07/10/2006
New York Legislators Pressed for Positions on Gay Marriage
After last week's ruling by the New York Court of Appeals that suggested lawmakers and not the Court should be the proper arbiters of whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, gay rights groups as well as opposing "family" groups are looking to political leaders to clarify their statements on the issue with action.
Both New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Eliot Spitzer have said in the past that although they support gay marriage, they looked to the state's laws for ultimate guidance on their actions and have thus legally opposed same-sex marriage proponents up till now.
Now that the court has ruled that the legislature must see to it to get same-sex marriage laws passed, Bloomberg has said he will do what he can to make that happen: "The court said it's not unconstitutional to have a law that determines who can marry who. And, so, now, what we have to do, if you believe that marriage should be between people if they want to do it, you go to the Legislature. And I said I would do that."
Spitzer has promised that as the state's governor he would introduce same-sex marriage legislation. Said his spokesperson Christine Anderson: "...he personally is in favor of gay marriage. As governor, he will draft and propose legislation to change that law."
Both Spitzer and Bloomberg have deftly stepped around the issue as it has made its way through the court system, while Senator Hillary Clinton continues to play a game of dodgeball with the issue, judiciously avoiding the terms gay and marriage with overarching phrases like "full equality". Senator Chuck Schumer took the most nondescript stand of all, echoing both Clinton's and the Court of Appeals' decision. But, of course, he's not likely running for President.
Can a politician that publicly views homosexuality as "normal" be elected to lead the country? That is the question Hillary seems to be trying to answer as she plays the waiting game and careens toward 2008 without a stand on same-sex marriage that satisfies a large portion of gay voters. Certain potential candidates with nothing to lose seem willing to take the chance and pay whatever political price may follow. Now that the Court of Appeals has made its decision and turned the magnifying glass toward the New York legislature, can Hillary stick to her position and avoid getting burned?
Clinton's Remark on Ruling Irks Gay Rights Advocates [nyt]
Meaning of 'Normal' Is at Heart of Gay Marriage Ruling [nyt]
Twist in Gay Nups Fight: Advocates now turn to Mike and Eliot [nydn]
Posted 11:49 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, Hillary Clinton, New York | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The NY courts decision was intellectually dishonest and cowardly. And so is the overly scripted comments by Clinton and Schumer. Either you support full equality for LGBT people including marriage rights for same-sex couples or you don't. Neither civil unions nor domestic partnerships are the equivalent of marriage. They are separate and unequal.
We will win the right to marry. It's simply a matter of time and smart political and educational action on our part.
Posted by: Michael | Jul 10, 2006 12:54:38 PM
Why do people bother to look to Hillary? Come on, she's become buddy buddy with New Gingrich and Rupert Murdoch? She's aiming for the Right-wing voters. Doesn't her silence or obsufaction say a lot?
Posted by: noah | Jul 10, 2006 1:00:49 PM
No, it really doesn't, because we're too stupid to actually think for ourselves. "Oh, she's a Democrat, so she must be good! Let's go vote and then do some crystal meth."
Posted by: Scott | Jul 10, 2006 1:17:13 PM
Hillary doesn't have to take a stand. Like her husband, she knows she has an automatic endorsement from the gay community. She has your vote, it's the others she needs.
Posted by: Tom | Jul 10, 2006 1:30:36 PM
IS gay marriage the most overrriding issue of the 2008 election? Really? That's not totally self-absorbed? I have stated before (especially after living for 7 years in the gay pretentious hellhole that is Palm Springs) that voting 'gay' is stupid. PS is a great example...the gay politicians are inept and corrupt....just like many non-gay politicians.
I'm absolutely not suggesting that gay marriage ISN'T an important issue FOR US, but we are Americans first. Are marriage rights MORE important than the slaughter in Iraq? The geo-political and human nightmares in North Korea? The environmental trauma that is happening throughout the world? The ecplising of US influence in World Affairs on every single continent because Americans refuse to acknowledge the rest of the world as anything other than serf states?
Sure this is a gay site, but if we take the bait, and make gay marriage the solitary litmus test for our major politicians, then we are going to continue to lose, and lose WORSE than we have been losing. We will have lost the courts at every level. The US is ready, community by community, county by county, and state by state for gay marriage. It's NOT ready yet in huge areas...and that's the trick. New York, LA, SF, Palm Springs.....how silly and vain of us to think that we matter. Our (those and similar communities) electoral patterns haven't changed much in 30 years. In those 30 years, we've elected (since Carter) ONE Democratic president. If your laziness impels you to continue that path, then we all deserve the least that we can get.
The BEST way to do this is locally.....but that means the pretentious dinners with Admiral Level guest seatings, and the easy support of THE MOST corrupt gay organization around (HRC) and the sense that gay pride marches in NYC actually help change Augusta GA or Topeka KS is all so much bullshit. It's so much easier to whine and go to parties where we can out-fabulize everyone else. We're spoiled children. Why should Hillary take us seriously? She knows we'll vote for her anyway, and won't do anything else but bitch on Blogs.
Posted by: PSMike | Jul 10, 2006 1:33:57 PM
PSMIKE, totally agree with you. However, I think we are also being put on the defensive byt those lawmakers who are pushing for gay marriage bans.
I also agree that Hillary is just another pandering politician. And, if that is indeed the case, she should be made to pander to us, not take us for granted.
Posted by: David | Jul 10, 2006 1:55:41 PM
PSMike,
We definitely shouldn't make gay marriage the only litmus test. That said, politicos like Hilary make it easy for us: she's as bad on gay marriage as she is on the Iraq war.
Posted by: GBM | Jul 10, 2006 2:11:53 PM
"It's so much easier to whine and go to parties where we can out-fabulize everyone else. We're spoiled children."
"Oh, she's a Democrat, so she must be good! Let's go vote and then do some crystal meth."
Couldn't have said it better. I see more corruption within the gay community than most others; towards each other and others, aloofness, attitude, ignorance, self-loathing, self destruction, drugs, immaturity, etc. Actions do speak louder than words, and the words I'm getting are "What do I care?". It's time to act up, not just for gay causes, but for the environment, economy, discrimination, all of it matters. Nothing will be accomplished the way it's going now, and caring only for gay rights is tantamount to politicians caring for their own individual rights. Act up...
Posted by: Cory | Jul 10, 2006 2:24:59 PM
So... what would happen if, say in the next year, all 50 states pass ballot legislation for or, more likely, against gay marriage? Then it's a closed topic. What EVER vapors would the politici then spout?
I am a gay person. I am opposed to gay "marriage". I am not Catholic, or Christian, or Jewish, at best Agnostic. I don't want some dude in a dress, waving their smoldering purse to tell me that the bond I have with my partner is now official in the eyes of some pagan God. What I DO want is a common law document that states my partner and I are legally bound.
Let the Christians keep their word "marriage". That, folks, is what this is all about.
Posted by: Rad | Jul 10, 2006 3:05:48 PM
Kudos Rad. I couldn't agree more. Give us our legal rights. I suppose "marriage" as it is defined presently should be redefined by us. Perhaps we'll have a better go at it than the heterosexual community lol ;)...
Posted by: Cory | Jul 10, 2006 3:11:16 PM
I can't believe that for once I agree with pretty much everything you guys have posted above. It's nice to see other people in the LGBT community that can think for themselves.
Posted by: republic | Jul 10, 2006 3:13:29 PM
I'm never sure how to react to the rallying cries for gay marriage. When politicians shy away from it because of practiced cowardice, or when it is attacked by the legions of the homophobic on the right, I can't help but feeling that I should support those in the gay community that want to be married.
However, I'm with Rad and Cory. I think we should be fighting for civil unions for all and leave marriage to the religious. Does the question always have to be "gay marriage: for or against"? I mean, is it too far gone to reframe this debate?
Posted by: GBM | Jul 10, 2006 3:35:27 PM
Several issues:
First, in the body of the the post it infers that Russ Feingold has nothing to lose (read: doesn't hold influence) by standing up for the equal rights of people who are gay. How uninformed. While the author of this post may not be involved in the netroots or grassroots of the progressive movement, the ignorance of that statement is amazing. Feingold is a very popular senator in his own state and others, and is well on the road to an '08 presidential bid. To infer he is a small player in the political scene simply because you don't have the information is silly.
Secondly, I agree with most of what people have said about Hillary. I do not support her nor do I respect her. She is one of the biggest players in the "Inside the Beltway" group of Democrats who have lost touch with reality and insulate themselves within the hallowed halls of corporate money and country club throngs. Because she feels she automatically has the support of the gay community she neither supports gay-positive legislation any longer, nor does she care for our welfare. She's not a friend of the gay community.
Thirdly, the framing of the "gay Marriage" issue has come from the Republicans. They are the ones that have named the issue :gay marriage" and the ineffective Democrats and many of us in the gay community allowed it. Now it's stuck in the conscious of the nation at large and it scares them. Reframe the argument and you take away part of the fear.
Posted by: Joe | Jul 10, 2006 3:57:35 PM
Exactly Joe. I couldn't agree with you more. =) I like the idea of taking away the binding label of "marriage" and establishing gay unions. It not only takes the wind out of the sails of the Republican/Religious right, it establishes our own (hopefully) legal and respected unions...
Posted by: Cory | Jul 10, 2006 4:07:30 PM
Conservatives frame a lot of issues, but there are plenty in our own ranks that seek nothing more, nothing less than the social blessing of government sanctioned gay marriage. We hear the separate/equal argument often repeated, but no one seems to mention gender-blind civil unions as a viable option to addressing this problem.
Posted by: GBM | Jul 10, 2006 4:28:50 PM
I've never liked "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage." I just love how Karl Rove injected verbiage that will be seen to all as an attack into the social theater. "they wanna change your marriage!" and we all bought it.
Personally, marriage can kiss my gay arse. I can name about 3 people MAYBE who've got their original married parents. My mother's been married 3 times. Britney gets married for what, 50 hours? I have a gay friend married to an illegal immigrant lesbian for her citizenship. If you ask me, I don't wanna be apart of that institution and I don't want see any decent married role models to make anyone ever decide to take that step. In fact, it would seem most people these days get married just for the sake of being married because of social tradition. HOWEVER, I do deserve to be treated the same as everyone else and DAMMIT if I wanna go get drunk and Vegas and marry some white trash Louisiana hottie like Britney did for 50 hours then I should be able to. I don't want civil unions. Not just for gays anyways. Now, if they made civil unions for everyone including gays as an alternative to marriage (leave the marriage to churches), that'd be different.
In terms of dems and repubs, dems just don't know how to do anything. It's not just with handling gay issues. And I don't get the gays who are gung ho for Hillary. Is it her apparent dyke-likeness? I mean, she's the worst when it comes to having to perspective on anything. Dem big wigs seem to think that vagueness and attempting mass appeal is how you win but it certainly didn't help John Kerry. I think the gay community has grown too fast, if you ask me. And I'm new to it. But I think, as with all minorities coming to public light, including women and blacks, that there oddly enough seems to be a plateau. A stopping point or a point of complacency. Like, no one says it but it's almost evident that members of that community are feeling like "ok, this is enough." Like, ok we have our bars and our Chelseas and our Castro Districts and our Brokeback Mountains so, let's just hang out with our gay friends and go out on weekends and, sure get pissed at Repubs and bash Bush but, hey atleast we can still pick from 5 or 6 bars to go to next weekend.
and no, I'm not excluding myself from that. As ashamed as it makes me feel.
Posted by: Bobby Alexander | Jul 10, 2006 5:49:19 PM
I think the most important thing we need to do is get the far left Christian fundamentalists out of our government. Once we are able to take the religious arguments against gay marriage off the table, we will only then be left with the true issue of equal rights. Christian fundamentalist are hell bent on destroying the doctrine of separation of church and state. They want to turn this country into a theocracy. Bush affirmed this when he said that America is as Christian country. These religions fanatics will stop at nothing to impose their so called “morals” and beliefs on everyone. And, of course, one of their strongest beliefs is that homosexuality is a sin. Christian fundamentalist threaten democracy, equality and rationality.
When Bill Clinton was in office, both he and Hillary were very boisterous on their stance against the threat of the Christian fundamentalist right. If Hillary has to side step the gay marriage issue in order to be elected, then so be it as long as long as she is on our side once she gets into office.
Posted by: MIMI | Jul 10, 2006 6:08:29 PM
Sorry, meant to say we need to get the far RIGHT Christian fundamentalists out of our government.
Posted by: MIMI | Jul 10, 2006 6:35:51 PM
Once the Greenland ice sheet melts and sea levels rise 21 feet, this won't matter so much.
Posted by: busytimmy | Jul 10, 2006 6:52:22 PM
Oh God, BusyTimmy, don't remind me. I have nightmares. I spent the week in PTown and at certain points during the trip kept thinking if it will be around in 15-20 years... god...
Posted by: Cory | Jul 10, 2006 7:34:06 PM
We should oppose Hilary Clinton and any other anti-gay Democrats with ever fibre of our being, every cent of our savings, every hour of our volunteer time. These centre-right Dems get elected and re-elected because we don't stand in their way, because we buy into the better of two evils argument, which is not so much an argument but a resignation that democracy has failed. Fight brothers and sisters, give your money to candidates who will give voice to your humanity; all of it, not parts. Getting elected is not winning. We elect Democrats all the time who sell us down the river.
Posted by: Lavi Soloway | Jul 11, 2006 12:28:23 AM
Lavi, I appreciate your passion, but this isn't really about Hillary. Frankly, I don't know you enough to call you my brother or sister. Simply because someone's gay ain't enough anymore. As a group we can be awfully pathetic, and I'm not signing on for THAT cause when there are causes that are far more important to me than the opportunity to call a relationship marriage. Yes I want my equal rights....I just don't want the HRC telling me what those should be.
Posted by: PSMike | Jul 11, 2006 1:19:35 AM
When I was a little kid, "marriage" was explained to me by my basically non-religious parents as something that could be done either in a house of worship or at City Hall. The word never had a religious connotation for me so, personally, I'm fine with the phrase "same-sex marriage." To my ears, it doesn't sound like it threatens religious beliefs (even though I know that, for a lot of people, it does). Whether we end up with opposite-sex and same-sex "civil unions" (agreeing, as a society, that "marriage" is a religious term) or opposite-sex and same-sex "marriage" doesn't make much difference to me as long as couples with whatever sexual composition all have the same legal, financial, and societal rights. Anything else is discrimination, plain and simple.
Civil rights attorney Evan Wolfson has a wonderful editorial about the fight to end this discrimination on The Advocate's web site, at
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid33556.asp
Meanwhile, Top Problems Facing the Planet: overpopulation, global warming, and the U.S.'s addiction to oil. The battle to end marriage discrimination is a noble cause, and we should be engaged in it. It also won't matter one whit if there's no planet left. There's a lot of work to do.
Posted by: JOE 2 | Jul 11, 2006 4:13:46 AM
Joe 2,
There is a real difference between civil unions for all and gay/straight marriage. Real civil unions would allow many kinships to receive the benefits that romantically involved, married people now receive. With such a system, a working 60 year old woman would be able take care of her 70 year old bed-ridden sister, providing tax relief, healthcare benefits, etc. for which she would otherwise be inelible. The debate is really about whether the government should promote romantic relationships, or whether it should open up these benefits to many different kinds of houeholds, including some that don't fit the 1950's June Cleaver mold. Because seriously, you don't have to be romantically involved to share a bank account.
Posted by: GBM | Jul 11, 2006 10:35:38 AM
Interesting debates. I miss Leland, though.
Posted by: JT | Jul 11, 2006 10:39:44 AM