Seeking Equality
Gary Gilbert (l.) and Murdoch Mathew, a gay couple from Queens, were married in Quebec in 2005. |
Gay Marriage Vote Could Come In June
By Lee Landor
When New Paltz Mayor Jason West married 25 same-sex couples on Feb. 27, 2004 he sparked a major controversy throughout New York State and the rest of the country, resurrecting the 1970s social movement to obtain the legal protection of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
The discussion regarding the legality of gay marriage colored the front pages of newspapers, entered people’s homes through their evening news shows and generated conversations about morality, religion and politics. Advocates and those in opposition battled in courts; rallies consumed small-town streets. The subject was a sensation.
The Legal Beginning
The legal issues surrounding marriage in the United States were simple until the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Originally, any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if other states did not acknowledge the union. This changed when Congress passed DOMA by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House of Representatives (and former President Bill Clinton signed it) in September 1996.
DOMA established that marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law, according to Wikipedia.com. As a result, today no federal agency recognizes same-sex marriage.
The states are still split on the issue: Massachusetts is the only state that permits same-sex marriage, five states recognize some form of same-sex unions, 12 ban any form of same-sex unions, 26 have adopted amendments to their state constitutions prohibiting same-sex marriage and 20 states have enacted statutory DOMAs, according to Wikipedia. (Civil unions are a legal mechanism intended to grant same-sex couples legal status that is somewhat similar to civil marriage.)
Currently, same-sex couples in New York State do not have the right to marry – a decision made by the State Court of Appeals.
New York’s Quandary
One year after West initiated dialogue on the issue, New York State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that New York City could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on the equal protection clause of the State’s constitution. In December 2005, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court overturned her decision and on July 6, 2006 the Court of Appeals rejected same-sex marriage in the State unless it was provided by legislative action.
This decision prompted New York State Gov. Elliot Spitzer, who submitted legislation to amend state domestic relations law and protect marriage equality for all New Yorkers in April 2007.
Tom Moulton (r.) and Brendan Fay (l.) were wed in Ontario in 2003. |
“This bill guarantees that the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness will be protected equally for all individuals in the State of New York,” Spitzer said in a statement.
Same-sex partners and their children lack legal protections afforded to other married couples in areas of property ownership, inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, taxation, insurance coverage, child custody and pension benefits. This bill, Spitzer said, would extend these protections to all.
The provisions included in the legislation indicate that marriages that would be otherwise valid under the law will be valid regardless of the sex of individuals. Also, government treatment, legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage will be equal for all individual parties who enter a marriage, regardless of their sex. Additionally, gender-specific language referenced by or set in New York law will be replaced with gender-neutral language, no applications for marriage licenses will be denied on the grounds of individuals’ sex and “in consideration of private, ethical and religious beliefs, no clergy member or religious constitution will be compelled to perform or recognize any marriage.”
The bill would also respect out-of-state marriages of gay state employees in terms of spousal benefits, which would make them eligible for the same medical, life insurance and long-term care benefits.
New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan), who is a lesbian, commended Spitzer for “his leadership, for his belief in the principles embodied in both our State and Federal Constitutions and for keeping his word to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.”
In doing this, she said, “He is making it clear that discrimination in any form is unacceptable.”
Currently, the New York State Assembly is discussing the bill in the democratic conference and within three weeks will have an idea of whether it will be decided before this end of this year’s session in June or pushed to next year.
With 53 co-sponsors, the bill has “a lot more support at this stage than there ever has been on this issue,” according to Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi (D-Forest Hills). “Times change and people are starting to realize the importance of equal rights of all citizens.”
Hevesi, who is a co-sponsor of the bill, said he believes there is a growing consensus among the population that it is time for the equality of marriage to come to New York. Apparently, that consensus hasn’t quite reached the State Senate, which is Republican-controlled and headed by Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R-Rensselaer), who has indicated that he is opposed to the legislation.
Though the bill has less support in the Senate, where it is currently being reviewed by the judiciary committee, there is pressure from Gov. Spitzer to get the bills on the floor of each house soon.
The View From Queens
Irish gay activist Brendan Fay, 45, said he was elated to hear that there is promise for same-sex marriage legalization in the New York State Assembly.
“Marriage has been evolving, as our society is,” Fay said. “But still, adults committed to one another are deprived of civil rights: there are 1,138 legal rights denied to so many New Yorkers.”
Calling this a shame, Fay asked, “How could people be so unenlightened? And why are we sending people to other countries for a simple legal right?”
Fay and his partner Tom Moulton, 45, traveled to Toronto, Canada in 2003 to be legally married. They currently live in Astoria, where their union is not recognized and they are not afforded the same protections as other married couples.
In a statement released in April, Speaker Quinn said she was hopeful that Spitzer’s legislation would create change.
“There is little doubt that we will face serious opposition,” she said. “But in the history of every movement, there have been times when the victory seemed out of reach. With the Governor’s leadership, and the commitment of other public officials and advocates, we will prevail.”
She urged members of the State Legislature to “put equal rights above politics and to end discrimination…by giving marriages to everyone.”
Fay said the focus is more on the people.
“It takes passionate citizens to change the law,” he said. “Politicians need a real nudge from concerned citizens.”
Some citizens are passionate – in their opposition to Spitzer’s proposal and to same-sex marriage.
The Other Side
“[Spitzer’s] legislation would prove to be detrimental to the well being of families in New York State for this generation and for generations to follow,” said Executive Director of Newburgh-based Marriage and Family Savers Institute Rev. Bill Banuchi.
According to him, the institution of marriage was “severely damaged” by divorce laws in the 1970s and “will be only further damaged by any attempt to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, as evidenced by Scandinavian countries where the time-tested institutions of marriage and family are quickly fading into historical oblivion, where social order is being displaced by disorder.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics argued Banuchi’s point in the July 2006 issue of its official publication, the journal Pediatrics.
The article, “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children” asserted that children raised by same-sex couples fare as well as those raised by heterosexual couples and exposed the risks to children that result when their parents’ relationships are not afforded protections.
“For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits and protections,” the article read.
According to Pediatrics, included in those rights are the abilities to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner or to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one partner’s non-biological/non-jointly-adopted child), and recognition of next of kin for the purpose of visiting the partner or non-biological/non-jointly-adopted children, and many others.
Banuchi maintained his point.
Not all members of the gay community favor legalizing gay marriage. |
“All the social studies are in,” he said, “and all agree that the traditional model of family — father, mother and children — provide the best environment for children to grow and develop, and for societies to prosper.”
A child typically receives comfort and assurance from his mother and truth and authority from his father, Banuchi said. “It’s when those two things are working together that the child grows up with an emotionally balanced psyche…and to fulfill his greatest potential.”
The deviation from such a standard would contribute to the “devolution” of society, he added.
He and the Marriage and Savers Institute are calling on Spitzer to abandon his call for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
“This is not a civil rights issue,” Banuchi said. “This is not the time to legalize immoral behavior. On the contrary, it is time to pass a Defense of Marriage Act to insure no on tampers with that sacred institution that has helped produce the greatest nation on the face of the earth.”
In response to this way of thinking, Assemblyman Hevesi stressed the separation of church and state in the United States.
“I respect people’s moral and religious convictions,” he said. “But government should not be used as a tool to enforce the conviction of some people to the detriment of others.”
|
