New York Passes Gay Marriage Law

[filkertom]

Signed almost immediately by Gov. Cuomo. Congratulations, New York! And a special big Thank You to Senator Mark J. Grisanti:

... a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong and change their mind, especially a politician, especially these days, especially on this issue. Kudos to Sen. Grisanti.

On the other hand:

Just one lawmaker rose to speak against the bill: Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx, the only Democratic senator to cast a no vote. Mr. Díaz, saying he was offended by the two-minute restrictions set on speeches, repeatedly interrupted the presiding officer who tried to limit the senator’s remarks, shouting, “You don’t want to hear me.”

“God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Mr. Díaz said.

Yeah, bit of a shame that laws aren't supposed to be based on the tenets of any particular religion, innit? Doof.

Speaking of which, various and sundry spokesmen for the Catholic Church have declared the whole thing "heresy". Which is really great, coming from an organization that offers advice on love and marriage from ostensibly celibate single men, and which institutionally enables and protects same-sex child molesters.

Comments

[eftychia]

Yeah, I've been thinking about what Diaz said. A couple of responses come to mind:

1. the obvious: "Yeah, God settled religious marriage (though different religions think He did so in different ways -- are you against freedom of religion?), but we're talking about civil marriage."
2. a religious/historical argument: "Yeah, got settled the definition of marriage long ago, but then humans started screwing around with it, tangled it up in inheritance, and cut same-sex couples out of the loop. This just moves the human definition a little closer to the old divine definition."

[filkertom]

Not bad. :) There have also been, believe it or not, a few throwbacks to "It's unnatural!" Which is, of course, crazy -- if people can do it without mechanical assistance, it's all-natural....

[starmalachite.livejournal.com]

Amazing. Sen. Grisanti is a Republican I could possibly vote for. Pity there aren't any like him in my state.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

Great news.

If they're so insistent that marriage is defined by God, then clearly the government should absolutely not be in any way involved with marriage. They should get out of the business in every way.

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

I saw his speech on the live-feed.

It is rare that a politician would admit on the record that in light of new information received s/he had been wrong in their previous stance on an issue and had acted according to this new information.

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

Awesome news. And y'know, my heterosexual marriage still doesn't feel any different.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

My wife and I snogged rather enthusiastically the instant the bill passed.

So no, our marriage doesn't feel threatened by this at all ^_^

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

And I love the phrasing he kept using:
A man can be wiser today than he was yesterday.

That's what always annoyed me about the "waffler" comments directed at certain presidential candidates. The ability to change one's mind upon learning something new is an indication of intelligence.

(Yes, I know. Intelligence isn't universally acknowledged by the American electorate as a Good Thing.)

[ladycheron.livejournal.com]

Huzzah! It's baby steps, I know. Illinois' civil-union law went into effect earlier this month, now NY. How many does that make nationwide?

[musicmutt.livejournal.com]

What you say there is about as true as it is sad.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Not sure precisely, but one of the stories I saw said that, if California can overturn Prop 8, that'll mean 23.6% of the population -- almost 1/4 -- will live in states that allow same-sex marriage.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I tell ya. Don't they recognize that all the best stories about people who learn and change?

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I know. It's like the ability to admit you were wrong or can change your mind is a liability. People use it to question all your decisions you made before and will use it to question your decisions in the future. I don't think it's changing your mind we like, it changing your mind so that you agree WITH US that we like.

[mimiheart.livejournal.com]

w00t! Was totally partying last night in comments on a comm. Plus twitter was tweeting like mad. It was great.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree. The government has to be involved in marriage because marriage has legal implications. You can't be forced to testify against your spouse. If you die your spouse gets your estate unless otherwise stated in your will. Your spouse can decide to end life support for you if you are in a coma or similar medical state. W Bush ended the "marriage penalty" tax. Marriage can be used to gain citizenship. When a marriage ends, the government is there to divide the assets. And so on. All those things require a record of who is and is not married and to whom and for better or worse, the government is the best entity to handle it.

If anyone needs to get out of the marriage business, it's religion.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that they get out of the business of recognizing unions between people. I'm saying that if there's a wide-spread feeling that the word "marriage" has a specific meaning, then if they want to recognize a union, they do so without using the word marriage.

I'm just saying that if religion wants to own the word, give it to them, and the government stops using it. Religion is free to "marry" or not whoever they want, and the rest of us will stop caring.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

That leads right into the notion of "being married in the church". The same marriage can mean several things at once -- a partnership for love or friendship, financial security with a willing partner, a stable environment for raising a family, or a way to prevent muggleborn from being forced to wed purebloods like the Malfoys. (Sorry -- just reread "What Might Have Been (http://fanfiction.portkey.org/story/4902/1)".)

If people choose to be married in the same church, bully for them, with whatever gifts or geases it brings. The big overall concept here, to me, is we cannot make laws based on the tenets of a specific faith finding something icky.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

Tom, I think you'd really like this post by marag.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Especially after we finished eight years with a president who seriously claimed infallibility now and then. Ugh.

Possible solution?

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

How about taking marriage off the books entirely. LET IT stay a religious institution, but make the legal contract of union a different term. I like the idea that civil unions are the ONLY way to join together legally, taking the moral baggage of marriage ala religion out of the equation. You can get married and do the civil union bit at the same time, no problem, but civil union is legal and marriage is religious. Take the two apart and make marriage have no legal consequence.

Just a thought.

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

THIS!!!!!!!

Re: Possible solution?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I've advocated against that, for the simple reason that marriage has a vast quantity of cachet in civilization. But it has that independent from any religious ties; and I am only being a little facetious by pointing out that marriages performed by Elvis or in a drive-thru chapel do not force you to worship The King or Ray Croc.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Yep. :)

Re: Possible solution?

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

True. But how many of the arguments against this issue have been religious in their basis? If you take marriage as a word out of it, one of two things will happen. Either the arguments will fall flat, or the right wing asshats will continue fighting because they don't want a certain section of people to be the same as them anyways, showing their hypocracy and hate for what it is (granted they do this for civil unions now). Do I think it will happen? Not really, no. Do I think it is necessarily? At this rate, likely not. Is it a solution that COULD work? Maybe, but we may never need to try it, which would also make me very happy. This solution would require a legal re-sculpting of the system that has rarely ever been done successfully. I honestly don't care either way, but it's one argument out there that has some good qualities.

[james-the-evil1.livejournal.com]

Tom, let';s not forget Sen. Macdonald who LITERALLY said to the press "Fuck it, I don't care if I get voted out, this is the right thing."
We need more like him who vote for the people & their conscience rather than politics.

[realinterrobang.livejournal.com]

Congratulations to New York for doing the right thing.

(BTW Tom, there were lots of girls who got molested/raped by priests, too. It drives me crazy that everyone thinks same-sex child abuse is so much worse that -- once again -- the girls disappear.)

[jenrose]

I'm married. And I'll be damned if I'll give the word up to religion. Then again, according to them, I'm damned anyway.

Re: Possible solution?

[jenrose]

Call it holy wedlock, the religious version.

Marriage crosses religious lines and "restricting" it to religion is unacceptable.

[james-the-evil1.livejournal.com]

+1, that happens frequently & the media focuses on the boys as if that's somehow intrinsically more horrible. People who've studied the phenomena say the only reason boys were assaulted in higher numbers was that they were targets of opportunity since no one thought twice about leaving a boy with a man whereas many would think twice about leaving a girl with a man, even if he's a priest.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

If the word loses a legal meaning, then anyone can call themselves married that wants to. Unilaterally form the church of you and declare yourself married.

[jenrose]

Eh, whatever. My church likes gay marriage anyway. (I'm a unitarian universalist.) But still, the idea that it "should" be religiously defined... meh. No.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Oh please, you know and I know the only reason a Republican would pass gay marriage is so his base can have a scapegoat when his party finally drives the country to ruin.

"IT'S TEH KWEERS HOO DID DIS!!!"

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

You're right, no doubt. Forgot that myself -- we have to keep an eye on the big picture, and in this case it's the use of authority to victimize the helpless. They abuse who they can.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily, Lump. In fact, I'm wondering -- thinking back over several things the past few months -- if there isn't starting to be a wee internal backlash against the whole Ideology Uber Alles approach that the Repubs have been living and dying for.

We've had a few different Repub lawmakers -- not many, mind you, only a few so far, but still -- go on the public record and say their party was wrong, and in some cases do so in a way where they can actually put their money where their mouth is, like this. We'll have to watch what they do, the same as we do with everybody... but hey. Give 'em a chance to do the right thing.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

Catholics have a black belt in Persecution Complex (I'm speaking as one of their escapees). All right, we covered up the systematic rape of thousands of women and children - but we're still your moral superiors Goddammit, and if we can't oppress you we're the ones being oppressed, waaaaaahhhhh!

As I said in my own LJ blog, any KKKatholiks who feel "persecuted" by this "heresy" don't have to let the plane door hit them in the ass on their way out of state - we need their apartments for the influx of wedding planners, caterers, singers, decorators, travel agents, etc. getting ready for July 24.

[batyatoon]

HELL YEAH NEW YORK.

Also, someone needs to remind Mr. Diaz that according to the Biblical definition of marriage, polygamy should be legal. I'd love to see him try to rationalize that.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

That quote from Senator Grisanti is fantastic.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

I'd argue it's not just Catholics, but Christians at large, who go in for that. "I don't have a monopoly anymore! I'm being oppressed!"
(Everybody, come see the secularism inherent in the system!)

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Do they even KNOW what persecution means? Not getting your way is not persecution. Having other people enjoy the same freedoms you have is not persecution. Not ignoring your bad behavior is not persecution. What they're doing is the persecution, not being victims of it.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

The Fantastic Four are a credit to white straight Republican dudes everywhere.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

Oh, Catholics know they've been the victims in the past, it gets hammered into us during History (Henry VIII, boo! Mary Tudor, yay! Elizabeth I, boo!) - but like the Puritans they have turned their own oppression onto others, and like all true holders of the One True Faith they can't see irony when it hits them in the sacristy.

Not civil unions

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Some people have mentioned allowing civil unions instead of going for marriage. I have several problems with this.

1) It reminds me of "separate but equal". If CU may have all the same legal rights as marriage, why not call it marriage? Calling it something else implies it's inferior to marriage. It also hampers the acceptance of homosexuals into society because people think, "We get married. THEY get unions." And if a heterosexual couple chooses to get a non-church union (not a marriage) then people are going to give them strange looks.

2) This may be a small point, but what about the language. People say things like, "We're getting married." "They used to be married, now they're divorced." so how would that work with CU? Do you say, "We're getting a union?" Or "They used to be unionized but they dissolved the union." It just doesn't flow right and it doesn't really convey the same meaning.

3) Even though I will probably stay single my whole life, if it were to change I would want to get married. That's "married" not "form a union". Even though I'm an Atheist, I wouldn't mind a fancy church wedding out of tradition and sense of grandeur to celebrate the dawn of a life-long commitment.

4) I'm not comfortable giving any power over marriage to the church. They haven't done such a great job with it. Contrary to their propaganda, the definition of marriage has changed over the years. It used to be a transfer of property (the bride) from father to husband. People didn't have a say and it was often done for political reasons. The Catholic church approved marriages that were incestuous and involved women who barely entered puberty. Try pulling that today and you'll be shut down by the government or burned down by an angry mob.