That was the call-heard-around-the-world—or at least around New York State—of gay rights activists after news spread yesterday that New York’s gay marriage bill was defeated in the state senate 38-24 and all but tabling further discussion of the issue until at least 2011.
The conversation that took place among senate members behind closed doors was reportedly one of the most emotional and impassioned discussions that most senators had encountered in their careers, but while the issue of gay marriage may be becoming the subject of more discussions, the outcome of the trial signified little or no progress on the issue to heartbroken same-sex marriage advocates. And while the votes transcended gender, race, and even religious distinctions, they failed to cut across party lines—the measure did not receive one Republican vote.
As a gay rights advocate born and raised in New York—I served as the (self-appointed) “publicity chair” for the Gay-Straight Alliance at Mamaroneck High School in Mamaroneck, NY—this defeat particularly hits home. But the fact is, New York is far from the only state that’s suffered this fate. Since 2003, only seven states have legalized gay marriage, and in two of those, residents voted to repeal lawmakers’ decisions.
While many such bills have been overturned, often by a very small margin, in part due to the perseverance of a very vocal (and very conservative Christian) opposition, gay rights advocates know that slowly but steadily, the American public is—or will—change its mind.
And that’s due in part to the rise of a younger generation that tends to be more liberal and less religious than their older counterparts, and the majority of which believes that all Americans really do deserve equal rights and representation under secular law.
Revolutionary, isn’t it?
In an Oct. 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Center for People and the Press, 58% of 18-29-year-olds stated that they were in favor of gay marriage, compared to 39% of Americans overall. The older the demographic, the fewer approved of gay marriage. Given this trend, support for gay marriage can only continue to increase.
Here’s the thing. It’s going to be a while until young people rule the world (or at least U.S. political institutions). And while only 39% of Americans support gay marriage, 57% of Americans—that’s a majority, in my book—favor civil unions.
So really we’re talking about two different things here. The first is about changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. The second is about insuring that gay couples that have made a lifetime commitment to each other have all the same rights under the law that married heterosexual couples do. If it’s the “one man, one woman” clause that’s bogging up the gay marriage battle, let’s take it one thing at a time.
State and federal legislators’ priority should be passing legislation that will create an institution under a different name—a civil union—under which homosexual couples will be afforded all of the rights and privileges bestowed upon married heterosexual couples, including the right to adopt children.
Once gay and straight couples are one in the same in the legal sense, then congressmen and women can sit back down and debate the linguistic and ideological merits of the term “marriage.” By that time it’ll be close to 2011 anyway.
Is this an ideal situation? No. But Rome wasn’t built in a day. And neither was New York.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Would you like to join in the discussion? Comments
Any change, or threat of change, to the culture is distressing to many people. But a change to the structure of the fundamental building block of society — the family — can be particularly upsetting. Also, a change related to human sexuality can be profoundly disorienting.
This is maybe biblically wrong, but they need our respect. It is in this practice that they uphold their right for freedom of choice.
December 12, 2009 at 5:57 amI like the term “civil union” a lot better than “gay marriage.” One of my biggest complaints about people of the same sex “marrying” is the use of the word. I have always advocated that if people of the same sex want to share the same responsibilities and problems and whatever of marriage, they should be allowed to do so. I simply didn’t like the word “marriage” being used. Marriage, in my mind, is something only a man and a woman can do. Civil unions, on the other hand, would seem to accomplish the same thing, simply under another name. On another tack, I also like the idea espoused by Robert Heinlein in his STARSHIP TROOPERS that in order to hold public office or to even vote an individual had to have served in the military or in some other public service capacity. Now that is something I’d really like to see. I didn’t vote for our current President, not because of his race, but because I felt that no one who has never “been there” should be able to commit American troops to something which places them in harm’s way. I voted and worked for John McCain not only because he was an experienced legislator but also had a military background. I would have worked and voted for Colin Powell in a heartbeat. Perhaps, if enough people ask, he might be prevailed upon to run in 2012. I can understand his wife’s reluctance to place herself, him and their family in that kind of spotlight, but I hope she will allow him to run if he should wish to do so. I doubt very seriously that he would do a worse job than our current President — I’d bet my life he will do a better one.
February 1, 2010 at 8:42 amThis is all silly. Instead of debating whether I am entitled get certain benefits in the eyes of the government because I am queer- why don’t we begin to really evaluate whether marriage should be a rule of the state or a rule of the church.
The majority of opposition to gay marriage comes from the church. Why not let all people who choose to be in union go before a court to declare their dedication and anyone who want some silly religious marriage go to their homophobic church and pray in latin.
March 10, 2010 at 12:52 amHave something to add?