Joined Jun 2011
27K Posts | 8K+
N/A
Crossposted from PF.
.......................................
I did a lot of thinking about what has happened in New York State and decided to publish an opinion not based on statistics - something I rarely do. These are just my thoughts. I hope you all will read them.
To begin: I was married for seven years in Germany and during this time, gay civil unions were and are still allowed in Germany. The Germans, for all intents and purposes, view this to be the same as marriage. I never felt threatened or bothered that gays could also get married. It did not affect the quality or length of my marriage. In fact, I never really thought much about gay marriage until the right turned it into such a hot-button issue.
It seems very apparent to me that the face of our Union has changed considerably just within the last 60 years: from the integration of black Americans into the military to the Civil Rights Movement to DADT and it's repeal and now, to gay marriage. By this, I mean that our attitudes as a whole have undergone a change. And the laws passed to reflect those changes have gained full acceptance.
I thought about those Republicans in NY State and thought about what they did, and more importantly, why they did it. I thought about the fact that the most of the people in elected positions who fought for marriage equality in NY are straight. I thought about the fact that this debate has crossed over racial lines, somewhat over party lines (Diaz), but less over ideological lines. I don't view Party and Ideology as being the same thing.
So, why did those four do what they did?
First, I think those Republicans can read polls. Polling trends over the last many years show a marked change in Americans' attitudes towards "GAY". I will not list any statistics at all, but you can find many of them here. The stats indicate an ever growing acceptance of "GAY" - until we have now reached the point in time where not just a plurality but rather, the majority of the population now accepts these things, things that were extremely tabu not all to long ago. And if those stats apply to the nation generally, then it is a good bet that acceptance of gays, gays in the military and gay marriage is even much higher in a progressive state like New York.
Second, I think those Republicans in NY State are expecting a DEM wave over Ryancare in 2012 and are scared that they will lose control of the NY Senate, which is already tenuous at best: 32 R to officially 30 D, but 4 of those DEMS (the "gang of four") are actually caucusing together as "Independent Democrat". A shift of 3 or 4 State Senate seats would be enough to give the State Senate back to the Democrats. I think those Republicans realized that were this to happen and marriage equality had not been passed yet, then a Democratic controlled Senate in 2013 would be able to put out marriage equality legislation without the restrictions (or protections, as one wishes to see it) that are there now. So, I believe very strongly that the GOP in NY made a tactical move, looking at its immediate future. And in doing so, it just provided cover for other GOP members who may also be having "evolving" opinions about gay marriage. I am pretty sure that the party upper-ups already knew who would "defect" and allowed just enough to do so to get this through.
This kind of procedural tactic is actually pretty common: in March 2010, then Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi gave her blessing to a number of DEM defections from demographically tough swing districts during the vote on the Health Care Law.
I think that that this move was wise, for I believe strongly in the Constitution and do not think that religious institutions should have to accept something they don't want. The freedoms of religious institutions are very clearly outlined in the "Separation Clause" of the Constitution and also of course undergirded the 1st Amendment. Now, the anti-marriage equality side can argue that the very existence of gays ANYWHERE who are married forces the "Church" to accept something it doesn't want, but this is patently false, for one simple reason:
though marriage is considered a holy act by some, if not most, in terms of legality, it is the state-issued marriage certificate that counts. This is why a couple can go down to the courthouse and get married in front of a justice of the peace or court clerk and those two people will be married. They don't even need to go to a church or synagogue or mosque to buddist temple in order be legally married. Only up till recently, it was accepted that the word couple should mean "a man and a woman".
What legalizing gay marriage does is allow benefits for survivors, inheritance, allows for joint tax returns, allows for power of attorney in times of bad health or at end of life. Why should gay people not have these things?
I thought and I thought and I really thought. Why would a good portion of the American public be so virulently opposed to gays having these things?
The only answers I can come up with are: bigotry and hate.
Let's take a look at our own history.
Our Declaration of Independence contains this most famous tenet:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
But how did the Republic get around the problem of slavery? The Dec of Ind says clearly that all men are created equal, but slaves were not equal. As a matter of fact, they were assigned a ratio: 3/5. For the purpose of taxation and representation, they were considered to be just 3/5 of a person, less than a "man" and therefore the main tenet of the Declaration of Independence somehow did not apply to them. Twisted, eh?
Here:
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: " Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "
The slave states were all for it, for it raised their representation in Congress but didn't raise their taxes as high. And the slaves were still slaves. Good deal. Of course this was undone by the 13th amendment and the taxation clause was changed with the 14th amendment to read:
"Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."
So, we already have historical precedent in our country of change being effected and accepted.
Anyone out there still think that blacks should be enslaved and should only count as 3/5 of a person?
I doubt that anyone here really thinks this. I certainly do not.
How about the integration of blacks in the military after WWII? Keeping in mind that black Americans have served in the military since the Revolutionary War, we are looking at a long time frame before integration became a reality: around 180 years. In the Civil War, blacks fought freely on the side of the North, but not integrated. In the South, first close to the end of the War, in the spring of 1865, the Confederate Congress enacted a statute to allow the enlistment of African Americans but fewer than fifty were ever recruited.
Blacks have fought in every war since then, most notably in WWII. The list of all-black fighting units is extensive. Go take a look at it. Integration began on July 26, 1948, with Harry Truman's Executive Order 9981, just four and one half months before the Presidential Election of 1948. Most historians agree that the bulk of integration was done as of 1954, when the last all-black unit was disbanded.
The list of black Americans who have served with distinction is long. One of our great american heroes and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, is a black American.
I can't imagine anyone today wanting a segregated military.
Anyone out there want a segregated military?
And just to show how courageous Truman was:
"Most civilians and military personnel opposed racial integration. One month before President Truman's Executive Order, a Gallup poll showed that 63% of American adults endorsed the separation of Blacks and Whites in the military; only 26% supported integration. A 1949 survey of white Army personnel revealed that 32% completely opposed racial integration in any form, and 61% opposed integration if it meant that Whites and Blacks would share sleeping quarters and mess halls. However, 68% of white soldiers were willing to have Blacks and Whites work together, provided they didn't share barracks or mess facilities. "
So, once again we have historical precedent in our country of change being effected and accepted.
But the reaction on the part of haters was strong: integration would destroy moral, it would weaken our national defense. The same arguments that were used against the repeal of DADT.
Similar to arguments (mostly in the South) that interracial marriage was wrong, immoral, sinful. And yet we have interracial marriage today.
Anyone out there against interracial marriage? Like these people?
Or like this person (anti-civil rights)?
(nice touch, the SS armband, real nice touch)
Or this person (anti-school-integration, North Carolina, 1965)?
So, once again we have historical precedent in our country of change being effected and accepted.
My view is that within 50 years this will be a forgotten thing, that marriage equality will be in all 52 states of the Union (Puerto Rico, Guam) and strengthened by national law. And that our grandchildren will ask why there was ever a battle about this to begin with.
Takers?
.......................................
I did a lot of thinking about what has happened in New York State and decided to publish an opinion not based on statistics - something I rarely do. These are just my thoughts. I hope you all will read them.
To begin: I was married for seven years in Germany and during this time, gay civil unions were and are still allowed in Germany. The Germans, for all intents and purposes, view this to be the same as marriage. I never felt threatened or bothered that gays could also get married. It did not affect the quality or length of my marriage. In fact, I never really thought much about gay marriage until the right turned it into such a hot-button issue.
It seems very apparent to me that the face of our Union has changed considerably just within the last 60 years: from the integration of black Americans into the military to the Civil Rights Movement to DADT and it's repeal and now, to gay marriage. By this, I mean that our attitudes as a whole have undergone a change. And the laws passed to reflect those changes have gained full acceptance.
I thought about those Republicans in NY State and thought about what they did, and more importantly, why they did it. I thought about the fact that the most of the people in elected positions who fought for marriage equality in NY are straight. I thought about the fact that this debate has crossed over racial lines, somewhat over party lines (Diaz), but less over ideological lines. I don't view Party and Ideology as being the same thing.
So, why did those four do what they did?
First, I think those Republicans can read polls. Polling trends over the last many years show a marked change in Americans' attitudes towards "GAY". I will not list any statistics at all, but you can find many of them here. The stats indicate an ever growing acceptance of "GAY" - until we have now reached the point in time where not just a plurality but rather, the majority of the population now accepts these things, things that were extremely tabu not all to long ago. And if those stats apply to the nation generally, then it is a good bet that acceptance of gays, gays in the military and gay marriage is even much higher in a progressive state like New York.
Second, I think those Republicans in NY State are expecting a DEM wave over Ryancare in 2012 and are scared that they will lose control of the NY Senate, which is already tenuous at best: 32 R to officially 30 D, but 4 of those DEMS (the "gang of four") are actually caucusing together as "Independent Democrat". A shift of 3 or 4 State Senate seats would be enough to give the State Senate back to the Democrats. I think those Republicans realized that were this to happen and marriage equality had not been passed yet, then a Democratic controlled Senate in 2013 would be able to put out marriage equality legislation without the restrictions (or protections, as one wishes to see it) that are there now. So, I believe very strongly that the GOP in NY made a tactical move, looking at its immediate future. And in doing so, it just provided cover for other GOP members who may also be having "evolving" opinions about gay marriage. I am pretty sure that the party upper-ups already knew who would "defect" and allowed just enough to do so to get this through.
This kind of procedural tactic is actually pretty common: in March 2010, then Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi gave her blessing to a number of DEM defections from demographically tough swing districts during the vote on the Health Care Law.
I think that that this move was wise, for I believe strongly in the Constitution and do not think that religious institutions should have to accept something they don't want. The freedoms of religious institutions are very clearly outlined in the "Separation Clause" of the Constitution and also of course undergirded the 1st Amendment. Now, the anti-marriage equality side can argue that the very existence of gays ANYWHERE who are married forces the "Church" to accept something it doesn't want, but this is patently false, for one simple reason:
though marriage is considered a holy act by some, if not most, in terms of legality, it is the state-issued marriage certificate that counts. This is why a couple can go down to the courthouse and get married in front of a justice of the peace or court clerk and those two people will be married. They don't even need to go to a church or synagogue or mosque to buddist temple in order be legally married. Only up till recently, it was accepted that the word couple should mean "a man and a woman".
What legalizing gay marriage does is allow benefits for survivors, inheritance, allows for joint tax returns, allows for power of attorney in times of bad health or at end of life. Why should gay people not have these things?
I thought and I thought and I really thought. Why would a good portion of the American public be so virulently opposed to gays having these things?
The only answers I can come up with are: bigotry and hate.
Let's take a look at our own history.
Our Declaration of Independence contains this most famous tenet:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
But how did the Republic get around the problem of slavery? The Dec of Ind says clearly that all men are created equal, but slaves were not equal. As a matter of fact, they were assigned a ratio: 3/5. For the purpose of taxation and representation, they were considered to be just 3/5 of a person, less than a "man" and therefore the main tenet of the Declaration of Independence somehow did not apply to them. Twisted, eh?
Here:
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: " Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "
The slave states were all for it, for it raised their representation in Congress but didn't raise their taxes as high. And the slaves were still slaves. Good deal. Of course this was undone by the 13th amendment and the taxation clause was changed with the 14th amendment to read:
"Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."
So, we already have historical precedent in our country of change being effected and accepted.
Anyone out there still think that blacks should be enslaved and should only count as 3/5 of a person?
I doubt that anyone here really thinks this. I certainly do not.
How about the integration of blacks in the military after WWII? Keeping in mind that black Americans have served in the military since the Revolutionary War, we are looking at a long time frame before integration became a reality: around 180 years. In the Civil War, blacks fought freely on the side of the North, but not integrated. In the South, first close to the end of the War, in the spring of 1865, the Confederate Congress enacted a statute to allow the enlistment of African Americans but fewer than fifty were ever recruited.
Blacks have fought in every war since then, most notably in WWII. The list of all-black fighting units is extensive. Go take a look at it. Integration began on July 26, 1948, with Harry Truman's Executive Order 9981, just four and one half months before the Presidential Election of 1948. Most historians agree that the bulk of integration was done as of 1954, when the last all-black unit was disbanded.
The list of black Americans who have served with distinction is long. One of our great american heroes and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, is a black American.
I can't imagine anyone today wanting a segregated military.
Anyone out there want a segregated military?
And just to show how courageous Truman was:
"Most civilians and military personnel opposed racial integration. One month before President Truman's Executive Order, a Gallup poll showed that 63% of American adults endorsed the separation of Blacks and Whites in the military; only 26% supported integration. A 1949 survey of white Army personnel revealed that 32% completely opposed racial integration in any form, and 61% opposed integration if it meant that Whites and Blacks would share sleeping quarters and mess halls. However, 68% of white soldiers were willing to have Blacks and Whites work together, provided they didn't share barracks or mess facilities. "
So, once again we have historical precedent in our country of change being effected and accepted.
But the reaction on the part of haters was strong: integration would destroy moral, it would weaken our national defense. The same arguments that were used against the repeal of DADT.
Similar to arguments (mostly in the South) that interracial marriage was wrong, immoral, sinful. And yet we have interracial marriage today.
Anyone out there against interracial marriage? Like these people?
Or like this person (anti-civil rights)?
(nice touch, the SS armband, real nice touch)
Or this person (anti-school-integration, North Carolina, 1965)?
So, once again we have historical precedent in our country of change being effected and accepted.
My view is that within 50 years this will be a forgotten thing, that marriage equality will be in all 52 states of the Union (Puerto Rico, Guam) and strengthened by national law. And that our grandchildren will ask why there was ever a battle about this to begin with.
Takers?
Last edited: