Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Main Floor > Politics

Politics Step up and make your case on all manner of political topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-17-2009, 08:47 AM   #1
Renegade
Certified Southern Moderator
 
Renegade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida Panhandle
Posts: 7,665
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Paterson Introduces a Same-Sex Marriage Bill

By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: April 16, 2009

Gov. David A. Paterson introduced a bill on Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage, vowing to personally involve himself in the legislative debate at a level that is rare for a chief executive in New York.

Throwing the weight of his office behind legislation that still faces considerable obstacles in Albany, Mr. Paterson said he would leverage the personal relationships he developed over two decades in the State Senate to see the bill voted on — and passed. The vote is expected to turn on the thinnest of margins in the Senate, and some advocates say Mr. Paterson’s direct involvement could prove pivotal.

At a news conference in Manhattan on Thursday, Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, invoked the abolitionist movement of the 1800s, the writings of Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision to argue that New York had neglected civil rights for gays and lesbians for too long. “I’m putting a stop to it,” he said. “We have a duty to make sure equality exists for everyone.”

The announcement came amid growing activity around the country on same-sex marriage: Iowa and Vermont have legalized the practice in the past month, and the New Hampshire State Senate has been debating it this week. Massachusetts and Connecticut already have gay marriage, and a campaign is under way to extend it across New England by 2012.

In New York, the State Assembly passed a same-sex marriage bill in 2007 by a vote of 85 to 61, a margin expected to widen when the measure is reconsidered this spring. But the path in the Senate is less clear: 32 votes are needed, and Democrats say about 25 of their 32 members now support it. So the outcome will most likely hinge on whether Mr. Paterson and other advocates can persuade Republican senators reluctant to break ranks with their leaders to back the bill.

Gay-rights advocates expressed confidence on Thursday that Governor Paterson’s personal involvement could make a difference, despite his dismal approval ratings and struggle to advance other aspects of his agenda. They said lawmakers sometimes feel less confined by partisan loyalty on civil rights issues like same-sex marriage.

“This isn’t something that hinges on his popularity — it’s too personal of an issue,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the gay-rights group pushing same-sex marriage. “It defies ordinary Albany political logic.”

Mr. Van Capelle and other advocates pointed out that in 2002, 13 Republicans joined 21 Democrats to pass a law that specifically banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. The outcome of that vote was in doubt until the last minute — an uncommon occurrence in Albany, where the leaders of the Senate and the Assembly rarely allow bills to reach the floor without being sure they will pass.

Some supporters of same-sex marriage, most notably Mr. Paterson, are pushing for a similar approach now. By forcing a vote without knowing its result, the logic goes, dubious senators might feel pressured to support the bill for fear of appearing hostile to gay rights.

Gay advocacy groups are a powerful force in Albany. The Human Rights Campaign, Gill Action Fund and Empire State Pride Agenda funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into a handful of competitive campaigns last year, helping Democrats pick up two seats to capture a majority in the Senate for the first time in more than four decades.

“It’s sort of a carrot and stick argument,” said Daniel J. O’Donnell, an assemblyman from the Upper West Side who is leading the effort in that house to shore up support for Mr. Paterson’s bill. “If you move ahead with the bill, you could use the stick and say, ‘You’re not our friend if you vote against us, and we’re going to find someone to replace you.’ ”

But Austin Shafran, a spokesman for the Senate majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith, said on Thursday that the bill would “be brought to the floor as soon as there are enough votes to pass it.”

Mr. Paterson’s role in steering the bill through Albany, which is still being worked out among his aides, legislative officials and lobbyists, is the latest in a list of personal campaigns on gay-rights issues throughout his career.

As a rank-and-file state senator in the 1980s, Mr. Paterson led the first effort to establish hate crimes laws in New York. Years later, when a hate-crimes bill passed, in 2000, it included protections for gays and lesbians at Mr. Paterson’s urging.

In 2002, as the Senate minority leader, Mr. Paterson led Democrats in rounding up enough votes to pass the law prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians. He has frequently attributed his passionate advocacy of gay rights in large part to his close relationship with a gay couple who were friends with his parents in Harlem. He still affectionately refers to the couple, now deceased, as Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald.

His emotional investment in the issue was on display Thursday in a 15-minute speech that placed gay marriage in the historical context of slavery, disenfranchisement of women and shunning the disabled.

“We have all known the wrath of discrimination,” said Mr. Paterson, New York’s first black governor. “We have all felt the pain and the insult of hatred. This is why we are all standing here today.”

Surrounded by some three dozen members of the state’s political establishment, including members of Congress, senior state legislators and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, he added: “We wish to fulfill the dreams of those Americans, both the living and the dead, who struggled unremittingly and courageously over the past two centuries to expand those freedoms to more Americans. Often we have fallen short, but the marvel and the miracle of America is that we keep marching forward for justice.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/ny...ge.html?ref=us
Renegade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 10:12 AM   #2
Ross
Senior Level 5
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 7,355
Thanks: 149
Thanked 465 Times in 306 Posts
Quote:
“We wish to fulfill the dreams of those Americans, both the living and the dead, who struggled unremittingly and courageously over the past two centuries to expand those freedoms to more Americans. Often we have fallen short, but the marvel and the miracle of America is that we keep marching forward for justice.”
Translation .....
# I am a BS expert.
# This is the BS you will swallow .....

" Gays have significant voting power but that has nothing to do with
this legislation .

You tax sheep do not realize how much this is going to cost you and
I am certainly not going to mention the words "extra taxes " .

We can rely on the media to not tell you how much it is going to cost
because they do not want to alienate an important sectional interest
like Gays and their relations.

If you are stupid enough to believe that by me associating this tax
rip-off with the uplifting phrases like "Marching forward for justice "
will erase the grubbiness of this financially unjust and politically corrupt
legislation then you deserve what you get.

"


No I have nothing against Gays . I do have a lot against groups
using their lobbying power to climb on to the back of taxpayers.
Unless you are a child , sick or elderly then carry your own frigging load .

Last edited by Ross; 04-17-2009 at 10:35 AM.
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 10:38 AM   #3
Brihard
Non-Electric Pop Up Target
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,487
Thanks: 19
Thanked 137 Times in 89 Posts
Good. Welcome to the new millenium. Maybe the U.S. will be onboard with this one in a timely manner instead of getting dragged in behind the curve fifteen years from now.

I'm not sure how you figure on this creating a new tax burden, but if it does, then what else should taxes be used for if not to protect the rights of a minority? Isn't that what differentiates a modern liberal democracy from mere mob rule?
__________________
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

-Thucydides
Brihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 11:16 AM   #4
Ross
Senior Level 5
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 7,355
Thanks: 149
Thanked 465 Times in 306 Posts
Quote:
I'm not sure how you figure on this creating a new tax burden, but if it does, then what else should taxes be used for if not to protect the rights of a minority? Isn't that what differentiates a modern liberal democracy from mere mob rule?
I am ignorant of US laws but in Australia the concept is ( or was ) that
marriage is a legal concept designed essentially to protect children and
encourage supportive family life.

As such it attracts a range of benefits including a lower tax rate for
married couples and particularly couples with young children .

Being a minority does not automatically entitle you to Government
benefits in my book. Being unable to earn a living or being in distress and having genuine need of help does.

Rights are exactly what ? Surely they are benefits or privileges
that the rest of the community permits you to have. Being Gay does
not automatically justify "rights" above and beyond those of any other
individual.

I accept that Gays and the community may benefit from a family
life supported to some extent by the community and that some
gay families may have children. I have no problem with helping
some such families to some extent . However Gay marriage opens
the door very wide to enormous financial abuse . For example 2 men
living together to obtain a Government benefit or tax relief .

It also places in jeopardy the rights of children with respect to
inheritance . If 2 men claim to be gay for a Government benefit then
on the death of one the other may claim the inheritance rights of a
spouse.

When in doubt keep it simple .
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 12:15 PM   #5
Brihard
Non-Electric Pop Up Target
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,487
Thanks: 19
Thanked 137 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
Rights are exactly what ? Surely they are benefits or privileges
that the rest of the community permits you to have. Being Gay does
not automatically justify "rights" above and beyond those of any other
individual.
WRONG

'Rights' are the inalienable liberties that you possess simply for being human. They can be neither given nor revoked, they simply are. Your rights reach limitations only when your exercise of them creates an undue or unjust imposition on the rights of another. They are entitlements you have, at times DESPITE the preference of the rest of the community. Right can be suppressed by governments and often are, but at no point is it legitimate for them to do so unless it meets that test of undue or unjust imposition on the rights of another.


Considering rights as a 'benefit' or 'privilege' is a dangerous path to tread. A full range and spectrum of rights are the one thing that I would argue ARE an absolute entitlement in our society, the one thing that citizens can, should and must expect their government to protect. It's even more important for the government to protect the rights of the minority, since the majority are generally able to protect their rights themselves if they feel the need to. In the dialogue of rights it's critical never to waver in the assertion of rights as an absolute entitlement. That's one of the cornerstones of international law.
Marriage - or at least the permanent union of two people that it entails - is something that goes back almost as long as our species. It is generally held as a right enjoyed by any person of the age of majority that they are free to marry. As such, marriage has become an institution defined in rights (Universal declaration of human rights, article 16).

Marriage has long ceased to be something exclusively for the purpose of reproduction. Moreover, many heterosexual couples marry for the same financial reasons you stipulate- is that 'abuse'? Unscrupulous people abuse the system; that simply happens. It's not right to try to infringe the rights of the vast majority in order to prevent a trivial amount of abuses by a few. In fact, Id suggest that if you're that concerned about the system being abused, abolish financial benefits for marriage altogether. No mater what happens, married gay couples will always be greatly outnumbered by heterosexual couple simply because homosexuals are a minority in the population and always will be.

To take this further, the actual net tax cost of allowing homosexuals to marry will be negligible in absolute terms. Income tax is only a small portion of government revenue anyway, and the tax benefits afforded to married couples, while significant to an individual couple or family, are hardly bank-breaking for a federal budget. Adding at most another five or ten percent to the amount lost in such breaks wouldn't amount to much at all on the balance sheets- and compare that to the ongoing costs incurred by continuing to debate the issue in courts and in legislatures.

Back to the rights argument though, rights are in most cases a legal positive; you HAVE the right to ___. Some rights are negative- you have the right to FREEDOM FROM ___. Since there is no right to freedom from being offended or uncomfortable, there is nothing I can see to overrule the positive right of any two individuals to marry- and there is no invalid argument against the right of heterosexual marriage that suddenly is valid and relevant in the debate about homosexual marriage.

The only remaining obstacle against homosexual marriage is the lingering discomfort in society, particularly from more religious elements. The 'It's icky' factor that previously held back such things as interracial marriage, sodomy, cohabitation, premarital sex, and other such things that are the business of two (or more) consenting adults, and nobody else. I do not accept that in a modern liberal state where individuals are respected and afforded the same liberties regardless of who they are, society will continue to enact a legal segregation of one part of society just because of a social discomfort with how they live their lives. That makes about as much sense as it would if I were to campaign to revoke voting rights of evangelists, communists and people from Toronto.

When in doubt keep it simple. Treat everyone the same.
__________________
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

-Thucydides
Brihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 12:25 PM   #6
A.T. Hagan
Just some fella on the Internet
 
A.T. Hagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North/Central Florida
Posts: 4,152
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

.....Alan.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.

Alan's Stuff: The Prudent Food Storage FAQ and more.
http://athagan.members.atlantic.net/Index.html
A.T. Hagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 12:36 PM   #7
Brihard
Non-Electric Pop Up Target
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,487
Thanks: 19
Thanked 137 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.T. Hagan View Post
The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

.....Alan.
That proposal has equal merit- though I think some mechanism should be in place to provide a tax break for families with kids, or for couples in which only one has gainful employment.

The way taxes work here, couples essentially get to carry over any unused deductions from their spouse; if the one works and provides while the other is off work to further their education, for instance, any unused personal deduction or educational deduction from the second party can be used by the first. If a couple are dual-income, I don't really see any tax benefit here unless they have kids. I think it's a pretty fair system.
__________________
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

-Thucydides
Brihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:08 PM   #8
Ross
Senior Level 5
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 7,355
Thanks: 149
Thanked 465 Times in 306 Posts
Quote:
'Rights' are the inalienable liberties that you possess simply for being human.
Dunno how to break the news to you mate , but you were born wearing
your Birthday suit and that is all .

Every "right" you believe you have is either
a fantasy or a privilege you have only because others allow it .

A migration to North Korea would change your rights , if you doubt me
try it .

Now if you are talking about "fantasy rights" or "fantasy entitlements"
that is another matter entirely. The UN may declare I have "rights" to drive
your car because I am a disadvantaged person but you might feel that
you have exclusive "rights" . Choose your fantasy.
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:32 PM   #9
Brihard
Non-Electric Pop Up Target
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,487
Thanks: 19
Thanked 137 Times in 89 Posts
If you're trying to use driving a car as an example about rights, we're not speaking the same language.

'Rights' are not a concept of the born-in-the-jungle primitive society. They exist because of the system of civilization and socialization that we exist in. Rights are inherent, but they are also a legal construct that are defended with all force of law (or are supposed to be - in not all states or cases is this so). Rights cannot exist without civilization, and no just society can exist without a recognition and defense of rights. It has been determined by the world collectively that human decency mandates the protection of these rights. All people have rights, whether they are in fact able to exercise them or not in the state they live in.

When a person is able to enjoy their rights, it is not because the state has decided to allow them to do so, it is because the state is unable or unwilling to deny them. It's a critical distinction to make when it comes time to make legal decisions. Rather than the onus being on a citizen to justify their exercise of those rights, the onus is on the state to justify why they should NOT be exercised. You'll find that amongst the reasoning of pretty much every significant legal decision in a western society about civil and human rights. It's the same sort of reasoning that protects one's right to free speech over someone's objections of being offended, and it's the same reasoning that ended slavery and eventually allowed blacks to vote. It's also the sole moral and legal justification for violent revolution against a tyrannical state, or military intervention in a sovereign nation.

You are NOT speaking to someone who is unfamiliar with societies in which rights are not universally enjoyed. I've seen it, and I've put my money where my mouth is and stuck my neck out to further the cause in such a place.

In any case, we've gotten off track- you were attempting to argue practical reasons why gay marriage should not be legalized in the state of New York?
__________________
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

-Thucydides
Brihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bill, introduces, marriage, paterson, samesex

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.