New York State vies to be Next in Marriage-Equality Race
New York Governor Paterson gave a press conference this morning at which he made a remarkable announcement: he is introducing legislation in the New York Assembly to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry in New York.
I am watching the video (seen here). He announced his decision in a notably direct manner:
I am introducing a bill to bring marriage equality to the state of New York.
He went on to enumerate a number of excellent reasons why this "civil-rights issue" is the right thing to do. "Too many loving families right here in New York State have not received the legal recognition that they actually deserve."
Did he happen to equate the gay-rights struggle with the civil-rights struggle of black people? No. He equated the movement for civil equality for gays and lesbians with every civil-rights struggle this nation has seen. My possibly inaccurate transcript:
Anyone that has ever experienced degradation, or intolerance, would understand the solemn duty and how important that it actually is. Anyone that has ever experienced antisemitism, or racism, any New Yorker who is an immigrant, who has experienced discrimination, any woman who has faced harassment at work or suffered violence at home, any disabled person who has been mocked or marginalized, understands what we're talking about here.
We have all known the wrath of discrimination; we have all known the pain of hatred. This is why we are all standing here today. We stand to tell the world that we want equality for everyone; we stand to tell the world that we want marriage equality in New York state.
His action was not well received by NY State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. who thought his political machinations at the beginning of the year had guaranteed that no "gay marriage" bill would come up for a vote. He is incensed that the governor should actually do something positive and go ahead and introduce this legislation without kissing enough on Diaz' ass first. Oh dear. (More here.) Diaz cries out that this move by Paterson is a "laugh in the face" (not quite a "slap", evidently) of the ordination of the new Catholic Archbishop for New York City this week, and he feels that an emergency summit of religious leaders is called for. The new Archbishop, in a move that surprised no one, vowed to fight marriage equality.
Evidently this is now to be done in the name of religious "freedom". Setting aside my quaint notion that laws in New York or even in the USA should not be required to pass some sort of religious compliance test (of a certain unidentified Christian sect, evidently), I think it's interesting that people are starting to realize one thing.
Fighting against marriage equality violates the religious freedom of those religious sects that want to solemnize or sanctify the marriage of same-sex couples. Oddly, legislation for marriage equality has always allowed those sects that claim to love gays but will never marry them not to do so. However, denying civil marriage equality infringes the religious freedom of those sects who would marry same-sex couples.
Must we guarantee certain religious sects the right not to be offended that someone else is happy? Don't be silly.
———-
* Off screen there's a few moment lapse for giggling because I first typed "New York City Mary". Oh my.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 17 April 2009 at 13.28
Permalink
Paterson made a politically courageous move with an eloquent and truthful call to conscience.
There's a strong strain of traditionalist, mostly conservative people throughout upstate New York. I'm not familiar with the current dynamics of the governor's clout with the State Assembly, but I expect he's got his work cut out for him. I hope he can pull it off.
Your point about denying religious groups willing to marry gays and lesbians is an excellent one. That's 14th Amendment territory and should be pursued as such.
I was glad to see the Washington state House this week passed a bill that greatly broadens same-sex marriage rights and protections, falling just short of complete equality with hetero marriage. Gov. Gregoire is expected to sign it when she gets it.
I know what you're thinking, but be aware this state is making incremental moves toward full equality with astonishing swiftness. East of the Cascades, as you might expect, there's a strong undertow, again, of traditionalism and conservatism. And yet, even in this region one can sense that people who once would've angrily or sarcastically rejected such an idea outright are tempering their words, expressing uncertainty. That is progress.
IMO, it's no longer a matter of whether in Washington, but when.
on Friday, 17 April 2009 at 23.03
Permalink
SW, I think you're doing quite well in Washington, where there have been great strides and very useful court cases just a few years ago. This latest move is very, very interesting because it calls the bluff of large groups of homophobes who throw up their hands and claim they have nothing against gays living together and having relationships that are recognized and given all the rights of real married people, but please, please, please they plead, just don't call it "marriage".
Well, Washington has now done just that, and those folks don't seem very happy about it. That's a very useful demonstration.