Box Turtle Bulletin

NOM’s “Jesus” Is Crying

This is what you’ll find on the National Organization for Marriage’s facebook page right now.

Also, “vengeance is mine,” sayeth Maggie Gallagher.

[Via Alvin McEwen]

When Marriage Equality Was Announced

This is what it looked like in front of New York’s famous Stonewall Inn. (Video courtesy of Cathy Renna.)

New York Senate Passes Marriage Equality

In a 33-29 vote, the New York Senate this evening passed the Marriage Equality Bill. Four Republican state senators joined 29 Democrats in voting for the measure. The bill, which had gained several amendments aimed at insulating religious institutions from the effects of the bill, passed the lower house earlier by a vote of 82-47 earlier today.

Those exemptions were very minor — they are already a matter of constitutional law under the U.S. First Amendment and the New York constitution’s religious freedom clause, but having them spelled out in the bill itself gave a few Senators the needed cover so they could vote for the measure. LGBT advocacy groups supported the exemptions.

The bill now goes on to Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his signature, and will take effect thirty days after it is signed into law. With his signature, New York will become the seventh state to grant marriage equality to its citizens.

New York City’s pride celebration is this weekend. LGBT New Yorkers definitely has a lot to be proud of today.

UPDATE: Gov. Cuomo signed the bill shortly before midnight, bypassing the normal ten day wait and fulfilling a pledge to sign it as soon as it reached his desk. Marriage equality will arrive in New York on July 24.

New York votes

6:56: The Senate has reconvened.

They are discussing an education bill.

7:02: The education bill passed and they are now making speeches about why they voted for the bill. As best I could tell there was no controversy so this is basically just wasting time for the hope of being quoted in the local paper. (ooops.. still not voted on…. but so far they all seem to love this bill. I’m really not paying it much attention)

[gotta run for a moment… hope I get back before the marriage vote]

7:22: I’m back. They’re still talking about the education bill.

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to support/oppose this bill. I wish to repeat exactly what everyone else already said when they stood to get their words down for the papers. I especially want to thank you, Mr. Speaker for your patience in listening to everyone of us ramble on an on, as you and you alone are actually listening.”

7:31 This appears to be Sen. Grisanti’s bill. He is one of the “undecided” votes. I can’t help but wonder …

7:37 And the SUNY bill passes 51 to 11

Moving right on to the Property Tax Cap

7:50: Rent control, property tax caps, and on an on… I know that this is of extreme importance to many New Yorkers so I should be less impatient.

8:08: Sen Diaz has finally said something with which I agree:

Mr. President, tonight is going to be long I believe. And you’ve already noted that some people never agree with me. (he was one of the 11 no votes on the education bill)

8:13: The Catholic Church has weighed in on the concessions that were made on their behalf and at their insistence. As expected, they are as arrogant as always.

“The Bishops of New York State oppose in the strongest possible terms any attempt to redefine the sacred institution of marriage. The matter of religious exemptions has been and continues to be a secondary issue that in no way negates the fact that this bill is bad for society. We urge all Senators to vote no on Governor Cuomo’s bill. Marriage has always been, is now, and always will be the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, life-giving union. Government does not have the authority to change this most basic of truths.”

If those issues are so secondary, Bishops, what say we just remove them?

08:30: They are still talking about what the press is calling The Big Ugly. Everyone seems to be discussing it in terms of not being quite happy but seeing it as a step in the right direction. Which is a bit amusing as many of them seem to be stepping in different directions.

8:35: After all that talk bill passes 57 to 5 (Diaz voted no… let’s hope he remains an albatross)

Moving right along to Livery car tax.

[I’m heading home… Jim will keep and eye on things… I very much doubt that the marriage bill will come up before I get back to you]

[Jim Burroway takes the helm]

9:43: I have no idea what happened to the Livery car tax. Maybe someone can catch us up with that vital bill in the comments. Right now, Sen. Stephen M Saland (R=Columbia County) is explaining the religious exemption provisions that have been added to the marriage bill. His is listed as “undescided.”

9:47: Sen. Saland has just announced that he will vote for the bill! “I have to do the right thing by treating all persons with equality,” including marriage. A very elequent message, and the needed thirty-second vote.

9:50: They are calling the role to accept the amendments, but Sen. Diaz has asked to explain his vote against the bill. He just read the Catholic vote, and calls on other Catholics to vote according to the church.

9:51: Sen. Hannon (R-Nassau Co.) is now explaining his vote. He had been listed as a no vote. But with the religious exemptions that were added along with the inseverability clause, he is also voting yes.

9.53: The amendments are passed! 36-26!

9:55: Now the roll is being called for the bill itself. Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) is speaking against the bill, and is visibly angry with the direction things are going.

9:57: Diaz is “making the Republican party do what the Democrats failed to do when they were in the majority.” The speaker is trying to get Sen. Diaz to hold to his two-minute limit, but Diaz is still speaking. Does he think he can run out the clock?

10:00: Blah, blah, blah… The house speaker is trying to rush him along, and Diaz is only getting more agitated.

10:01: Sen. Diaz is way over his two-minute time limit, and Diaz is still arguing the rule.

10:02: Finally, Sen. Diaz has stopped blabbering and sat down.

10:12: Sen. Thomas K. Duane (D-New York) is now speaking about coming out to his parents. “In the 1980s when people in my community and my neighborhood started of AIDS, if the surviving partner’s name was not on the lease, they got evicted. And I remember going to legal organizations and said they needed help, but they said, no, families will never be recognized.” That led to a state Supreme Court decision protecting non-traditional families. Republicans and Democrats joined together the pass hate crimes legislation and non-discrimination acts. He thanks Gov. Cuomo for his “truthful and strong leadership on this issue.” He also thanks Majority leader Skelos and Minority leader Sampson, and most of all, his partner Lewis. “My nieces and nephews know us as a couple, and we are like married to them…. Marriage says that we are family, Lewis and I are family. And marriage strengthens my family and will strengthen all families.”

10:17: Sen. Mark Grisanti (R-Erie and Niagara Co.) was originally listed as undecided. He was originally against same-sex marriage, but after studying the issue has decided to vote for the marriage equality bill. “By doing the research I believe shows integrity. I wouldn’t respect myself if I didn’t do the research and make an informed decision for the issue that is before me. … I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage.” He points to the religious protections in the bill, and feels confident as a Catholic and as a lawyer that the religious institutions are protected. “Civil unions are not equal and cause chaos.” Marriage is the only way to guarantee the rights to same-sex couples that he has. “I apologize to to those who feel offended and were hurt by my votes six months ago, but I do believe someone can be wiser than they were six months ago.”

10:17: They are going into a very brief recess, but right now it looks like that when the roll call results are announced, marriage equality in New York will be a done deal.

10:19: I’m seeing reports that a massive crowd in converging at the Stonewall Inn in New York. Police are trying to keep Christopher Street open to traffic, but it may soon become a lost cause.

10:21: Focus On the Family just now sent out a fundraising appeal to their email list:

While we pray for a resounding victory in New York, Focus on the Family remains committed to upholding marriage and urging men and women to engage the culture in its defense—just as we’ve seen 31 states already uphold marriage at the ballot box. Will you partner with us as we share the importance of protecting God’s design for marriage as well as provide resources to ensure our own marriages—especially those of the household of faith—are healthy and well-rooted in Christ? Please make your gift today.

I guess they haven’t been watching the live stream.

10:26: Senate is back in session. Sen. Carl Kruger (D-Kings Co) is explaining his yes vote. He was one of the no votes in 2009, but explains that the religious exemptions are why he is voting for marriage equality. He is now trying to burnish his pro-gay credentials despite that earlier vote. Oh, well, a yes vote is a yes vote, and when the votes are this close, every vote matters.

10:30: They have announced the results: 33-29. Marriage Equality passed in New York!

The bill will go into effect thirty days after signed by Gov. Cuomo.

[Timothy again]

When I decided to leave for home I assumed we were hours away yet. But traffic was LA Friday night traffic and then my computer decided that it needed to do updates. And then something went wrong and …. well, anyway, I’m here for the celebration.

Congratulations, New Yorkers

Agreement Reached for NY Marriage Equality

[UPDATE: The New York state Senate will vote on same-sex marriage tonight:

The State Senate will vote on same-sex marriage, the Senate majority leader said Friday afternoon, setting the stage for a final decision on the most closely watched issue facing the Legislature as it wraps up its annual session. The exact timing was unclear, thought it was expected to occur Friday evening.]

We now have numerous reports that a consensus has been reached among the Republican Caucus of the New York state Senate on wording for religious exemptions that may allow the bill to move forward for a floor vote:

Senate Republicans were still discussing the marriage bill in a closed-door meeting on Friday afternoon; it remained unclear when — or if — they would permit a vote on the broader legislation. The State Assembly, which approved an earlier version of the same-sex marriage bill last week, would need to approve the new language before the full bill could become law.

Emerging from a meeting with Speaker Sheldon Silver, Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsored the Assembly version of the bill, said that there was an “agreement in principle” on the new language. He predicted that the Assembly would vote to adopt the new language on Friday.

Republicans have made no committment to bring the marriage measure to a floor vote. But a Senate spokesman said the decision would be announced sometime Friday night.

Marriage equality advocates have announced their support for the language. The entire bill has been posted online. The religious exemption appears as follows (text changed from all-caps to sentence case):

S 10-b. Religious Exception. 1. Notwithstanding any  state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other  law of  this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent  order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any  civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation.

2. Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law or rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, nothing in this article shall limit or diminish the right, pursuant to  subdivision eleven of section two hundred ninety-six of the executive law, of any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with  a  religious organization, to limit employment or sales or rental of housing accommodations or admission to or give preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is  established or maintained.

3.  Nothing  in this section shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions otherwise provided to religious organizations under section three of article one of the constitution of the  state  of New York.

As I read it, section one exempts religious organizations from providing services or facilities for “for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” Section two is somewhat less clear to me. It appears to exempt religious organizations and charities from fair housing and employment rules, nor would it require religious schools to open their admissions policies. Section three is simply a reiteration of the freedom of religion clause of the New York constitution. As I read it, these clauses do not give up very much at all, but merely reinforce religious prerogatives which already exist under existing law. Further, it should be noted that the language of these exemptions applies to all marriages, not just same-sex marriage.

Interestingly, there is also a nonseverability clause:

5-a. This act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of it are to be read and construed together. If any part of this act shall be  adjudged by any court of  competent  jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of this act shall be invalidated. Nothing herein shall be construed to affect the parties’ right to appeal the matter.

It would appear that this may have been intended to strengthen the religious exemption clause. If someone were to successfully challenge the constitutionality of religious exemption portion of the marriage law, then the entire marriage law would be struck down. But it’s hard to imagine that the religious exemptions portion of the law could be challenged. They have been upheld before as being in accordance with the nonestablishment clause of the U.S constitution.

New York Marriage Equality NOT Likely Tonight

The Wall Street Journal reports that there doesn’t even seem to be any agreement on the bill coming to the floor:

At the same time, Republicans in the Senate headed for an internal showdown over gay marriage. Most members in the conference expect to bring the bill to the floor in the next two days, but resistance on the bill has provoked frustration among a conference that prides itself on its unity.

“I see it coming to the floor,” said a Republican senator. “People who don’t understand the process are thinking, ‘Don’t bring it up and it will go away for a year.'”

If they block the bill and head home to their districts, the senator said, the governor would likely order them back to Albany for a special session and demand that they take up the measure.

NBC New York quotes a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos saying the vote will be “likely tomorrow,” but negotiations are still continuing:

More protection for religious organizations such as adoption agencies and marriage counselors is sought by undecided Republican senators who are key to the vote.

Currently, the Senate appears to be one vote shy of making New York the sixth state where gay marriage is legal. It’s viewed as a critical moment in the national gay rights movement.

New York marriage equality likely tonight

The Wall Street Journal reports

State legislative leaders said Wednesday afternoon there are no major obstacles to a vote on whether to legalize gay marriage.

Democrats and Republicans emerged from meetings with Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and said there is progress toward proposed additional religious protections that could bring a gay marriage bill to the Senate floor for a vote as early as Wednesday night. No deal had been struck as of Wednesday afternoon.

Other contentious matters concerning rent control and property tax have been resolved. The only unaddressed item of business is the senate vote on marriage equality. And if both sides are announcing “progress”, then the terms have been reached, the votes are counted, and all that is left is the orchestration of the waltz.

Here is how I predict the dance will flow:

At some point today, there will be an announcement that a deal has been reached. It will give “serious protections” to church operated marriage counselors, church affiliated adoption agencies, and maybe even church-owned campgrounds. This will be the justification given by the Republican Caucus to authorize Dean Skelos to bring a vote.

During debate, several Democrats will stand and speak of how proud they are to be part of this historic moment and how this is a grand day in equality. One Republican will stand to speak about basic equality and doing the right thing. And one Republican will stand and tearfully announce that this has been the most difficult vote in his life, how he has been torn by deeply held religious convictions but how finally it came down to the fact that he couldn’t tell the gay person in his life (cousin, neighbor, sister) that they just weren’t as good or as worthy as him and his wife.

One or two Republicans will speak about how they are torn and really love their gay friends and they are so so sorry but they just are not ready yet to change the definition of marriage. But no one (with the possible exception of Democrat Rubin Diaz) will quote the Bible or talk about “dangerous lifestyles” or utter a single anti-gay word.

Although marriage equality this year is truly the sole decision of Dean Skelos, the Republican Majority Leader, he will officially vote no. And although Skelos has framed his decision to call the vote as the decision of the Republican Caucus, the majority of Republicans will vote no on the bill. The Caucus has carefully decided who will be the votes to pass the bill and who is “not yet ready”.

And while the bill won’t actually become law until the revisions are approved by the House and the bill is signed by the governor, tonight’s vote will be what counts. The final vote will be around 34 to 28.

Champagne corks will fly, tears will flow, and politicians will beam.

Will Dean Skelos allow New York to have marriage equality?

Yesterday the New York Assembly voted 80 to 63 to give same-sex couples the same access to state rights, responsibilities, and obligations of marriage as it allows its citizens in opposite sex relationships (15 Democrats voted “no” and 3 Republicans voted “yes”).

Currently there are 31 of the state’s 62 senators who have pledged their support for the marriage equality bill. Only one Democrat (Pentecostal minister Ruben Diaz) is opposed, two Republicans have indicated support and at least four more are “undecided”.

And the media is all ablaze with the entirely wrong question.

They are breathlessly wondering whether a necessary third Republican Senator can be found to vote for marriage equality. But those who seem most situated to know seem to agree that more than one of the “undecided” will vote favorably on the bill. That isn’t the question, and none of the undecided will make the decision as to whether marriage equality will come to New York.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos will be the person who decides if marriage equality will be achieved.

In the New York Senate, the Majority Leader holds tremendous power. He can singly block a piece of legislation by refusing to schedule a vote. The votes may be there, but they won’t be counted unless he says so.

Skelos has said that he will defer to the will of the Republican caucus. If his Senators want a vote, he’ll have one, if they don’t he won’t. And for the past two days they have been caucusing, only to announce that they have no decision. They will meet again tomorrow.

But this too is a bit less democratic than it might seem. A party leader can, in many circumstances, inform his caucus that they need to rally around and support his decision.

Much of the decision as to whether the New York State Senate will vote on, and pass, the marriage equality bill will be based on whether Skelos determines that allowing the bill will be less politically damaging than blocking the bill.

If he allows a vote, some of the Party’s “base” will blame him and other senators for not serving the conservative cause. But in a state where marriage is popular, and rapidly becoming more so, blocking the vote could ring a sour note with the voters and leave them with the image of an obstructionist party. And a good many people who are not all that vested one way or the other are sympathetic to the complaint, “They wouldn’t even let me vote!”

And to complicate matters more, the largest donors to Republicans in the State of New York are decidedly on the side of equality. Mayor Bloomberg, the single largest contributor to Republicans in the state, has been applying pressure, and other contributors have been showing where their alliances fall through financial support for the legal team seeking to overturn Proposition 8.

AT some point tomorrow Dean Skelos will announce the decision that he believes will best continue the Republican control of the Senate, and his leadership there.

It is, of course, only a guess but I think that the winds are blowing in our favor. Skelos can step out of a caucus tomorrow and announce that a majority felt the need to vote on the matter. No one will know who to blame, and each can say “but I voted no.” The sophisticated contributor will know that this decision allowed marriage equality to come to pass, and the less so can be comforted by knowing that their own Senator stood for the good ol’ values they sent him there to support.

Gaga’s marriage push

I don’t tweet. Lady Gaga does.

Which means, if I understand this correctly, those of you who decide to check BTB will get my opinion when you get around to reading it, while 10,958,546 people get Gaga’s opinion more-or-less immediately.

And here is what they have been reading today:

The false marriage choice

“I need a new bike,” Joey told his father. “I’m getting to big for this one and sometimes my knees hit the handlebars.”

Oh,” his father replied, “instead of a new bike, how about a trip to Disneyland for vacation?”

Joey thought for a moment. A new bike would be something he could enjoy for a long time, but he’d been longing to go to the Magic Kingdom ever since his neighbor came back last year with tales of boat rides through pirate caves and whizzing through the Alps past yeti.

Finally, he said, “I can ride the bike I have now for a while longer. Let’s go to Disneyland!!”

That night Joey could hardly sleep. Vacation was only a few weeks away and visions of flying elephants, mansions full of ghosts, and a car just his size that he could drive filled his dreams and his imagination. The next day at school he bragged to his friends and basked in their envy. Joey promised to bring each of them back a souvenir from his trip.

But on the morning when Joey was all ready to pack for his trip, his father made an announcement.

“Change of plans,” said Joey’s dad, “We’re going to stay home for vacation. There’s a swingset in the park and you have your videogames. I’ve decided I need the money for new golf clubs.”

Everyone can agree that in this story the father is cruel and selfish. He offers a choice, but when one is selected it is snatched away and replaced with something far inferior. The Disneyland option wasn’t real, it was just a flash and promise offered to distract Joey from what he needed.

In this same way, anti-gay activists have gone about confusing and distracting voters.

No, you don’t want equality, they say. Instead why don’t you select “traditional marriage”, and “every child deserves a mom and a dad” and “the way its been for 5000 years”.

Buses roll by with pictures of two opposite-sex adults with a little boy and a girl. Ads run of happy families sharing a meal in a bright upper-middle-class kitchen nook.

All of this is possible, but only if you limit marriage to heterosexuals. And, they said, if instead you choose gay marriage then all of this goes away. Allowing gay folks to marry will destroy the very foundations of society.

That really isn’t that difficult of a decision. If the choice were truly between allowing a small percentage of people the right to be included in the institution of marriage and thereby destroying civilization or instead having a nation of people in a stable family structure, I would vote for stable families. And you would do the same.

And so American voters in 31 states looked at those two options and decided to delay the equality that they really need in exchange for a bright shiny Cinderella fairy tale.

But now that they’ve selected “every child needs a mom and a dad” and “marriage as its always been” and the nuclear family in the upper-middle-class kitchen nook, what have they received?

Well it’s certainly not the ideal television family structure they were promised. In fact, it looks a lot more like a swingset in the park than a glass slipper in a magical carriage. The Pew Research Center has released a new analysis that illustrates just how dishonest of a bait and switch game that the National Organization for Marriage and other anti-gays have played.

In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers. By 2010, that share had risen to 27%. The share of minor children living apart from their mothers increased only modestly, from 4% in 1960 to 8% in 2010.

According to a new Pew Research Center analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), more than one-in-four fathers with children 18 or younger now live apart from their children—with 11% living apart from some of their children and 16% living apart from all of their children.

And on closer inspection, it looks like the swingset may be broken…

…nearly one-third of fathers who do not live with their children say they talk or exchange email with them less than once a month. Similarly, one-in-five absent fathers say they visit their children more than once a week, but an even greater share (27%) say they have not seen their children at all in the past year.

…and there may be cat poop in the sandbox.

According to the NSFG, nearly half of all fathers (46%) now report that at least one of their children was born out of wedlock, and 31% report that all of their children were born out of wedlock. In addition, some 17% of men with biological children have fathered those children with more than one woman.

This is not what NOM promised.

And to add insult to injury, evidence seems to suggest that those areas in which marriage equality has been established have an increased respect for the institution. And further, when gay people are allowed to establish socially recognized families, they are stepping in to repair some of the damage done in heterosexual families. (NYTimes)

… the percentage of same-sex parents with adopted children has risen sharply. About 19 percent of same-sex couples raising children reported having an adopted child in the house in 2009, up from just 8 percent in 2000, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The trend line is absolutely straight up,” said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization working to change adoption policy and practice. “It’s now a reality on the ground.”

That reality has been shaped by what advocates for gay families say are two distinct trends: the need for homes for children currently waiting for adoption — now about 115,000 in the United States — and the increased acceptance of gays and lesbians in American society.

It’s almost as if Joey’s dad hid from him a promotion at the bike store: buy a new bike and get a free trip to Disneyland.

But there are a few bright points to give us hope.

The same analysis found that those fathers that are in the household are spending more time fathering. Joey’s dad may be on the golf course, but others are not.

In 1965, married fathers with children under age 18 living in their household spent an average of 2.6 hours per week caring for those children. Fathers’ time spent caring for their children rose gradually over the next two decades—to 2.7 hours per week in 1975 and 3 hours per week in 1985. From 1985 to 2000, the amount of time married fathers spent with their children more than doubled – to 6.5 hours in 2000.

So there is hope that while perhaps fewer heterosexuals appreciate the value of a stable two-parent family, those who do are taking it seriously.

And the second bright point is that people are coming to realize that they’ve been sold on a false dream. They look around and see that things have gotten worse instead of better for the “traditional family” since they voted to ban gay marriage. They are coming to realize that Brian and Maggie are horrible ‘parents’ who lied to them and distracted them with promises that they had no ability to keep.

It has been, I believe, a painful awakening for some. They will never again trust their parental figures in church and politics in the way that they had. There are some Joeys who have become sadly disillusioned.

Christie on gays, sin, and civil unions

I may have misjudged Chris Christie when he won the Republican nomination for Governor of New Jersey:

Christie is no friend of our community.

Statements he has now made to Piers Morgan suggest a man who is less antagonistic than I presumed.

While this is still a position that is a disappointment for New Jersey, where marriage seemed a likelihood a few years ago, I’m sure there are plenty of gay folk who would happily trade their governor for him.

What is interesting about this interview is that Christie felt no need to note that his view was “perhaps in disagreement with others in the party” nor did Morgan seem shocked by the “liberal” stance. And this bodes well for the future of our rights. While the current batch of clowns dancing around the calliope hoping to get the privilege of losing to Obama in 2012 are all dedicated to heterosexual supremacy, Christie’s position gives recognition – and permission – to the growing number of Republican politicians who are abandoning the rhetoric of sin.

Marriage bill introduced in New York

Andrew Cuomo must be pretty confident with his vote count. He’s introduced a marriage bill in the NY Senate.

In addition to providing for same-sex marriage, it has broad protections for “a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state or a religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporations laws.”

Some will no doubt be annoyed by this inclusion, but it appears that this will purchase safe passage in the Senate. And while there may be some religious universities that refuses to recognize a professor’s spouse for insurance purposes, this exclusion will not impact very many. Catholic hospitals already have to recognize the patient’s designation of who is “family”, and we really have no interest in making some anti-gay church rent us their reception hall.

A second Republican has pledged support for the bill, leaving only one more to go (New York Post Daily News Courier Tribune Bulletin Times):

New York is within a single vote of legalizing gay marriage, after a second Republican state senator said on Tuesday that he would support the measure should it come to the floor this week.

The senator, Roy J. McDonald, from the capital region, made his comments to reporters amid growing indications that Republican leaders would bring the bill to an up or down vote on Thursday or Friday. Three other Republican state senators, speaking on condition of anonymity because their conference had not yet formally debated the measure, said they believed the bill was almost certain to come up for a vote and that it would likely pass, making New York the sixth and largest state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Earlier today, Sen. Alesi, the first Republican to pledge support, predicted that the bill will pass with 6 Republicans in support.

France votes “no” on to marriage equality

France has a limited second-tier recognition it allows for same sex couples, pacte civil de solidarité. It appears that this will remain the case for a while (Pink News)

The French parliament has rejected a bill designed to give gay couples the right to marry.

Today, lawmakers voted by 293 votes to 222 to block the bill, which was not expected to pass.

This is a bit ironic. One of the unexpected results of offering the second tier PACS is that many opposite-sex couples are opting for PACS as a sort of trial-marriage rather than take on the full obligations in marriage. Those who voted for religious beliefs about marriage being ideal or who sought to “protect marriage” actually hurt their cause.

Judge Walker’s day (not) in court

Perry v. Schwarzenegger’s retired Judge Vaughn Walker was not physically in court today. However, he was the only topic of debate.

Today Judge James Ware, Walker’s replacement, listened to arguments on two issues: First, should all copies of the trial tapes be rounded up and put under lock and key? Second, should the results of Perry v. Schwarzenegger be thrown out because Walker, a gay man in a relationship, should have recused himself?

Courage Campaign’s Prop8TrialTracker was there again to provide us with sometimes-almost-transcripts of the arguments. And it did not go well for the Proponents of Proposition 8.

The supporters of Proposition 8 were irate that Judge Walker had removed the tapes of the trial from his chambers and shown them on national TV!! (Actually this was a three minute clip used during a lecture which CSPAN filmed from across the room – without zoom – at an angle. I honestly couldn’t make out the person’s age, race or gender, much less who they were. It might have been Alf, for all I could tell –was Alf one of their witnesses?). But as part of their “we’re afraid of marauding gays” tactic, they sought to discredit Judge Walker as not being respectful of the danger to their witnesses.

In a fascinating turn of events, Judge Ware cleared up just how Walker had the trial tapes in his personal possession for sampling in lectures: it seems that he had given them to Walker during a gavel-passing ceremony when he retired. And then the discussion quickly became an agreement that this really wasn’t an issue after all.

The second question was even more interesting. Judge Ware started off by disclosing that he had conducted same-sex weddings, and commented that a reversal would only be a delay as whoever was the new judge would come to the same conclusion. Dinner is not going to be a happy meal at Maggie Gallagher’s tonight.

The legal question of whether Judge Walker should have recused himself goes a bit like this:

First, was there any financial component? If Walker could have made a cent one way or the other, then he HAD to recuse himself. That one went no where.

Secondly, was Perry a case that would effect Walker personally. If a reasonable person, knowing the facts, would think that the judge might be impartial, there is an argument for recusal.

This is a touchy one for the Proponents. Ware is a black man married to a white woman. Not only was yesterday’s 44th anniversary of the Loving decision still a fresh reminder, but Ware could recall the days when racists argued that a black judge couldn’t be unbiased in a civil rights case. And Ware was not hesitant to make such comparisons.

Charles Cooper, for the Proponents, agreed that there was no reason a gay man could not judge a case involving, say, some issue that would not effect him personally. No, no, no. It’s not because Walker is gay (it really is) but because he’s in a relationship. And here’s where it got interesting.

Judge Ware is not all that fond of the reasonableness test. He thinks that reasonable people have all sorts of biases and bigotries they carry around with them, but that doesn’t make them constitutional. (And he’s right. Just because one can reason, doesn’t mean that they are right. Plenty of very reasonable people hold prejudices. Of course, over time – being reasonable people – many think, educate themselves, grow, and evolve.)

And there was also the problem about “knowing the facts”. Cooper kept asserting that because Walker has been in a relationship for ten years, then therefore this equates to being “similarly situated to the plaintiffs.” Judge Ware had to remind him repeatedly that it was not a “fact” that Walker intended, wanted, or even considered marrying his partner. It was only speculation, not a fact, that Cooper has to support his claim.

Cooper, unable to assert that Walker truly wanted to marry, focused on Walker’s failure to disclose his relationship. Ware wasn’t easy on that issue. He posed some other questions about disclosure and recusal:

You’ve raised the disclosure question many times. You seem to say that judge is required to disclose. In a case where race is involved, sometimes disclosure not made because obvious. We are bound by our past which is largely irrelevant. If a female judge has suffered rape or sexual assault and is hearing a case on rape/assault, must she disclose?

Ware wasn’t all that pleased with the argument that a judge is presumed to be biased and must disclose all the details of their history. He seemed resistant to Cooper’s idea that if Walker didn’t have an interest in marrying, he should have announced his relationship along with his disinclination to marry and let “reasonable people” decide whether to ask for recusal.

Ted Boutrous, for the Plaintiffs, took a rather aggressive position. He asserted that in cases of race, ethnicity, religion, members of a minority group can act without bias, even if they themselves are in a position to benefit from a civil rights case. He argued that gay people get in relationships – that’s what people do. And do insist that ‘gay in a relationship’ was inherently biased is really to argue that gay judges are incapable of judging a case fairly.

Courts do not presume that a judge is biased. Rather, they presume the opposite – that a judge, who has gone through appointment, vetting, and approval is capable of performing his job without bias. To presume that Walker is biased, is to make the special presumption that gay judges (and by implication all minority judges) are unlike other judges.

Ware did not ready to agree that Walker should have presided over a marriage case if he, himself, intended to marry. And he was not without some questions for Ted Boutrous.

He noted that race is often obvious and need no disclosure, while orientation is often not. So he questioned whether Boutrous believed that the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger should disclose religious affiliation? What if he were Mormon?

Boutrous responded that regardless of a judge’s religious affiliation “we presume that judge is able to live up to his duty of impartiality.” (This is an interesting direction, considering that both Judge Walker and Judge Ware are Republicans, another non-obvious attribute that clearly didn’t direct their judgement on marriages).

Judge Ware noted that while race, religion, and gender issues had been addressed in the past, this was the first time that the question has been raised about the impartiality of gay people and that it had to given due seriousness. Nevertheless, he indicated that he will make his judgement promptly, probably within 24 hours.

We have reason to be cautiously optimistic.

New Hope for NY Marriage

The man who tells you that he can predict what Albany will do is either a fool or a liar. However, there is some very promising last-minute news out of New York. First, the NYTimes tells us that the last Democratic Senator holdouts (other than Sen. Diaz) have pledged support:

The three Democratic senators — Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. and Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn — all voted against the measure in 2009, when it failed by a wide margin. Their switch to the yes column leaves all but one Senate Democrat supporting same-sex marriage — and the fate of the legislation in the hands of the Republican majority in the chamber.

This brings the total support count among Democrats to 29. The bill needs the support of at least 3 Republicans to reach the 32 majority. But the New York Post reports that this may be more than possible.

Seven or more Senate Republicans have signaled Gov. Cuomo that they’re ready to legalize same-sex marriage, more than enough to put the controversial and historic measure over the top this week, The Post has learned.

A highly knowledgeable Senate insider said yesterday that “far more of the [GOP] members are in play than anyone realizes, including some surprising names from conservative upstate areas.”

Among the unexpected potential Senate Republican “yes” votes, insiders say, are Kemp Hannon of Nassau County, Charles Fuscillo of Suffolk County, Betty Little of Glens Falls, Andrew Lanza of Staten Island, Greg Ball of Putnam County, James Alesi of Rochester, and Roy McDonald of Rensselaer County — all of whom helped defeat gay marriage when the vote was held in December 2009.

Of course, all of that can change in a heartbeat.

UPDATE: Republican Senator James Alesi has confirmed that he will vote for marriage

“I am doing this on my own initiative. I really am not down here because I have been guaranteed that we will have enough votes to pass this. It is my hope, not just here in New York State, but all across the nation that if a Republican senator can stand before his constituents and say that he supports marriage equality, that he supports equality for all Americans without regard for their gender or their sexual preference that we can start here in New York State and look at it as is a national initiative that America is for Freedom and equality.”