New York State Republicans show Obama the way on same-sex marriage

By Richard K. Barry

I'm certainly proud of my home state of New York today, which voted yesterday to legalize same-sex marriage 33 to 29. The measure was able to pass because four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate to support the measure.

Of note were comments made by Sen. Mark Grisanti, a GOP freshman from Buffalo, who had been undecided saying that he could not deny anyone basic human rights. He continued by saying that "I apologize to those I offend. But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protection for all its residents."

In changing his vote, GOP Sen. Stephen Saland said that "while I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know that my vote is a vote of conscience. I am doing the right thing to support marriage equality."

The legislation was signed last night at 11:55 p.m. by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, and will go into effect in 30 days, which means that same-sex couples will be able to marry in New York by late July.

Currently five states allow same-sex marriage: Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well at the District of Columbia.

There would appear to be no greater indication of a sea change on the issue than that only two years ago the New York State Senate, then controlled by Democrats, easily rejected the measure but now a Republican controlled Senate has passed it.

The difference, of course, is that Gov. Cuomo has made this a priority and used his significant resources and political capital to help make it happen.

Of great significance as well is that public opinion is changing. As the New York Times reports:

In 2004, according to a Quinnipiac poll, 37 percent of the state's residents supported allowing same-sex couples to wed. This year, 58 percent of them did.

Just in terms of the raw politics involved, New York is by far the largest state to have passed legislation to recognize same-sex marriage and, as the Times writes, "is home to a large, visible, and politically influential gay community." The implications are huge.

But dozens of other states have constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage and the issue is sure to be a part of the landscape in the culture wars that have been and will continue to define the 2012 election cycle.

Which, of course, brings us to President Obama, who addressed more than 600 donors at a fund-raiser on Thursday night of the LGBT Leadership Council Gala in New York City, many of whom probably thought they would hear something different from the President given recent reports of his "evolving stance" on marriage equality.

Alas, that was not to be, as he offered only mention of past accomplishments on same-sex equality without in fact getting close to adding marriage to the list.

I do understand politics and I understand that America is a big country with complex national political dynamics, but if Republican legislators can stand up and say that they have decided to support same-sex marriage simply because it is the right thing to do, then the man who promised to bring us hope for a better future should be able to do the same thing.

I'm getting a little tired of this act. When four GOP New York State Senators are out ahead of you, Mr. President, on issues of basic human rights, it's time to stop evolving and start acting. When Republicans decide that they must risk their own political future to do the right thing on something so fundamental, you might want to think again about your own position.

C'mon. Surprise us.

Below is a clip of Sen. Grisanti giving reasons for his changed vote.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Why we need Ron Paul

By Capt. Fogg

I rather hope Ron Paul becomes the Republican presidential candidate in the next election. It's true that I agree with some of what he says, some of it quite strongly and it's true that I disagree as well and just as passionately, but if he is Barack Obama's challenger, the nature and tone of the debates and the wider campaign will have to address some fundamental assumptions that always are ignored. One of the many fundamentals that separate the left from the new right is the ranking of rights in our society. Paul asserts what most of his party would rather hide beneath heaps of polemical hyperbole: that Property rights are the basis of freedom and being thus fundamental, must not be abridged for the common good.

I'm one of those people, you see, who thinks all ethics, or at least all ethical judgements are situational and that what we like to call fundamentals is an abstract construct, a bit like Euclidean geometry, which is immune from other, perhaps decisive factors. Parallel lines do indeed intersect in a universe with curvature and morally clear decisions become less clear when they have to cope with the purpose of morality and ethics.

Speaking to Chris Matthews last week, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) declared that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- not because he's a racist, and to be sure he says he would have desegregated government institutions like schools, but because the rights of property owners are fundamental to our basic freedoms; freedoms that our constitution implies, property rights are rights inherently and independently fundamental as they stand. Is he insisting that those with no property have fewer or no rights? That's up to him to clarify and I expect he would like the opportunity.

“I believe that property rights should be protected,”

says the man from Texas. Who would disagree when presented in the abstract? But life isn't an abstract thing and may I defend building a nuclear waste dump next to Manhattan because of that declared axiom? Are property rights part of a constellation of rights all designed by humans to make human life free of certain abuses? Are rights, like Newton's laws, fundamental or descriptive? If they are things invented by the people and for the people, to what purpose were they invented; to protect the one against the many or the many against the one or both? Do they apply equally at all points on the long curve or are only around the middle where we experience things?

I'm sure Paul would have to admit with liberals, that there are limits to "fundamental" rights, but just what those are and for what reason those limits are put there, needs to be dragged out of the cave and into the light. Do rights exist for the benefit of people and if so does the right of one man always trump the right of every man? Are we here for the law or is the law here for us? Do the rights of all really flow from the rights of an individual or are individual rights sometimes an impediment? If there is an impediment to that road to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, must 300 million of us endure it so that the abstract right of one may be protected? Yes, that's extreme, but as with Newton's laws, it's the extremes that absolutes are shown not to be so absolute. In short, can Libertarian theory produce a country that any of us will want to live in - in whole or in part?

(Of course if I were to debate him, I would, in my quasi-deconstructionist way ask him what he means by property and whether that question isn't more fundamental because without asking that, defending property rights can defend slavery or rape and some slightly worse things.)

We need to talk about it. We've been stuck at this point for too long. These concerns aren't new and they aren't going away and we all need to rethink our opinions at a fundamental level as a regular practice. I think Paul and Obama are both well qualified to do it and will do it -- and if we have to endure another hysterical fugue about flag pins and death panels and birth certificates and Communism aimed at the stupidest elements of the population; lies and slander and tactical statements of opinion that a moment may reverse - - well let's just say that the civil war doesn't need to be fought this way again.

(cross posted to Human Voices)