New York Senate legalizes same-sex marriage in historic vote

[News_Editor]

URGENT -- New York Senate legalizes same-sex marriage in historic vote

2011-06-25 09:38:49 GMT+7 (ICT)

ALBANY (BNO NEWS) -- The New York Senate on late Friday evening voted to legalize same-sex marriage in the nation's third-most populous state. The bill passed 33-29.

"Today's passage in the New York State Senate of legislation recognizing the right of couples to marry regardless of their gender is a historic triumph for equality and freedom," said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in response to the vote. "New York has always been a leader in movements to extend freedom and equality to people who had been denied full membership in the American family."

Governor Andrew Cuomo is expected to sign the bill into law.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-06-25

[Jingthing]

"Legal" gay marriage in a small number of USA states has very LIMITED legal meaning. Such marriages are NOT recognized by most OTHER USA states, not recognized by the federal government of the USA, not recognized by USA social security for survivor benefit purposes, not recognized by USA immigration for foreign spousal issues, not recognized by the USA federal tax authorities, not recognized by most corporations for special rights for heterosexual married couples, etc., etc. etc. Time to get happy when the legal gay marriage is recognized by the FEDERAL government of the USA. These other things are token baby steps, even in a super large state like New York.

[Scott]

The longest journey begins with a single step.

[Jingthing]

I agree it is a big victory psychologically, if not in legal rights fact. Most Americans don't understand the issues I brought up, they actually think these state marriages are the same as state heterosexual marriages legally. That is actually very good as over time more and more people will not feel threatened by gay marriages, as they will think, well it's already happened in a huge state like New York, and their heads didn't explode.

[Steely Dan]

Jing, Thanks for the education. I expect we will hear from the exploding heads soon enough and as an unaffected observer I welcome said explosions as they'll probably take place exactly where I'd like them to.

[Crushdepth]

Great. But do we need the 'urgent' label for a non-emergency that happened on the other side of the planet?

[Jingthing]

Great. But do we need the 'urgent' label for a non-emergency that happened on the other side of the planet?

I agree with you there. I don't think it is really even "urgent" for the New Yorkers planning to get "married" now that they can.

[Scott]

This is the World News. It's not limited by the distance from Thailand.

This is from the CNN website:

Cuomo said it would grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex."

It seems they get some rights.

[Jingthing]

Yes, some. The most important as AMERICAN citizens, none.

It's like if Rosa Parks could now sit a few rows up from the very back of the bus. Would she be overjoyed with that?

Edited June 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Letting Rosa Parks sit a few seats further up on the bus would be a Thai solution to the problem. But then, she'd be criticized if she didn't get up and give her seat to some student who had been sitting on his behind all day!

So what rights does gay marriage convey? (Other than the right to lose your behind in the divorce settlement).

[Jingthing]

This should answer your question in detail, even though written when Massachusetts was the only US state with US state legal gay marriage.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

Answer: According to Lambda Legal Defense, more than 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon heterosexual married couples in the United States. By not being allowed to marry, gays and lesbians are denied these rights. Even in the state of Massachusetts, the only US state with legalized gay marriage, most of the benefits of marriage do not apply, because the Defense of Marriage Act states that the federal government only recognizes marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife".

[Scott]

Thanks Jingthing.

[geriatrickid]

It's certainly better than reading about the persecution of such people in Uganda or being forced into sex changes in other countries or executions in others. As Scott says, a journey begins with the first steps. In a world filled with senseless hate, take solace in something that isn't motivated by hate but an attempt to do something good, even if imperfect.

[Jingthing]

Sure thing. It is another important step in the path towards complete marriage equality for gays in the USA. Ultimately, it will happen and it needs to happen at the SUPREME COURT level to be complete. It is as inevitable as when laws against INTERRACIAL marriages were struck down not that long ago. When exactly this will happen, nobody knows, it could be within a few years and it could be 50 years. As usual, there will be be a backlash, but the dedicated people working for equal civil rights for ALL Americans including unpopular minorities like gays, have their eyes on the prize.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

I think I'll just stick in a toe here and say as a mod that any mention of 'unnatural,' 'sick', 'perverse', or any comparison whatsoever of the state of homosexuality with criminality or psychological illness will receive its proud posters a lengthy, lengthy posting holiday at the very least.

[mpoppel]

Even though it doesn't affect me personally, I'm a supporter of same-sex marriage and I think this is a step in the right direction even though there is still a long way to go (not only the US, but around the world). I understand why some people are against same-sex marriage, but I can't understand why that would give them the right to deny something to a couple which is doing nothing wrong but wanting to love each other and be able to have the same rights.

As pointed out before in this topic, the federal government of the U.S. doesn't recognize same-sex marriages so getting married in New York won't help at the federal level (as far as I know). But it does have benefits on a state level. Plus, NY is the third most populous state in the country, so this will definitely send a signal to other states which are considering the issue.

Edited June 25, 2011 by mpoppel

[Jingthing]

Just so y'all know, I am not a lawyer but some of my best friends and relatives are lawyers, and I think they deserve the same rights to marry the person they love, just like anyone else, even same profession marriages, two lawyers, it may sound very yucky, but it doesn't hurt you, so why should you care? (If it helps you deal with this, just don't think about what the sex is like between two lawyers.)

Anyway here's some very interesting background on the prospect of a supreme court case to actually make major history on this issue, and whether there's a good historical case to push this case there sooner than many gay activists feel the country is ready for. We don't want to lose it, but maybe we would win it and don't have to wait 50 years MORE.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-supreme-court-could-be-the-best-hope-for-gay-marriage-advocates/2011/06/20/AGFLnhjH_story.html

Why this Supreme Court could be the best hope for gay-marriage advocates

Many advocates of same-sex marriage who worry that it is too early for a federal lawsuit cite the quest decades ago to eliminate bans on interracial marriage. The court did not invalidate such laws during the 1950s, they note, when interracial marriage remained extremely divisive. Instead, it waited to issue Loving v. Virginia until 1967, when only 16 states retained anti-miscegenation statutes. “So long as interracial marriage intensely divided the country, the Warren Court was not prepared to insist upon a norm of equality,” Yale law professor William N. Eskridge Jr. and attorney Darren Spedale wrote in May 2009. They further suggested that it would be daft to believe that the current court would issue a favorable same-sex marriage decision while opposition remained strong. Judge Richard Posner ventured a similar analysis for the New Republic last year: “Until homosexual marriage becomes as uncontroversial in most states as racial intermarriage had become by 1967, the Court will, in all likelihood, stay its hand.”

But in 1967, most Americans did not welcome interracial marriage. To suggest otherwise is profoundly misleading. While Americans registered greater approval of such marriages in the late 1960s than in the previous decade, national opinion remained clearly opposed, even after the Supreme Court decided Loving. A Gallup poll in the 1950s revealed that nine out of 10 whites disapproved of interracial marriage; in 1968, a Gallup poll showed that three out of fourwhites continued to frown on interracial unions. The 1968 figures taking account of all races were not much different: 73 percent of Americans disapproved of the practice.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[moe666]

Welcome to the wonderful world of marriage and all that it entails, including divorce.

[Jingthing]

Welcome to the wonderful world of marriage and all that it entails, including divorce.

That isn't the point. Nobody is MAKING any two people marry. Yes, there are downsides, but only heterosexuals now have the CHOICE to make those choices.

[Steely Dan]

I think I'll just stick in a toe here and say as a mod that any mention of 'unnatural,' 'sick', 'perverse', or any comparison whatsoever of the state of homosexuality with criminality or psychological illness will receive its proud posters a lengthy, lengthy posting holiday at the very least.

Good. It was recently quoted in another context but applies here - 'I'm intolerant towards the intolerant'.