would put me in a clinically psycopathic condition, imo,,,, which it once was considered. I do not like the idea of equivalent marriage status and think civil unions should be enough for this crowd. I see this activity being more and more normalized and foisted on the general American public.  I believe this is one key part of fracturing the American culture, which use to be family unit based. In fact all great countries were/are family unit based as the basic building 'unit' in society.

Wow, I can't believe I agree with tm on this.  Of course, I don't agree with the rest of the post.   

[45-70.gov]

My concern about homo-marriage is why they have to hijack well established definitions in order to justify their deviant behavior.  I don't really care if two, or more queers want to live together and have some kind of legal partnership--just don't call it marriage.  Other than thinking this will legitimize their lifestyle, I'm pretty sure that their prime aim is to secure job and government benefits.  In that regard, I'm wondering why then must two (or more) people of the same gender actually be partnered in some kind of deviant sexual relationship in order to qualify for spousal benefits?  Why can't two, or more good friends form a living partnership--where sex is not involved at all--and also be able to get benefits?  Why not a guy and his dog?  I think the can of worms is open and where it leads is anyone's guess.

job secureity  for the lawers to sort it  all  out

they know  what  is best  for  US