Pride Agenda Op-Ed In The Capitol

In this month’s edition of The Capitol, Alan Van Capelle penned a timely op-ed about the current political climate and the need to fully legalize marriage for same-sex couples in New York State. He urges the State Senate to take a cue from what the Assembly and Gov. Paterson have already done and extend the 1,324 rights and responsibilities of marriage to all New Yorkers:

Now, Time to Fully Legalize Gay Marriage
by Alan Van Capelle

Almost two years after the Court of Appeals stated that marriage equality was “the Legislature’s problem,” it’s now boiled down to just being a problem with the State Senate.

Much has changed in the last two years on this issue, not only here in New York but across the country. Licenses are about to start flowing in California to same-sex couples, neighboring states like New Jersey seem poised to legalize marriage for same-sex couples as early as next year and public opinion continues to shift in our direction on whether same-sex couples should have equal access to marriage and the protections and securities it provides to families.

New York is like a number of states in the northeast in that a majority of voters favor marriage for same-sex couples (53 percent in favor to just 38 percent against, according to our polling). We also have a governor, an attorney general and a comptroller who support marriage for our families and an Assembly that has approved in a bi-partisan fashion legislation making it so.

Other powerful forces in the state have also been moving to affirm their support for same-sex marriage. Labor unions representing over a million working men and woman across the state have passed resolutions supporting marriage equality for their members. Hundreds of clergy and laypeople from mainstream Christian and Jewish congregations have also stepped forward to state their support for marriage for all New Yorkers.

Even with all this forward movement, the State Senate continues to be mired in the past when it comes to this important human rights issue, and the result is that tens of thousands of New York families are prevented from having access to the literally 1,324 rights and responsibilities New York provides to committed couples when they marry.

Despite the Senate’s intransigence, however, it has not been successful in totally walling off our families from marriage or muting our desire to obtain the security and legal protection marriage provides so we can protect the ones we love.

In 2004, then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) issued a legal opinion saying that New York’s marriage recognition, or comity, law has always treated out-of-state marriages as legal in New York, even if those marriages cannot take place here. So when hundreds of couples went to Canada to get married, government on a variety of levels as well as businesses and labor unions followed the law of New York and said, “Yes, you’re married.”

In the instance of Monroe County, which refused to follow the law, a couple with a Canadian marriage license took the county to court, resulting in an appellate court decision unanimously confirming that New York’s marriage recognition law applies equally to same-sex couples. To avoid the lengthy, costly and ultimately wasteful litigation that now looms on the horizon as more and more couples go out of state to get married (or out-of-state couples move to New York) and ask that their marriages be respected, Governor Paterson’s legal counsel advised him to get ahead of the issue by making sure all state agencies begin treating these marriages the same way they treat any other marriage.

So the governor did. He had an advisory memo sent to state agencies asking them to do what the Department of Civil Service did last year and implement the state’s already existing policy of respecting out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.

While it is still unclear how many of the state’s 1,324 marriage rights and responsibilities are wholly under the jurisdiction of executive branch state agencies, as opposed to other arms of state government which may or may not be bound by anything the governor does, we do know what Governor Paterson has done is a big step forward for our families.

Ultimately the only way our families will have all the protections the state provides through marriage is for us to be able to get married right here in New York. But so far, the State Senate has chosen to turn on us and the tens of thousands of children that many same-sex couples are raising.

Clearly the Senate is out of step on this issue and becoming more so with every passing day.

Marriage equality is no longer a question of “if” in New York, it’s only a question of “when.” Whether the current leadership in the Senate chooses to acknowledge the inevitable and do something about it is up to them.

New Yorkers Support Gov. Paterson's Marriage Announcement

A poll released today by Quinnipiac University revealed that a majority of New York voters (53%-40%) support Governor Paterson's announcement that NYS agencies would treat out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples as fully valid in New York.

The poll results are pretty consistent with polling that we've done on the issue for the past few years--most recently our poll (conducted by Global Strategy Group) showed that 56% of New York voters support recognizing marriages that were legally performed out of state.

What's also interesting--and important--to note from this poll is that Paterson's overall approval rating went up during the period of time that the announcement was made. This shows pretty clearly that elected officials in New York, even at the highest levels, can be openly (and strongly) in favor of marriage equality and still be popular among voters.

To sue, or not to sue?

Yesterday, a coalition of gay rights organizations released a joint advisory about what same-sex couples should do now that marriage has been won in California. The coalition includes the ACLU, GLAD, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Equality Federation (of which the Pride Agenda is a member), Freedom to Marry, GLAAD, HRC, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

The advisory tackles the question of whether same-sex couples everywhere should sue their employers, states and the federal government for the same rights that have been won in California. The answer is no.

Although some lawsuits could potentially have good results in some states, they have almost no chance of winning in states with more conservative records and less public support for gay rights. And unfortunately, just like the decision in California sets a great legal precedent for the future, the opposite can also be true: rulings in other states against marriage for same-sex couples will set back justice for years to come. The negative momentum created by just a few bad decisions would slow down justice even in states that are close to marriage equality, like New York.

In the legal world, it’s very difficult to overturn a court case once such a precedent has been set. And nowhere does this hold truer than on a federal level, so if a challenge to the federal DOMA were to reach the Supreme Court and be overruled, it would make the fight for marriage equality all the more difficult for years and potentially decades to come. In addition, it makes more sense to win marriage through legislation than through the courts, since the law can’t be struck down as easily.

So what can same-sex couples do to win marriage? Couples that have already been married in places where it is legal should continue to be vocal about their marriages so that their neighbors, coworkers and community can see that lesbian and gay marriages are no different than their own. Same-sex couples can be active in asking their towns to establish domestic partnership registries and asking their employers for partner benefits. But hold off on hiring a lawyer, for now. By picking their battles where they know they can win, same-sex marriage activists will have a much better chance of winning equality and justice in both New York and beyond.

Recent reactions to the Gov.’s same-sex marriage action

Since the news broke on Thursday, the media has not only reported but reacted to Gov. Paterson’s directive to state agencies to respect all legal out of state same-sex marriages. Here’s what they’ve been saying:

The New York Times reports efforts to block Paterson’s marriage directive, including a lawsuit from Arizona’s Alliance Defense Fund and possible action from Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.

Harlem residents have mixed reactions to the news of Paterson’s support for same-sex marriage.

In Newsday, a Republican source says Paterson has dug a hole for Democrats in the next election, while a Democrat source says he admires the Gov’s foresight.

Future political implications aside, Newsday also reports that there isn’t much same-sex marriage foes can do at this point to block Paterson’s directive.

The Daily News and the Post think the Gov jumped the gun, and he should wait for the legislature to take action. Hey, Daily News and Post, pop quiz: how many branches of government are there? (Hint: more than one!)

A Journal News editorial congratulates Paterson for taking action where Bruno and the Senate have been stalling.

And the Ithaca Journal says there’s an easy way to end all this squabbling: the Senate just needs to pass the marriage equality bill!

The Albany Times Union criticizes Paterson for not doing enough as Gov. so far, and says his marriage directive has created more hostility between him and the legislature.

Republican Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward, a supporter of the LGBT community, says it’s only fair to recognize out of state same sex marriages as legal in NY.

The Legislative Gazette and Poughkeepsie Journal (Gannett) has reactions from both sides of the issue.

Pride festivals in the Hudson Valley were reenergized by the excitement of Paterson’s support for the community.

The media reacts to the Gov.’s move toward marriage equality

Since the original NY Times story broke the news on Wednesday night, there have been literally hundreds of stories throughout the country written, blogged and recorded about Gov. Paterson’s instructions to state agencies to respect out of state marriages of same-sex couples. Here’s just a sampling of some of the great stories highlighting this historic move, and pondering what’s next for gay marriage in New York:

Print/online:
Editorial: A Step Closer to Justice – NY Times

Bruno Weighs Response to Gay-Marriage Directive – NY Times

N.Y. to Recognize Other Jurisdictions' Gay Marriages – Washington Post

Same-sex marriage rights directed by Paterson are far reaching – Ithaca Journal/Gannett Papers

Editorial: A victory for gay rights – Times Union

Guv Advances Marriage March – Gay City News

N.Y. recognizes gay marriages – Washington Blade

Bruno may challenge governor's order on same-sex unions - Newsday

Report: Paterson moving to recognize same-sex marriages - NY Daily News

Paterson’s gay marriage edict sparks debate - Buffalo News

Blogs:
Not Sure How We Missed This… - Daily Politics

Paterson's Message on Same-Sex Marriage - Politicker

New Governor Still Having Fun With the Job – Radar

Cook? Archuleta? Pssch! David Paterson is Our Idol! – Good As You

Paterson directs agencies to recognize gay marriages;
Good gov, bad gov;
Paterson’s gloves come off;
If you’re keeping score on gay marriage - Capitol Confidential

TV:
Governor Say N.Y. Law Recognizes Same-Sex Couples Married Out Of State - NY1

Legal Action Possible over Gay Marriage – ABC 7

Radio:
Gov. Paterson interview - NPR

Another step forward for marriage equality in New York State

NYTimes Albany Bureau reporter Jeremy Peters has just posted a story on Gov. David Paterson's order to all state agencies to revise their policies in order to recognize marriages of same-sex couples that have been legally performed out-of-state (in places like Canada and now California). The move is highly significant because, as the article says directly "short of an act by the Legislature, the directive ordered by Mr. Paterson is the one of the strongest statements a state can make in favor of gay unions."

Gov. Paterson announced his intention to do this at the Pride Agenda's Spring Dinner in Rochester on Sat., May 17. See the video of this announcement below:

Peters' story also mentions "as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses." This number was taken from a report that the Pride Agenda and the New York City Bar Association released last year cataloguing every single right, responsibility and statute that comes with a marriage license in New York State. It was the first (and is so far the only) catalogue of what a state can provide through a marriage license (which is separate from the rights and protections provided by the federal government).

Stay tuned from more from us on this.

The significance of the California Supreme Court’s marriage decision

Lesbian and gay couples in California and nationwide are celebrating the state Supreme Court’s historic 4-3 decision yesterday to overturn the same-sex marriage ban. In as soon as 30 days, gay couples throughout the state will finally be able to publicly and legally declare their love and commitment to each other, just as straight couples always have.

But in addition to the social and political impact of this landmark decision, there is a significant legal impact as well. In making it clear that gay couples cannot be legally discriminated against, the court has established that sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” under the California Constitution. This means that any state laws or policies that discriminate based on sexual orientation are worthy of the same level of judicial scrutiny – the strictest level – as race and gender. This is a monumental distinction – no other state’s highest court has ever before come to this conclusion.

Other highlights of the 121-page majority decision include:

• The decision explains that there is no reason to discriminate against same-sex couples, because “the limitation clearly is not necessary to preserve the rights and benefits of marriage currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.” In other words, no one is harmed by gay couples being married. The decision even quotes Chief Judge Kaye’s dissent in the New York Court of Appeals marriage decision: “There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.”

• The court says that assigning different terms for the relationships of opposite-sex and same-sex couples (“marriage” vs. “domestic partnership”) makes gay couples seem like second-class citizens, and that if the state doesn’t want to call it “marriage” for gay couples, they can’t call it “marriage” for straight couples, either.

• The decision explains that the historical definition of marriage is not a valid reason to continue to discriminate against gay couples who, like interracial couples, were not originally included in the traditional definition of marriage.

• The decision debunks one of the most common arguments against gay marriage: that unlike opposite-sex marriage, its primary focus isn’t raising children. This was one of the main reasons that the New York high court gave for ruling against same-sex marriage. But the California court says not only is it flawed to say that the primary purpose of marriage is to raise children (there are many childless married couples), but also, gay couples are just as capable of being loving families as their straight counterparts.

Morning Sweep – California Marriage Edition

The New York Times takes a comprehensive look at different groups’ reactions to California’s Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the same-sex marriage ban.

But with the potential of a marriage ban amendment on the Nov. ballot that, if passed by voters, would overturn the decision, NYT reports the future of gay marriage in California could still be unclear.

And will the Ca. decision rev up the presidential candidates’ discussions of gay marriage or give the Republicans an advantage come November?

Gay City News highlights the significance of the Court’s decision to make sexual orientation a “suspect classification,” meaning that any Ca. law that discriminates based on sexual orientation is now subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

The Sun looks at the national and local implications of the decision.

A Wall Street Journal editorial argues that the decision will bring up the issue of activist judges in the presidential race.

It’s a bit of a downer, but Time magazine points out what the marriage decision doesn’t do for Ca. gays: give them the federal rights of marriage, like filing joint federal taxes and collecting partners’ social security benefits.

The Washington Blade looks at some national reactions to the decision.

365gay.com has reactions of national gay organizations, as well as New Jersey’s Garden State Equality.

The Advocate has several celebrity activists’ reactions to the decision.

Upon hearing the news, Ellen DeGeneres announced on her show that she would marry her girlfriend, Portia de Rossi.

Dropping the Ball

As primary season gets underway for elected officials in both of New York’s legislative chambers we start to see a clear picture of how various issues will be used to promote the record of a certain candidate or sully the image of an opponent.

LGBT issues, unfortunately, are often considered fair game in this game of mudslinging. What many of these candidates don’t realize, however, is that New Yorkers (of all political stripes) are not won over by championing a position that is discriminatory towards their lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender friends, family neighbors or coworkers. It certainly didn’t work when Craig Johnson was running in his special election for a Long Island senate seat last year.

Now Hudson Valley Assemblyman Greg Ball apparently feels that it’s necessary to beef up his conservative creds in a recent mailer by proudly showcasing the fact that he has defended “traditional marriage.” As a young member of the Assembly and self-proclaimed “reformer,” we find it curious that Ball would claim that he’s taken on “the good old boys” by doing things like voting against the marriage bill that passed in the Assembly last June. If you look at the list of Assemblymembers who voted for that bill, you’ll find that a vast majority of the “good old boys” voted the same way that Greg Ball voted. More progressive “reformers” in the Assembly voted for marriage.

The most insulting part of this mailer is the headline that proclaims that Ball is “fighting for the best interest of you and your family.” Apparently this excludes anyone who is LGBT or has an LGBT member of their family. By voting to deny the 1324 rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage license to the many committed same-sex couples in his district, Ball doesn’t seem to be fighting for a definition of family values that is in-step with his constituents—or one that is very reform-minded.

Fossella's Hypocrisy

With all of the news out in the last 24 hours dealing with Congressman Vito Fossella's extramarital affair, we thought it would be useful to remind people that the Staten Island Representative had voted not once or twice--but three times to, as many of his colleagues argued, "preserve the sanctity of marriage."

In 2004, Fossella voted for the Marriage Protection Act, which essentially would have prevented courts from striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That bill passed in the House by a vote of 233-194 and later died in the Senate.

Later in the same month in 2004, Fossella voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have amended the U.S. Constitution to explicitly ban marriages for same-sex couples in any part of the United States. It would have been the first time that discrimination was to be enshrined in the Constitution. That bill passed in the House by a vote of 236-187 and later died in the Senate.

In 2006, Fossella again voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, making it the third time he chose to stand up and firmly deny same-sex couples the thousands of rights and protections that come with a federal and state marriage license.

We find it interesting that Fossella would have such strong feelings about an institution that apparently didn't have much meaning for him in the end.

So what's next for Fossella? We hear this charming villa has a few vacancies:

Governor Paterson speaks out on marriage equality, safe schools and transgender protections

Last night several of us from the Pride Agenda attended the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s New York Leadership Awards dinner in New York City where Governor David Paterson was honored for his longstanding work on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights.

The Pride Agenda’s Executive Director Alan Van Capelle was to have introduced the Governor to the crowd, but due to ongoing budget negotiations in Albany the Governor was unable to attend. Instead Alan introduced top Paterson aide Sean Maloney who accepted the award on behalf of the Governor. After brief remarks, Maloney let the Governor do the rest of the talking through his video message, which as you will see is both humorous and heartfelt.

Not only did Governor Paterson renew his vow “to push on until we bring full marriage equality to New York state,” he also promised to fight for an end to bullying in schools due to bias and discrimination protections for transgender New Yorkers -- all issues well over 1000 New Yorkers will be traveling to Albany on April 29 to talk about with their legislators as part of our annual Equality & Justice Day.

Out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples get another boost in New York

Last week a mid-level court in New York wiped a lower court decision off the books saying that Bradley Davis was not entitled to spousal health insurance benefits even though he and his spouse, Duke Funderburke, were lawfully married in Canada.

Funderburke had asked that his retirement benefits from Uniondale School District in Nassau County be extended to Davis and he was refused. He filed a lawsuit and a trial court ruled in favor of the school district. However at the time of Funderburke’s appeal of this decision, the Pride Agenda was successful in getting the New York State Department of Civil Service to extend partner benefits to state and local employees legally married to a same-sex spouse. Funderburke and all other employees of the Uniondale School District receive their benefits though the Department of Civil Service’s health plan so despite the ruling against Funderburke, his spouse became eligible for health insurance coverage.

This positive change in providing employee benefits made Funderburke’s case moot. Unfortunately, the court decision sat there as a negative precedent. Last week’s decision to wipe Funderburke off the books is a good one because now it no longer exists and makes it impossible for opponents to use Funderburke as legal justification for any future actions they might take in this area.

Funderburke was one of five cases moving through New York’s court system addressing the issue of out-of-state marriage of same-sex couples. With Funderburke gone, the number goes down to four.

The binding decision right now on the issue of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples remains the appellate level 5-0 Martinez decision out of Monroe County saying these marriages are legal. The remaining three cases have all had favorable lower court decisions.

Our thanks go to Lambda Legal for cleaning this up and for all the work they do with our state’s judicial system making sure our marriages from places like Canada carry the same clout here in New York as anyone else’s out-of-state marriage.

Another New York court says out-of-state marriages are legal

This week another state court ruled that New York must respect out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. While the Martinez decision out of Rochester, its appeal and the protest rallies that resulted from the appeal made news around the country, this past Wednesday’s lower court decision on Lewis v. Department of Civil Service went largely unnoticed.

Martinez and Lewis aren’t the only cases addressing out-of-state marriages. There are actually five marriage recognition cases moving through New York’s court system right now. The appellate level 5-0 Martinez ruling is the binding decision at the moment as it is the only one that has moved through both a lower level and a mid-level court.

Lambda Legal recently put out an excellent overview of all five cases, which was up-to-date until this Wednesday’s lower level court decision on Lewis. Go here to read this summary.

While we never try to predict what a court will say before it actually says it, there have been a string of good decisions in recent months on almost all of these cases and the Governor, the Attorney General, the Comptroller and many others have stated their agreement with these decisions. So things are looking good on the question of how New York will treat legal marriages of same-sex couples performed in places like Canada and Massachusetts.

However, the endgame on all of this is being able to get married right here in New York State and this means getting the State Senate to do what the Assembly has done -- pass marriage equality legislation.

Today's noontime rally in Rochester

Over 75 people showed up for the first of two rallies today outside the Monroe County Office Building to protest the County Executive’s appeal of a unanimous court ruling that requires New York State (and Monroe County of course) to recognize legal out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. Turnout exceeded everyone's expectations and our local organizer Todd Plank tells us the crowd will be even larger for the 4-6PM rally.

See coverage of the rally from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle here and from R News, the 24-hour local news station, here. Below are several pictures from the rally. The first one below is of Lisa Golden and Pat Martinez who were married in Canada. Pat (center right) initiated the lawsuit against Monroe County Community College after it refused to extend health benefits to Lisa (center left).

Many thanks to photographer Billijo Wolf who sent us the great pictures!

Turn out for today's marriage actions in Rochester!

In response to Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks appealing the recent mid-level court decision saying that New York State must respect legal out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, local supporters of marriage equality are holding two actions today in front of the County Office Building in downtown Rochester.

Monroe County residents are holding these actions because of a number of things Maggie Brooks said when she announced the appeal on Friday -- from calling same-sex couples with legal out-of-state marriage licenses “unmarried” to saying that extending married “benefits to same-sex couples is to ignore the will of the people of Monroe County and New York State.”

Local same-sex couples, their families, clergy, friends and others will be coming out to show there is strong support for marriage equality in Monroe County, despite what Maggie Brooks chooses to say, and to talk about why marriage for all families in New York is important.

So take down these details and show your support!

Monroe County Office Building
37 West Main Street
Rochester, NY

12 noon – 1 PM
4 PM – 6 PM

For more information about both actions call our Western New York field organizer Todd Plank at 585-278-4190.

P.S. -- We’re not sure where Maggie Brooks gets her notion about “the will of the people of Monroe County and New York State.” The State Assembly passed marriage equality legislation last year by a vote of 85-61 and this is the chamber that represents “the people” last time we checked. Three out of five Assemblymembers whose districts are entirely within Monroe County were also on the “yes” side of that vote. Polling too does not back up Brooks’ assertions about “the people.” Our last poll showed 53% of New Yorkers are for marriage equality and polls other groups have done always show support for marriage out in front of any opposition to it.

P.P.S. -- Unlike many of the most populous counties in New York State, Monroe County still refuses to offer domestic partners health benefits to its employees. Need we say more?

New Jersey provides proof of why civil unions are not equality

Yesterday, we got a pointed reminder from our neighbor next door about why only marriage provides equality and not anything else government tries to put in its place.

On the one-year anniversary of its civil unions law, New Jersey released its first interim report studying the actual impact of the law and found that civil unions confer a “second-class status” to same-sex couples and do not fulfill the directive from the state’s Supreme Court that equality be provided.

The report provided evidence of how same-sex couples in Massachusetts, where marriage is legal, do not face the same barriers to being treated equally that couples in New Jersey are facing under civil unions and also looked at Vermont where couples in civil unions are having the same problems couples in New Jersey are experiencing.

While the reasons were several, one of the report’s key findings was that numerous private sector employers in New Jersey, who use marriage as the determining factor in providing employees with access to benefits for their families, have shown little willingness to use civil unions in the same way. (In Massachusetts this has been a non-issue with same-sex couples who are married.) Another finding was that emergency room personnel, doctors and nurses, teachers and others don’t understand what civil unions are, rendering them practically useless in situations when the protections they are supposed to provide are most needed, such as in the case of a medical emergency.

These and other deficiencies outlined in the report go to the heart of the debate about civil unions versus marriage and why the two aren’t the same, either legally or practically.

Already there are calls by New Jersey legislators to stop dawdling and make marriage a reality for same-sex couples. Governor Corzine, too, has expressed concerns with the findings of the report and reiterated that he will sign a marriage bill into law following the General Elections in November.

It sounds like things are on the right track in New Jersey.

By serving as laboratories for civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples, New Jersey and Massachusetts are doing all of us a huge service. Their experiences should help move the debate on this issue further away from the irrational arguments our opponents like to use against us and more towards the common-sense arguments for marriage equality that can now be buttressed with real facts about what happens when states stand up for our families.

This report and the next will also put to rest the notion that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is the name they go by. We’ve always known the two are not the same and have said so, but having it in black and white from a state that has civil unions makes it much more difficult to dispute.

This can only help our community's efforts here in New York and in other states to win access to marriage and the protections it provides.

Governor Spitzer talks about marriage equality in New York

In a call-in show called “Vox Pop” on WAMC Northeast Public Radio in Albany, Governor Spitzer talks about marriage equality and provides his views on the current political environment around the issue in New York. You can hear his discussion with “Vox Pop” host Alan Chartock beginning at 2’45” on the audio clip. For those of you downstate who are not familiar with “Vox Pop”, it is not too unlike “Inside City Hall” on NY1 in that it’s considered “must listening” for political junkies.

This is the Governor’s first extended remarks about the issue since the Assembly passed marriage equality legislation last year by an 85-61 vote. Spitzer reaffirms his support for the issue, talks about Republican support the bill received in the Assembly and how passing it in the State Senate will be an individual issue, a “Senator by Senator determination.” He concedes that having Democrats controlling the State Senate “probably would matter” in getting a vote, but emphasized that support from Senators will be more individual than partisan.

We thank the Governor for his continued strong support for marriage equality. We agree with him when he says support from legislators is individual in nature. Our community and our many allies and friends across the state made the case for marriage equality on a legislator-by-legislator basis last year leading up to the vote in the Assembly and that made a difference when the voting finally took place. It will also make a difference with State Senators when they take their vote on marriage equality for our families.

The Governor sharing his views on the issue came in response to a caller named Phil who identified himself as man in his upper 70’s who has been in a relationship for over twenty years. He said about his partner and himself: “We Pay taxes, we vote, we pay our dues to our community.” His question for the Governor: “Do you have any sense that within our lifetimes the state will recognize our relationship so that we can benefit from the privileges and responsibilities that other married couples enjoy in New York State?”

Organizing for marriage equality on Long Island

Last night more than 200 Long Islanders crowded into Central Synagogue in Rockville Centre to hear about where the marriage equality bill stood in the state legislature and how they could get involved in making marriage for same-sex couples a reality in New York.

The event, organized by the Pride Agenda, HRC, NYCLU and Marriage Equality New York was also co-sponsored by about two dozen local Long Island LGBT groups and supportive religious congregations.



LGBT people and straight allies began filing in at 7:00 PM and listened to a four-speaker panel (one from each of the sponsoring organizations) discuss the marriage equality movement and how we’ve gotten to where we are today--nationally and in New York State. They learned about actions they could take on the spot to help move the needle on Long Island, and ways that they could get involved in this crucial election year.


Panelists emphasized that the New York State Senate was the only remaining roadblock to marriage equality in New York. The crowd was eager to know where their State Senators were on marriage equality and Pride Agenda Program Director Desma Holcomb, using the Pride Agenda Legislative Scorecard, pointed out that many Long Island Senators have yet to publicly declare where they are on the issue. Holcomb said the next step is for Long Islanders to move these "undecided" Senators to support marriage equality and, if unsuccessful, then seriously think about replacing those who are opposed.

Panelists also stated that the 2008 electoral strategy for LGBT New Yorkers is to elect a pro-LGBT majority -- consisting of both Democrat and Republican Senators-- that is willing to take up marriage equality and other bills important to the LGBT community. Because the current Senate Republican leadership continues to say very publicly that it has no intention of letting the bill come up for a vote, this means making a significant change in the State Senate to move the bill, something almost every political pundit agrees can happen this November.

After the discussion, attendees signed letters and made phone calls to their State Senators stating their support for marriage equality. And each person provided the names and contact information of at least five more supportive Long Islanders who can actively participate in organizing support for marriage equality.

Lower Hudson Valley pages of NYS LGBT Family Photo Album on display

The New York State LGBT Family Photo Album on display in April 2007

At LGBT Equality & Justice Day in Albany

Last Wednesday a portion of the New York State LGBT Family Photo Album began a nine-day exhibition at an art gallery in Larchmont. The album is a collection pages made by families and individuals--gay and straight--who declare their support for marriage equality simply through photos of their everyday life.

Last year the photo album was the center of controversy when it was unveiled in another part of the Lower Hudson Valley. In February 2007, part of the album was was to be displayed for a month at a Cosi restaurant in New Rochelle. The display, however, was ordered taken down after less than one day of being on display because Cosi corporate headquarters received "complaints" from people who claimed to be offended by the sight of same-sex couples at family celebrations, smiling with their children or enjoying a vacation, etc. The Pride Agenda and local community (including many straight allies), however, immediately responded and organized, demanding that the display go back up. After thousands of emails and phone calls flooded Cosi's corporate headquarters within a period of less than 24 hours, the display was put back up and remained up for the entire duration of the planned exhibition.

Last week's reception in Larchmont was much less dramatic, but more than 70 people packed into the art gallery to see the album once again on display. Same-sex couples, parents, friends, neighbors and coworkers gathered to enjoy the exhibit and support the call for marriage equality in New York State.

You can watch News 12 Westchester's coverage of the event.

The exhibition runs through January 25 at Larchmont's Palmer Art Gallery.

Rudy Giuliani Then and Now: Marriage, Civil Union & Domestic Partnership

Last week we wrote about Giuliani’s reversal on hate crimes and the question mark over where he is on a non-discrimination bill. Now, we want to bring you up-to-date on how he’s changed his views around marriage, civil union and domestic partnership. Though not equal, all three are legal mechanisms government employs to support families.

As you will see, there has been significant slippage in Giuliani’s positions since he decided to run for President and sometimes he has completely reversed himself.

We continue to pose the question we asked when we launched “The Giuliani Files” two weeks ago: If Rudy Giuliani becomes President which Giuliani will he be on our issues? The Giuliani we knew as Mayor? Or the Giuliani who’s running for President?

Marriage

Rudy Giuliani doesn’t support marriage for same-sex couples and never has. However, on the question of whether or not there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples, he has moved from being against it to a position much closer to that of the religious right.

On March 7, 2004 he said on “Meet the Press” about a Constitutional amendment, “I certainly wouldn't support it at this time” and “I don't think this is one of the critical issues.” But this year Giuliani has said he would support an amendment if additional states legalize marriage for same-sex couples. See here and here for more of the specifics on this change in position.


Civil Union

In February 2004, Giuliani said on Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor” that he was for civil unions. This year, however, his campaign told the New York Sun in a written statement that Giuliani opposes anything that is the equivalent of marriage and specifically said about New Hampshire enacting civil unions, “This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it.”

His new position on civil union was widely reported in April and ranks up there with hate crimes in terms of a major policy reversal on an important LGBT issue.


Domestic Partnership

While Giuliani’s backtracking on a marriage amendment and civil unions has been reported in the press, his shift on domestic partnerships – and it is a significant shift – has not been written about anywhere.

We should preface this by saying the domestic partnership (DP) is an umbrella term that, unlike marriage or civil unions, can mean many different things legally. It can be as little as a registry with no rights attached or as strong as California’s DP law, which is essentially civil union, and can also be many things in between.

When Giuliani was Mayor, he was firm in his belief that domestic partnerships and marriages should be treated the same by government in terms of the rights and obligations government provides them. He went out of his way in a 1997 letter to the Pride Agenda to put the two on the same level when he said he would work to have New York City pass a DP law. He also said anything less than equality between domestic partners and married persons would be discriminatory. In 2001, he again speaks about domestic partners and married persons in equivalent terms when he co-signed a letter to President Bush asking for the 9/11 federal victims compensation fund to treat survivors in domestic partner relationships the same as survivors who were married.

Today, there is strong evidence that his view of domestic partnership has shrunk to it being nothing more than a simple registry that gives two people a document that states they’re partners who live together in a committed relationship. No rights or responsibilities provided by government – only a piece of paper to shop around in the event some entity might honor it, such as an employer who provides DP health coverage and requires documentation to validate the relationship.

Why do we say this?

This summer, the Boston Globe pressed Giuliani on what rights should accompany domestic partnership for same-sex couples. The campaign refused to answer the question. Then on October 16 on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, Giuliani answered the question himself by saying benefits for same-sex couples “should be contractual.”

A favorite talking point by the religious right when arguing against marriage for same-sex couples is that we can already get the rights of marriage contractually by going to an attorney. In fact any two people in America can go to an attorney and get a very limited number of rights by filling out the necessary legal paperwork. In New York State of the almost 2,500 rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage license (1,138 federal-based, 1,324 state-based and in the case of NYC another 20 or so), two people can get just about five of those rights contractually and you don’t need to be domestic partners to get them. And even in these five areas, which include power of attorney and health care proxy, blood relatives can challenge these agreements and if they push hard enough can often have them broken in a court of law.

Here's the transcript from Hannity & Colmes and below is the clip:

We believe Rudy Giuliani knew what he was doing when he said on Fox News that rights “should be contractual.” Sadly, this would also mean his view of domestic partnership is now a simple registry with no rights attached, which is very different from his position in 1997 when he equated DP to marriage in terms of how government should treat the two.