Given my ambivalence to the recent vote in the Bay State blocking a referendum on a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, some readers seem to think I favor having the people of the several states vote on this important issue. But, as those who have taken the time to actually read my posts on gay marriage well know, I believe state legislatures, rather than the courts, should decide their requirements for marriage in their respective states.
And now it seems that at least one state is showing respect for its citizens by doing just that. Yesterday, the New York State Assembly, by a vote of 85-61, approved a measure allowing the Empire State to recognize same-sex marriages.
This is the first serious vote on gay marriage in any state legislature. You see, I discount the significance of most actions by the Legislature in my adopted home state, given how beholden California legislators are to special interests. Though had they voted on gay marriage before the citizens of the Golden State passed Proposition 22 banning recognition of same-sex marriages, I would have taken their actions seriously.
New York’s legislators show how it’s done. If California legislators had respect for their citizens, they would put a measure on the state ballot to repeal Proposition 22. Each member of the 150-seat New York Assembly now has put his position on state recognition of same-sex marriage on record. And the various members must now answer to their constituents for their stands.
It’s nice to see that, instead of bypassing the democratic process, advocates of gay marriage have instead sought to turn to the elected legislature. the body responsible for enacting — and amending — laws. So, despite the bellyaching (at the time) of the gay groups, something good did come of the finding of New York’s Court of Appeals (the Empire State’s highest court) last year that that gay marriage is not allowed under state law.”
Commenting on that ruling a year ago, I wrote:
I’m not as upset by this decision as are many gay activists and organizations. I believe they have picked the wrong fora to make their case for gay marriage. They should be going to legislatures instead of courts. . . . the option still remains for advocates of gay marriage to make their case before the legislature — and the people to whom the elected legislators are responsible.Â
I’m delighted that advocates of gay marriage exercised the legislative option. Extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples is a significant step. And it should not be made by a handful of judges who do not answer to the citizens.
While the quality of the debate in the New York Assembly seems to have been as lame as the general debate on gay marriage, this is how democracy works. While it’s unfortunate that it took a court decision to get gay marriage advocates to turn to this messy process, I’m delighted that they’re finally looking to the legislatures. Let us hope, that in the future, they will seek to turn to these elected bodies rather than courts as they advance their agenda.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
If what the papers say is accurate, it doesn’t appear this will get through the NY Senate unfortunately. Yet this is a step forward. As I’ve said before, I would prefer same-sex marriage be enacted through the legislature to avoid mini “culture wars” like we’ve seen on the national stage, but I’m not going to complain too loudly when it happens as it did in Massachusetts.
The problem when the CA legislature voted for gay marriage was that they did it as a wholly cynical fundraising ploy for the Democrats. The legislators did it knowing full well that their vote didn’t count, because there was no way gay marriage could happen in CA at that time, because (1) Prop 22 trumped them, and (2) Gov. Schwarzenegger had to veto their bill, knowing Prop 22 trumped them. A crucial margin of Democratic legislators were on record as being gay marriage opponents, who switched their vote only after being reassured it meant nothing.
I hope the New York legislature’s move isn’t cynical. I hope they voted for gay marriage because they really want it.
From the article – this struck me as rather drama queen-ish:
To be clear: I wish Titone and his partner the very best. As part of that, I hope a great deal more holds them together, than political theatricality.
#2 – ILC, on the Drama Queen Scale of 1-10, it’s a 12. Clearly it is more important for him to be a gay legislator than to be a legislator for his constituency.
Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned TACT?
Regards,
Peter H.
If you are waiting for politicians to do something based on virtue and conviction, I suggest you don’t hold your breath in the meantime. Such is a noble ideal and there are of course some who do, but I suspect they are a tiny minority in both parties. No, it’s all about politics, power, special interests and money regardless of the issue. I really do not care what the personal reasons were of NY Assemblymen who voted for this bill, their action speaks far louder to me.
It does give the appearance of being drama queenish given the timing, but it’s not like such proposals haven’t happened or been announced in Congress before. In fact I recall 2 then-freshmen GOP Representatives who married back in the mid-1990s and their engagement was feted in speeches in Congress. It’s quite possible that this proposal in the NY Assembly was the idea of an excited partner happy to be able to propose getting legally married. I have a big cynical streak but that’s tempered at times with a wee touch of romance so I don’t have a problem giving this one a pass.
John, let me give you this much: The gesture would have been as equally maudlin and narcissistic, coming from a hetero couple 😉
Well, I can understand why in this case but it’s such a small thing that it truly doesn’t bother me.
Praise to the NY Assembly for their vote. The passage was assured by the Democratic Party control of the body. But what now? A Republican Party Senate will not even allow a vote on the bill in the Senate. I am a conservative and a Republican, but frankly, sometimes the Democratic Party shines while the Republican Party stinks!
“And it should not be made by a handful of judges who do not answer to the citizens.”
They answer to something called the Constitution…and that is why they do not answer to the citizens directly.
#10, if by answer you mean ‘ignore’ then we agree.
I don’t have data on the NY vote, but it sounds like a good thing. unfortunately one war or another it doesn’t resolve the FFaC issues.
In the end, even if states to allow gay marriage, civil unions, or my pet name for ’em ‘fred’ It’s going to be a federal issue.