I Less Than Three Diane Savino
Dec. 3rd, 2009 05:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
filkertomYeah, the state senate of New York voted down the gay marriage bill yesterday. Delaying the inevitable, perpetuating discrimination and inflicting religious beliefs on people by law. But at least one good thing came out of it.
I found about State Senator Diane Savino, who gave an amazing speech when she voted for the bill:
I found about State Senator Diane Savino, who gave an amazing speech when she voted for the bill:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Wow.
Date: 2009-12-03 11:13 pm (UTC)Yes, yes, yes a thousand times YES!
Date: 2009-12-03 11:25 pm (UTC)Re: Yes, yes, yes a thousand times YES!
Date: 2009-12-03 11:37 pm (UTC)The responsibility for the sanctity of my marriage lies with me and with my husband. The straight, gay, and polyfolk who were at our wedding may have agreed to help "sustain and support" our vows, but if our marriage ends in divorce, I doubt it'll be their fault. It'll be ours.
Marriage is a cool and wonderful thing. I think cool and wonderful things should be shared with other people who can appreciate the coolness and wonderfulness. I don't think I can say more than that, but I'm glad State Senator Savino has said so much.
Re: Yes, yes, yes a thousand times YES!
Date: 2009-12-03 11:53 pm (UTC)Re: Yes, yes, yes a thousand times YES!
Date: 2009-12-04 02:59 am (UTC)My marriage does not gain one grain of sanctity or depth from any outside agency; they can only grant validity in their own view. That's all that's being asked for here.
If we based the sanctity of our marriages on that of who else is married, we may as well abolish the institution right now.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-03 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-03 11:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-03 11:42 pm (UTC)make ALL marriages under the civil govt into Civil Unions.
het/gay/whatever
its a corporate contract, a civil legal issue to affect taxation and legal issues
leave marriage for the religious side of it
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 01:27 am (UTC)So where does it leave the religion-free or mixed-faith pairings? Are you saying they can't get married?
The word "marriage" has a deeper meaning in society than "civil union". When two people formalize a relationship that should last a lifetime, do they say "We got civil unionized!" or "We got married!"
Calling it a "civil union" demeans the couple. We should call it a marriage because that's what it is.
Fine but why do you want the GOVERNMENT involved?
Date: 2009-12-04 02:10 am (UTC)It is also legal to get married without anybody officiating. The actual ceremony, as required by law, amounts to a declaration before witnesses.
I could live with the legal contract being separated from the social commitment.
Re: Fine but why do you want the GOVERNMENT involved?
Date: 2009-12-04 03:36 am (UTC)Sorry, I'm just getting sick of the "government = wrong" meme.
Seriously though, there are issues of record keeping, legal proceedings, succession of rights, the dissolving of that contract and division of assets, etc that need to have a formal declaration of a marriage to work. The government is the best equipped to handle that, unless you want to trust private enterprise which may decide you need to pay a yearly maintenance fee to stay married.
Re: Fine but why do you want the GOVERNMENT involved?
Date: 2009-12-04 05:59 am (UTC)Perhaps I'm a little more aware of where one part ends & the other begins because of having a two-religion ceremony (not zero) to get married myself. Because my other half (around here, that's literal, we share the LJ account) has no clergy, we had to go a couple rounds of discussion with my clergyman about traditional ceremony versus legal requirements. I see no problem with having completely different institutions watching over the different functions.
Re: Fine but why do you want the GOVERNMENT involved?
Date: 2009-12-04 03:33 pm (UTC)So why not call it marriage? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck it's a marriage.
I'm a little wary of letting marriage be a free for all agreement. Don't get me wrong, what two or more consenting adults want to do with their lives is OK by me. But a line has to be drawn or the word becomes meaningless. That's why I say that we should get religion out of marriage and keep government in. Being married can be difficult and complicated (ask anyone who is married). Dissolving a marriage is difficult and complicated and lengthy. Well so should getting married in the first place. I say dump the "24 hour no blood test Elvis wedding chapels" or at least put a breathalyzer in them. People getting married before they're ready is the biggest threat to marriage since pre-arranged pairings by parents.
"I see no problem with having completely different institutions watching over the different functions."
What functions are you talking about. If marriage is a contract, then it's a legal construct. What does religion have to do with marriage?
Re: Fine but why do you want the GOVERNMENT involved?
Date: 2009-12-05 01:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-03 11:50 pm (UTC)It's time for this. It's past time. And yet as I told my friend Sheila, who came out to me about 35 years ago in fear and trembling, in some ways it's amazing that we're simply talking about and voting about this openly. I remember her saying that it was hard to go to weddings and know that she could never stand up that way with her partner. I remember when "don't ask don't tell" wasn't a military policy, it was how ordinary people had to live their lives, and blatant, daily discrimination was so much a part of the social fabric that it wasn't even talked about, any more than Jim Crow laws were talked about in Northern urban social circles during Eisenhower's administration.
We'll get there, and in my lifetime. We'll get there because of people like Senator Savino, and like Archibald Cox, (yes, the one Nixon fired) the ultraconservative constitutional lawyer who has taken the position that denying civil marriage to anyone based on their partner's sex is gender discrimination, and is arguing against Prop. 8 in the California federal court.
The NY senate was a triumph of small-minded bigotry. But that it came to a vote at all is amazing in and of itself, when you consider where we were just 20 years ago.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 12:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 12:18 am (UTC)My stinking bastich of a so-called state Senator, meanwhile, has had a year: he's been acquitted of the felony assault he committed against his girlfriend when she recanted her testimony because she feared the loss of her gravy train; he tied up the state Senate, along with another crook and liar, for a month, to gain power; and he lied, repeatedly and blatantly, to the press and his constituency about his willingness to vote Aye on this issue.
Now, we're damned well going to fire Monserrate or primary him into glowing, blowing dust. He has no place in public service. (I just hope we can find someone like her to represent us.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 12:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 01:58 am (UTC)Sure
Date: 2009-12-04 02:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 07:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:53 pm (UTC)