New York state Sen. Steven Saland (R) spoke with the Poughkeepsie Journal this afternoon and described what he refered to as his “emotional and intellectual journey” towards supporting marriage equality. On Friday, Saland was one of just four Republicans to vote in favor of the same same-sex marriage bill in the Senate after lawmakers reached an agreement on language exempting religious organizations and their associates from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Saland revealed that his wife and children all supported marriage equality, and estimated that his office received at least 10,000 communications and between 60 to 100 calls an hour about the vote. He also said Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) was “directly involved” in the negotiations and “far more hands on and far more engaged” than past New York governors.

Asked what he would remember most about his vote, Saland said, “I realized I had voted on Lord only knows how many thousands of bills, I’ve had to make many many difficult decisions, but I don’t think that any of them quite rose to the magnitude of this decision. I think this may have been the most difficult decision that I’ve had to make.” Watch highlights from the interview:

Struggling to find a way to stay relevant as the nation celebrates the passage of marriage equality in New York, the Heritage Foundation Foundry blog offers five “impacts” of the vote. Unsurprisingly, Heritage’s anti-equality talking points lack any originality and definitely do not measure up as “impacts”:

“IMPACT” 1: The vote continues an adverse trend for marriage law in New York.

REALITY: Heritage points out New York was the last state to allow no-fault divorce and that people are now more likely to cohabitate and have children out of wedlock. Two questions: 1) If less people want to be married, is that a reflection on the people’s commitment or on the desirability of the institution of marriage? 2) What does less people wanting to get married have to do with more people (same-sex couples) wanting to get married?

“IMPACT” 2: The policy change emanates from a legislature and is reversible by the legislature.

REALITY: Opponents of marriage equality can “vow to take the New York law to referendum” all they want. New York doesn’t have a referendum process, so they won’t get very far.

“IMPACT” 3: Religious liberty is suffering a death of a thousand cuts, and the collision of religious/moral conscience and nondiscrimination laws still looms.

REALITY: “Nondiscrimination statutes…hurt religious and moral freedoms.” How nice to see it stated so obviously — the supposed freedom being infringed upon is the “freedom” to discriminate against the LGBT community.

“IMPACT” 4: Redefinition of the family is the clear goal of same-sex marriage activists.

REALITY: It’s unclear what definition of “family” Heritage is referring to. Same-sex families were just as much families on Thursday as they were on Saturday. Now, though, those 14,000 children already being raised by same-sex couples in New York can be legally protected.

“IMPACT” 5: Marriage is a mega-issue and merits a full-scale national debate in 2012.

REALITY: Heritage stops short of admitting that a majority of Americans now consistently support marriage equality. If marriage is a so-called “mega-issue” that will dominate the 2012 elections, groups on the anti-equality side of that debate should prepare for the worst.

Here is one real impact of Friday night’s vote: The more than 42,000 same-sex couples living in New York can now obtain legal protections for their relationships and simultaneously boost New York’s economy. How did that not make Heritage’s list?

The successful passage of same-sex marriage in New York — the first state to achieve marriage equality under a Republican-controlled legislature — is leading advocates in other states to re-examine the possibility of advancing similar measures. U.S. News’ Laura Chapin reports that one such effort may be underway in Colorado, where lawmakers rejected a civil unions measure earlier this year:

Both the state House and Senate sponsors have said they will re-introduce the legislation, and as Senate sponsor state Sen. Pat Steadman, a Democrat from Denver, tells me, “[Republicans’] moves next year will be very interesting to watch. We’re at that point in the chess game when each little move becomes make or break. The end game is in sight.”

I asked Steadman why New York Republicans succeeded where Colorado Republicans did not, and his answer was simple. “New York Republican leadership is much smarter than we have here.” House sponsor state Rep. Mark Ferrandino, also a Democrat from Denver, was equally pointed.

“In New York, their leadership is willing to stand up against fringe,” he said. “In Colorado, it’s a small minority in their party that they’re listening to, and they weren’t willing to stand up to them last session.” [...]

And Steadman and Ferrandino agree that there will be political fallout if Republicans dismiss a civil unions bill in the 2012 legislature. “I definitely think there are political implications; just look at polling data,” Ferrandino says. “So many people support civil unions that it shows their leadership is not in touch with mainstream Colorado voters.”

Steadman is equally blunt. “I think it should be readily apparent. How much more out of step could they be?”

Some GOP lawmakers are already coming around. Back in April, Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R), who voted against the civil unions measure, said that he’s re-thinking his no vote. “Considering these things, I wondered if I was focusing on a mote that might touch heterosexual families, and missing a beam squeezing gay households,” he wrote. “Maybe recognizing civil unions could blur the focus on two parent homes raising children. But maybe the impact would be minuscule compared to broader trends ravaging families. And maybe the benefits that same-sex households would feel acutely are simply more important and more valuable to them than any speculative and marginal damage to the climate for heterosexual commitment is to others.”

New York’s recently passed same-sex marriage law has raised some concern among the religious right that the religious exemptions hammered out in the hours before the vote took place are inadequate because they fail to protect individual businesses — photographers, caterers, DJs — from refusing to do business with a gay or lesbian couple.

There are two things to say about this: 1) New York actually prohibits businesses from discriminating against people because of sexual orientation or gender identity and 2) very few businesses would turn away new clients in today’s economy. As this article from New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor demonstrates, businesses are far more interested in making money than using their personal beliefs to push away potential clients:

Crowe and Forester both had long careers in photojournalism before turning to wedding photography. Forester once shot 40 weddings in a single year, when the economy was better. Crowe, a stay-at-home dad, shoots about a dozen weddings per year.

They say their personal feelings about gay marriage are irrelevant. Business is business. And if they choose to bypass a civil union or, later, a gay wedding, for any reason at all, court is the last place they’d expect to end up.

“There’s a lot of websites that are gay friendly for anything,” said Forester, who worked at the Monitor and Boston Globe before starting his freelance career. “Gays are very savvy about any kind of business decision that they make. There are gay cruises, gay vacations, a whole network out there, so I don’t know if they’d even be seeking out someone who necessarily doesn’t do it. I think it’s a red herring. It’s a non-issue.”

Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia have all enacted same-sex marriage legislation with religious exemptions and fears of lawsuits “have not been borne out.” “There have been very few lawsuits, and the lawsuits that are filed usually have been resolved amicably,” William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School, recently said in an interview with Reuters.

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has long been known for espousing a frothy mixture of social conservatism and anti-gay rhetoric. On the campaign trail in Iowa yesterday, the former senator explained why he thinks progressives support marriage equality — to “undermine faith.” The Des Moines Register reports:

Speaking to about 190 people at the Lyon County Republican dinner, Santorum pledged to continue his fight against same-sex marriage.

“The reason the left has gone after same-sex marriage is because it’s a two-fer,” Santorum said. “When you redefine marriage, you cheapen marriage. You make it into something less valuable, less special … [and] it is a sure bet that will undermine faith.”

Santorum was responding to New York State’s passage of a historic marriage equality bill, which is supported by a majority of New Yorkers, including 56 percent of independents, according to a new poll.

But Santorum’s comments would likely be surprising to the many people of faith who support marriage equality. Numerous Christian denominations now support same-sex marriage, or at least unions, including Evangelical Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians (U.S.A), adherents of the United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalists. Reformed and even some Orthodox Jews also support same-sex unions. And just this week, 200 United Methodist clergy in Northern Illinois have pledged to bless same-sex unions, even though it violates the church’s policy and they risk defrocking.

Meanwhile, religious people have increasingly accepted marriage equality. A March ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 63 percent of white Catholics and 57 percent of non-evangelical white Protestants now support marriage equality — huge increases among both groups over the past decade. Overall, a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage.

Former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey (D) suggested First Lady Michelle Obama supported same-sex marriage during an appearance on CNN last night, a surprising revelation given her silence on the issue:

ELIOT SPITZER (HOST): How about President Obama? Are you disappointed in the hesitancy that he has shown to go beyond where he is?

MCGREEVEY: If he could only listen to Michelle more often. I think the president is moving and you know for many elected officials they started in the same place, you know, marriage is between a man and a woman, but they understand that they’re moving inevitably, catching up to the American public.

Watch it:

The segment was also notable for bringing McGreevey and Spitzer together, two former governors from neighboring states who both had to resign in the midst of sex scandals.