Equality lost in the New York Senate 38-24. It wasn't even close.
Again, I hope our folks back there know what they're doing. Perhaps the Senate would reject even domestic partnership rights. But we don't know because, here on the verge of 2010, they've never even tried.
And in the meantime, New York state's same-sex couples have pretty much nothing.
10 Comments for “All or Nothing in New York?”
posted by Mark on
It’s not true that New York’s same-sex couples have “pretty much nothing.” They can take a weekend trip to Massachussetts, get married, and come back to NY enjoying nearly all the state privileges of marriage.
posted by David Link on
Well, I guess I can’t argue with that as a strategic way around New York’s political absolutism. But wouldn’t it be better for New Yorkers to be able to rely on their own law, rather than having to borrow equality from a nearby state?
posted by Melanie Wilson on
In theory, yes–but a domestic partnership approach would have created a different law for gays & lesbians who registered in New York from those who married out of state. I think such a law would have all but invited the Court of Appeals to strike down the out-of-state marriage recognition and go for “separate-but-equal” instead (essentially what California has done with out-of-state marriages from gays and lesbians). Of course, it’s possible this setback will as well–one reason why the advocates of the bill shouldn’t have gone to a Senate vote unless they were sure of victory.
All that said: not even one Republican could bring himself or herself to vote yes?
posted by Nick on
Well first I’d correct your statement that new yorkers aren’t “rely[ing] on their own law.” That’s simply not true. Recognition of marriages performed out of state is a function of New York law and its treatment of foreign marriages, and not simply derivative of foreign law.
And furthermore, the governor supports this bill and the assembly passed it 88-51. There was a real shot at passing this bill.
I’m sorry we’re not as eager as you to accept second-class citizenship, but I don’t think it’s wrong for us to have tried given how close it was likely to have been when this process started — which was before Maine and before the sh**show in NY-23.
We wouldn’t get marriage unless we asked for it — surely you must recognize this. Why go through the trouble of getting civil unions first given the trouble of getting ANY sort of bill through this legislature — particularly given we are really only a few votes away.
And given that foreign marriages are recognized, the harm is not nearly as dire as in other states.
posted by Elizabeth on
They could also travel to nearby Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Canada.
Since the loss in Maine, I’ve been thinking a lot about whether we should refocus our efforts on domestic partnerships and civil unions. I think it might be a good idea for states that have no hope of seeing marriage anytime soon. But like Matt, I’m not sure it’s the best solution for New York. It would create a 2-tier system for gay couples (those legally married out of state, and those w/ domestic partnerships) that I think would only contribute to greater confusion and discrimination. Not to mention, once lawmakers do the work of passing a domestic partnership law (assuming it could even pass), they could then wipe their hands clean of the gay issue, never to reconsider marriage.
posted by Seth on
I think at this point, a two-tiered system is almost redundant. Why would anyone go for domestic partnership when there are very few places in New York that are more then a couple of hours drive from legalized marriage. As a gay New Yorker (who is happily married), its hard to get very upset because I haven’t lost anything. I can still have a marriage that is legally recognized by my state.
posted by Amicus on
No Republicans voting “yes”.
Perhaps, now, we can infer from the timing of the Manhattan Declaration, on the heels of the farce in NY-23, the target of the signaling?
posted by Jorge on
Hi. Just found out about it.
My representative voted Yes, so I’m actually quite happy. I get to write a letter expressing my appreciation for a brave vote in a losing bill, because she was an uncommitted vote.
For me it’s a better result than the Senate not voting on it at all, because now it’s time to hold them accountable. One month ago we were at a position of zero: wasn’t going to pass, and the Senate doesn’t bring bills to a vote that aren’t going to pass, so none of them support and every single Democrat gets a pass. Now 8 Democrats and all the Republicans are on record as No votes. And we have 24 yes votes.
All that said: not even one Republican could bring himself or herself to vote yes?
After the debacle of NY-23, the support just evaporated. I blame Govs. Spitzer and Patterson for not making this a priority, I really do.
posted by Bill Herrmann on
Jonathan Rausch completely anticipated, and decimated, your argument in his book “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and God for America” (2004). Separate is not equal. Period. Full stop.
posted by Lymis on
I may be wrong, but I have followed this whole situation pretty closely nationwide ever since Hawaii started the ball rolling nearly a decade ago.
While it may not be absolutely true in all cases, in the vast majority of them, domestic partnerships came about when marriage was asked for. When just domestic partnerships were asked for, they met with exactly the same objections that marriage does – religion, the children, tradition, etc. and have ALWAYS been met with “this must be opposed as a slippery slope toward gay marriage.” And they have additional negatives in their arsenal – the fact that domestic partnerships really are a new and untried territory, and that where they are offered to opposite sex couples as well, they really are a threat toward weakening marriage.
Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are only the compromise position BECAUSE we demand marriage. It is not as though there are a whole bunch of anti-gay people out here pushing for them out of compassion for us. Looking at the laws and amendments that were passed “protecting traditional marriage” the majority of them ban marriage “or any substantial equivalent.”
Even if you think the Civil Unions really are the desired end result, they aren’t going to happen unless we demand marriage.