I am as happy about New York’s marriage equality as anyone. But as with so many other things, the headlines are disproportionate to New York’s actual contribution. As with the Stonewall uprising, New York is more fortunate in having a large media megaphone than in having any national leadership role. This is certainly not a bad thing, since attention to goings-on in New York helps to validate the work so many people across the country have been doing. But New York is like Microsoft: It’s very good at taking (and being given) credit for the original ideas and labor of others.
And there is a very deep irony in this victory. Governor Andrew Cuomo cannot receive enough credit for taking the lead in making this happen. After years of feints and dodges by New York’s unfathomable legislature, Cuomo showed what political leadership looks like.
But in his statement after the vote, Cuomo said:
“This state, when it’s at its finest, is a beacon of social justice. . . . [T]he legacy is that we are the progressive capital of this nation. . . . the other states look to New York for the progressive direction.”
But it is exactly because New York did not adopt key elements of the progressive era that this law cannot be challenged. The referendum and initiative, in particular, were landmark progressive reforms, first adopted by Oregon voters in 1902 and then by California in 1911 at the urging of Governor Hiram Johnson. The referendum allows people to vote directly to keep or abandon any legislation signed by the governor, and the initiative gives voters the power to pass laws directly.
The fact that New York has never adopted either of these iconic progressive reforms is what drives the National Organization for Marriage apoplectic. Their window for appealing to the ebbing popular prejudice against lesbians and gay men is closing rapidly, and they still have a few states where they haven’t yet been able to leverage that to amend state constitutions and cement the status quo in place.
I can’t say I feel sorry for NOM. But if I were Governor Cuomo, I’d be a little less cocky about how progressive my state is.
10 Comments for “Unprogressive”
posted by Lymis on
Ummm, not so much.
I certainly agree that the original basis for things like referendums and initiatives lay in progressive agendas at the time.
But one look at things like Prop 8 and its predecessor make it clear that it’s a tool that can be equally used by both sides. Prop 8 was hardly a beacon of the progressive movement.
And similarly, in this particular case, the fact that New York does not have such a mechanism IS working to protect the progressive agenda there. It isn’t the tools that make something conservative or progressive. It’s the intent and the results.
posted by BobN on
I get your point, but this is a different society than it was 100 years ago. Then, people would not have dreamed of enshrining bigotry into the law through referendum. No, not because they weren’t bigoted but because they didn’t see the referendum process as applicable to issues like that. If they had, we’d still have apartheid.
posted by Hunter on
I don’t see how the idea that fundamental rights should be subject to popular vote can be termed “progressive.” Referenda are merely a mechanism — as Lymis pointed out, mechanisms are pretty much value-neutral.
But it’s reassuring to know that no good deed goes unpunished here.
posted by Wilberforce on
Perhaps the referendum was originally a progressive idea. But it’s been captured by big money, which is able to manipulate the public through the media. In the age of media spin, it’s just dumb luck that NY doesn’t have referenda.
And anyway, just because NY didn’t adopt certain progressive initiatives doesn’t make it any less progressive. It has its on version of pragmatic progressivism, which looks pretty good from here.
posted by Mike on
Slagging off at Microsoft on things you don’t know about?
Also unfortunate, as it’s been a better lead on supporting LGBT employees than most.
posted by Jack on
We don’t live in a tiny polity where voting is restricted to certain “informed” groups, such in 5th Century BC Athens. The plebiscite in modern times, with universal suffrage, mass media and the power of money, makes for unstable and even dangerous politics.
And can anyone really make the case the California, with its numerous overlapping and sometimes contradictory mandates, is today better off as a result of the referendum?
posted by Houndentenor on
We did this right in New York and still with the bitching and moaning? You sound like the leftists who are always complaining no matter what gets accomplished because the wording is just never PC enough for them. Get a grip. This is a win. Celebrate and stop looking for excuses to criticize the liberals who actually got something accomplished for gay rights for once.
posted by french62 on
David,
I have to agree with Houndentenor on this one. Just take YES for an answer. This is so what’s wrong with our political discourse, always looking to find a boogey-man, even in VICTORY! Be joyful, without reservations, the people, legislature, and governor of New York are to be congratulated on this momentous occasion. Considered in light of other victories for full participation in the civil institutions of this nation, we should be giving thanks where and whenever we make progress.
posted by Jorge on
But if I were Governor Cuomo, I’d be a little less cocky about how progressive my state is.
I agree. My own focus would be mainly on the inability of prior legislatures and governors to get it passed.
In the end, I like the fact that it was passed legislatively, and I like some aspects of the coalition. Yeah, it was a center-left coalition… and that means it was able to use some of the language of conservative values.
posted by Mary on
New York’s role in the gay marraige fight may have been overstimated, but there is no way to deny the significance of what Governor Cuomo achieved last month. Implementing gay marriage through legislative vote disarms critics of marriage equality by denying them one of their major points – that those who decided this question were unelected. Now opponents are forced to fall back on the idea that unless the population votes directly, the will of the people is being usurped – an argument that (although I hate to admit it.) has little validity. Also, every time a state adopts gay marriage by legislative vote it shows that such victories are possibly and encourages supporters to use the legislative process – a much safer bet for them long term.
Gay marriage now has a validity that it didn’t have before the New York vote. The sight of happy gay couples wedding publicly (often with their children nearby) also forces the public to see how this change affects today’s gay couples but not necessarily all people over time. This is sure to have a liberalizing effect overall. And even the most conservative New Yorker has been rendered operationally liberal by the fact that he has to ackowledge the legality of gay marriages – and refer to a woman’s “wife” and a man’s “Husand.” A refusal to do this will seem petty and childish. And conservatives are now in the unenviably position of advocating that rights be taken away from people who have them – not a good place to be in the U.S. Support for SSM is likely to increase rapidly in New York state, and probably also among New York Republicans.
How this issue plays out nationally is anyone’s guess, as most states are not nearly as liberal as New York and don’t have the unique set of circumstances that we have (Cuomo and Bloomberg and their passion on this issue.) But it is a huge and impressive victory nonetheless.
This is a sad and demoralizing time for social conservatives in New York. We can only hope this change will turn out to be for the best and that our own side was wrong.