In a compelling letter to The New York Times, Michael E. Getnick, president of the New York State Bar Association, takes on constitutionally challenged state Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. who says his opposition to gay marriage is "nothing personal":To the Editor:
Re “Foe of Gay Marriage Says It’s Nothing Personal” (front page, Nov. 10):
State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. raises many points as to his preferences and religious beliefs in expressing his opposition to same-sex marriage. The State Senate has put off the same-sex marriage vote indefinitely. The New York State Bar Association remains an advocate in favor of same-sex marriage as a matter of equal rights.
The association’s position continues to respect people’s religious beliefs, and the legislation it supports would not compel a member of any clergy to perform a marriage ceremony he or she objected to for any reason.
Marriage is the legal definition for the civil rights and obligations set forth in the Domestic Relations Law. It is the only word our state law uses to confer such rights and obligations. The law is not meant to be in favor of any religious belief, as the historic doctrine of separation of church and state is fundamental to our society.
I am from upstate New York and disagree with the suggestion that upstaters are one-issue voters responsible for the recent results in the 23rd Congressional District, where state conservatives forced the Republican candidate to withdraw in part because of her support of same-sex marriage.
There has been no determination as to how New York voters stand on this issue. What is for sure is that whatever the State Senate does, all voters have the right to assume that equal protection under the law is a constitutional right that should be available to all New Yorkers, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Michael E. Getnick
President
New York State Bar Association
Albany, Nov. 11, 2009
The marriage-only strategy for achieving our rights has brought us the Defense of Marriage Act, 45 states passing laws banning same-sex marriage, with 18 of those also banning civil unions and domestic partnerships, 30 of the 45 as state constitutional amendments. Same-sex marriage has never won an election. Clearly, the marriage-only strategy for the LGBT community has been a failure. Domestic partnerships have never lost an election. Comprehensive domestic partnerships, as in California, Washington & Oregon, are legally indistinguishable from marriage. We spent $40 million dollars on Prop 8 in California, not to win a single new right but for the "M" word. And we lost anyway! The money could have been better spent elsewhere. New York could have comprehensive domestic partnerships and cover its citizens with the rights they need. Then you can continue to keep arguing about the "M" word. But our obsession with the RITES of marriage is obscuring our pursuit of the RIGHTS of marriage.
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as separate but equal, my friend.
ReplyDelete***
ReplyDeleteall voters have the right to assume that equal protection under the law
***
the power of assumption has always been so profound in clarification.
The term, “separate but equal,” was always a lie. The racist who promoted it never really wanted African-Americans treated equally. Everyone, with a wink and nod, knew that. But its opposite, that “separate can never be equal,” is also a lie. If that were true then men and women would share the same public toilets and affirmative action would not exist. Domestic partnerships were invented & promoted by LGBT folk to obtain the benefits of marriage when most of us viewed marriage as a discredited patriarchal institution. Comprehensive domestic partnerships and civil unions are now specifically designed to avoid any inequalities. This painstaking legislative word-smithing gives lie to the notion that separate cannot be equal.
ReplyDeleteAll civil rights struggles have had a series of steps and compromises along the way. Our struggle is no different. But, what if I am wrong and, in this case, separate is not equal? What if comprehensive domestic partnerships are only “almost” equal? At this point in time, I would still love to be “almost” equal because, as of today, we are nowhere near equal! Let us get to equality (or almost equality) first. Once we have achieved that, we can start to worry about possible inequalities. We may not find any! Until then, it is just academic ruminations. (Commissions in New Jersey and Vermont “proving” that civil unions were not equal to marriage were cleverly stacked with marriage-only advocates whose conclusions had been decided upon before each commission met.)