All Over Albany

Morons!

... said Pam on Dec 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM | link

I'm hearing there's a rally at the Capitol in support of Marriage Equality at 6PM. Who's in?

... said Slacker on Dec 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM | link

I'll never understand.

... said Mrs. M on Dec 2, 2009 at 4:30 PM | link

boo! it was totally looking possible there for a second...

... said skfl on Dec 2, 2009 at 5:24 PM | link

I know who isn't getting re-elected! This year they have been more disappointing than usual. Well, with Pedro and his abuse of powers and the cluster F that he created, Hirram and breaking bottles of ladies heads and now this....they really don't want to keep their jobs do they!

... said Amelia on Dec 2, 2009 at 7:40 PM | link

This is not an 'equality' issue. Everyone has the same right to marry a non-relative of the opposite gender. A small percentage (less than 1%) want to make a different choice, but that doesn't mean we should start altering our fundamental definitions. If this legislation went through the senate, then New Yorkers would have voted it down at the ballot box, just like the past 31 states who have voted. Government has a responsibility to protect and preserve our institutions, and they've finally done something right.

... said Jay on Dec 2, 2009 at 7:52 PM | link

Stupid NY Senate! What I don't understand is why people think two loving people of the same gender will somehow ruin marriage. Straight people have been ruining marriage for years before we even asked for it.

... said Ellie on Dec 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM | link

Two human beings, with rights, who pay taxes, who have the ability to vote, who did not commit a crime and who love each other can't get married. Why is this an issue that gets no traction?? Just makes no sense.

Let people who love each other get married and move on to other issues!

... said Jeff on Dec 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM | link

Save marriage, Jay. Ban divorce.

... said Ryan on Dec 2, 2009 at 10:12 PM | link

Jay, you're on the wrong side of history. Gay marriage is coming, just not as fast as some of us would like.

... said Milo on Dec 2, 2009 at 10:17 PM | link

Ummm... I don't get this. When did marriage become an institution? I never understood that argument. If divorce is okay, how sacred is this institution anyway?

... said Original Jay on Dec 2, 2009 at 11:19 PM | link

Marriage is more of an agreement between two people than it is an institution, and I would also say that each couple that agrees to it has different definitions of how to carry it out. Simply put no two marriages have ever been the same. The problem I see, is that people (bigots would probably be a more appropraite term) want to act like marriage is a privately owned country club, from which they can discriminate against anybody they feel doesn't belong. Personally, this hetero male will not be getting married in a state like this, until all of my friends, have the same options that I do.

... said Chester on Dec 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM | link

@ jay. NY doesn't have a voter referendum to overturn laws like they do in Maine and California. Also, polls show a majority of NYers support marriage equality. Also, polls have consistently shown that men who do not support gay marriage are 1,000 times more likely to be be seen suspiciously poking around rest stops at odd hours in the AM, just saying.

... said Jackers on Dec 3, 2009 at 9:36 AM | link

"Everyone has the same right to marry a non-relative of the opposite gender."

Jay, the forebear to that argument was "everyone has the same right to marry a non-relative of the same skin color."

But hey, separate but equal is equal enough for you, right!

... said B on Dec 3, 2009 at 12:32 PM | link

Jay, our "definitions" change as humanity progresses. If it was up to the popular vote at the time, slavery would never have been abolished, the civil rights movement of the 60's would have been a total failure, and women would not be able to vote or own property. This is an issue of human rights, and as usual the government will have to step in and do what's right because the general populace is too slow to adapt to change. I had hoped that wouldn't come to that, because it's always really touchy ground when the government goes against the wishes of the people. But when it comes to matters of civil and human rights, you can't always rely on the majority to be the wiser.

... said Summer on Dec 3, 2009 at 12:54 PM | link

"Personally, this hetero male will not be getting married in a state like this, until all of my friends, have the same options that I do."

Agreed Chester. I think that has eased my boyfriends mind, because deep down we knew this wouldn't pass. I said that I wouldn't get married unless all my friends could marry who they wanted. I also indicated it was nation-wide, so yeah... :)

... said Kari on Dec 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM | link

The government should not be in the marriage business anyway. Marriage is a religious institution, hence all the outcry from the religious conservatives against gay marriage. The government doesn't sanction bar mitzvahs or baptisms and they shouldn't be sanctioning marriages. They should be handing out legal civil unions to anyone and everyone who wants one, straight or gay. People who want a religious marriage in addition to their civil union can then find a church, synagogue, mosque, whatever to sanction their marriage before God.

... said Amy on Dec 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM | link

marriage
(noun)
°The state of being married.
°The union of two people, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Marriage is no longer strictly a religious institution, as I am married and am not religious. Are you trying to tell me that because I was not married in a church that I'm technically not "married" or have the right to claim as such? I'll be damned if anyone tried to take that away from me, especially considering the fact that people in civil unions are not entitled to the same benefits as married people.

People have the right to choose whether they should have religion govern their own lives, but do NOT have the right to decide the same for others.

... said Summer on Dec 3, 2009 at 3:27 PM | link

Summer, I think you might be missing Amy's point. I don't believe she's suggesting that people need to be married by a religious authority in order to be afforded the same civil rights as "married people." But rather that the government should recognize civil unions, and only civil unions, for all couples; therefore granting all legally bonded couples the same protection under law, regardless of sexual orientation.

I for one agree. And if people still feel a strong need to refer to themselves as "married" but don't want to have a religious ceremony they could always just have the Major of Lark Street sanctify it. It's no less arbitrary than the Catholic Church.

But it's a nuanced policy perspective which needs to be overshadowed by the more pressing concerns over people being denied civil rights. Deal with the semantics later.

... said Jackers on Dec 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM | link

Thank you, Jackers. That is exactly what I was trying to say. Every couple, regardless of orientation, should have equal legal "uniting" by the government.

... said Amy on Dec 3, 2009 at 4:27 PM | link

Perhaps I did misunderstand Amy, but I really don't think there should be a distinction. Like I said, I did not get married in a church but wouldn't want to call myself anything BUT married. I don't think same-sex couples should be forced to make the distinction either.

... said Summer on Dec 3, 2009 at 4:35 PM | link

I am actually 100% with Amy on this. The overriding issue behind all of this is that the term "marriage" applies to both the civil ceremony we've been dealing with here and the religious ceremony that everybody associates it with. The civil concept of marriage exists to ensure certain rights to people who enter into life partnerships, but unfortunately people are associating that legal partnership with their religious one, which is now responsible for the establishment of a second class of citizen under the law. This is really a failure of the separation of Church and State, but unfortunately it's not something I think we'll ever see rectified anytime soon.

... said Pete on Dec 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM | link

Exactly, Pete. If it was entirely an issue of State, and not of Church, it would have been fixed years ago (or never have been an issue at all). The lack of separation of Church and State is also one of the overriding reasons that we'll never have a health care bill passed, because the Church keeps throwing funding for abortion into the argument. There's far less separation of Church and State in this country (One Nation Under God anyone?) than there should be.

... said Amy on Dec 3, 2009 at 6:03 PM | link

I get what you're saying now, and I agree with you. Jackers is right- the semantics are a secondary issue. But unfortunately that issue is what a lot of people are hiding behind, whether you call it marriage, a civil union, or whatever. Heaven forbid (pardon the expression) people's "fundamental views" be altered.

Governor Paterson issued a statement that was read at the rally tonight that made an excellent point (I'm paraphrasing here): "The abolitionists' darkest moment came when abolition was voted down and slavery was allowed to continue, but that was only five years before the emancipation proclamation." In other words, history does repeat itself, and as with any civil rights movement, the outcome will ultimately be positive. Marriage equality WILL happen.

... said Summer on Dec 3, 2009 at 6:39 PM | link

It's simple justice. The law confers a special tax, property and custody status on certain pairs of adult citizens, and denies it to others. That's unjust, and cannot hold.

The good news is that it won't, and when it goes it goes for good.

However ... once this particular injustice is repaired, the law will have to consider exactly how and why it confers this special "marriage" status to anyone. How and why. Here we're talking about pairs, but there's no doubt that once sexual orientation is (rightly) torn-down as a discriminator, others will challenge the unit size.

Get ready for, say, a group of five people to demand that their "marriage" be recognized under the law. I know it sounds weird (and icky -- to me, anyhow), but that challenge will come, and maybe more often than we expect. Might just be a practical arrangement, not intimate. One hopes.

Nevertheless, if X-Y isn't a just discriminator (it isn't, considering where we're starting from), the 1-1 discriminator is next. So we must think hard about what the law is trying to achieve in the first place.

It strikes me that a society with universal health care and durable power-of-attorney lets government out of the marriage business, and that government should want out.

LQ

... said Lou Quillio on Dec 7, 2009 at 7:40 PM | link