New York state lawmakers voted on Wednesday against [neutering] marriage, dashing gay rights activists' hopes it would become the sixth U.S. state to allow same-sex couples to [get a state marriage license together].Good for them.The New York state Senate voted down the legislation by 38-24.
Governor David Paterson, a Democrat who supports [neutering] marriage, had said he would have signed the bill into law if it had passed.Boo on him.
Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont have [neutered] marriage, while 40 U.S. states have specific laws that [require bride+broom]. Last month, voters in Maine chose to repeal a law that had [neutered] marriage.Thanks for reminding us.
New York is one of the most politically liberal states in the country.As "liberal" as people think New York is, their divorce laws, at least on paper, tend to be more respectful of marriage than those of say, California. Let's hope they continue to resist marriage neutering.
[Much more after the jump.]
Recent polls showed a majority of New York voters favored allowing same-sex couples to marry, but one poll showed the public evenly split.Yes, some polls have shown support for neutering state marriage licensing, but when it comes down to a vote of the people, we get the truth about what the voters believe. Will the next tactic by the activists be an attack on the private ballot?
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he was "deeply disappointed" the Senate had not [neutered] marriage.All couples? Even couples like this one? Once again, the language used invites my response."Historic change does not come easily, but this vote was a crucial step that, I believe, will ultimately lead the state to extend full marriage rights to all couples," he said.
New York's Democratic-controlled state Assembly has easily passed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage three times, but the legislation had not been voted on in the Senate until now.So much for the charge that marriage defenses is a matter of conservative Republicans being extremists, especially when you couple this when the Obama voters that passed the California Marriage Amendment.The Democrats hold a Senate majority of 32-30, but several Democratic senators opposed [neutering] marriage.
"We will not accept defeat and we will not stop fighting until all New Yorkers are treated equally," said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is gay.All New Yorkers are treated equally when it comes to marriage licensing. I'll say it as often as their statements invite me to point it out.
"This is a painful loss for loving and committed same-sex couples in New York who want the same things all Americans do: to take care of each other and their families," said Jarrett Barrios, president of national gay advocacy and anti-defamation group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
They can't do that without a marriage license? Notice the reactions cited in the article are all about feelings and the losers' perception of fairness - nothing about what benefit neutering state marriage licensing could possibly bring to society.
The article goes on to say that marriage neutering advocates in New Jersey are worried. They were hoping to get their wish before Governor Jon Corzine leaves office in January. He would sign a marriage neutering bill into law. Chris Christie, Governor-elect, said he would veto it.
California, Maine, New York - all states that have been depicted as "progressive" and willing to lead the way to social change. Do you see a trend here? Let's all celebrate by singing our favorite Broadway show tunes.
UPDATE: Paul Thornton, a supporter of marriage neutering, posted this LATimes.com opinion blog entry on the news. They take comments, so I encourage you to click the link and offer some.Still, even the most optimistic equality advocates must acknowledge that progress on this issue seems to have hit a wall over the last few years.Marriage neutering advocates ("equality" doesn't come into play when you are talking different situations) are mistaken, if not delusional if they don't see that we're a tolerant people, but we also value what's left of marriage. We're concerned enough about the feelings of others that many of us back legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, even though the state does not have the same interest in them as it does marriage.
It's a sordid thing for a straight man like myself who cares deeply about this issue to say to gay men and women. Their quality of life is at stake, not mine, and it's completely unfair for them to have to spend any more of their remaining lives as second-class citizens.There nothing "second class citizen" about this. People, regardless of sexual orientation, are free to form voluntary associations with other consenting adults, but different kinds of voluntary associations are treated differently by the law – for good reason. Business partnerships are not nonprofits are not for-profit corporations are not domestic partnerships are not marriage are not homeowner associations.
I distinctly remember something about "they shall fall into the pit they dig for us." I find it interesting to see how the gay marriage agenda has become a dead-in-the-water issue all of a sudden. It's probably because people are overly-tired of the activists and their infantile tactics (physical violence, property damage, discrimination at schools, firing employees, verbal abuse, and now calling for a ban on divorce) even if they agree with the cause. It's hard to vote for something when the activists on that side show so little self-control, respect, maturity, class, and tolerance. And what state would want to put something on the ballot that will inevitably cause an increase in hate crimes, property crimes, and discrimination cases? The activists made it painful with their own intolerance and hate, and hence, they fall into the pit they dug for us. The people who should really be mad at them are the respectful quiet people that just wanted to get married.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with KZ comments above but would modify them somewhat.
ReplyDeleteI would say that "they shall fall into the pit they dig for us." - has more (in this instance) to do with their over-reaching than with particular tactics.
The whole "movement" was a bad tactic. It their judges themselves who called opposition arguments (necessarily) "irrational" and drew the (poor) analogy with the racist south.
If gay couples would have simply asked for a type of civil union with some benefits - and not drawn the false analogy of "traditional marriage is bigoted" - people would have been more cool headed and respectful.
Instead the come on like gangbusters and end up hitting a dead-end.
People know marriage is delicate, important and distinct.
They are sympathetic to gay people but are much more concerned with marriage than the media and politicians admit.
This is a genuine and obvious motivation for even liberal states to be against them.
Momentum is important and they are getting bogged down for all the right reasons.
The whole "movement" was a bad tactic. It the judes themselves who called opposition arguments (necessarily) "irrational" and drew the (poor) analogy with the racist south.
If gay couples would have simply asked for a type of civil union with some benifits - and not drawn the false analogy of "traditional marriage is bigoted" - people would have been more cool headed and respectfull.
Instead the come on like gangbusters and end up hitting a dead-end.
People know marriage is delicate, important and distinct.
They are sympathetic to gay people but are much more concerned with marriage than the media and polticians admit.
This is a genuine and obvious motivation for even liberal states to be against them.
Momentum is important and
I found this post over at LA Times Blog in the comments section, - I thought is was a great take on the whole "it's enevitable" school..
ReplyDelete"We are being told that legal implementation of gay marriage is inevitable. We have also been told that Hispanics will eventually become an ever-increasingly large segment of the population. These two "facts" cannot be reconciled. Hispanics may be, out of necessity as much as anything else, politically liberal, but socially they are very conservative. As their percentage of the population--and electorate--grows, their influence will expand. The next five years or so may be the last chance for the proponents of gay marriage to have a chance at broad acceptance. Also, the amusing argument that all those over 65--and anti-gay marriage--will die soon supposes, I guess, that young people who support it will not get older. And we all know what happens to people's political and social philosophies as they age. They tend to the right. Adios, gay marriage...."
I agree, and I had never thought about those 2 "facts" as being contradictory before, but they certainly are. Good point!! :o)
ReplyDelete