Back to previous post: Fort Knox Threatened!

Go to Making Light's front page.

Forward to next post: We’re Number One!

Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)

June 24, 2011

Love wins
Posted by Patrick at 10:33 PM * 95 comments

Welcome, New York State, to the civilized world.

Comments on Love wins:
#1 ::: heresiarch ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 10:36 PM:

Love wins!

#3 ::: Melissa Singer ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 10:41 PM:

At last, at last, hooray!

#5 ::: John Chu ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 10:53 PM:

6 down, 44 to go...

#6 ::: KeithS ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 10:54 PM:

Glad to hear some good news today!

#7 ::: CaseyL ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 10:54 PM:

Incrementally, state by state, we hesitantly join the other civilized nations of Earth in allowing people to marry whom they love.

I've been hearing that the passage of the bill in NY State now doubles the number of people who have the right to marriage equality.

#8 ::: KayTei ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:01 PM:

Way to go, New York!

#9 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:04 PM:

#7: Doubles the number of people in the United States. In large parts of the rest of the world, this has been a settled issue for some years now.

#10 ::: CaseyL ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:05 PM:

#9 - Yeah, I meant "in the US." Like I said earlier, bit by hesitant bit, we're joining the civilized world.

#11 ::: Lizzy L ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:08 PM:

Woot!!!!

I'm crying. Silly Lizzy.

#12 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:16 PM:

Not silly at all, Lizzy.

#13 ::: TexAnne ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:26 PM:

I'm so glad I'm going to live there soon.

#14 ::: Ken Houghton ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:31 PM:

NY once again passes NJ. Even as our legislature continues the path Larry Kudlow set it on twenty years ago.

Maybe this will revitalize Rockland County.

#15 ::: glinda ::: (view all by) ::: June 24, 2011, 11:33 PM:

Yes!

#16 ::: pericat ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 12:03 AM:

I still remember the evening a few years aho when I heard in passing on the news that the BC SC had struck down restrictions on same-sex marriage. My whole world stood on its head and waved its feet. I'd known most of my life that I wasn't allowed to get married, so I hadn't bothered to consider if I even wanted to. I was surprised to find I did want to.

This marriage thing is a lot of fun. Yay for ever more people getting to try it!

#17 ::: Scraps ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 12:04 AM:

Yay!

#18 ::: Clifton Royston ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 12:24 AM:

Others have said Yay! already, so I'll say Hooray!

#19 ::: Laura Runkle ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 12:43 AM:

Welcome, indeed. Oddly enough, a couple years of legal marriage extended to more people in Iowa has *not* suddenly undermined our Iowan marriage. Only thing we can say so far is that the increase in gay marriages appears to have lowered the ratio of divorces to marriages.

#20 ::: Paula Helm Murray ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 01:32 AM:

Not terribly long ago I was visiting my mom and she said, "it is horrible that gay people want to get married." I am guessing she heard something from that gasbag RL on the radio because before that she had always presented a positive, kind view of gay people, mostly because she knows them as her hairdresser who is perfect, etc.

I asked, 'how does that affect or threaten any kind of marriage? Tell me how and I'll try to figure that one out."

She thought about it a bit and, very puzzled, "I don't know. You may be right."

She hasn't brought it up since, but I think she's cut down on the hate radio she listens to, also.

#21 ::: Alan Yee ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 01:41 AM:

As a young gay American, I am so happy about this. I would be happier if gay marriage was recognized on the federal level, but until DOMA is repealed and a few certain Supreme Court Justices leave the bench, that won't happen for a while. Hopefully it happens while I'm still young.

#22 ::: janeyolen ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 02:26 AM:

About time the Big Apple decided to make applesauce available to all.

Yay!

Jane

#23 ::: Pyre ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 03:43 AM:

"If we can make it there, we'll make it anywhere...."

[eyes the remaining U.S. map]

#24 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 03:52 AM:

Dude. What a great thing to wake up to in the morning.

#25 ::: Jo Walton ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 07:14 AM:

Go marriage equality!

#26 ::: John Chu ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 07:47 AM:

Laura@19:Yes, the same in Massachusetts. One of the reasons, I think, why a subsequent referendum effort to roll back marriage equality failed was because the fear mongering no longer worked. People could see that allowing everyone to marry didn't cause the apocalypse.

If anything, it caused the Red Sox to win the World Series. Same sex marriage became legal in May of 2004. The Sox won in October of 2004. And, as you know Bob, correlation always indicates causation. You know, if someone had told the good citizens of MA that the way to remove The Curse was to allow same sex marriage, MA would have had marriage equality decades ago. :)

#27 ::: Lila ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 07:53 AM:

On the one hand, YAY! On the other hand, I wish someplace closer to home would recognize my beloved relatives' marriage. (I expect to die of old age before Georgia gets around to it.)

#28 ::: Janet Brennan Croft ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 08:08 AM:

Yay -- yet another state where my daughter and her fiancee can eventually tie the knot! Of course, here in Oklahoma we'll probably be the LAST state to allow gay marriage.

#29 ::: Kip W ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 08:39 AM:

Let's have a chorus of "Shuffle Off to Buffalo"!

#30 ::: Caroline ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 08:42 AM:

YES! Congrats, NY!

#31 ::: Debra Doyle ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 09:58 AM:

John Chu@26: You know, if someone had told the good citizens of MA that the way to remove The Curse was to allow same sex marriage, MA would have had marriage equality decades ago.

Quick! Someone tell the Cubs fans!

#32 ::: jnh ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 10:37 AM:

'O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

New York make one gigantic slip-and-slide slippery slope....

#33 ::: Fox ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 10:41 AM:

John Chu @26, Miz Debra @31:

remove The Curse
Someone tell the Cubs fans!

Dudes. I've been saying for some time that when the Cubs and my Cleveland Indians win their respective pennants in the same October - which, if you believe those who get hysterical about Mayan "prophecies", could be next year - is the time to buy canned goods. But you might be on to something ...

(Also: HOT DAMN, NEW YORK!)

#34 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 10:42 AM:

Wow.

#35 ::: Melody ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 10:50 AM:

This is wonderful news of a morning! Maybe I can just hold onto that for a while instead of mulling on the direction that our great liberal stronghold of MN is going currently.

#36 ::: Fragano Ledgister ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 10:56 AM:

One small step for decency, one giant step for New York.

#37 ::: Ken Houghton ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 11:19 AM:

Debra @31: Isn't Illinois already one of (what will soon be called) The Sinister Six? (Quick, NJ, GO ALL THE WAY!)

#38 ::: Fox ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 11:28 AM:

Ken @37: New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, DC.

#39 ::: David Harmon ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 11:34 AM:

Excellent!

#40 ::: Madeleine Robins ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 11:46 AM:

"Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments!"

So proud of my home state. **eyes adopted state irritably** California will come around, I am convinced. It just has to shake the last stoopid off its shoes.

#41 ::: sisuile ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 12:47 PM:

Doyle @ 31 June 1, 2011, Illinois started to allow same-sex civil unions.

Cook County (Chicago) no longer does marriage licenses, only civil unions.

The Cubs may actually win. Though I hope not, since I am a died-in-the-wool Cards fan.

#42 ::: Velma ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 01:08 PM:

This is awesome. And how I wish I were in town for Pride this year (how I wish I'd been on Christopher Street last night).

#43 ::: Melissa Mead ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 01:19 PM:

Yay for devoted couples! May they all live long and happily together.

#44 ::: Rob Thornton ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 01:24 PM:

Good news!

#46 ::: Bruce Cohen (Speaker to Managers) ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 02:40 PM:

Hooray! Civilization is now visible from here!

#47 ::: Ingrid ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 03:19 PM:

Scott Westerfield on Twitter tweeted a twitvid (say that five times fast) of people singing "Empire State of Mind" outside Stonewall.

So awesome. Congratulations New York!

Not sure this link will work, but...

http://www.twitvid.com/DL8YE

#48 ::: Jörg Raddatz ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 03:36 PM:

Congratulations, NY.

I don't want to derail this, but when looking up same-sex marriage worldwide, I realized a trivial but fun fact:
Of the seven European countries with full marriage equality (Belgium, Denmark, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden), all of them are monarchies. In fact, the only European monarchies without it are the tiny principalities and the UK.
OTOH, the only republic with marriage equality (Portugal) has at least one major restriction concerning adoption laws.
I have absolutely no clue if there is a causality or just coincidence, but I think it is worth to mention it.

#49 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 04:08 PM:

Jörg Raddatz @48:

1. I presume you omitted Iceland on purpose? It is part of the European continent, even though it's not part of the EU. It's a republic with full marriage equality.

2. The UK's civil partnership law really is marriage in all but name. The only differences are: (a) a civil partnership can be instituted by people who are physically separated, and (b) a civil partnership can be kept out of the public record. I know—I read the law when it passed. It's quite dull; it just says, over and over again, throughout the body of law governing marriage in the UK, For 'husband or wife' read 'husband or wife or civil partner'.

My suggestion for the rule of thumb: you can make it neater by swapping "Eurozone" for "Europe".

#50 ::: James Moar ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 04:15 PM:

"For 'husband or wife' read 'husband or wife or civil partner'."

N.B. Please do not do this recursively.

#51 ::: Marko Kloos ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 04:47 PM:

Congratulations, New Yorkers. Glad you could join us.

Signed,

New Hampshire & neighbors

#52 ::: mythago ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 10:28 PM:

abi @49: The problem with civil-unions-that-are-not-marriage is that they're local. That is, just about everywhere in the world will recognize a "marriage" from your home country, but not "civil unions".

Madeline @40: A better-managed campaign would do it, as well as the (pointless and redundant) laws that say "yo, churches don't have to do this if they don't wanna", which takes away one of the bigots' biggest weapons; a lot of people voted for Prop 8 because they didn't understand churches could not be forced to marry same-sex cuples.

#53 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 10:38 PM:

#50: Good point. I also know how the programmer died in the shower.

Cranky moment. Over on Twitter, our Abi retweets a tweet by the generally excellent George Takei. In case Twitter is failwhaling, I'll reproduce his remark: "Same-sex marriage was passed in NY by a Republican-controlled Senate. Equality has no party, freedom no partisans."

George Takei is a guy who spent a big part of World War II in American concentration camps, and emerged to be a huge advocate of more democracy and equal rights for everybody. He was on Star Trek. He helped get LA's new subway system going. He recorded this. His Totally Awesome Human Being credits are, well, astronomical.

But this is bullshit. "Same-sex marriage was passed in NY by a Republican-controlled Senate." Yes, by 29 out of 30 Democratic state senators and 4 out of 32 Republicans. "Equality has no party?" That's not what the numbers say.

Don't mistake my political outlook. In New York State, just as at the federal level, the Democrats are nothing better than the party of the sane billionaires. "Let's not actually kill everyone and take their money, let's keep them alive and healthy and in a state of eternal indenture to the powerful" is their idea of progressivism. But you know something, it's actually better than "let's kill everyone and take their money."

And you know something else? 29 out of 30 Democratic state senators voted for SSM. 4 out of 32 Republicans did. And Takei is claiming that "equality has no party."

Great way to treat your friends.

Great way to treat the people that actually worked on this year after year. Want to look at how many times the (Democrat-controlled) New York Assembly passed SSM?

No, let's lionize the four Republicans who "bravely" changed their minds, after a covert group of Republican donor billionaires promised to defend them from their bigot constituents, as documented in this terrific New York Times story. Profiles in courage. Yeah, let's put these guys on stamps, instead of the people who actually worked for this when it wasn't safe to do so.

More than one person in my corner of the twittoblogoverse has mordantly observed that 5-to-10 years from now, right-wing Republicans will be claiming that they passed same-sex marriage over Democratic opposition. They will indeed. And idiotic, sentimental, pudding-headed nonsense like this tweet from George Takei (who is generally more awesome than I will ever be in a million years) is what will enable them.

#54 ::: Jörg Raddatz ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 11:34 PM:

abi @ 49: No, it was more a stupid glitch on my part. I somehow overlooked Iceland, probably because the category "European" was unclear defined in my head.

And regarding civil unions: That is also the current state of affairs here in Germany. I still think that full equality would be much better. Separate-but-equal is so hard to believe in.
OTOH, apparently the German version has at least so many benefits that a few years ago there was some brouhaha over same-sex non-lovers trying to enter one - looking for better tax brackets, health insurance for couples and eventual widower's pension. In one case, it was about two bachelor brothers sharing the family farm; IIRC.

#55 ::: Jörg Raddatz ::: (view all by) ::: June 25, 2011, 11:38 PM:

I am sorry. I am am very tired and realized a few seconds to late that my rambling about our local situation has very little to do with the topic of this thread.
Moderators, please feel free to remove my post #54 completely or partially. My apologies, going to sleep now.

#56 ::: Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 12:48 AM:

I don't see anything off-topic, Jörg.

#57 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 04:24 AM:

Patrick @53:

Given all that you said, I still think Takei's tweet was shrewd, and I retweeted it because of that.

Takei isn't interested in having the Democrats "own" marriage equality, though they (we) do at the moment. Because we lose elections as well as win them. Takei wants to provide cover for Republican switchers, and I do too. Because we're 6 down, 44 to go, plus DOMA.

The last thing we want is another ERA. Lowering the barrier to Republicans switching sides is part of that.

Yes, they will claim that they invented the concept of marriage equality. But they'll do that no matter what Takei tweets. And in a meantime, gay people will be married.

#58 ::: abi ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 04:27 AM:

mythago @52:
The problem with civil-unions-that-are-not-marriage is that they're local. That is, just about everywhere in the world will recognize a "marriage" from your home country, but not "civil unions".

Oh, I am absolutely aware of that. (I would write that blog post very differently now.) I simply meant that the fact that the UK's civil union law is very strong indeed shades into agreeing with Jörg's amusing hypothesis.

#59 ::: Rob Hansen ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 05:23 AM:

abi@49: Yes, in terms of the rights they confer civil unions in the UK are marriages in all but name, and most of the gay population here seems perfectly happy with this. I was too, until I read of the experience of a friend of Roz Kaveney. A transwoman, she married as a man and her relationship survived her transition, which in most cases it doesn't and which the law doesn't really allow for. When she became legally female she was granted full rights as a woman including the right to marry a man. However, as a woman she could not be married to another woman and so her marriage became legally void. She's now in a civil union with her partner and, from the smiling photos of them in their big dresses riding through Cambridge in the back of an open, horse drawn carriage, they made a big deal of the ceremony and of the day itself and had a great time. However, it shouldn't have been necessary to do this. It's a relationship between the same two people and there shouldn't have been a state-imposed break in the middle of it. I'm sure this was an unintended consequence of a clash between the two laws involved, but it does show what a nonsense having two separate arrangements is. Had marriage just been marriage for everyone this absurd situation would never have arisen.

#60 ::: Pyre ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 06:08 AM:

abi @49: "I presume you omitted Iceland on purpose? It is part of the European continent, even though it's not part of the EU."

Perhaps if you are discussing continental plates -- though Iceland straddles the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between the Eurasian and North American plates, thus being "part" of both.

What Iceland is part of is the European Economic Area.

#61 ::: Jacque ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 08:31 AM:

Heh. With all this talk of marriage equality, I find myself thinking ahead to the day when one can marry whomever, however many of whom, consent to join in such unions.*

* Having read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress at a formative age.

#62 ::: Nancy Lebovitz ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 08:37 AM:

Patrick, in addition to abi's point, I also hate the pattern I've seen of demonizing Republicans.

I keep hearing that there are no good people left in the Republican party, and then there will be someone in office who does something reasonable, or (a while ago) someone who leaves because they were disgusted by it. Admittedly, they did leave, but on the other hand, they presumably left because they weren't awful people even before they left.

Also, I occasionally run into something like this, about a small town Republican mayor in Georgia who's opposing the immigration law there.

I'm not denying that the Republican party has gone very bad, but it will probably be easier to pry people loose from malign policies if we don't start from the assumption that the scarlet R means they can't do anything worthy of respect.

#63 ::: Paul A. ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 11:39 AM:

I have encountered a speculation about what this might mean for the future, which I think this crowd will take in the spirit it's meant.

#64 ::: Jon Marcus ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 12:23 PM:

sisuile @41: Would that it were so, but Cook County does still make a distinction between "civil union" and marriage. And as mythago points out, the distinction is not trivial.

#65 ::: Henning Makholm ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 03:08 PM:

@48 Jörg: I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to work across language and translation boundaries, but as far as I understand the English terminology, what we have in Denmark is civil unions, not same-sex marriage. At least, our law have separate words for the arrangement according to whether the spouses have the same or different sexes.

Our law does state that the legal effects of a civil union is by definition identical to that of a marriage, except in cases where the law explicitly treats husbands different from wives. I think the only such difference left is that a wife will not automatically be considered the father of a child her husband gives birth to.

Is that enough to move it from "civil union" to "same-sex marriage"? As far as I can glean from e.g. reading court papers in the instant Californian litigation, it looks like the mere use of a different word is considered discriminatory by the contesters there.

#66 ::: Vicki ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 05:52 PM:

Henning--does that mean that woman will automatically be considered the father of a child her wife gives birth to, so there's no need for second-parent adoptions?

#67 ::: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 06:23 PM:

@63: That's adorable.

( 3*(Cheers)->New York )++

!

#68 ::: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 06:24 PM:

Of course, that last ! should not be read programmaticly.

Mixing your jargon can be dangerous, y'all...

#69 ::: Melissa Singer ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 06:25 PM:

Just dropped in to say the Pride Parade in NYC was _amazing_ today . . . and that partway through, I had a powerful vision of next year's Kleinfeld's/David's Bridal's float . . . .

#70 ::: Bruce Cohen (Speaker to Managers) ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 06:37 PM:

abi @ 57:

OK, I agree it would be nice if we could peel off Republicans from the bad positions they've taken up, but I still think Patrick has a point: we need to remember what actually happened, rather than the rewriting of history that's made so that everyone can feel good about themselves, because otherwise we get exactly the same thing happening again1. So, no, not every French citizen was in the Resistance, and not every Baby Boomer in the US marched for peace and freedom, and not every politician in New York struck a blow for marriage equality.

1. ISTM for example that accepting the word of a white Southern politician who worked hard for segregation and against civil rights for a large portion of his constituents that he is "not a racist" and was "for civil rights his whole career" does damage to the work that still has to be done to combat both racism and classism in the US.

#71 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 07:10 PM:

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of hearing bigots say that they're "just not comfortable" with same-sex marriage. Just heard someone say that on a radio call-in show a few days before the bill passed.

I wish I could have talked to that person. The temptation to say "well, fuck you, I don't give a flying fuck if you're comfortable or not" would be strong, of course, but better to point out that she wouldn't want HER civil rights dependent on MY comfort. "I'm not comfortable with your marriage, so you have to get a divorce. How about that?"

I'm also sick of their godsdamned lies about how they're not bigots, oh no, it's just that God told them marriage has to be between one man and one woman. I don't see them crusading against remarriage after divorce, or demanding the proclamation of a Jubilee year. Lying sacks of shit.

But then I take a deep breath, and realize: they lost. At least here, at least now, they're LOSERS. In your face, lying bigots!

#72 ::: Jörg Raddatz ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 07:38 PM:

Henning @ 65: I admit, my so-called research did not go further than the obvious wikipedia pages; and *they* listen Denmark as a country with marriage, opposed to, eg, Germany, which correctly was marked as "civil union" country.

In my opinion, that is another argument for equal marriages, very close to the one mythago already made: The international legal transferability: Researching what a civil union really means in two different nations is often very complicated *and* always necessary, especially when it comes to the things you can claim from private persons like your employer as a married person - does a "civilly united" person have the same claims? I bet that no two EU countries with CU have the same rules.

#73 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 07:42 PM:

Even when a state (like New Jersey) declares that Civil Unioned partners have all the same rights and obligations, etc., that married partners do, they don't have the power to enforce that on out of state companies. New Jersey has already admitted that its Civil Union law is a failure.

Will they fix it? Stay tuned, but with a Republican governor who might want to run for President, and who has said he would veto same-sex marriage if it came to his desk, not bloody likely.

#74 ::: heresiarch ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 08:45 PM:

I get the importance of giving credit where credit is due (and the reverse) but I also think that it's important to stress that gay marriage *should not* be a partisan issue--it should be supported by everyone. If you make it a Democratic issue, first and foremost, you accomplish two things: you get half the country to oppose gay marriage just to deny you the political win, and you legitimize the idea that this is a two-sided issue. It's not--this is not an issue where one can see multiple valid arguments on both sides and it comes down to a question of balancing different priorities. It's just plain a good idea.

The day your opponents are forced to pretend that they were in favor of the cause you championed all along is the day you haven't just won, but have won so thoroughly that your victory has become embedded in the very terrain of politics. If Republicans want to turn around in ten years and pretend they were always for it, they're welcome to try and shut up their bigot wing. Everyone knows the GOP is the party of racists, and there they even have a historic realignment of the parties to muddy the waters. Love wins, the truth will out.

#75 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 09:35 PM:

Everyone knows the GOP is the party of racists

Racists, misogynists, and torturers.

#76 ::: Henry Troup ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 09:37 PM:

This should do wonders for tourist trade in Niagara Falls NY.

#77 ::: Vicki ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 09:44 PM:

Credit where it's due, yes, but not where it isn't: by all means note that this was passed by an alliance of four Republicans and almost every Democrat in the state senate. Name them, if you like. But don't make it sound like the state Republican party as a whole was in favor of this: it they had been, we'd have had it years ago.

#78 ::: Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 09:46 PM:

Quite right, Vicki. And that asshole Ruben Diaz has to go too. He can go sit with his Republican allies.

#79 ::: Nancy Lebovitz ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 10:49 PM:

Patrick @ 53:

More than one person in my corner of the twittoblogoverse has mordantly observed that 5-to-10 years from now, right-wing Republicans will be claiming that they passed same-sex marriage over Democratic opposition.

The idea that the Republicans will claim credit for passing the bill is just a hypothetical. I'm not sure how plausible it is.

#80 ::: Andrew Willett ::: (view all by) ::: June 26, 2011, 11:19 PM:

I'm with Melissa Singer @69: The NYC Pride march today was wonderful. Huge crowds, jubilant energy -- I haven't had so much fun marching in years and years. (I was with the swim team. I love my swim team.)

#81 ::: 'As You Know' Bob ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 01:10 AM:

Nancy Lebovitz at #79: The idea that the Republicans will claim credit for passing the bill is just a hypothetical. I'm not sure how plausible it is.

It's certainly not impossible: in recent years, the GOP has started claiming credit for passage of the civil rights laws of the '60s

#82 ::: Linkmeister ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 01:29 AM:

'As You Know' Bob @ #81, even more aggravating to me is the occasional claim that MLK Jr. was a conservative.

Right. The man shot down while attempting to help unionized refuse collectors improve their working conditions was a conservative Republican. And there's a bridge in Patrick and Teresa's neighborhood I'd like to sell.

#83 ::: Dave Crisp ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 04:57 AM:

Abi @ 49: You left out one difference: the legal definition of adultery was not expanded to include CP's due to the word's religious connotations; so you can't directly cite "adultery" as grounds for divorce.

Since you can cite your partner's infidelity as evidence of his or her "unreasonable behaviour", all this means in practical terms is that you have to get your lawyer to fill in a slightly different version of the forms. But it's still, technically, a difference.

#84 ::: Adam Lipkin ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 06:35 AM:

Nancy @ 79 --

The right wing blogosphere is already starting to claim Republican credit.

#85 ::: Nancy Lebovitz ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 08:22 AM:

The condition of politics in Wisconsin(25 minutes)-- that would be the segment called "The War of Northern Aggression".

I hold to the idea that Republicans are individual human beings of a wide range of decency because I believe it's true, and at the same time, I don't know what good choices-- for both strategy and tactics-- for that sort of situation.

#86 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 12:00 PM:

On my way to work I saw a rainbow headline on the local newspaper/real estate ads. It made an otherwise really tedious day a lot nicer.

I remember being so happy when Calif. was doing marriages. I was overjoyed at the first court ruling, amused at the second and appalled at the third (the one that said stripping an entire class of people of a civil right wasn't a maojor change to the constitution). We'll come round, time is on our side, but shit... we could have been out with the leaders of this pack.

One day at a time. I can only hope New Jersey (to whence I'm headed... way too soon; I hate packing) come to the side of the sensible.


I have to say the Republicans who crossed the aisle on this one.. their explanations of why... those are what made me tear up (in the stories before the vote) All praise and honor to them.

Henning Makholm: There are two issues: one is that civil unions don't confer federal rights (sadly, the structure of the nation is such that marriages don't either, but changing that will only take the repeal of one law, not the amending of an unknown number). The other is that, even in Calif. the rights, and privileges, afforded to married couples are different from those conferred to partners who enter a civil union.

#87 ::: Cheryl ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 01:04 PM:

mythago @52

The problem with civil-unions-that-are-not-marriage is that they're local. That is, just about everywhere in the world will recognize a "marriage" from your home country, but not "civil unions".

My understanding is that the U.S. (federally) will not recognize a same-sex marriage, actually. Canada just has marriage for all, and I don't believe that same-sex spouses who marry in Canada and then live in the U.S. are allowed to do things like file taxes together, or claim survivor benefits, in spite of the fact that this is a treaty violation (or so I am told. I've no idea what treaty it would be, or how to look it up). State-by-state, it's different, of course.

But, hey: Yay, New York!!

#88 ::: Jon Marcus ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 01:24 PM:

Yeah, the Republican party will likely try to claim that they legalized gay marriage. As pointed out above they've tried to claim the civil rights mantle of MLK.

But I suspect that the former claim would be about as effective as the latter has been. How many civil rights supporters do you know who vote R because of the wonderful Republican record?

#89 ::: Sarah S. ::: (view all by) ::: June 27, 2011, 01:56 PM:

You know, I am overjoyed by New York's decision.

And I feel, honestly, mildly queasy that the celebration over it here on ML has turned into an opportunity for political attack and invective. I'm not particularly surprised that it has, but...I just thought that I'd get to enjoy the good news for longer before I was reminded of why I refuse to ally with any political party at all.

Could we have a post titled "Love Wins" that has a little less hate in it?

#90 ::: mythago ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2011, 01:27 PM:

Cheryl @87: While that's true, the issue is that "marriage" is recognized pretty much everywhere, even in states where you couldn't have engaged in that marriage legally - unless it's same-sex marriage. If a 44-year-old-man marries his 13-year-old niece by way of levirate marriage because that's legal in his home country, if he comes to the US and says "here is proof that she is my wife," that's generally good enough for government work.

#91 ::: Jeremy Leader ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2011, 01:44 PM:

Sarah S @89: Really? Now everything is wonderful, now that 6 out of 50 states have agreed to allow people in love to get married? No one has a right to complain about bigotry? We can't discuss how best to use this victory to increase the chance of future victories (by making it clear who gets credit for the victory, and who voted against it but still wants to claim credit)?

Personally, I saw a lot more righteous anger than hate in this thread. Now, righteous anger has its own drawbacks and pitfalls, but if you label all anger as hatred, you're treating those who have a right to be angry rather unfairly.

#92 ::: Cheryl ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2011, 06:13 PM:

mythago@90

While that's true, the issue is that "marriage" is recognized pretty much everywhere, even in states where you couldn't have engaged in that marriage legally - unless it's same-sex marriage. If a 44-year-old-man marries his 13-year-old niece by way of levirate marriage because that's legal in his home country, if he comes to the US and says "here is proof that she is my wife," that's generally good enough for government work.

Yes, that's what I meant to point out - it's a legal marriage in Canada, and the U.S. will not recognise it, even though they will recognise all sorts of other kinds, such as what you point out above.

#93 ::: Jon H ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2011, 11:39 PM:

PNH @53: "And you know something else? 29 out of 30 Democratic state senators voted for SSM. 4 out of 32 Republicans did. And Takei is claiming that "equality has no party.""

I suspect Takei was really talking to people like the 4 NY Republicans, who lean towards supporting equality, but whose tribal tendencies might keep them from voting with the Democratic position.

(A bit like Neal Patrick Harris' "Broadway's Not Just For Gays Anymore" number at the Tonys. Takei is emphasizing that Equality's not just for Gays and Democrats and Liberals anymore. Republicans vote for it too.)

NY certainly isn't the last state where a vote will hinge on a few Republicans siding with the Democrats on the issue. Might as well start working on them now.

#94 ::: Jon H ::: (view all by) ::: June 28, 2011, 11:55 PM:

Now I see that Abi @57 wrote pretty much on the same lines as I did above. 4 out of 32, as small as it is, is still 12.5%, which is a pretty sizable chunk of the electorate if they can be coaxed to our side on this.

Abi @: "Yes, they will claim that they invented the concept of marriage equality."

However, this will be weakened by the efforts of a faction to wreak holy vengeance on the Republicans who voted for it.

Not that the GOP isn't adept at campaigning on mutually exclusive positions, but still. It'll be a problem for them, at certain points.

#95 ::: Red Jenny ::: (view all by) ::: June 29, 2011, 11:01 PM:

Takei is looking for converts; he wants to make it as easy and inevitable-seeming as possible for Conservatives to switch over. It's not my style but it's a perfectly reasonable approach.

Welcome to Making Light's comment section. The moderators are Avram Grumer, Teresa & Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and Abi Sutherland. Abi is the moderator most frequently onsite. She's also the kindest. Teresa is the theoretician. Are you feeling lucky?

Comments containing more than seven URLs will be held for approval. If you want to comment on a thread that's been closed, please post to the most recent "Open Thread" discussion.

You can subscribe (via RSS) to this particular comment thread. (If this option is baffling, here's a quick introduction.)

Post a comment.
(Real e-mail addresses and URLs only, please.)

HTML Tags:
<strong>Strong</strong> = Strong
<em>Emphasized</em> = Emphasized
<a href="http://www.url.com">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Spelling reference:
Tolkien. Minuscule. Gandhi. Millennium. Delany. Embarrassment. Publishers Weekly. Occurrence. Asimov. Weird. Connoisseur. Accommodate. Hierarchy. Deity. Etiquette. Pharaoh. Teresa. Its. Macdonald. Nielsen Hayden. It's. Fluorosphere. Barack. More here.















(You must preview before posting.)

Dire legal notice
Making Light copyright 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. All rights reserved.