You are here: Home » News

New York rejects proposal on gay marriage

By Andrew Slade, Gavel Media Team, on December 7, 2009 8:23 PM

By Andrew Slade, Editorial Assistant -
On Wednesday, legislators in the New York State Senate voted 38 to 24 against a bill that would have given same-sex couples the right to marry. The bill had the backing of Gov. David Paterson (D) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I).

Many were surprised by the Senate’s failure to pass the bill, given New York’s image as one of America’s most progressive states. A poll conducted by Siena College this spring indicated support for same-sex marriage among 53 percent of the state’s registered voters.

Nationally, the public is far less supportive of the concept. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released in May shows that 54 percent of Americans do not believe marriages between homosexuals should be recognized as valid. Among 18 to 34 year-olds, however, 58 percent believe that gay marriage should be legalized.

Same-sex marriage is presently legal in five states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire. In Washington D.C. and New York, same-sex marriages are not performed, but those which take place in other states are recognized. States like New Jersey have legalized civil unions, essentially offering same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage without using the word.

In 2008, Californians famously voted to pass the ballot initiative known as Proposition 8. This was a similarly surprising defeat for gay rights proponents in another famously liberal state, as “Prop 8” explicitly stated that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Voters in Maine also passed a referendum which rejected its legislature’s passage of a measure to allow same-sex marriages to be performed. Had the referendum upheld the legislature’s bill, Maine would have been the first state to allow gay marriage as a result of legislative action and the signature of the governor (as opposed to allowing it based on a court’s ruling).

The answer to the question of why voters and representatives in generally moderate-liberal states are voting against measures to extend gay rights is unclear.

“I believe that almost everyone would agree that people should never be denied their basic civil rights, or that there should be such a thing as ‘second class citizens,’” Kelsey Gasseling, BC GLBTQ Leadership Council (GLC) President and A&S ’11, says. “However, when a political movement appears to conflict with a person’s religious beliefs, religious beliefs often take precedence over a person’s political ideals.

“I think another problem is that many people do not have close personal relationships with GLBTQ people,” Gasseling says. “It is easy to vote against things like gay marriage when the entity whose civil rights you are denying does not have a face. It is easy to vote in such a way that inhibits equality for all people when you think of GLBTQ persons as the ‘other.’”

Senators who voted in favor of the measure in New York tended to be representatives of New York City and Westchester County, while opposition came from upstate and Long Island. All 30 Republicans voted against the bill, as did several of the Senate’s more politically vulnerable Democrats.

“I think that there were political forces that in some respects intimidated some of those who voted,” Paterson said. “I think if there’d actually been a conscience vote we’d be celebrating marriage equality right now.”

Fear of political repercussions in the next election is likely to have impacted the decisions of those who voted as well. New York’s gay rights groups are playing a growing role in campaigns, giving nearly $1 million to candidates for state assembly in the last election. It is accepted among legislators that money like that will likely be used in the future to target those who are on the record as opponents to their cause.
Although the defeat is a blow to the push for gay rights, supporters have vowed to revisit the issue in the future. They now know who is really on their side, and who, as Paterson suggested, needs to be talked to, citing outside pressure as the key reason for the bill’s failure.
“We are going to quash the intimidation,” Paterson said.

Scott Jelinek, GLC Senate Liason and A&S ‘10, believes not only are lives directly impacted at present, the bill’s failure sets a dangerous precedent.

“I was raised with the principle that everyone should be treated equally, a belief that was only strengthened by my education at Boston College and its emphasis on social justice,” Jelinek says. “What could be more just than ensuring the rights that are given to all citizens without discrimination based on their sexual orientation?”