by Thomas Dollar
A strange thing happened in Albany last Wednesday. The New York State Senate debated a bill for over two hours, held a vote on it, and voted it down 38-24. You might think that this happens all the time, but you’d be wrong; in Albany, a vote is very rarely held on a bill unless its passage is assured.
The bill, of course, was the Marriage Equality Act of 2009. Eight Democrats (including six from New York City) joined all thirty Republicans in voting no. (One of these Democrats was Hiram Monserrate. Insert your own comment about the sanctity of the one man-one woman union here.) The State Assembly has passed marriage equality three times now with bipartisan support, each time by a greater margin than the last. New York’s embattled governor, David Paterson, made marriage equality the hallmark of his agenda. A number of senators spoke out in favor of the bill, while only one—Rubén Díaz of the Bronx—spoke out against. Sen. Diane Sevino of Staten Island reminded us what marriage has come to mean in today’s society:
The fact that the bill’s sponsors expected to have enough votes (including a handful of Republican votes) made the rejection doubly disappointing. Coming less than a month after Maine voters overturned that state’s marriage equality law, this rejection was branded a major setback for same-sex marriage. In a 24-hour news culture that views politics as a boxing match, the pro-marriage equality side has lost a couple of rounds.
But a fight for equality is not a boxing match, and its successes should not be measured in bouts and points. At the beginning of 2009, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) granted full marriage equality to same-sex couples. As 2009 ends, these two are joined by three others: Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. The District of Columbia’s city council recently approved a marriage equality bill, and this is likely to take effect early in the new year. Voters in Washington state upheld an expansion of the state’s domestic partner law, which grants same-sex couples many (but not all) of the legal rights of marriage. On the Federal level, 2010 will likely bring votes on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and an end to “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell.” In New Jersey, the legislature is scheduled to take up the issue of marriage equality this week. Like in New York, it is unclear what the outcome of the State Senate’s vote will be. Unlike in New York, there is the urgency of passing a bill in the Garden State before anti-equality Governor-elect Chris Christie takes office in January.
Having four states approve marriage equality in fairly quick succession last spring led to some irrational exuberance on the pro-equality side. The votes in Maine and the New York Senate this fall have led to equally irrational despondency. If New Jersey votes down marriage equality this week, it will be spun as a major setback. And it certainly will be disappointing. But struggles for civil rights seldom come easily, and by comparison, this one is making remarkable progress quite quickly.
Fifty years ago, videos like this one were being shown unironically:
Forty years ago, New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, and the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a psychiatric disease. Ten years ago, the notion that a legislature might seriously consider recognizing a same-sex union was laughable. On December 20, 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court unanimously ordered that state’s legislature to provide marriage or marriage-like recognition to same-sex couples. Vermont created civil unions, setting off a firestorm both inside and outside the state.
Seven years ago, consensual, homosexual sex was illegal in fourteen states. Five years ago, George W. Bush and Karl Rove used the fear of marriage equality to drive conservative voter turnout in the 2004 elections.
Since then, though, anti-gay fear-mongering has had far less success. In all but a handful of (Southern) states, majorities of young voters support marriage equality. (And 18-24-year-olds in Alabama are more likely to be in favor than over-65’s in New York.) This is a vast demographic gulf, and it portends a future of LGBT acceptance that is as inevitable as it is slow in coming.
(To put things in perspective, 95 years passed between the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.)
For those who are not content to wait for demographic recycling to bring marriage equality, New York shows us a path of action. New York State lawmakers are not renowned for being motivated by idealism. Most of the time, they never have to vote on controversial issues at all. Whether it was due to Republicans’ fear of being Scozzafavaed, a general desire to punish an unpopular governor, or simply seeing a “no” vote as being the less risky option, most of the 38 Senators who voted against marriage equality did so as a matter of political expediency. (Only Sen. Díaz made a statement of principle.) Political expediency cuts both ways though, and knocking off a few of these senators in 2010 could change the political calculation for the rest of them. The six New York City Democrats—most of them in safe blue districts—are ripe targets for primaries.
This is a time for the legendary “homosexual agenda” to start showing its stuff. Winning marriage equality in New York, New Jersey and other states will require politicking—not just waiting for courts to intervene. It will require glad-handing and pressuring, a willingness to be single-issue voters, and getting young voters to turn out in the same numbers as their grandparents. It will require tenacity, perseverance and long-term thinking. Having an up-or-down vote on the issue is a good start. Having a down vote is a cause for more work and action, not despair or sanctimony.
There is no such thing as “traditional marriage”—every society defines marriage for itself. Contemporary American society has already defined it as a bond rooted in love and partnership, and is slowly recognizing that there is no good reason for excluding people from that bond solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. We’re getting there—but how soon we do depends on our ability to play politics.
