Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Vanasco: NYC mayor says no marriage for New York this year
My partner and I spent the summer trying to figure out if we could have our wedding reception in our Manhattan backyard, should marriage become legal in New York State this year.
It was looking pretty good.Last summer, at the Democratic National Convention, a few NY state leaders assured me that if Democrats won control of the state legislature, marriage would come up and pass.
We all know how that turned out.
Still, Jenny and I were holding out hope that Gov. David Paterson, despite his waning clout and flagging poll numbers, might be able to ram a bill through before he was voted out of office.
But Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s mayor and one of its most powerful politicians (and a friend of equal marriage) now says that is a pipe dream.
“I don’t know how to get it to come up,” [Bloomberg] said, explaining his view that having the issue move to the Senate floor may prove more difficult than rounding up the votes. “If you want my honest opinion,” Bloomberg continued, the Senate leadership is unlikely to move a gay marriage bill “when I don’t see these guys willing to stand up for less controversial issues.”
Despite the fact that the number of states with legal gay marriage quickly shot up to six this past spring, the mayor said, “I ‘m scared to death that the country is going in the wrong direction… I think on other LGBT issues they are clearly moving in the direction that I think they should go and you probably do too. It’s the marriage thing that I don’t see.”
Even in New York, where Paterson and his predecessor Eliot Spitzer have been outspoken in supporting gay marriage, Bloomberg argued, “Whether anybody who runs for governor next year will stand up for gay marriage, I’ll bet you 25 cents no.”
Read Gay City News for detailed info on the depressing political maneuvering.
Jenny and I both want to get married – and celebrate our marriage – in a state where it’s actually legal (New York recognizes marriages performed out of state, but we want the whole, “By power invested in me by the state of New York thing. And yes, we know that state marriage in ANY state doesn’t mean any federal rights.)
It is depressing that after the excitement of last year, when it seemed like states were steadily lining up to bring equality to gay couples, we now might lose marriage in Maine in November, Washington State domestic partnerships are threatened, and New York, which looked so promising, now looks so unlikely.
Here’s hoping that Bloomberg is wrong – or just half right – and that gay and lesbian couples like us won’t have to schelp to Connecticut (admittedly just over the border) or Massachusetts. We want to get married in New York. And we should be able to.
Aw don’t be so pessimistic. We have one of our own in the state Senate so that’s a positive thing. I think it will come up in the next two weeks. Paterson and Duane seem strong willed enough.
I’m glad tourism is so great in NYC that Mayor Bloomberg feels confident to disenfranchise a segment of the traveling public that spends money.
At least you don’t live in Florida, where anything equal to marriage will never occur. Thanks old people, right wingers and republitards.
I just love how people want to celebrate gloom and doom.
Let’s clear up a few things:
OK, so this year you may not have marriage rights in NY State. Does that mean it is the end of the discussion? No. There’s 2010, 2011, 2012, and on and on. It will happen in NY State. Just because it isn’t happening as fast you would like it to be is no reason to call it a day.
As to your own personal decision for waiting to marry until it is legal in NY, that is between you and the person you love. However, if it were mine to make, I would simply drive over the border, get married, and have it recognized by the state. You are lucky in that your marriage from CT would be the same as any other marriage done in NY. Most couples get married in different jurisdictions that their own anyway.
It’s like ordering a banana split for dessert and trying to send it back because the maraschino cherry on top is green and not red. It would still be a great banana split nonetheless. Same would be said for a civil marriage from CT.
When it is legalized in NY, you can simply renew your vows. How wonderful that would be. Celebrating a milestone not once, but twice.
About WA and ME: In ME, we aren’t on the verge of “losing marriage” there because it hasn’t happened yet! You can’t lose something that you don’t have. The people’s veto will not prevent our community from trying again. It isn’t a constitutional amendment to ban it, unlike some of the posts I have read here. I have a strong belief that we will prevail. It took three tries to get basic civil rights there, and the activists knew this was going to happen and have prepared for it.
As for WA, domestic partnerships will remain even if R-71 doesn’t pass, and again, it doesn’t prevent our community from passing another law.
We have to remember that this struggle for equality is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to be realistic, true, but that doesn’t mean we need to hang down our heads like Eeyore.
“You gotta give ‘em hope!”
My position is that if you REALLY WANT TO GET MARRIEd, and marriage is legal the next state over, you get your asses into a car or a place or a train and get married.
Otherwise you are paying lip service to the idea.
My folks were New Yorkers – but had to go to Wilmington, DE to get married. Which is what they did. But then, they REALLY wanted to get married – and did not care one whit about the scenery.
Sometimes I wonder how much these statements become self-fulfilling prophecies. A leader who doesn’t want to deal with something says there is no way it can occur simply to preemptively take the wind out of the sails.
michaelInDallas you seem to be missing the point. Mayor Bloomberg is a supporter of marriage equality and has jurisdiction over NYC not the state of NY. Bloomberg is just stating what is very obvious and is powerless in doing anything. Gay friendly Gov. Patterson is very unpopular and most likely on his way out the governor’s mansion.
For same-sex marriage to become a reality in NY the bill has to be introduced in the Senate and voted on. With all the other problems facing NYS a vote on same-sex marriage is indeed a “pipe dream.”
New York state is surrounded by marriage equality to the north Canada, to the east, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, maybe to the southeast by New Jersey in 2009 or 2010.
But if the New York legislature can’t pass the simplest stuff, how is it going to pass marriage equality?
Yodafriend,
You forget that one day you will be old too. And there are a lot of older people on our side. Especially a lot of gay older people. Again you fall into this trap of stereotyping and generalizing.
Flip: I hope. I hope I don’t have to SETTLE for anything. Ever. If I want a red cherry on my banana split, why should I eat the green one? And realistically, you’re supposed to run marathons, not stroll along HOPING there’s a finish line.
In 2005 the NY appellate court reversed a lower court ruling that would have permitted same-sex marriage in New York City (which was, incidentally, brought by Mayor Bloomberg as a challenge to an earlier pro-marriage equality ruling by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan.
Below are excerpts from the NY TIMES on the issue…
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/nyregion/09gays.html?_r=1
“The decision overturned a Feb. 7 ruling by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Justice Ling-Cohan found that state marriage law violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the State Constitution. She permanently enjoined the city from denying a marriage license to any couple on the ground that they were of the same sex, a decision that has been stayed pending the appeals.
The panel also overturned Justice Ling-Cohan’s ruling that gender-specific terms in state marriage law, such as “husband, “wife,” “groom” and “bride,” should be construed to apply equally to men and women.
The definition of marriage now enshrined in state law, “expresses an important, long-recognized public policy supporting, among other things, procreation, child welfare and social stability – all legitimate state interest,” the appellate majority said.
Ms. Sommer, the lawyer, took issue with the court’s contention that marriage law was a matter for the Legislature to decide, comparing it to other civil rights issues. “If the Legislature doesn’t live up to its duty, it’s entirely the role of the courts in a constitutional democracy to step in and protect individuals and minorities,” she said.
She said that while the appellate division might be appealing to tradition, there was nothing sacrosanct about tradition, which has evolved over time. “Not so long ago, marriage was viewed legally and culturally as a patriarchal institution in which the husband essentially owned his wife as chattel,” Ms. Sommer said.
She said that to say that state law intended marriage to protect the conception and raising of children flew in the face of state law that “completely acknowledges and supports the rights of same-sex couples to rear children.”
By a 4-1 majority, the appellate panel not only rejected the lower court’s ruling that state law forbidding same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but said that the state had a legitimate and rational interest in promoting heterosexual marriage…
“Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate,” said the panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court. “It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child-rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship.”
Daniel Hernandez, 48, the lead plaintiff along with his partner, Nevin Cohen, said yesterday that he was “incredibly disappointed” by the ruling.
He said it had been depressing to go to oral arguments in the case, in which the city’s lawyers, arguing that same-sex marriage was against the law, “treated our relationships as though they were insignificant and not these really strong, loving relationships that people in our community have.”
——————————————————————————-
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg reiterated … that he was personally in favor of permitting same-sex marriage, and that the city had appealed the lower court decision only as a way of clarifying the law.
“As I have said, this issue should be decided by the state’s highest court, and I assume today’s decision will be appealed,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a written statement. “If today’s decision is affirmed by the Court of Appeals, I will urge the Legislature to change the State’s Domestic Relations Law to permit gay marriage.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/nyregion/09gays.html
———————————————————————————
…..Earlier that year, according to a February 11, 2005 article which appear in the San Francisco Chronicle
Full article can be found at: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0211-02.htm
(Excerpts below)
“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom lambasted New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday for deciding to appeal a court ruling that would allow same-sex marriage in the Big Apple.
Newsom called Bloomberg’s decision inconsistent, suggested it was politically motivated and said it reinforced cynicism among the American people.
“People don’t like politicians, and now I know why,” he said.
Bloomberg, who has said he personally favors same-sex marriage, announced over the weekend that he would challenge the ruling of a judge in Manhattan earlier this month that gay couples have the right to marry under the state’s Constitution. Bloomberg has said he believes New York state law forbids the practice.
Newsom said he did not want to pick a fight with the mayor of the nation’s largest city, but he said he was stunned by Bloomberg’s decision to appeal.
“I think if you believe something, you’ve got to act on it,” the San Francisco mayor said. “If you don’t believe in it, don’t act on it. But don’t say you believe something and then do everything to stifle that belief.”
Newsom made his remarks after being pressed by reporters on the issue at a San Francisco press conference about his new anti-litter initiative.
Bloomberg’s office did not respond to requests for comment on Newsom’s comments.
A legal brief submitted to the court by New York City discussed the tradition of marriage going back to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Newsom said denying blacks citizenship and the right to vote were traditions in the United States at one time.
“Well, if you want to talk about tradition being codified in this country, tradition was codified in the (1857) Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to deny blacks citizenship,” Newsom said. “That was tradition. It was wrong. …
“So when Mayor Bloomberg or others say it’s tradition — marriage between a man and a woman — I harken back to those days where the tradition was challenged because it was the right thing to do, and I wish that the mayor (of New York City) would challenge the tradition of bigotry as it relates to same-sex marriages. I think that would be courageous.”
———————————————————————————
RAINFISH CONCLUDES: Hmmmmm…gosh, with friends like old Bloomer and Obummer who really needs ….uh….well, you know the rest.
Speaking of our fearless leader, I wonder how the Black civil rights community would have viewed President Johnson if he would have instructed his Justice Department to find ways to deny Black people’s civil rights instead of twisting arms and pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress knowing full well that the legislation was going to hand the Republicans the South for generations to come. Johnson, tenacious as pit-bull, being fully aware of the political cost to the Democratic Party, stuck to his belief that legally sanctioned racism is unacceptable in America.
When asked why divide the country and jeopardize the Democrats’ hold on Congress for just a mere 13% of the population, President Johnson replied: “Because it was the right thing to do.”
A simple, but eloquent answer.
But that battle has been fought and won over forty years ago (from which Mr. Obama has greatly benefited), so who now will stand up for the GLBT community in our struggle for the same full equality that should have been our unchallenged birthright too, without equivocation, in the un-United States of America?
Hell, people still can’t understand the simple premise (which most other Western Industrialized nations have figured out generations ago) that Health Care is a Right and not a Special Privilege based on income anymore than police and fire protections is.
A hand-full of Blue-dog Dixiecrats (Republicans in drag) are controlling the agenda. It’s time for a truly liberal third party which could, with just ten percent of the seats in both the House and in the Senate, break the strangle-hold both major “corporate” parties have on Congress. A truly pro-equality, pro-labor, pro-environment and socially responsible third party which could caucus with either party to get things done.
It is time to think very seriously about alternatives to our broken, morally corrupt and ineffectual bifurcated political system of governance. The time for a strong, focused, Americans United for the Common Good, third party is far past due. The old school tie; sleazy deals under the table; mendacity of the elitist Republican war machine and gutless Democrats (who will fight for nothing but their own re-elections and defending the status quo while lying through their teeth regarding bringing about change) should be ended. It’s time for real change you can believe in — throw the bastards out on both sides.
Support third party alternatives if you are truly honest about change. Don’t forget, Senator Lieberman virtually controlled the Democratic party in the Senate when he got elected as an Independent before the Democrats increased their numbers in November 2008. Just imagine what ten truly liberal Independent third party elected Senators could do — politicians not beholden to the lackeys in either corporate party, but to the people who actually elected them?