Late last night, the New York State Senate narrowly passed the bill that will allow same-sex couples to wed. Four Republicans joined all but one Democrat, to pass the measure 33-29.
The New York Times reported on a key Senate Republican from Buffalo who had “had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage,” and “told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.”
New York’s Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law just before midnight local time. The law will take effect in 30 days, meaning that by late July same-sex couple will be able to get married in New York.
New York becomes the sixth state and by far the largest to allow same-sex marriage, and all but Iowa are in the New England area: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont, in addition to the District of Columbia.
Governor Cuomo said in a news conference, “This vote today will send a message across the country. This is the way to go, the time to do it is now, and it is achievable; it’s no longer a dream or an aspiration. I think you’re going to see a rapid evolution.”
“We reached a new level of social justice,” he said.
The New York Times called it an “unexpected victory.” They declared Andrew Cuomo the clear champion.
Wrote the Times this morning, “Mr. Cuomo made same-sex marriage one of his top priorities for the year and deployed his top aide to coordinate the efforts of a half-dozen local gay-rights organizations whose feuding and disorganization had in part been blamed for the defeat two years ago.”
For Governor Cuomo, the son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, a darling of the political left, it marks a remarkable first year in office.
The New York Daily News quoted longtime GOP consultant Ed Rollins, who grudgingly said, “We’ve not seen a governor like this for a long time. I certainly think he’ll become a bigger star in the [national] Democratic Party.”
California Republicans have often tried to use Texas as a comparison state, but perhaps New York is a better model. In a way it is a tale of two states, and Governor Jerry Brown has worked valiantly but has been unable to get around California’s onerous legislative process.
Meanwhile, the Daily News, of all papers, is trumpeting Governor Cuomo, who closed a $9 billion deficit in the budget. Cutting education and health care while not raising taxes, he capped for the first time NY’s property taxes, pushed for ethics reforms and passed landmark legislation, among other things.
Wrote the Daily News, “He shocked everyone this week by reaching a contract agreement with the state’s largest union that includes three years of pay freezes, nine days of unpaid days off over two years and health care givebacks.”
And California appears stuck in the mud, muddling through a budget process where no Republicans have supported a budget plan, and saddled with Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage and is bogged down in the courts.
Public opinion appears to be shifting on gay marriage in California. Proposition 8 narrowly passed back in 2008 in a campaign that had much more to do with scare tactics than it did with the facts of the legislation. Despite all of the money and scare tactics, the measure only very narrowly passed.
The last several polls show that Californians narrowly support gay marriage. And the demographics are moving in the direction of change on this issue. Younger voters overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage, while older voters overwhelmingly are opposed to it.
The statement made by Senator Grisanti is a powerful statement. Opponents of same-sex marriage often talk about the threat to traditional marriage that same-sex marriage would represent.
I do not see that. What I see as a threat to traditional marriage is divorce and infidelity. The traditional marriage partners who have five divorces and multiple wives.
That I see as a threat to marriage.
For me, same-sex marriage is not the litmus test of civil rights. I think harassment, bullying and discrimination are worse issues. But same-sex marriage allows an equality under the law that is important.
Those who argue that civil unions would be an acceptable alternative, I wonder if you would forego your right to marry your current partner and instead form a civil union. If it is “the same thing,” why is the issue so polarizing? I’ll tell you why, because it is not the same thing and everyone knows it.
I find comments such as this one from a reader posted in the past week interesting: “I do not fear gay people any more than I fear any other individual; however, I fear liberal-progressive activist types changing my country’s culture to be something other than what many Americans value and think is good for our nation going forward.”
This perhaps could have been written sixty years ago in the context of desegregation. In the movement to end discrimination in housing, jobs and life in general, it was a group of people who stepped forward to demand equal treatment under the law, a group of Americans that rose to support them, and the old establishment that rose to oppose them.
What happened at the end of that struggle – if that struggle has ended – has been a realignment not only in policies but in thought. Few today would entertain the notion that “separate” is anything other than unequal, and that discrimination based on skin color is anything other than archaic and wrong.
Has our culture been changed? Perhaps, and for the better.
The question is, why is a discriminatory culture something to be lauded? Desegregation did not change our culture, it allowed another group of Americans to become part of it.
That is the same thing that will happen here. Same-sex couples will be able to have the lifestyle and security that current marriage partners have long enjoyed. How is that a threat to anyone?
My marriage is not threatened in the least if my gay and lesbian friends are allowed to marry. If anything, it is bolstered and strengthen by renewed commitment to the sanctity of such an esteemed institution.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Northeast, unlike the West, has no tradition/culture of populist governance. Maine and Vermont are the only two NE states with a deep-grained cultural/political tradition of direct voter power. Maine’s voters overturned its legislature’s same-sex marriage Act and Vermont, I believe, has a citizen-initiative that will attempt to do the same. I do not believe that any voter initiative/referendum has been successful in supporting redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. The West, in contrast to the NE, has a strong political tradition of populism and direct voter power and this is reflected in the fact that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples has been limited to those NE States, with the exception of Iowa(for a total of 7 states out of 50).
“discriminatory”
The nonpolitical meaning of the term, “to discriminate’ is defined according to Webster, as “…to mark or perceive distinguishing features”. To discriminate between same-sex and heterosexual “unions” is not the same as the denial of equal substantive civil rights.
“To discriminate between same-sex and heterosexual “unions” is not the same as the denial of equal substantive civil rights.”
It doesn’t have to be. Obviously there is a noted difference between the two, otherwise it would not be a fault line for the two sides. I also find it interesting that that very fact shows how far the debate has moved in the last ten years and why you will ultimately lose that debate.
A quote I saw recently:
[quote]It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: “marriage.”
You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it.[/quote]
[quote]Don’t like gay marriage? Blame straight people. They’re the ones who keep having gay babies.[/quote]
California is once again leading the nation…in political dysfunction and fiscal irresponsibility. I hope we get back on track.
wdf1: well said
I watched last night on TV the New York senate vote to legalize same sex marriage and then listened to Governor Andrew Cuomo who eloquently spoke just prior to signing the bill into law. What a wonderful thing for this to occur on the weekend of Gay Pride in New York City and San Francisco and the celebrations sure began in earnest last night. Equal Rights and Marriage Equality for all is marching onward!
It’s funny to me that the last line of defense for the semi-literate opponents of gay marriage is for them to turn to dictionary definitions and base their half-witted argument on this illogical notion that marriage has a definition which is written in stone by the hand of god and can never be changed. Never mind that language, like society, is ever evolving, and that words are constantly used in new ways.
Rich: please avoid characterizing people with derogatory terms.
Don, you reased the key term in my sentence. My whole point is that those using dictionaries are not fully literate. By erasing the word semi-literate from my post, you destroyed my comment entirely. Further, you took out the word illogical. That word is necessary, because the relgious people who are now turning to dictionaries are not making a logcal argument. Theirs is ultimately based on religion and prejudice and tradtion, no matter how much they gussy it up with “definitions.”
Correction: erased the key term.
Rich, I am going to say this again, slightly differently. Please avoid characterizing those you disagree with in derogatory terms. It is derogatory to call someone semi-literate. I am not going to edit or remove these comments this time, but further characterizations of this sort about those with whom you disagree will be removed. (I’m not sure that sentence scans, but you get the idea).
[quote]New York becomes the sixth state and by far the largest to allow same-sex marriage, and all but Iowa are in the New England area: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont, in addition to the District of Columbia.[/quote]
All uber liberal states out of step with how many others?
[quote]Meanwhile, the Daily News, of all papers, is trumpeting Governor Cuomo, who closed a $9 billion deficit in the budget. Cutting education and health care while not raising taxes, he capped for the first time NY’s property taxes, pushed for ethics reforms and passed landmark legislation, among other things.[/quote]
Laud Cuomo – who cut funding to education? LOL
[quote]Theirs is ultimately based on religion and prejudice and tradtion, no matter how much they gussy it up with “definitions.”[/quote]
I appreciate your passion on this issue… but just because someone has a difference of opinion doesn’t necessarily mean they are “prejudice”. You are free to feel they are “prejudice”, but that doesn’t make it so…
For many of us, the gay marriage issue is complex, tied up with larger overarching philosophies/considerations that proponents of gay marriage refuse to understand or even listen to. A more reasoned dialogue would be a lot more fruitful…
Don
I am usually completely with you on the issue of civility and I do not ever approve of derogatory terms.
But I see this one a little differently. While I recognize that Rich probably was not use the term in a complimentary way, the use of semi- literate or illiterate should not usually be considered as derogatory unless one is clearly being elitist. I will give a couple of illustrations that come to mind. My own mother was semi – literate having not gone passed middle school. This would have been an apt description of her literacy status, but in my opinion in no way made her less worthy.
Given my profession as a doctor, it is important to me to know the literacy status of my patients. It does them
no good if I provide them with written materials which they cannot read. Especially given the large population of immigrants, I would like to see us not stigmatize lack of reading skills but rather acknowledge that this may be the case for many people with whom we interact whether we know it or not.
Out of step? 2010 marked the first year that national polling indicated majority support for recognition of same-sex marriage. CNN, Gallup, and ABC News polls have found majority support in 2011. Pew has public opinion nearly even, and shows the strong regional differences that are comparable to the blue-state/red-state pattern of the 2008 presidential election:
[i]”Majorities of the public now support same-sex marriage in the Northeast (59% in favor) and West (56%). In many states in those regions, efforts to legalize same-sex marriage have been underway or have already succeeded. By contrast, support is much lower in the Midwest (40% favor) and the South (34%).”[/i]
Soon the opponents will be the ones out of step. The only question is how soon registered voters will reflect broader public opinion as these issues come up state by state.
This from [url]www.gaylawreport.com[/url] a PRO-GAY website:
[quote]Gay Marriage Support
Should gays and lesbians be allowed to marry?
43% say yes.
47% say no.
10% are unsure.[/quote]
That poll ([url]http://www.gaylawreport.com/gay-marriage-poll/[/url]) was a 2010 Pew Research poll. A more recent Pew poll found an even split. As noted above, I can link three polls showing majority support. The tide is shifting steadily and inexorably.
[i]”All uber liberal states out of step with how many others?”[/i]
I think you are right that the states which have approved gay marriage or something very similar are out of step with many other states at this point. The conservative states in the South and others in the Midwest and Mountain West are a long way from approving similar legislation. However, on a national basis, it looks like the trend is moving strongly toward legalizing gay marriage (or an equivalent using a different word than marriage) in more and more states.
[i]”I appreciate your passion on this issue …”[/i]
FWIW, though my rhetoric might imply otherwise, I don’t feel passionate about this issue, so much as I feel passion against what I think are ridiculous arguments on the other side. Gay marriage means nothing to me personally. I have one cousin (out of 36) who is gay. I’ve never talked with him about this issue. I’m sure he would like equal treatment under the law, like anyone else. But as far as I know, he has no plans to marry at any time soon.
What seems strange to me, as a straight man, is why, outside of religious conviction, so many opponents of gays getting legally married oppose it. It won’t affect them. It’s not really anyone else’s business, but the couple in question.
A friend of mine who has a bunch of kids (6) says, “I love my children. I love children in general. But there is something wrong if I am paying too much attention to somebody else’s kids.” I think it’s the same thing with other people’s love lives or marriages. As long as they are two consenting adults who entered into the union freely and they are not harming anyone else, there is no reason for you or me or anyone outside their family to really care about their marriage.
It’s for that reason that I don’t feel passion about the issue in and of itself. I would prefer that everyone is treated fairly, and that is not the case without allowing gays to marry. But whether the laws change or not really is not my greatest concern.
DMG: “The question is, why is a discriminatory culture something to be lauded?”
I don’t know, but prop 8 opponents have a right to their opinion. what can you do.
DMG: Desegregation did not change our culture, it allowed another group of Americans to become part of it.
once again, which side is making the jim crow comparisons? My answer is the same: The two aren’t comparable. Gay people insofar as I know, don’t have to sit at the back of the bus.
DMG: where no Republicans have supported a budget plan, and saddled with Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage and is bogged down in the courts.
once again, no matter how much power the democrats aquire in CA, somehow california’s problems always seem to fall on the republicans. excuses, excuses.
DMG: “My marriage is not threatened in the least if my gay and lesbian friends are allowed to marry. If anything, it is bolstered and strengthen by renewed commitment to the sanctity of such an esteemed institution.”
yes, I am aware of the talking points.
DMG: Despite all of the money and scare tactics, the measure only very narrowly passed.
yes, prop 8 opponents lost in spite of the money and scare tactics they used.
“If it is “the same thing,” why is the issue so polarizing?”
because your side never shuts up, and seeks opportunity after opportunity to parade themselves in front of the cameras (see above picture)
Musser
“Gay people don’t have to sit at the back of the bus”
I think Matthew Sheppard might have had a different view had he survived the torture and beating he sustained tied to a fence post. Vicious acts do not have to be of equal magnitude to be deplorable. I don’t think that the Jim Crow south was the same as the Holocaust. That doesn’t mean that both were not abhorrent.
“Yes, I am aware of the talking points”
In what specific way do you disagree with them ?
Elaine
“For many of us, the gay marriage issue is complex, tied up with larger overarching philosophies/considerations
that the proponents of gay marriage refuse to understand or even listen to. A more reasoned dialogue would be a lot more fruitful”
I really have to take exception with this statement. Rd canning, Don Shor, and myself have attempted to engage those who are opposed to gay marriage on this site on a number of occasions. The frustration that I have encountered is that most of the explanations that have been put forward seem to come down to some variation of one of the following:
“One man/one woman marriage is traditional”
Except that that has only been true recently in human history.
Polygamous and matriarchal societies have a “tradition” that goes back at least as long if not longer than the
American version of traditional marriage. What this says to me is that the argument boils down to “my version of tradition is the one that should be honored.” Note that I don’t think that this belief should be disrespected, I just don’t believe that it should be imposed on those who feel differently.
” Gay marriages are harmful to children”
This may be a very firmly held belief for some, but there are no controlled studies to support this just as there are no controlled studies to show that they are not harmful.
I do not see why in the absence of information either side can argue this idea. JB will probably say that he did site articles. The problem is that all the information he provided applied to single female parenting situations, there were no direct comparisons of the children of two gay parents vs two straight parents. If someone had studies which addressed this hypothesis directly, I would be happy to reconsider.
“Gay marriage is against my religion or philosophy.”
This I understand. We have chosen to live in a country where differences in religious beliefs are supposed to be respected. If anyone were forcing gay marriage on unwilling partners or not allowing heterosexuals to marry, I would stand firmly against that just as I currently stand strongly against not allowing homosexuals to have the same rights that heterosexuals have. I see this as purely a matter of civil rights, but remain open to hearing and considering other points of view.
I have yet to have heard why anyone believes that this is a threat to them or their family or their individual choice of how to live their life. I am definitely listening.
Medwoman: “Rd canning, Don Shor, and myself have attempted to engage those who are opposed to gay marriage on this site on a number of occasions. The frustration that I have encountered is that most of the explanations that have been put forward seem to come down to some variation of one of the following:”
no, you have not tried to engage. You have played the discrimination jim crow card over and over. You appear to like listening to your collective selves talk, and if you truly listened you would have heard things other than the bulleted list you put up.
Medwoman: “I think Matthew Sheppard might have had a different view had he survived the torture and beating he sustained tied to a fence post.”
what does matthew sheppard have to do with proposition 8? if you think the torture of a person because he is a homosexual even remotely comes close to proposition 8, then I’m afraid your judgment is beyond repair.
Personally I have not cited Jim Crow or similar laws. The parallel I see is between laws which prohibit gay marriage and laws which prohibited inter-racial marriage such as were overturned via Loving v. Virginia.
I believe that we engaged in a civil discussion with Jeff Boone and others on the other thread.
I do think that anti-gay bigotry will be reduced in the long run as more people growing up interact with normal gay people in all walks of life, doing all the same things that everyone else does. Including getting married.
Musser: [i]My answer is the same: The two aren’t comparable. Gay people insofar as I know, don’t have to sit at the back of the bus.[/i]
The comparison is that same-sex couples are treated as second class citizens with respect to rights of marriage that hetersexual married couples get. I’ve known a same-sex couple for as long as I’ve been married (as a heterosexual), and a few more for a shorter length of time. I don’t note any significant difference in the kind of affection and commitment my homosexual couple friends feel for each other (apart from sexual orientation).
Here’s a sample:
[quote]On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims’ recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more….
[url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm[/url]
[/quote]
I wouldn’t mind if the governments got out of the “marriage” business and switched terms for any and all legal coupling to “domestic partnership” and leave the term marriage as one to use in a religious context, but I highly doubt that will happen.
Do you know any same-sex couples as friends of yours? If so, then what’s your take?
Musser
I was not making any association between Matthew Shepard and Prop 8.
Since you had brought the Jim Crow south into the discussion, the association tbat I was making was between the violence towards Matthew
She pard based on his sexual orientation and the way blacks were treated in the south on the basis of their skin color. I think there is considerable similarity in killing people based on perceived differences from ones self.
Don shor: I do think that anti-gay bigotry will be reduced in the long run as more people growing up interact with normal gay people in all walks of life, doing all the same things that everyone else does. Including getting married.
I was more or less with you about not reducing oneself to incivility, then came this paragraph. I read it carefully. The implication being those who are not in favor of gay marriage are practicing “anti-gay bigotry”. in my view, leading me to question what you just said about your discussion with Jeff Boone in the previous paragraph as being “civil”.
Musser
Are you really criticizing Don about lack of civility after your comment about my judgement being beyond repair for an association I clearly was not making if you had read and understood my post.
When gay people are working where they choose, living where they choose, getting married if they choose, and more people interact with them in all walks of life, anti-gay bigotry will naturally diminish. As my children have met people who are gay, seen them in long-term relationships, known them as friends, the gay-ness of those people has become irrelevant.
Treating gay people separately in employment (DADT, DOMA, Prop 8) slows the process of full acceptance of gay people in society. It does not mean that the motives of those who oppose gay marriage are rooted in bigotry. Some are, some aren’t.
I think you can assess the other thread for yourself.
ERM: [i]For many of us, the gay marriage issue is complex, tied up with larger overarching philosophies/considerations that proponents of gay marriage refuse to understand or even listen to. A more reasoned dialogue would be a lot more fruitful… [/i]
Then indulge yourself. That’s what blog discussions are for.
[IMG]http://www.english-test.net/images/books/7/bk_dove_001130.jpg[/IMG][B][I]”The notion that the world can’t get along without my help is a pretty common delusion. The more religious a person is, the more s/he will subscribe to it. If there’s one thing the fundamentalists of the world have in common it’s the conviction that God’s work won’t get done unless they pitch in and do it.”[/I][/B]
Musser said:
“I don’t know, but prop 8 opponents have a right to their opinion. what can you do.”
I don’t disagree that they have the right to that opinion, but our Constitution (in my opinion) doesn’t allow them to impose that opinion on others. Keeping their own counsel would appear to be consistent with the law of the land.
“The two aren’t comparable. Gay people insofar as I know, don’t have to sit at the back of the bus.”
Violence takes all sorts of different forms. The sacrament in Christian Religious ceremonies is “the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace” but the absence of that outward and visible sign in no way compromises the presence and/or strength of the inward and spiritual grace. Jim Crow laws and forcing people of color to sit in the back of the bus were outward and visible signs of a festering spirit. The absence of those outward signs doesn’t make anti-homosexual feelings any less festering at their core.
[quote]I wouldn’t mind if the governments got out of the “marriage” business and switched terms for any and all legal coupling to “domestic partnership” and leave the term marriage as one to use in a religious context, but I highly doubt that will happen. [/quote]
And this would, in a nutshell, be my contention. Nicely said!
To medwoman: With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, go back and read your post, and then tell me if you would truly listen with an open mind. Also note other posts from proponents of gay marriage, with the words “bigotry”, “prejudice” and other pejoratives used when referring to opponents of gay marriage. Which side of this issue is the intolerant one? “Thou doth protest too much methinks”…
Sorry if this offends, but you did ask…
But Elaine, how can you see it as anything other than a prejudgment of others. Bigotry certainly doesn’t apply in many (if not most) of the opponents of homosexuality (gay marriage being only a surface issue IMHO), but prejudgment does appear to apply, especially when homosexuality is used as “evidence” of the unworthiness of the individuals involved.
I too feel that much of this surface issue would be defused if marriage became the province of Religion, and government restricted itself to the issuance of “legal status certificates.”
Unfortunately, as I noted above, I see the gay marriage issue as only an excuse for some people to force their own personal prejudgments onto others, and I’m afraid that when and if a particular Religion chooses to support/perform “Marriages” for gay couples, the prejudgments of that Religion will come loud and long.
wdf1: [i]I wouldn’t mind if the governments got out of the “marriage” business and switched terms for any and all legal coupling to “domestic partnership” and leave the term marriage as one to use in a religious context, but I highly doubt that will happen.[/i]
ERM: [i]And this would, in a nutshell, be my contention. Nicely said![/i]
We may have agreement that the concept would be a nice idea, but I emphasize that eliminating all reference to marriage in a legal/civil context and substituting something like “domestic partnership” instead, is less politically viable than accepting same-sex marriage. In particular I don’t see Republicans as supporting this switch. Given their proclivity to latch onto red meat traditional values issues in the recent past, I can see them running ads to the effect, “my opponent opposes marriage” without caring to acknowledge the nuance. And I think Democrats would also be well aware of that campaign calculation.
Excellent point wdf. I think that such “wording legislation” is DOA; however, the same effect can be accomplished by “attrition.” Legislation does not mandate the wording on blank forms and documents provided to the public. Forms change all the time. When it comes time to order a new supply, simply don’t order them with the word Marriage on them. Evolution rather than revolution would seem to be in order if one wants to accomplish that goal.
Hooray! Reported this afternoon in the New York Times….
[quote][b]At Gay Pride Parade, Cuomo Is Center of Attention[/b]
By John Leland, Published: June 26, 2011
Two days after the State Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage, participants in New York’s 42nd annual gay pride parade on Sunday came to shout, dance, cheer, strut, hug and shed tears of joy, knowing that on July 24, when the law takes effect, the season for tears will begin in earnest.
It was a noisy, and jubilant, day in the West Village. Much of the cheering was aimed at Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, who made legalization of same-sex marriage a part of his election campaign and then led the fight for its approval in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Mr. Cuomo was the parade’s rock star, eliciting loud cheers and shrieks as he made his way down Fifth Avenue; the roar became almost deafening as the parade turned onto the narrow Christopher Street. People who arrived early enough to stand along the edge of the streets leaned over metal police barriers to get a glimpse of the governor or to catch the attention of the cameras following him. With Mr. Cuomo were Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, as well as several other local politicians.
“Finally we got someone who does what he believes in,” said Chuck Sawyer, 49, a fund-raiser for the American Lung Association, who added that he and his partner would probably get married in late summer. “He’s been doing what he said he’d do. A lot of past governors and even the president haven’t come through. He did.”
Revelers along the route, which ran down Fifth Avenue from 35th Street and then west past the Stonewall Inn, the birthplace of the gay rights movement, held up thousands of printed signs reading “Promise Kept!” and “Thank You Gov. Cuomo.” Mayor Bloomberg waved a rainbow flag.
Mr. Cuomo seemed to bask in the crowd’s attention, beaming and pointing out individuals along the route.
“I’ve been to the parade many times, and there’s always a lot of energy and it’s always been a ball, but this was special,” he said, as he stepped out of the parade on Christopher Street. “I think you’re going to see this message resonate all across the country now. If New York can do it, it’s O.K. for every other place to do it.”
In a rare public appearance with the governor, Mr. Cuomo’s girlfriend, Sandra Lee, a celebrity chef who has an openly gay brother, marched by his side, wearing a sleeveless white dress. Ms. Lee figured into Mr. Cuomo’s deliberations over same-sex marriage, according to those who know the couple: she repeatedly reminded him that she wanted the law changed.
Several participants carried hand-lettered signs thanking by name Republican senators who voted for the legislation.
Former Gov. David A. Paterson, who championed a same-sex-marriage bill that was defeated nearly two years ago when Democrats had a majority in the Senate, marched a few blocks behind Mr. Cuomo. He held a blue poster in his hands that read “Thank you Gov. Cuomo.”
Earlier in the day, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican, rejected the notion that New York’s acceptance of same-sex marriage would spread to his state.
“I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman,” Mr. Christie said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “I wouldn’t sign a bill like the one that was in New York.”
For Lisa Guadalupe and Lissette Conti, who came to the march with their three children, the parade on Sunday capped a week of highs and lows as they watched lawmakers labor over the marriage bill. “It’s been crazy,” said Ms. Conti, a home health aide. “I’d get happy, then sad, then I didn’t want to get too happy because I was afraid it wouldn’t pass. I held my breath for the longest time, then I screamed.”
For now, though, the couple said they have no immediate plans to marry. “That costs money,” Ms. Conti said. “I want a nice big church wedding.” [/quote]
“I too feel that much of this surface issue would be defused if marriage became the province of Religion, and government restricted itself to the issuance of “legal status certificates.”
Matt.. this was actually the “remedy” that the CA Supreme Court said would resolve this issue in their comments when ruling to invalidate the initiative prohibiting gay marriage. The recent hair-thin success in the NY senate is, IMO,the result of political calculations rather than a significant change in voter support for gay marriage. These legislators’ now believe that the voters are most afraid of the positions of future primary challengers, on dismantling Medicare and other draconian fiscal positions that would impact them, who would use the same-sex marriage issue against them. This calculation allowed legislators to feel that they had enough “cover’ to not be risking their senate seats with their support for this measure.
So I am curious, davisite: when polling indicates that public opinion favors gay marriage, will you support it?
Don.. So far, there has not been one citizen referendum/initiative that has won a majority. The polling indicates a national near even split but this includes a very large number who declare support but are probably indifferent one way or the other and are responding with the current politically correct answer. Those who are opposed(approx. 50%, for any number of reasons,on the other hand, are most likely 100% truly and strongly opposed. My feeling, as I have indicated many times, is that redefining the cultural definition of marriage by court order or through the manipulations of the political process further polarizes and fragments the sense of an already collapsing sense of national cohesiveness,shared responsibility and community.
When redefining marriage to include same-sex unions becomes a cultural non-issue that does not seriously fragment social cohesiveness, I will have no issue with it becoming the accepted definition. We will know THAT when we see it and it certainly is not with us yet.
“My feeling, as I have indicated many times, is that redefining the cultural definition of marriage by court order or through the manipulations of the political process further polarizes and fragments the sense of an already collapsing sense of national cohesiveness,shared responsibility and community.”
I think history shows you are wrong here. The court has often played the role of social arbiter and has in general helped to construct a new consensus.
davisite2: [i]When redefining marriage to include same-sex unions becomes a cultural non-issue that does not seriously fragment social cohesiveness, I will have no issue with it becoming the accepted definition. We will know THAT when we see it and it certainly is not with us yet.[/i]
Don Shor pointed out (in a comment string to another related article) that inter-racial marriage didn’t achieve widespread (majority) acceptance in polling until some 30 years after Loving v. Virginia.
It looks like you are applying the “follow the largest herd” principal on critical issues like this. Maybe it gives you cover for your positions (“everyone else believes it”), but it’s hard for me to see how this is critical thinking.
‘….that inter-racial marriage didn’t achieve widespread (majority) acceptance in polling until some 30 years after Loving v. Virginia.”
A ban on inter-racial marriage denies individuals a substantive civil right, i.e. the ability to form a sanctioned “union”. Assuming that same-sex civil unions win full substantive civil rights equivalent to “marriage which, IMO is a “slam-dunk” if brought before the judiciary, there is no comparison between being denied the “right” to be called a “marriage” and a ban on inter-racial marriage.
davisite, there may be a difference in the specifics of the degree of rights denial, but we are dealing with “two of a kind” here. As they say, [i]”you can’t get a little bit pregnant”[/i]
I feel you are dancing on the head of a pin.
“Don.. So far, [b]there has not been one citizen referendum/initiative that has won a majority. The polling indicates a national near even split [/b]but this includes a very large number who declare support but are probably indifferent one way or the other and are responding with the current politically correct answer. Those who are opposed(approx. 50%, for any number of reasons,on the other hand, are most likely 100% truly and strongly opposed. My feeling, as I have indicated many times, is that redefining the cultural definition of marriage by court order or through the manipulations of the political process further polarizes and fragments the sense of an already collapsing sense of national cohesiveness,shared responsibility and community.”
davisite, the framers of the Constitution wisely anticipated that popular elections/ballots can easily produce an unhealthy Tyranny of the Majority, and established the system of checks and balances to be sure that the rights of the Minority were preserved. The popular referendums you cite only demonstrate just how wise the Founding Fathers were.
“davisite, there may be a difference in the specifics of the degree of rights denial, but we are dealing with “two of a kind” here. As they say, “you can’t get a little bit pregnant”
I feel you are dancing on the head of a pin.”
Matt….With genuine respect as to your demonstrated past clear-headed thinking and analysis,the above is,uncharacteristically, too muddled for me to understand the thrust of your argument.
“that the rights of the Minority were preserved.”
Please explain what SUBSTANTIVE civil right is being abridged by denying same-sex civil union couples(assuming they achieve full substantive civil rights equivalent to the institution of marriage) a government redefinition of the institution of marriage?
[i]”Please explain what SUBSTANTIVE civil right is being abridged by denying same-sex civil union couples(assuming they achieve full substantive civil rights equivalent to the institution of marriage) a government redefinition of the institution of marriage?”[/i]
The answer to your question is easy. By having two different “marital statuses” based on a characteristic such as race or sexual orientation, you are firmly within the definition of “separate but equal,” which the Constitution clearly forbids. Violation of the provisions of the Constitution is indeed substantive.
That is the same answer to your first question as well. Sorry if I was unclear. “A ban on inter-racial marriage” was/is a denial of equal status before the law based on a personal characteristic. Provision of two separate but equal forms of “marriage” is a denial of equal status before the law based on a personal characteristic. Those respective denials of equal status are “two of a kind.” Any difference in the specifics of how equal protection is denied is irrelevant . . . equal protection is clearly denied . . . the pregnancy metaphor. Any difference in the specifics of how you got pregnant is irrelevant . . . pregnancy is a binary state. You can’t get a little bit pregnant.
“you are firmly within the definition of “separate but equal,” which the Constitution clearly forbids.”
Brown vs. Board of Education. My understanding of the Court’s decision in Brown vs Board of Education, at that time(1960s?), was based upon the evidence demonstrating that segregated schools were separate and UNEQUAL
“…but equal forms of “marriage” is a denial of equal status”
marriage as defined as a man and a woman and same sex unions are distinguishable as different(heterosexual and same-sex) and two different terms would be appropriate to most clearly describe them. The government, in granting equal substantive rights to these two distinguishable groups would not be rendering any judgment about relative “status”. This concept of “denial of equal status” was presented by Judge Walker, in his public comments outside of his courtroom on this issue, i.e. denying the use of the term “marriage” to same-sex couples results in making them(read makes them FEEL like) second-class citizens. The constitution is about substantive civil rights and is diminished when referred to in attempting to address issues of personal “feelings”.
“definition of “separate but equal”
Didn’t separate but equal refer to a substantive separation of facilities, institutions, available resources, etc., not the use of two different terms to describe two distinguishably different things?
davisite, of course if you start from that specific definition of “marriage” your argument holds. However, the definition of “marriage” prior to Loving v. Virginia was “a man and a woman of the same race.” It was that very definition that was the root of the equal rights denial, just as your personal definition of “marriage” is also at the root of equal rights denial.
Perhaps a better definition is “between two human beings”
I should say a better puvlic/governmental definition is “between two human beings.” What you choose to use as a definition in the privacy of your home or the privacy of your place of spiritual convocation is just that, “private and personal.”
[i]”Didn’t separate but equal refer to a substantive separation of facilities, institutions, available resources, etc., not the use of two different terms to describe two distinguishably different things? “[/i]
A publicly issued license is a “facility” and “available resource” The governmental office that issues the license is a “facility” and “available resource”
[i]Please explain what SUBSTANTIVE civil right is being abridged by denying same-sex civil union couples (assuming they achieve full substantive civil rights equivalent to the institution of marriage) a government redefinition of the institution of marriage?[/i]
You propose that the status of gays who marry should be exactly equal to that of straight people who marry, but that the word should not be used to define exactly the same condition.
What substantive civil right is being abridged when they use the same word for the exact same condition?
I’m really having a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that it is davisite with whom I am having this conversation.
“What substantive civil right is being abridged when they use the same word for the exact same condition?”
Don.. None but that is not the question. Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman and , although not accepted as determinative in the CA Supreme Court’s rulings, it is undeniable,IMO, that it carries significant “weight” in our traditions and culture and it is the change that must be proven necessary to correct some denial of a substantive civil right.
“A publicly issued license is a “facility” and “available resource” The governmental office that issues the license is a “facility” and “available resource”
Matt.. Of course, the “facility” is equally available to issue civil-union licenses.
On departing this thread, I want to say that I have enjoyed this “conversion” with you. I have tried to keep my personal opinions at bay and attempt to digest the arguments on all sides with as dispassionate a manner as I can muster. My personal inclination is to be wary of the increasing societal pressure for political correctness. The value of the concept of tolerance, is critical,IMO, for community cohesiveness in a diverse society.In the last analysis, I fully agree with your statment earlier that this issue should be one of evolution rather than ravolution.
davisite, I too have enjoyed the conversation. One of the basic tenets I live by is “walk in the other person’s shoes.” A few final thoughts . . .
[i]”Matt.. Of course, the “facility” is equally available to issue civil-union licenses”[/i]
Separate but equal . . .
[i]None but that is not the question. Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman and , although not accepted as determinative in the CA Supreme Court’s rulings, it is undeniable,IMO, that it carries significant “weight” in our traditions and culture and it is the change that must be proven necessary to correct some denial of a substantive civil right.[/i]
One of the great strengths of the USA is our inclusive heritage. “Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” is enscribed on the Statue of Liberty for a reason. The definition you cite is the highly prevalent, but certainly not universal. So, in the spirit of the Statue of Liberty my Judeo-Christian, male, heterosexual inclination is to avoid putting others in a position where they can not breathe free.
With that said, I have a question for you. [i]Does moving the word “marriage” out of the realm of governmental facility and leaving it (as it currently is and has been) in the realm of spiritual organizations and ceremonies denying you or anyone else the ability to breathe free?[/i]
“With that said, I have a question for you. Does moving the word “marriage” out of the realm of governmental facility and leaving it (as it currently is and has been) in the realm of spiritual organizations and ceremonies denying you or anyone else the ability to breathe free?”
I guess that I’ll continue and reply to your question. “ability to breath free?”, “give us your tired and hungry”?.. common on Matt. You have been relying on cliches and platitudes with increasing frequency and I have to wonder why. Since you claim to try and put yourself in others shoes, how about trying this on for size? Those who find the traditional definition of marriage one of the bedrock structures that supports their world-view and life activities. They accept the fact that same-sex unions should have the same substantive rights(and responsibilities) but find their world being “assaulted” by government when the historic,traditional meaning of marriage is changed gy government,judicial fiat.
If those same people went up to their minister, rabbi, shaman, priest and asked is my marriage performed in this spiritual organization in any way changed by governmental changes, what answer would they receive?
You are arguing for exclusion rather than inclusion, and I am sorry you don’t like what is written on the Statue of Liberty, but it is there and has been there and will be there regardless of whether you think it is a platitude or a cliche or an inspiration.