Op-Ed
Tim Rutten: The road to marriage equality runs through New York
Here's hoping a bipartisan majority in the New York Legislature can work out a path to marriage equality.
THEY OBJECT: Paul Kosachiner, far right, and partner Michael Bologna attend a same-sex marriage rally at New York's Capitol building in Albany to protest the state's high court decision banning such unions based on the theory of "inevitable procreation." (Cindy Schultz / The Times Union / July 6, 2006) |
The state's Assembly already has approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriage; debate continues in the Senate, where proponents of equality are reportedly one vote short of passage in a chamber with a Republican majority. A vote could come as early as Wednesday, and if the measure passes, New York will become the largest state to have adopted marriage equality through legislation.
New York, in fact, has done the nation a service by taking the legislative route, not only because the final result will have the stamp of collective authority that the exercise of popular sovereignty firmly imparts but also because the give and take of legislative debate — both inside and outside the chamber — clarifies social questions and the breadth of their implications as no other process does. We are now, as we always have been, a people who rely on argument to know our collective mind.
The New York process is proving particularly instructive because the debate in Albany has produced articulate spokesmen for both sides.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is a Roman Catholic, educated in the church's schools and the Jesuits' Fordham University. He nonetheless came to office promising to pursue marriage equality. Last Friday, he called it "a matter of principle, not politics" and said, "This state has a proud tradition and a proud legacy as the progressive capital of the nation … and it's time for New York to lead the way once again."
New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan has been a consistent public opponent of same-sex marriage. On Sunday, Father's Day, he used his widely read blog to argue that adoption of marriage equality inevitably will infringe on religious freedom, and that it is a radical assertion of governmental will, reminiscent — as he has previously written — of those in totalitarian countries such as North Korea.
"While one searches the Constitution in vain to find any 'right' of two people of the same sex to marry, one immediately locates the right of people of faith not to have intrusive government interfere with the free exercise of religion as the first of the Bill of Rights," he wrote. "One has to wonder why the proponents of this radical redefinition, who claim overwhelming popular support, would not consider, for example, a referendum to determine the people's will on such a drastic departure from traditional values?"
Polls show that 58% of New Yorkers support marriage equality; last month, a Gallup poll found that, over the last year, national support for equality has risen 9 points to 53%.
President Obama, who will attend a $1,250-a-plate "Gala With the Gay Community" in Manhattan on Thursday, endorses "equal protection under the law" for gay and lesbian couples but continues to believe that marriage equality should be worked out on a state-by-state basis. That makes the last-minute legislative negotiations over New York's bill all the more significant because they eportedly center on amending the measure to ensure that religious social service organizations and social organizations are not inadvertently coerced in violation of conscience.
Illinois' adoption of civil partnerships, for example, has provoked a particularly nasty confrontation with adoption agencies run by Catholic Charities. The agencies want to maintain their longstanding policies of not placing children with same-sex or unmarried couples. Because they receive state funds, however, they're now subject to the civil partnership measure's nondiscriminatory provisions.
The issue is now in court, but if it can't be resolved, Catholic Charities may simply go out of the childcare and adoption business. That's no small matter because its agencies care for 20% of Illinois' parentless children. Nationally, Catholic Charities, with 1,700 agencies, is the country's second-largest provider of social services after the federal government.
If a bipartisan majority in the New York Legislature can work out a path to marriage equality that doesn't involve the sort of destructive confrontation occurring in Illinois, the contribution to moral progress and the common good will be inestimable.
timothy.rutten@latimes.com
Comments (89)
Add / View comments | Discussion FAQSorry Kevin I posted and did not recogniseyour nick. The fact is that exempt status is given to those organizations that are teaching their God beliefs. Church business that encroaches upon secular business does not have the same tax exempt status that a church has. Food shelter's that teach that Jesus is feeding them do not have the same exceptions as their church. They must abide by the same rules that any organization that feeds the poor must abide by
From a June 22, 2011 L.A. Times Article
"Many states that offer gay marriage or civil unions have some religious exemptions. But in some places, Catholic adoption agencies shut down and at least one religious organization lost its tax-exempt status."
This time it is the state that is violating the law regarding separation of church and state, by essentially telling religiously affiliated adoption agencies that if they don't like the law mandating same sex adoption, they should get out of the adoption business or lose their tax-exempt status.
Those who don't think the same thing can happen in regards to same sex marriage are in denial.
con't
The most accurate comparisons to homosexuality, are comparisons to heterosexuality and bisexuality. Gender and it's role in our lives is another artificial construct most of the time. Rather than respect that gender IS fluid, taking your cues from an ancient culture that forced roles on women and men rather than respecting their individual talents is why we're all fighting each other. Men and women are tearing each other up. And men violate women and the gender variant all the time. I believe firmly that these variation of sexual orienation are meant to TEMPER the tendencies in between and keep men and women evenly balanced. Gay men have a way of making straight men more empathetic to women, without even realizing it. It's actually a relief sometimes for men and women to have ALL the spiritual, mental and emotional intimacy, but without the sexual tension to mess it all up. There IS a place for homosexuality and transgendered people for THAT alone. Our survival depends on all these components working together like the thumb works with the fingers on the hand. It's tragic how men like you entitle yourselves to think you know everything, and no matter how much you screw up, still think you should be in control of everyone else.




Letters »