What would Jesus do?

"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.

What would Jesus do?

Good question.

My guess is that he would NOT steal the meager possessions of homeless people.

I’ll also go out on a limb and suggest that he wouldn’t bloviate on the “sanctity of marriage” and then say a man was justified in divorcing his wife forwithholding sex.

 

Pro-civil rights senator's defeat sends wrong messages

You often hear people whining that elected officials have no independent thought, that they merely vote the party line, that they just stick their finger in the wind rather than do what's right. And yet when a politician does show independent thought, bucks the party line and does what he thinks is right, the public too often punishes him. The situation of New York state Sen. Roy McDonald is a case in point.

McDonald was one of four Republicans senators who voted in 2011 to approve a marriage equality law in the state. Without those four votes, the measure would have failed in the GOP-controlled chamber.

As a result, McDonald, who'd never faced a primary challenge to his re-election, was opposed by Kathy Marchione. As Saratoga County clerk, Marchione once pulled a George Wallace, threatening not to apply the same-sex marriage law if it passed.

Marchione very narrowly won the Republican primary. McDonald decided he wouldn't contest the general election, despite having a slot on the Independence Party line.

The most common criticism of his vote in favor of civil rights for gay people seemed to be that he went against the will of the majority of his constituents. This is debatable. But even if that was true, his vote was to respect his oath of office which demanded that he respect the New York and US constitutions, both of which contain equal protection clauses.

Another, more stupid, criticism was that McDonald only did this to get 'gay money,' after the revelation that gay rights groups had donated to his campaign. In reality, if he'd taken the easy way out and voted against gay marriage, he never would've had a far right primary opponent and wouldn't have needed the 'gay money.' Needless to say, much 'anti-gay money' was funneled to Marchione's campaign as well.

The general election will be interesting since Marchione, whose campaign was almost entirely based on her opposition to civil rights for gays, will face openly-gay Democrat Robin Andrews.

It was surely unpleasant for someone with such a conservative voting record as McDonald's to be so crucified by the neo-Taliban for a single vote. Still, it's unfortunate that he choose to not contest the general election. Instead, he let a tiny fringe kick him out of office.

Civil rights opponents are crowing about McDonald's primary defeat. But they should be careful to overestimate their victory. All three other Republican legislators who voted for civil rights and contested primaries won those elections, though some were subjected to some disgusting bigotry as well. Secondly, McDonald was rejected by only a tiny minority of his constituents, all from one party. We'll never know how he would've fared had he subjected himself to the entire electorate.   

Each New York senate district contains around 311,000 people.  About 14,500 people voted in the GOP primary. Thus, his fate as an elected representative was decided by fewer than 5% of his constituents, all from a single party, and only a razor thin majority of that rejected him. The other 95% won't even have a say. This is democracy?

Sen. McDonald lost his job because 2.4% of his constituents, all from a single party, didn't like the job he was doing. There's something about this that fundamentally doesn't sit well.

He should've stayed in the race. His job as senator was given to him by everybody in the district; his service shouldn't be taken away from everyone else just because 2.4% of them didn't like one of his votes.

NC writes discrimination into constitution; Taliban, ayatollahs approve

Tonight, voters in North Carolina went out of their way to pass an amendment to the state's constitution to ban marriage equality; it's already banned by state law.

"And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults," said Tami Fitzgerald, head of the main anti-equality movement.

History scholars might be surprised to read Ms. Fitzgerald's words. Interracial marriage was not part of 'God's design for marriage,' as per the north Carolina constitution, until it was 're-written' in 1971.

In other news, the Taliban and the Iranian ayatollahs both praised North Carolinians for their judgment.

The Catholic Church's evaporating moral credibility

A friend of mine posted this sad and outrageous story about his godfather. It's a great example of why the Catholic Church in America is hemorrhaging members.

My friend's godfather was the music director for a Catholic parish in North Carolina. The parish knew the man was gay and that he lived with his partner and, surprisingly, were okay with that. The fact that he was apparently a good music director trumped those things. But then the man and his partner got married and immediately, the parish fired him.

Of course, this is legal. It's legal because the Catholic Church has fought very hard for its special right to be able to ignore anti-discrimination and employment laws (and tax-exempt status but that's an issue for another day). The fact that the Church has fought so aggressively to protect those special rights (while acting equally aggressively against gays having equal rights) was an indicator that it fully expected to use them.

Many people of faith act contend that religious institutions should be immune from any public criticism, that we must mindlessly respect them as they relentlessly disrespect others, that we can not call such actions by their real name, that we must not apply the Church's own standards of morality to its own actions and inactions. To put it far more mildly than this issue deserves, this is wrong.

Perhaps if the Catholic Church had acted as vigorously against priests abusing boys as it does against loving, married (and CONSENSUAL) same-sex couples, the Church's credibility wouldn't be in tatters in the eyes of so many former members, such as myself.

Update -- another friend commented on the same article: "I know someone who is the victim of domestic violence and teaches at a catholic school. She can't get a divorce or she'll be fired. She has to find a new job first. Social justice, my foot!"

A third friend remarked more succinctly: "Jim Crow is alive and well."

The arc of history

Gay marriage opponents upset that they can’t use state power to deny equal protection of the law to a law-abiding minority. Segregationists commiserated with their frustration.

Clerks claim 'right' to flout law

WAMC News did a story about how some municipal clerks in New York are claiming the 'right' to refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses, now that it has become law in the state. The so-called Alliance Defense Fund rails against "threats from top officials of the Empire State to charge clerks who decline to issue such licenses with a criminal offense--forcing clerks to decide between their career and their faith"... as though this is somehow both illegal and unprecedented.

If a Muslim clerk wanted to refuse to issue marriage licenses to Christian couples because of religious beliefs, would these organizations defend their right to do so? What if a gay clerk wanted to refuse to issue marriage licenses to a straight couple? What if a racist white clerk wanted to refuse a marriage license to a black or interracial couple?

Let’s take this further. What if an evangelical clerk wanted to deny a birth certificate to the newborn of an unmarried woman? What if a strict Muslim DMV worker wanted to deny driver's licenses to women? What if a Protestant bureaucrat wanted to deny a building permit to a Catholic church?

Would any of these be tolerated on the basis of the ‘rights’ of the bureaucrat? Of course not.

The clerks, like all citizens, have the right to their religious beliefs. They do not have the right to a job.

A job is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to conditions and expectations defined by the employer. For example, I may have the right to freedom of speech as a citizen, but if I exercised that right by shouting in the workplace that my boss was a lying crook, I probably wouldn’t have that job much longer. No one would argue with a straight face that my firing would be a violation of my free speech rights.

Rights outside the workplace and those related to the execution of your job duties are two very different things. Why should religious public sector workers be subjected to a different standard?

Taxpayers have the right to expect that public sector workers they are paying will apply and respect the law as written, regardless of their personal biases, prejudices and beliefs. They have a job to do. If they can’t do their job in good conscience, they should have the principle to resign, as some already have. If they won’t do their lawful jobs, the public has the right to replace them with somebody who will.

"Reporting on a murder is taking a pro-homicide position" and other absurdities

North Country Public Radio announced that it is planning on doing a story on area gay couples who are getting married when it takes effect in New York. Seems pretty straight forward (no pun intended). Gays have never been able to legally marry in the state so doing a story on something that's never happened before seems a no-brainer.

Some of the enlightened commenters on NCPR’s In Box blog whined that such reporting constitutes the station “taking a political stance” on marriage equality.

Strangely, the “political stance” accusation wasn’t leveled at the public radio station when it aired a long interview with the Catholic archbishop of Ogdensburg railing against the gay marriage bill.

According to this sad logic, if a news outlet interviews a convicted murderer, it’s taking the political stance of being pro-homicide.

Those fishing for the dreaded “liberal bias” ogre will look under every nook and cranny for the tiniest semblance of evidence and are not bound by the logic of normal people.

In the same announcement, NCPR also mentioned that it was going to include in the report the views of municipal clerks who have religious reservations about issuing marriage licenses to gay couples (of course they should issue the license or resign on principle).

For some reason, this inclusion was not subjected to the “taking a political stance” accusation; in fact, it wasn’t even acknowledged by the whiners in question. According to the whiners, NCPR's real bias isn't that it's ignoring the anti-gay marriage position; it's that the station is including the pro- side.

But it’s well-known that selective vision and hearing are critical elements in any martyr complex.

'Cuz God says so' is not good enough anymore

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” ~James Madison, one of the main authors of the US Constitution.

I read a comment on a blog that two people of the same gender living together, having kids and getting married was “the slippery slope to moral decline.” Ten years ago, cultural warriors were telling us that people living together, having kids and NOT getting married at all was the slippery slope to moral decline. It’s a mark of the culture warriors' adaptability that, as society evolves, they can switch scapegoats so easily.

And that's what the passage of marriage equality in New York was such an achievement. The main benefit is, of course, to gay couples who want their union recognized by law and thus to receive the attendant benefits. It's also important to legislation reflect the equal protection of the law provisions of the state and federal constitutions.

But one of the secondary benefits was to strike a blow against theocratic tendencies. In the NYS debate, the main argument against marriage equality was simple: "God's law says marriage is between one man and one woman. And Man does not have the right to change it."

Except that the debate was not about changing God's law. It was about changing Man's law. The NYS marriage law was written by men and thus men (and women) have it entirely within their power to change that law. "God's law" remains unaffected. Man's law ought to be democratic. God's law can't be.

One reason marriage equality was such an important victory is that it reminds us that we don't live in Iran or Saudi Arabia. We live in a state run by secular and constitutional values. If you are going to deny equal rights to a group of citizens, if you want to change or defend any piece of governmental action or inaction, you have to come up with a better reason than just "Cuz God says so."

A great day for civil rights

After intense debate, the New York Senate finally voted on and passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill was quickly signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

The irony is that a similar measure failed two years in a Democratic-controlled Senate. But this bill was approved by a GOP-controlled chamber.

Interestingly, a combined 55% of legislators supported the civil rights measure, which is actually a lower percentage than in the 2009 vote. Perhaps surprisingly, a recent Siena poll showed that 59% of Catholics in New York supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, despite the obstinance of their leaders.

Shortly after the bill was signed, someone I know announced that she and her partner were engaged. I checked outside and noticed that the sky did not appear to be falling.

Critics make the farcical claim that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will cause society to implode. I think the real sign of the apocalypse is that the legislature actually did something to make us proud to be New Yorkers.

I don’t discriminate against Catholics... I just want them to have fewer rights than everyone else

George Wallace at the University of Alabama during his notorious "Segregation today! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!" speech.



The title of this essay is obviously exaggerated to make a point but there actually were those amongst our country’s sainted Founding Fathers who wanted to deny Catholics the right to vote. Would that have constituted discrimination against Catholics? Perhaps not, according to Timothy Dolan, the Catholic archbishop of New York.

If you want an classic Orwellian read, check out this blog entry by Dolan. (If you want to read pure vile hatred and lies, check out some of the reader comments at the bottom)

It was a pretty standard regurgitation of the Vatican’s position.

And no Chicken Little hysteria would be complete without an evocation of a fascist or Stalinist regime -- in this case, North Korea.

The particularly Orwellian passage by the archbishop that caught my attention was this: Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people.

Except that applying different standards to different people on the same issue is the EXACT definition of discrimination.

Discrimination is not always bad. DMVs discriminate against the blind in issuing driver's licenses. The Constitution discriminates against young people in who can run for president. Voting laws discriminate against non-citizens. All of these forms of discrimination are generally considered legitimate. But legitimate discrimination is, by definition, still discrimination.

As such, one might argue that the Church’s anti-marriage equality position constitutes legitimate discrimination but even if that's so, it’s still discrimination. It’s one thing to defend a pro-discrimination position; the Catholic Church has a number of them. It’s another thing to deny its reality.

(The most enraging thing about the position of the Vatican and many other religious organizations is not that they are defending their own right to discriminate internally, which would remain unaffected by same-sex marriage bill; it’s that they are trying to mandate that the state practice discrimination itself based on the Church’s own religious beliefs)

The archbishop insists that marriage was invented by God and can’t be modified by Man, even in our non-theocracy. A cursory look at history shows that this is demonstrably false.

But I say that if Albany can’t redefine marriage, then Dolan can’t redefine the dictionary.

***

Opponents of equal rights in New York state have recently invoked the Torah (even though we're "not a theocracy"), the Holocaust and, of course, the totalitarian North Korean regime. State senator and evangelical minister Ruben Diaz, New York's own George Wallace, compared marriage equality proponents with the Ku Klux Klan.

(Maybe there is hope... Wallace eventually came around to the fairness position, recanted his anti-civil rights views and apologized for the damage he helped inflict).

Surely that can’t be it! No Chicken Little hysteria is complete without a Nazi reference. He may have sent gays to the gas chambers, but Hitler would've supported same-sex marriage too, right?

***

A few days ago was the 44th anniversary of the Loving decision, named after the plaintiffs Richard and Mildred Loving. That was the US Supreme Court ruling that struck down all state laws banning interracial marriages.

In his ruling, the initial trial court judge ruling against the Lovings said: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The rhetoric sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it.

In a statement a few years ago marking the 40th anniversary of the case, Mildred Loving wrote: I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no
matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over
others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

She then expressed her pride that her husband's and her name is on a court
case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

If "Wallace" Diaz's assertion is correct, then the African-American Mrs. Loving was no doubt wearing a white hood.

Why Dolan and Diaz, both self-proclaimed men of God, are so rabid in demanding the state deny this basic humanity is beyond me. I just hope the God who they claim to be representing will ask them that exact question when the time comes. I will leave the judgment up to Him. I'd urge them to do the same.


Update: the United Nations passed a historic resolution insisting up equality for all humans, without regard to sexual orientation. The Vatican joined Saudi Arabia, China and Russia in opposition.

Bigotry today! Bigotry tomorrow! Bigotry forever!

Regular readers will know that I am a staunch supporter of equal treatment under the law for all citizens, including based on sexual orientation. In short, I believe in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. That gays should have the same civil rights as other law-abiding Americans seems a no-brainer to me. And it isn’t just that I support civil rights for gays. It’s that, for all the heated rhetoric, I’ve yet to hear a single compelling argument against it. Not even necessarily one I agree with... just one that I think isn’t completely ludicrous.

Not everyone thinks that way.

My friend Bob over at Planet Albany blog has a report on a march in Albany against equality for gays.

I want to preface my remarks by saying I do not know for sure what Bob’s position is. I have never heard him state his own personal position explicitly. Mostly, he just relays the position of the Catholic Church and other social conservatives which is, of course, staunch hostility toward these civil rights. Given his avowed status as a social conservative and his megaphoning of the Catholic Church’s positions, one can infer his own view but I do not wish to put words into his mouth (a courtesy not often extended in the other direction). Hence, an explicit statement would be welcome.

But to sum up his reporting, here is my take...

-Opposition to civil rights for gays has “religious foundations” (no surprise there) and is a heart rendering example of unity between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims;

-Democratic state Sen. Ruben Diaz, the leading opponent of equality in the New York legislature, has “love in his heart” for gay people... he just doesn’t think the state should treat them as full-fledged citizens. Gay people might have a little less objection to this view if they weren’t forced to pay the same taxes as full-fledged citizens. Maybe Diaz should show his “love” by getting them a tax break. If not, Diaz should understand that I love Hispanics too... so long as they don’t expect any rights;

-Saint Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, doesn’t appear have an actual legal argument for why gays should be denied constitutional rights, at least as reported by Bob, but he does object to people calling him meanie names. Diaz seems to be under the impression that him being a minority gives him license to take discriminatory positions against other minorities and then snivel when he’s criticized for it; bullies usually are the ones most hypersensitive to criticism. Diaz vowed that he is “not keeping his mouth shut” despite the fact that he has nothing of substance to say... though that’s usually the case about those who talk to loudest;

-A speaker from the New York State Catholic Conferences fears the ramifications of the Church having to (gasp) treat gay people decently. The Church might, for example, have to choose between its anti-gay positions and its participation in the adoption industry. Sorry, but that’s a pathetic argument against equality. Equal treatment under the law a constitutional right. Participation in the adoption industry is not. It’s that simple;

-That speaker wrongly claims that Catholic Charities has already been forced to close adoption agencies in Boston and Washington, D.C. In actual fact, they were not forced to close such agencies. What they were actually forced to do is to choose between helping kids and their anti-gay positions. That they chose the latter is sad and telling, but it was their choice and the consequences are on their conscience;

-A “Reverend” Duane Motley implied that tolerance for gay people was responsible for straight people getting divorced and living together unmarried... going so as to invoke the menace of health problems, school dropouts and crime;

-Motley also made the counterintuitive claim that legalizing gay marriage would weaken the institution. It’s more likely marriage would be STRENGTHENED by the inclusion of people who believe so strongly in that institution that they want to participate in it and are willing to struggle to do so.

-Some wonder why there’s a growing backlash against churches who are abuse their tax-exempt status to lobby for the arbitrary denial of rights by the state to citizens based on nothing more than their personal religious whim. Some feel churches should not receive these *SPECIAL RIGHTS*. Here’s why. Churches can get a tax exemption while demanding gays be denied rights by the state... and this tax exemption might be threatened if gays were ever granted equal rights. Gays must pay full taxes even while being denied full rights. The revenue not paid by tax-exempt churches is a burden passed on to all taxpayers, including gays. So the cruelest irony of all this is that gays are essentially helping, against their will, to fund organizations hell bent on making sure they are treated like crap. Churches are benefiting from services paid for by those whose oppression they are committed to. No grounds for resentment there!


It’s unfortunate that religious leaders hide behind their religion to excuse their own bigotry. The Constitution gives anyone, individuals and churches alike, the right to be a bigot; it does NOT give the state the right to act in such a fashion toward law-abiding, taxpaying citizens. The state does not follow religious diktats. This is because (and Bob would certainly agree with this) neither the US nor NYS is a theocracy.

At least opponents of black civil rights in the south tended not to hide their prejudices behind the respectable veneer of religion. They simply came out and said, “We hate (black people) because they are inferior beings.” Ditto for those who wanted to keep treating women like chattel. Such candor may be crude but at least it’s honest enough to drop the intellectually insulting pretense of something loving and holy.

Note: Clearly, this is just my take on the anti-fairness rally. You can judge for yourself by reading Bob’s report directly by clicking here.

'Patriots' claim that freedom is for Afghans and Iraqis, not for us Americans

Earlier this week, a federal judge in California ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. This decision was not unexpected although welcome, as I've never heard a rational, compelling reason why the state should be allowed to discriminate against gays. The case will no doubt go up the judicial food chain.

However, some on the far right are so pissed off because of this ruling by a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan that they want to impeach him. They want to impeach him for deciding that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was still valid and should finally, if belatedly, be applied to this group of American citizens. A judge should be impeached for UPHOLDING the Constitution? Bizarroworld indeed.

Apparently, these self-appointed "patriots" believe that freedom (said breathlessly) is for Afghans and Iraqis, not for us Americans.

The Ayatollah Huckster riffs on 'less than ideal' gays

Social conservative Mike Huckabee recently likened gay marriage to incest and polygamy. Unlike some bigots, his argument was (only slightly) less absurd by his gracious omission of bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.

In earlier comments, the former and presumably future GOP presidential candidate declared, "Marriage doesn't mean any and everything we want it to mean. In all the recorded years of human history it has only meant one thing."

Huckabee's misrepresentation of history is either deceitful or a manifestation of shocking ignorance.

For many years, humans in some parts of this country defined civil marriage as the union of two people of the same 'race' (skin color) while humans in other parts of this country did not.

In this country at this time (though not necessarily in the past), the idea of a man marrying a 9-year old girl is generally considered repulsive; it other societies, it's accepted practice.

Civil marriage is an institution of man (ie: humans), by man and for man and can be changed by man at his whim.

Civil marriage means exactly what we the citizens want it to mean which is why it's defined by man's law.

And in all the recorded years of human history, acceptable norms of marriage have changed countless times and, to this day, remain very different across different societies.

According to many people, 'God's law' may have a very different notion of marriage. But Huckabee would do well to remember that since we're not a theocracy, the United States of America is governed by the laws of man not the laws of his or anyone else's deity.

I've read that every species of mammal has been observed to exhibit homosexual tendencies except pigs. So basically what the Ayatollah Hucksters of this country want is for humans to act more like... swine. And I thought man did a pretty good job of that already.

Protecting the sanctity of marriage against threats until death (or my serial cheating) do us part

So I noticed that Republican Sen. John McCain's wife and daughter have appeared in photos opposing California's gay marriage ban. While anyone supporting equal rights is obviously a good thing, I've never been one to overly care what the family members of politicians think; I vote for or against the candidate, not his spouse or children. But in response to the story, the legislator's spokesman said, "Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."

That California's definition of marriage as one man and one woman was most aggressively pushed by Mormons is an irony to discuss another day.

But I suspect that loving, committed gay couples may wonder if a once-divorced man who reneged on his oath to love his first wife until death do them part really knew enough about the "sanctity of marriage" to deny their participation in it. As for the current Mrs. McCain, who's never been divorced, they might give a little more credibility to her views on the topic.

North Country Public Radio's excellent In Box blog had a piece on the topic in which it mentioned that one of the most prominent Republican mayors in the country, San Diego's Jerry Sanders, broadcast his own support for gay marriage, after discovering that his daughter is a lesbian in a committed relationship.

It made me remember how Joe Bruno changed his tune on equal rights for gays when he discovered he had a gay relative (a brother, I think). The then-majority leader helped pass the state's Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act through a GOP-controlled state senate and has come out in favor of in favor of marriage equality. Even someone as normally opposed to human rights as Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, has never engaged in the sort of populist gay bashing designed to pander to the most, small-minded and hateful of his own party. It seems it's a lot easier to demonize gays when they are just some crude, generic stereotype, when they are The Other... but much harder when they are the kind, honorable son/daughter/brother/sister you've loved all your life.

A Republican legislator for civil rites explains her position

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

While 57 percent of New York's legislators as well as the governor supported a marriage equality bill that 51 percent of New York's citizens support, unfortunately the vote was not distributed in such a way for the bill to pass.

In debate on the senate floor, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz expressed his opposition stating that his religion wouldn't permit him to support the bill. Hearing his remarks, I was left to wonder if Sen. Diaz's religion permits him any independent thought. I try to be respectful of people of faith and their beliefs, provided they don't use their faith as an excuse for their inability to open their minds or more generally for inhumanity toward others.

If gay marriage opponents had any substantive reasons for their opposition -- and by this I don't mean reasons I'd necessarily agree with but a coherent, rational line of argument anchored in what the law is supposed to be based on -- then I might have a little more respect for the opposition. I just haven't seen anything resembling a legitimate case put forward. The Bible says wives who don't obey their husbands should be stoned to death. The legislator who tried to enact that legal change would no doubt be stoned himself.

Only 5 of the 69 Republicans in the legislature supported the equal rites bill but one who did was my assemblywoman Teresa Sayward. When the state Assembly debated the civil rites bill in 2007, Sayward stunned observers by giving an impassioned speech in favor of marriage equality, citing her experience as the mother of a gay son. Today, North Country Public Radio aired an interview with Assemblywoman Sayward on the topic.

Many critics of marriage equality say that they support civil unions for gays, but just not marriage. An April poll showed that only 19 percent of New Yorkers opposed any form of legal recognition to gay couples. So the position of "no to gay marriage but yes to civil unions" people would seem mostly semantic.

But the difference is not semantic. No civil unions law in the country provides rights identical in every way except name to marriage. Nor am I aware of any civil unions bill in the New York legislature that would do so. Assemblywoman Sayward points out that there are countless rights you get with marriage but not with civil unions. Marriage and civil unions are not at all identical in every way except name.

Many contend that the state should get out of the marriage business and just give everyone civil unions. I happen to agree with this in theory. Many claim that marriage is an institution of God, not of Man. If that's the case, then it should be limited to institutions of God (religious organizations) not institutions of Man (government). But until that happens, that institution of Man must treat all its men and women equally. Equal obligations must mean equal rights.

Although conservative groups generally give her a 90%+ rating, I'm still surprised Assemblywoman Sayward did not receive a primary challenge by the far right. She may well in 2010, especially after the outside groups from the far right mobilized to help successfully torpedo the Congressional candidacy of another pro-civil rites assemblywoman from northern New York.

But I admire Assemblywoman Sayward's guts. I don't vote for Republicans very often. And I never vote for candidates who run unopposed. She is an exception. I admire her courage in following her conscience, although perhaps you could say Sen. Diaz did the same (although I'm not sure if he's following his beliefs or his religion's). But more to it, I think she's a great role model for politicians. Yes, she's a conservative. Yes, she's a Republican. Yes, she's a Roman Catholic. But first and foremost she is a human being and a mother.

My friend Matt often bemoans the lack of real human beings in public office. It's rare in a crass business that we see a politician voluntarily reveal his or her humanity for all to see. It's a risky thing to do in a cutthroat business. And in this case, a heroic one.

Update: Adirondack Almanack offers a different take on the assemblywoman.

Can marriage survive these chumps?

I'm glad that domestic abuser Sen. Hiram Monserrate, convicted of slashing his girlfriend's face with a piece of glass, decided that loving gay couples didn't deserve to get married while his violent criminal self still can. With moral degenerates like this responsible for defining marriage, the institution is surely screwed.

NY Senate kills civil rights' bill

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


I guess three adult actions were too many for the much-maligned New York senate to perform in a single day.

First, they FINALLY passed a deficit-reduction plan after months of stalling, blaming the governor and other pathetic excuses. Then, they passed a bill reforming the opaque and corrupt state public authorities.

But when it came to a vote on gay marriage, viewed by many as the seminal civil rights' issue of our time, that was a bridge too far for the little men and women of the chamber. The equal rights' bill was defeated 24-38, with none of the chamber's 30 Republicans voting yes. When the same bill passed the state Assembly earlier this year, it did so with 5 of the 41 Republican members.

With the most recent poll showing the majority of New Yorkers (51-42 percent) supporting the legalization of gay marriage, it will be interesting to see if the senators' opposition to civil rights will be felt either at the ballot box or in fundraising appeals.

It is also uncertain whether the chamber will consider a move to ban Hispanics or Catholics from marrying, or perhaps reverse the legalization of interracial marriage?

Local gay marriage rally

I was interested to read that there was a rally yesterday in Glens Falls in favor of same-sex marriage.

Now, I know we can't criticize opposition to legalization, lest we risk 'violating religious freedom' of gay marriage opponents (supporters not having free speech rights, apparently).

So I'll simply point out the first two comments on the article that has to do with giving same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples.

" Ummmmmmmm.... Thanks for making me lose my breakfast!!! "

and

" Sounds like not much will change for anybody cetrainly (sic) not attitudes. Looks like the this (sic) is really just another ACLU attack on religion disgusied (sic) in a phony equal rights package. "


Though a few other readers did debunk the ACLU attack on religion rubbish.

My blogging friend Bob over at Planet Albany also writes from time to time on gay marriage, though he opposes it. He also writes regular on ethics (or lack thereof) in Albany.

I think it's telling that his essays on ethics usually get few if any comments. His last one on gay marriage got 18. It's a sad commentary that two people who love each other wanting equal rights provokes more outrage than venal politicians.


Correction: In a previous version of this entry, I'd stated that Democratic state Sens. Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Montserrate were opposed to same-sex marriage. According to media reports, Espada is on record as being in favor of gay marriage and Montserrate is undecided. Thanks to reader Louis E. for questioning this.

Irrationality, bigotry and politics

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

North Country Public Radio ran an interesting piece about Democratic state Sen. Darryl Aubertine and the gay marriage bill that the chamber will hopefully vote on.

Aubertine stated that he was opposed to the bill. This is not that shocking, considering that he represents a conservative district; though it's worth noting that all four of the region's Assembly members (three of whom are Democrats) felt comfortable enough to vote in favor of the bill in that chamber.

Aubertine's opposition matters because the Democrats have a mere 32-30 vote in the state Senate and the potentially tiebreaking lieutenant governor's seat is vacant. So with the opposition of Aubertine and a couple of conservative Democratic Latino senators from NYC, the Democrats will need a few Republican votes to pass the bill.

Aubertine stated that he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But what's revealing is Aubertine's reaction when asked how he came to that conclusion.

He couldn't answer it.

The senator said that his belief was "not necessarily religious" but after several minutes of parrying the question, he never really stated what was the basis of his belief.

He also stated repeatedly that he's always been opposed to gay marriage and wasn't going to change his mind, even if that's what his supporters or constituents wanted.

I think the interview was very revealing. He basically admits that he can't justify his belief in any coherent or rational way but is closed-minded about it anyway... even to friendly persuasion from people who support him.

He admits that he can't really explain why gay couples don't deserve equal rights but that lack of a reason isn't enough to make him reconsider his position (assuming he actually thought about it in the first place).

I can't think of anything that more clearly embodies both the degree to which gut feelings and emotions, rather than rationality, control our political discourse and what exactly prejudice means.

Note: Many people describe their opposition to gay marriage in terms that are vitriolic and/or borderline hysterical. Some can give more-or-less coherent reasons why they object. Based on the interview, Aubertine really doesn't seem to fit into either category. The definition of bigotry I found was "an obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions." He didn't really give a reason for his belief, hence he was unreasoning. He openly admitted that he'd never change his mind no matter what. Hence he was obstinate. He may not be hateful or vile and that's not irrelevant. But the politically incorrect truth is that according to the dictionary, unreasoning plus obstinacy makes bigotry. If he objects to being called a bigot (even a civilized one), then I'd encourage him to stop practicing bigotry.


Update: Bob over at Planet Albany disagrees.

An evolution of attitudes on gay marriage?

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This month has seen important victories for gay rights' advocates, notably the decisions by the Iowa Supreme Court and the Vermont legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. The provoked the National Organization for Marriage (heterosexual only, of course) to move up its planned ad campaign.

I generally try to go easy on people who seem earnest (though maybe I shouldn't... see MLK quote above). But the NOM ad (which can be viewed here) provoked only one reaction. Not anger or fury or disgust, but hysterical laughter. Menacing music. Apocalyptic imagery. Sky-is-falling rhetoric. I'm sure if they believed that global warming was real, they would've blamed gays for that too. In parts of it, I honestly don't know how The Onion or Stephen Colbert would've done it any differently.

Despite such unintentional humor, or perhaps because of it, the tide toward equal rights for gays seems to be turning. New York Gov. David Paterson re-introduced a bill that would legalize gay marriage in this state. No doubt, its timing was designed to prop up his personal unpopularity.

But the mere fact that being pro-gay marriage is now seen as an issue that can BOOST your popularity is an example of how much things have evolved... or should I say, been intelligently designed.

A recent poll revealed that only 19 percent of New Yorkers opposed any form of legal recognition for gay couples. New York is certainly one of the more liberal states. But a person or issue doesn't get 81 percent statewide numbers without significant support in the fairly conservative upstate.

Tellingly, this this piece from The Adirondack Daily Enterprise on how a fourth Assemblywomen from the conservative North Country, three of whom are Republican, have come out in favor of the governor's gay marriage bill. I'm not sure exactly how many Assembly members the North Country has, but I can't imagine it would much more than four.

This won't change the dynamic of voting in Albany. The gay marriage bill already has overwhelming support in the Assembly, which passed the bill two years ago. It's in the Senate where it might not pass because of a couple of conservative Democrats, unless the leadership can pick off a few Republican votes.

But if legislators from the conservative North Country feel they can take a stand in favor of equal rights without jeopardizing their jobs via a strong primary challenge, then maybe things really are moving in the right direction.

In 2007, my local Assemblywoman, Republican Teresa Sayward, stunned observers by making a moving and impassioned speech in favor of gay marriage. She explained how her views had evolved via her relationship with her gay son. The right was outraged. The Conservative Party refused to endorse her in the 2008 election, even though she votes their position over 90 percent of the time.

The right predicted, in some cases promised, that the vote would be her political demise in this conservative district. In the 2008 general election, 32,029 people cast a legal vote for a candidate in the election for her seat.

She won 99.998 percent of those votes.

She ran unopposed in the primary too.


Update: This 19 pct. opposition to all forms of official recognition for gay couples is even more surprising considering the fact that Catholics, white evangelicals and black Protestants combine to comprise nearly 60 pct. of New York state's population. So this makes you wonder if the rank-and-file of these religious groups might be more open-minded than their leadership.


Further update: The Daily News Daily Politics' blog reports that the Empire State Pride Agenda is enlisting members of the clergy in Massachusetts to push back against claims that passage of gay marriage in New York will force religious institutions to peform same-sex ceremonies against their will.

Bob Conner at Planet Albany blog offers a different take on gay marriage and other issues that a number of Catholics are concerned about.