Love and Marriage in the Empire State...

New York State Capitol, Albany (wikipeida)

Before New Hampshire and Vermont, gay marriage, or rather the kinder term, marriage equality was only made possible by judicial fiat.  Well again to be kind, the Supreme Courts of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and, for a time, California had determined that under their constitutions, marriage, both the term and the rights promised therein, could not denied to same-sex couples.  Then Vermont, who had had civil unions for years already, and New Hampshire legislated marriage equality on their own.  Maine got in on the act, too, but a voter referendum squelched it.  A legislative effort in Maryland to extend marriage right to same sex couples was scuttled in Maryland after support evaporated in the State House and opponents promised a citizens' veto. Even Rhode Island's openly gay Speaker of the House could not get passage in his state despite support from Gov. Lincoln Chaffee.

Somehow despite these insurmountable odds, however, New York has snagged the brass ring of gay politics: marriage equality.  In most of New England and the Northeast, laws exist to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination at the workplace.  While the transgender rights remain controversial (even among some in the gay community), largely legal rights are about as secure in this part of the country as they can get, save marriage equality (before New York only four out of ten states from Maine to Maryland allowed same-sex marriage).  That is perhaps what made New York's achievement, done with the support of four Republicans, so much more impressive.  The New York Times described how Gov. Andrew Cuomo, widely seen as a potential 2016 presidential candidate, fought for the issue, even playing to right-leaning Republican donors on the basis of personal freedom.

N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (wikipedia)

The road to marriage equality has been fraught with passionate arguments on both sides.  The opposition, however, tended to draw its strength from either religious sources or a visceral response from many as to what marriage really is.  That latter push, which very probably is what tips the scales of polls against same-sex marriage or keeps the split near-even, has been given too much credit by politicians.  It would not be hard, even now, to find a majority of Americans opposed to same-sex marriage, but the next question, often unasked, is how much they care.  If the electorate really cared, then half the Massachusetts legislature would have been dumped after they rejected sending a Constitutional amendment to voters banning the marriages.

Indeed at this point, opposition to same-sex marriage, although sincere on the part of many, has become a political game.  In Minnesota, it seems as if putting on the ballot a Constitutional amendment banning the practice is more intended to drive up conservative turnout in what will be a tough reelection campaign for many in that State House.  In New Hampshire, the tea party controlled legislature made a move to repeal marriage equality there, but backed off when they realized it a) ran afoul of their own notion on liberty and exposed them for being insincere on the topic and b) repeal lacked considerable support.  Indeed, when the measure originally passed the then Democratic-controlled legislature, the governor a Democrat did not openly support it.  However, he signed it in the end.  That governor, John Lynch, remains the governor the red tide notwithstanding.

Some time ago, this blog openly questioned how important the term "marriage" was.  Our sense was that it was impossible, largely from an etymological point of view, to fully disconnect the religious and therefore male/female requirement of marriage.  We were in favor of all of the same rights, but the separate terms.   However, we found legislative avenue for marriage equality far preferable to judicial ones in most circumstances.  While that belief at the time was appropriate, it has been superseded by other, larger concerns.  They are not the "separate but equal" argument, but rather the impact homophobia generally has on younger people (or any people for that matter) either certain or uncertain about their sexuality.

This epiphany, came about after the spat of teenage and twenty-something suicides last year, largely among those who were gay or bullied for seeming so.  Mental health notwithstanding, this kind of bullying, teasing or harassment is simply unacceptable.  Even if young people do not kill themselves, they are exposed to depression, isolation or other unfortunate fates.  Efforts like Dan Savage's "It Get's Better" project offers hope for young people, but a broader societal acceptance is in order.  We would not tolerate overt racism or antisemitism directed at a black or Jewish student and so neither we should tolerate harassment directed gay youth as well.  In effect, marriage equality may have an effect, along with the repeal of DADT, of mainstreaming an intolerance for harassing young people because they are or seem gay.  The definition of marriage, whatever its roots, is an acceptable casualty if it may lead to less suicides and fewer incidents of harassment of young people.

Pres. Obama (wikipedia)

During the run-up to last night's vote, many wondered if same-sex marriage would be passed while Pres. Barack Obama was in New York for an LGBT Democratic fundraiser.  The president has been criticized by many in the gay community for being too timid on gay rights.  Indeed, many worried that were it not for a late push by opponents of DADT, the president would not even have that victory in hand.  The situation flared again last week during the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis when Lt. Dan Choi's declared that he would not support the president unless he comes out for marriage equality.

Even as the 538 blog's Nate Silver compares Andrew Cuomo's political bravery with Barack Obama's, there may be some reason why Obama has stuck with his "evolving" stance, however passe.  First of all anybody with a brain must know that Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage.  The question is whether or not he will come out of the closet on the issue.  However, practically speaking, the president coming out for gay marriage may feel good, but it will not fundamentally change the fact that this particular progress can only be made on the state level.  Moreover, there are other things that president can, and should be doing to further gay rights that would be far more practical than "coming out" on marriage.