Now we find out if I was too optimistic. Senator Alesi, who had other vulnerabilities (along with an evident bone-deep weariness of politics), decided to retire, but the other three came up against Republican primary challengers last Thursday. And the outcome, while not yet final, is instructive.

Senator Grisanti was the target of a sordidly homophobic anonymous mailing, but Buffalo ’s active gay community mobilized on his behalf; he also undoubtedly got credit for steering considerable state money to a city in desperate need of development. He won his primary with 60 percent of the vote. In November he will face a Democrat who also supports gay marriage, and who also beat a rival favored by the anti crowd. Two cheers for Buffalo.

Senators Saland and McDonald, who come from Hudson Valley districts that are more red-state America, are so close to their challengers in the unofficial count (Saland 42 votes ahead, McDonald 136 votes behind) that the outcome hinges on absentee ballots still being counted.

Photo

Decoding a local primary election is a highly speculative business. There is not a lot of detailed polling to help explain the voters’ motivation. Familiarity and constituent service may count for more than ideology. Much hinges on turnout; since the disgruntled are more likely to show up than the complacent, lower turnouts are thought to favor challengers.

But the idea that these races were in some measure a marriage referendum is not just a media conceit. All three challengers opposed gay marriage. The contests became magnets for donations and mailings from advocates on both sides, with the big money coming from the marriage equality side. If not for the marriage issue, the incumbents might not have faced primary challenges at all. (Saland hasn’t had a primary race in 32 years.) So the outcome says SOMETHING about gay marriage. But what?

Regardless of the final outcome, opponents of gay marriage will crow that just by coming so close to unseating two established, well-financed incumbents, they have demonstrated that Republican officeholders in other states risk their jobs if they support gay marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage rights, on the other hand, will point out that they stand behind politicians who stand up for them. And win or lose, the pro-equality politicians will have something to be genuinely proud of.

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

The more interesting lesson, though, is not in the vote counts. It is in the conduct of the New York State Republican Party.

The New York Republican leaders read the polls, and they recognized the accelerating public support for gay marriage in New York and nationwide. They understood that same-sex marriage was, in the short run, a distraction from the economic debate the party cares about most and, sooner or later, a losing issue for them. So they decided to get past it.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

First, rather than enforce party discipline, as they had done in killing a gay marriage bill in 2009, Senate Republican leaders last year freed party members to vote their conscience. Then, when the conservative base was howling for payback, the party leadership stood by the incumbents who had bucked the party line. They held fund-raisers. They helped redraw Grisanti’s district map to make him less vulnerable. They supplied logistical help. Indeed, if McDonald and Saland do end up victorious in the two unfinished races — we’ll know in a few days — it will probably be because the party mounted an aggressive absentee campaign on their behalf. They identified Saland and McDonald supporters and made sure they got their mail-in ballots filed in time. Less experienced challengers rarely mount much of an absentee operation.

The Republican leaders did not do all this because they are closet liberals. They did it because if they had killed same-sex marriage a second time, their candidates would have faced the wrath (and cash) of marriage proponents in districts across the state. Including, not incidentally, a popular Democratic governor, with whom the Republicans have forged an unusually congenial working relationship.

“Had that issue been in the forefront right now, we probably would be in trouble with a lot of seats,” Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Senate majority leader, told me after the primary vote.

That’s the sound of something you don’t hear much in our politics these days, especially Republican politics: pragmatic common sense. Don’t hold your breath, but if it catches on nationally, the Republicans might start to attract someone other than straight old white guys.