Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Whip Count: Gay Marriage Faces Uphill Odds in New ...

Concerning the statement that NY presently has no ...

2009-05-16T22:37:00.000-04:00

Concerning the statement that NY presently has no Lieutenant Governor to break a tie, is that true? I thought I'd read somewhere that Patterson, despite taking the Governor's job on Spitzer's resignation, also keeps his Lt. Gov. position. (Why not? It's not that there's any work to do in that job.) Is that true? If it is, he could vote to break a tie.

LinCA, Great posts, including the last one. As a...

2009-05-15T19:01:00.000-04:00

LinCA,

Great posts, including the last one. As an atheist, I abhor having god on the money and in the Pledge. I don't know if they will come off either one (although the Pledge stands a better chance due to Mike Newdow) in my lifetime.

One thing to consider is what if the SCOTUS had thought of civil unions when they decided the Loving v. Virginia case, and allowed interracial couples to merely "civil unionize" instead of marry? Looking back, doesn't that seem pretty silly? Civil Unions are a rebirth of "Separate but equal (NOT!)" which we got rid of 50 years ago.

Once more and more states allow SSM, and we see how society is not falling apart with these newly married couples, there will be mounting pressure to repeal DOMA. It may take several same-sex couples legally married in one state and moving to one or more states which explicitly disallow SSM to accomplish this, like a class-action version of Loving v. Virginia. It will happen one day, hopefully within my lifetime (and I am not married and not gay).

Glenn,I understand and respect your position. For ...

2009-05-15T16:19:00.000-04:00

Glenn,

I understand and respect your position. For SC and some other States aiming for civil unions for same-sex couples may be the only viable path to any semblance of "equality" in our lifetime.

For me, that just isn't quite good enough, but I will support the position and effort taken by the local GLBT community. If there seems to be consensus on a local level that the civil union route is the "better" way to go as part of a strategy to get to full equality I can have peace with that. I realize that each area is different and also that there may not be a community consensus within that area.

It's a equal rights issue. Just as voting rights and segregation are. So, until the rights are equal , there will be an issue.

Then there is the other part of the equation that is about religious intrusion into peoples lives. I think my position on the use of the term "marriage" is abundantly clear. It is in the same vane as my repulsion at the despicable endorsement of religion that has been perpetrated by the government by adulterating the pledge of allegiance ("one nation under god" - we're not) and US currency ("in god we trust" - not all of us do). Both were changed in the fifties (1954 and 1955, respectively) to placate the religious right. I will do what I can to prevent further encroachment on the rights of others.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. I just like them to keep their religion out of my life. In other words: "Everyone's freedom of religion includes my freedom from religion".

@ Glenn Doty I just don't feel that surrendering ...

2009-05-15T14:15:00.000-04:00

@ Glenn Doty

I just don't feel that surrendering the term "marriage" constitutes enough of a loss to be worth the political capital to fight for it.

By fighting that battle, you lose some of the political capital to implement goals like health care reform, greenhouse gas mitigation, and fiscal sanity.

You're talking about two different battles fought by a different set of protagonists.The battle for gay marriage is being fought state by state and has nothing to do with Obama's program for congressional action.So there is no expenditure of political capital.

Granted this will change when the issue of voiding DOMA arises.But I think (hope?) that has been put on the back burner in the expectation that it will be an easier fight to win as more and more states legalize gay marriage.

Society is changing, as it always has. Republican...

2009-05-15T13:53:00.000-04:00

Society is changing, as it always has. Republicans will fight, cry, and throw hissy fits (as they always do) and ultimately lose (as they always do). We might not win equality in New York this year, but people are wanting it more and more, everywhere. We've reached the tipping point in New England. New York and New Jersey are next in line. Minnesota, Illinois, California, and the Pacific NW after that!

Lin CA I respect you for your tenacity, and I gen...

2009-05-15T09:57:00.000-04:00

Lin CA

I respect you for your tenacity, and I genuinely respect your position... But as I stated I just don't feel that surrendering the term "marriage" constitutes enough of a loss to be worth the political capital to fight for it.

By fighting that battle, you lose some of the political capital to implement goals like health care reform, greenhouse gas mitigation, and fiscal sanity... These are all more important to me than the word "marriage", if I feel that the rights can be bestowed another way.

When VT instituted civil unions, they merely added one line to state that all recognized rights and priviledges given to a married couple must also be bestowed on a unionized couple... and that took care of all of the thousands of laws, regulations, tax loopholes, local codes, etc.

Again, I do agree that you can win the fight you are looking to fight... but it will be tougher and expend a lot more political capital than a fight merely to get the gay community the rights that they want. *shrug*.
I guess I want to use that political capital for what I feel are more important fights.

I live in SC. We'll get legally recognized gay marriage ~50 years after hell freezes over. But we could probably get a civil union law passed within 2 decades... *shrug*

@ Mike in Maryland Thanks for the info,Mike.I'll ...

2009-05-15T02:15:00.000-04:00

@ Mike in Maryland

Thanks for the info,Mike.I'll sleep a little easier tonight.

My old boss introduced my former longtime spouse t...

2009-05-14T22:44:00.000-04:00

My old boss introduced my former longtime spouse to a large group in Texas, but could not remember the name "partner," and so called him my "husband." My old boss' parents could not be married because they were a longtime interracial couple and the law did not change until after her father became a widower.

My "partner" and I were married in Canada before Massachusetts allowed gay marriage. Although we could not be in a Roman Catholic Church, we were married in a church and a Catholic priest served as our ring bearer.

We live in America where we proclaim "equal justice" and "equal opportunity. It has been a long time coming.

Just to clarify a bit, where LinCA wrote In additi...

2009-05-14T21:38:00.000-04:00

Just to clarify a bit, where LinCA wrote In addition, since there are, according to MiM above, over 1000 laws and regulations, those are just FEDERAL laws and regulations, and do not include any state and/or local laws and/or regulations.

An example of a local regulation would be like one that Richmond, Virginia had as recently as the late 1970s, to wit that apartment rentals could not be made to non-related, same sex tenants, no matter if the tenants were college students, business people using the apartment as a temporary base of operations while on extended business trips to Richmond, or any other reason. If the tenants were related by blood (but not including in-laws) or adoption, then an apartment could be rented to such a couple.

One result of that city ordinance is that an unusual number of apartments built while that ordinance was on the books were one-bedroom apartments. Families thus had a much smaller market of apartments to choose from if they had a child (or two or more) and wanted to move to a two or three bedroom apartment. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that when supply is short, the price has a tendency to rise. Thus those families faced a situation of lack of available apartments, and following the 'law of supply and demand', the price of the more than one bedroom apartments was higher than it should have been.

The result? Even families not involved in the fight for SSM were detrimentally financially affected by that ordinance. And that financial penalty didn't disappear the moment the city council repealed the ordinance - apartments are not built in a single day, or week, or month. The relative over-supply of one bedroom apartments, and the relative dearth of multi-bedroom apartments, existed for several years after the ordinance was repealed.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

GlennTo answer your question: The goal I would lik...

2009-05-14T20:49:00.000-04:00

Glenn

To answer your question: The goal I would like to accomplish is: Equality for all.

You can't achieve equality by allowing one group to have different rights than another. And by "giving" the term "marriage" to the religious bestows a right upon them that is denied to others. In addition, since there are, according to MiM above, over 1000 laws and regulations that affect marriage and the individuals in them, to achieve equality under a construction other than marriage would require amending all those laws and regulations. In the process you would have to change the status of all people that were married outside of a church. The pragmatist in me suspects that there is an easier way (mind you, not easy, just easier). The goal therefore must be marriage equality for all.

Unless there is no other way, I'm not in favor of going the route of civil unions (anymore). I think it was a useful path to test the waters or to get people accustomed to the idea that there are gays living amongst us (gasp!). But it is in essence only a small first step with which you essentially establish a class of second rate citizens. This goes against the stated goal.

We are at a point where some states are ready to adopt SSM. I'd prefer this to happen via public referendum or legislative action but, since this is an equal rights issue, will gladly accept court intervention.

The question then becomes: Which states are ready? The answer to that question is a little bit trickier. But if there is a decent chance to get SSM passed, shooting for civil unions will be a step backwards. Even if it means that you will lose some fights, going forwards for full equality is the best option (IMHO).

Trying to appease those that are not interested in equal rights in the hope that a few of them will accept your terms of surrender is placating to the bigots.

To address a different point in your post; I doubt that is very likely that bigots are "gradually becoming extinct". They are an entrenched bunch and as I mentioned before, I don't think we'll ever convince the bigots. We may have a shot at the followers. As an example; I believe that the fight against prop 8 was lost by failing to dispel the lies and misinformation. When talking to people about prop 8 and countering the arguments that they were parroting from their church leaders, it wasn't hard to convince them to switch positions (not all did, but some).

@m, Thanks! I still am left to wonder, if a pers...

2009-05-14T20:09:00.000-04:00

@m,
Thanks!

I still am left to wonder, if a person walks up to the state clerk and says "I am a (wo)man," on what basis is the clerk to dispute it ?

The Democratic Senator, from ASOTRIA of all places...

2009-05-14T18:55:00.000-04:00

The Democratic Senator, from ASOTRIA of all places, must be made to pay for this!!

I will move to Astoria and challenge him in a primary myself if I have to.

LinCA. My position has nothing to do - in my opin...

2009-05-14T18:26:00.000-04:00

LinCA.

My position has nothing to do - in my opinion - with placating biggots. It has to do with one central question:

What do you want to accomplish?

If you want to defeat biggotry, then by all means take them head on... But if you want to ensure equal rights, then make your strategy based on equal rights and ignore the biggots... they're gradually becoming extinct anyway.

As for the complexities between federal and state law goes... that is just as much of a difficulty in fighting for the word "marriage" vs. fighting for actual equal rights... the advocacy would naturally address that whichever fight you choose.
*shrug*
:)
Oh, and the conservative argument that marriage has been an institution of the church for (insert time frame here) would be irrelevent if it only applied to Christianity. They therefore must accept it as a religious ceremony, equally applicable to Christianity, Judism, Islam, Budhism, etc... Which would actually be quite ironic. But government claiming it's the choice of a religious institution to assign the designation of a couple as "married", though any couple legally declared as "unions" get all rights and priviledges etc... ad nausium...
would probably be suitable for enough conservatives that the gay community could win the rights they want much more quickly.

I consider myself a pragmatist.
:)

Opus and putch: From the "Rules of the [New York ...

2009-05-14T17:44:00.000-04:00

Opus and putch:

From the "Rules of the [New York State] Assembly, Rule III - Bills and Resolutions, Section 5, subsection f:

All resolutions shall be adopted by a majority vote of the members present and voting, provided, however, concurrent resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State or ratifying amendments to the Constitution of the United States and resolutions calling for or leading to the expenditure of money shall be adopted by a vote of a majority of all the members elected to the Assembly.

The way I read it is that if there are 61 members present, a vote of 31-30 would mean the resolution passes, unless it is a change to the state Constitution.

Since S. 4401 is "AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the ability to marry", it apparently is NOT a change to the state constitution, therefore a majority of members present should be sufficient, and thus a 31-30 vote would pass the bill, if 61 members are present when the vote is taken. The question is, how to (legally) keep that one member off the floor when the vote is taken.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Glenn Doty said... What they should - in my opinio...

2009-05-14T17:27:00.000-04:00

Glenn Doty said...
What they should - in my opinion - battle for is "civil unions" or "partnerships" which give equal rights to the gay partners that married couples enjoy.

Glenn,

That might work at a state level, but groups have compiled a listing of more than 1000 federal laws and regulations that affect individuals in marriage.

One example of a federal regulation that also affects state regulation and/or law is the tax return. If a couple files a federal tax return as a joint return, then the state return must be filed as a joint return. If a couple files a married but separate federal tax return, then the state return must be filed as a married but separate tax return.

So even if all 50 states allowed for SSM, the federal tax regulation on how a tax return must be filed trumps the state law or regulation on filing tax returns.

I had a similar, but somewhat different, twist on this about 30 years ago. One year, if I had filed my tax return with standard deductions, I would have gained about $20 on my federal return. However, if I had filed my tax return with itemized deductions, I would have lost that $20 on the federal return, but gained about $100 on the state return. Since the federal return had to be filed in the same manner as the state return, I filed with itemized deductions on both returns, losing $20 to the feds, but gaining $100 from the state.

Same with SSM - if the state recognizes SSM, you could file a state return as joint, EXCEPT the federal return cannot be filed as joint, as federal regulation won't allow it - the federal return MUST be filed the same as the state return, and vice versa. The federal regulation is based on DOMA, the law that defines a 'married couple' for federal purposes.

Another area of federal law - in any monetary benefit (Social Security, Medicare, federal employee health insurance, pension, etc.), a married couple can get survivors' benefits included in the benefit, and/or include the married partner as joint (health care, as an example). However, since only marriages of opposite sex couples are recognized by the federal government (DOMA), SSM couples cannot get those benefits, nor can SSM survivors get those benefits. Federal law (DOMA) says that they are not married, even if state law says they are.

Just changing the semantics is good, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is equality, not close approximation in terms of semantics.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

@putch for a bill to pass the senate there need t...

2009-05-14T16:51:00.000-04:00

@putch

for a bill to pass the senate there need to be at least 32 affirmative votes. otherwise it fails.

Wow! Are you absolutely sure of this? I was a NY resident for most of my life and I've never seen this requirement before.

A vote of 31-10 on a bill is insufficient to pass it?

@ Eric Under marriage requirements listed by the ...

2009-05-14T16:12:00.000-04:00

@ Eric

Under marriage requirements listed by the County Clerk's office of bernalilllo county it says, "Applicants must be one female and one male". This is the link to the website: http://www.bernco.gov/live/departments.asp?dept=2315&submenuid=2432#marriage

As for nothing barring churches from marrying same-sex couples, that is true. However churches do not and cannot convey any rights. When a priest is ordained he still needs to be certified to marry people, by the state. It's why priests always say "by the power granted to be by the state of -----". States define marriage and what rights they wish to give married couples.

actually, the lack of a lt gov has nothing to do w...

2009-05-14T15:57:00.000-04:00

actually, the lack of a lt gov has nothing to do with it. the nys constitution requires a majority of elected senators to enact legislation. lt gov can only break procedural ties.

for a bill to pass the senate there need to be at least 32 affirmative votes. otherwise it fails.

Nate, I'm on the ground in New York working on thi...

2009-05-14T15:32:00.000-04:00

Nate, I'm on the ground in New York working on this and my State Senator, Joe Addabbo, supports this but says there are already 32 no votes and nearly all are unmoveable.

@ Glenn It's not just a word - marriage is a well...

2009-05-14T15:28:00.000-04:00

@ Glenn

It's not just a word - marriage is a well established legal relationship and has a ton of case law associated with it.

It's a matter of civil rights, and fights for civil rights are never dumb.

I would have to agree with PK who implicitly state...

2009-05-14T15:01:00.000-04:00

I would have to agree with PK who implicitly states that the right is far closer in ideology to Al Qeada than the left.

PeteKent (presumably not to be confused with Pete ...

2009-05-14T14:51:00.000-04:00

PeteKent (presumably not to be confused with Pete Kent with a space) said -

I agree with Glen Doty and have said it before: the state needs to get out of the "marriage" business entirely and just sanction unions that confer legal and economic status on people. Leave "marriage" to the religious volk, err folk.text

I have no problem with that. What is with the "volk" thing? Is the implication what it looks like?

To reply to a couple of other random idiocies -- the people do not accept this gay marriage business -- their corrupt and ultra liberal legislators and courts do. Even the wacko left wing loons of CA rejected gay marriage.text

Please see the list of states that recognize gay marriage above.

This is a perilous issue for Obama and the Dems and not just because Obama risks being outed by his male friends,text

I think you have Obama confused with Charlie Crist, front runner for the GOP 2012 nomination.

FYI this straight white male doesn't care whether Obama is "outed" or not.

but because he risks alienating so many if he stands with the gaystext

Almost all of whom already voted against him.

My point about Al Qaeda was an ironic observation meant to point out that it is Liberal US culture that is far more incensing to these fanatics than anything the Conservatives might do, including putting one of their own in a box with a caterpillar!text

So again, you agree with Al Qaeda and believe that they should dictate US policy.

We should avoid doing things that would "incense" them. In other words, we should base our decisions on what they want us to do.

You can't have it both ways.

Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan before the WTC attack, by the way. You should do some reading about Afghanistan.

Glenn,I can read. I know you don't (fully) agree w...

2009-05-14T14:46:00.000-04:00

Glenn,

I can read. I know you don't (fully) agree with PK and I never said you did. I merely stated that if PK was right (and he very well may be) in asserting that marriage has been around for 5000 years, no church can lay claim to it as theirs, and theirs alone. You seem to agree with to "giving" the term marriage to the religious. I couldn't disagree more.

Your position seems to be (but correct me if I'm wrong): Let's placate the bigots and give up our rights to the term "marriage".

From that I infer that you are a proponent of changing all State and Federal laws that currently refer to marriage and changing that to "civil union". You'll also have to issue "civil union" certificates to everyone who happened to get a "marriage" certificate. Because, unless this all gets updated and changed it's only a partial "solution".

PK's position also seems to be that the bigots own the term "marriage". He further seems to believe that nobody else should be allowed use it.

Well, it isn't theirs. They don't own it. As far as I'm concerned, they are free to use it, but separation of State and church requires that they share. I'm not asking them to change the way they perform marriages. I don't even care whether the marriages they perform get recognized by the State as valid. As far as I can tell, nobody is trying to force any church to perform or even recognize SSM.

I'm not willing to cede the term. I am married and like to stay that way. I'm not willing to trade my marriage (which btw. is recognized by State and Federal government) for a civil union.

You are probably correct when you state that the issue was at least partially driving the republican gains in 2004. But I take exception to your use of "dumb fight". The fight isn't dumb, it's a fight against dumb people. There are only two types of opponents to SSM: Bigots and idiots. The bigots we've met. It's the people that claim marriage as their own and don't want to share. The idiots buy into the flawed logic and vote against SSM.

I don't think we'll ever convince the bigots. But we do have a shot at the rest. The best way to educate the uninformed or those that were misled is by showing that the sky won't fall when everyone has equal rights. To do that you have to get equal rights for everyone.

I have a proposal: How about we call a marriage performed in a non-religious ceremony a "civil" marriage. All others can then be "uncivil". Seems fitting.

I agree with Glen Doty and have said it before: t...

2009-05-14T14:36:00.000-04:00

I agree with Glen Doty and have said it before: the state needs to get out of the "marriage" business entirely and just sanction unions that confer legal and economic status on people. Leave "marriage" to the religious volk, err folk.

To reply to a couple of other random idiocies -- the people do not accept this gay marriage business -- their corrupt and ultra liberal legislators and courts do. Even the wacko left wing loons of CA rejected gay marriage.

This is a perilous issue for Obama and the Dems and not just because Obama risks being outed by his male friends, but because he risks alienating so many if he stands with the gays or risks offending the left if he stands against them.

My point about Al Qaeda was an ironic observation meant to point out that it is Liberal US culture that is far more incensing to these fanatics than anything the Conservatives might do, including putting one of their own in a box with a caterpillar!

petekent01 (on twitter)

These are the New Mexico requirements for state ma...

2009-05-14T14:30:00.000-04:00

These are the New Mexico requirements for state marriage. I note no mention of gender:

The cost of a marriage license is $25 - $40), which must be paid in cash.

1. Marriage License information line: 505. 768. 4314.  
2. Both applicants need to be present. 
3. Both need to be at least 18 years of age.
4. Both need current legal pictured ID, or birth certificate.
5. Both need proof of Social Security number.
6. Couples living in foreign countries need a passport.
7. Parental consent if 16 or 17 years of age.
8. Court order if 15 years of age.
9. No medical exam or waiting period is required.
10. If previously married, the date of divorce or date of spouse's death must be supplied.
11. Marriage licenses are issued and valid immediately.
12. Marriage licenses do not expire.
13. License purchased in any New Mexico county, can be used state-wide.
14. Marriage license must be brought to the ceremony to be signed by two witnesses and the minister.
15. A Justice of the Peace is normally a Magistrate Judge, Municipal Judge, or Probate Judge may perform a ceremony. Including, a District Judge upon request. Any person credentialed by a religious society can perform a marriage in the State of New Mexico.
16. Proxy Marriage: No.
17. Common Law Marriage: No.
18. Cousin Marriage: Yes.