Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 20

Minnesotans hit the ground running against homophobic referendum

One thing that always infuriates me in the argument about marriage equality is how the opposition is always trying to frame the issue while doing all they can to keep us from getting a word in edgewise.

It's not an inadvertent tactic. As long as folks like Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown and the National Organization for Marriage can boggart the conversation, the more difficult it is for us to tell our stories.

That's why the above video is so important. Minnesota couple David and Mark talks what family means to them as well as their 28 year relationships.

And their words are reality rather than the stupid hypotheticals the opposition tries to shove down our throats.

Also, from my online buddy Mat Algren:

Philip and Randi Reitan have joined their activist son  Jacob in a video for the media campaign against the state’s proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment.

One thing is clear, Minnesotans are "in it to win it" against NOM and the forces of homophobia.

The videos are a part of a campaign by the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party to show that families and love comes in all forms.

And frankly, I think that they have done an excellent job.

Those interested in helping with this fight should also go to the Minnesotans United for All Families site.

#FAIL: Today's WH presser offers another dodge on the topic of marriage equality

I just received the transcript of the daily White House Press briefing, and naturally the topic of the President's absurd statement that the states should decide the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples and whether they may marry. Yes, Mr. President, you are allowing your spokesperson to continue the impression that you believe in "states' rights." He didn't have to go there, but he did.

The dodge by Jay Carney is an exercise in epic #FAIL.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

______________________

For Immediate Release                        

June 27, 2011

PRESS BRIEFING

BY PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

[...]

Q    On another topic, last week the President spoke about gay marriage when he was in New York and he said that -- talked about how this has been the province of the state and that's the -- referring to what was happening in the debate in New York, he said that's the power of democracy at work.  Does that mean that he also respects the outcome of democracy at work in California where voters rejected the idea of gay marriage?

    MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think as you saw in the decision we announced that we would no longer -- this administration would no longer be participants defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we do not believe it's constitutional, that it's precisely because of his belief that this was a matter that needs to be decided by the states.  So without commenting on a particular other state, I think he was making that clear with regard to the action in New York.

    Q    Okay, but --

    MR. CARNEY: But I'm not going to put words in his mouth applying to another state.  I mean, you can analyze that, but -- because I haven't heard him say that.  But obviously the DOMA decision -- what he said in New York was about his belief, our belief, that this is a matter that states should decide.

    Q    And the central argument in the challenge to Proposition 8 by supporters of same-sex marriage rights is that this isn't something that should be decided state by states, in fact, that there are federal rights involved.  So would he reject --

    MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President very strongly supports equal rights and he's -- we've been -- he's made that clear as well, and he said it again in New York at the event that you're discussing.  So I'm not going to --

    Q    But I'm referring to the --

    MR. CARNEY:  I don't really have a lot I can say about Proposition 8 with regards to what the President said last week.  You know, I don't -- I'm not willing to go to what the President didn't discuss. I can talk about what he did discuss.

Your first gay-bar experience: Slate asked several well-known peeps the question

I was contacted out of the blue a few weeks ago by June Thomas of Slate to answer a memory hole question - what was your first gay-bar experience like?

She also asked Alison Bechdel, Mart Crowley, Susie Bright, Dan Savage, and others the same question. Everyone provided interesting answers. Below is Crowley's and my contribution.

Mart Crowley, playwright, author of The Boys in the Band

I can't remember the first gay bar I visited-it was more than 50 years ago. I went to college at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and I didn't want to get caught in gay places there, but I loved to come to New York on weekends. In 1955 or so, one of my favorite New York bars was Lenny's Hideaway in Greenwich Village. It was in a basement. How well-dressed we all were in our Harris tweed jackets, our repp ties, and our pink oxford cloth button-down shirts. We looked like we were in a Ralph Lauren ad. I also liked 316, which was at 316 E. 54th Street-even the address is gone now. It was a different crowd from the Village: Guys would come in from parties in black tie. We thought they were snobby, but they were awfully glamorous. When I was in those bars, especially Lenny's, I felt I was taking my life in my hands. There was a danger that was terribly exciting. It was scary, but scary in a thrilling way.

Pam Spaulding, editor of Pam's House Blend

Despite living in New York for many years, the first gay bar I ever visited was a lesbian bar in Durham, N.C., in the early '90s. Competition was in a very seedy (at that time) downtown area near abandoned warehouses. It was a members-only place, so patrons had to pay $5 to join for the evening. My first impression: dreary. There was a smallish dance floor, with several women enjoying themselves to music blaring over the horrible P.A. system. There were some butchy gals playing pool at the tables adjacent to dance area. At the bar, there were a couple of apparent regulars, chatting up friends. There was a notable lack of racial diversity, with maybe a handful of women of color in the place. I took a bar seat in the haze of cigarette smoke, ordered a soda, and spent an hour there, with perhaps one person bothering to talk to me. It made me wonder why anyone would find this a place to meet someone. A few years later another Durham lesbian and I started up TriangleGrrrls, a group that provided alcohol-free opportunities for lesbians to socialize, and it was at one of these gatherings that I met my future wife, Kate.

Carpe Diem, California

New York has passed marriage equality. Let's repeat that. In. A. Big. Bold. Font.
New York has passed marriage equality!
or even better

Why not then California?  

With an incredible victory in the New York State Senate as tailwind, the question of whether to pursue repeal of Proposition 8 now comes to the fore. Is California to be left in the proverbial dust, awaiting a Supreme Court decision that even if favorable will take years and years?  Or will the state put this scourge to rest a little less than seventeen months from now?
The answer is not blowing in the wind. The answer is in the hands of LGBT organizations similar to those that came together in a unified front (or perhaps were pushed!) to win marriage equality in New York. The answer is in the hands of donors similar to those who were willing to go to bat for marriage equality to the tune of millions of dollars in New York. The answer is in the hands of grassroots advocates similar to those who, in New York, worked their butts off. They called, they gathered signatures and postcards, they called some more, and they demonstrated on the streets and in the Capitol in anticipation of the vote. Would their analogues in California work their butts off to pass marriage equality in California if they were given the chance?
There's no doubt in my mind: the answer is 'yes'. 'Yes' to putting it on the ballot. 'Yes' that the money and enthusiasm will be there.  Do It.
  Battles are not won by the timid.  Victories are not earned by complaining about how grueling a campaign it will be. And as history is rife with examples, no one is going to hand anyone their rights on a silver platter.
There are arguments against the attempt to repeal Prop 8 in November, 2012 to be sure.  But ultimately these arguments pale when held up against the example of what has just happened in New York State. There is no excuse for remaining unequal a day later than it is possible for such an iniquity to be rectified.
Let's consider the naysayer's points one by one:
We might lose.
It's true. There is no guarantee of victory. There never is. But what's the worst that happens? Do you think the movement will collapse? It didn't in New York when they experienced a crushing defeat in 2009. I don't think the suffragettes or the anti-slavery movement or the civil rights fighters of the 50's and 60's ever gave up...
Of course the movement will not collapse. Not only that, the Prop 8 case will still be there as backup and if THAT fails, there's 2016. Or, dammit. 2020. This is just not a serious argument when one thinks of the great civil rights movements of the past and how long they took and how much they struggled.
It will cost a lot of money.
Well, duh. But California is a very rich state, with a lot of rich people. Between Hollywood and Silicon Valley there's enough money to pay off the federal debt (okay, I engage in hyperbole, but you get the point).  These are both groups of people with a libertarian/liberal bent, many of whom would probably be overjoyed to be associated with a victorious campaign just as their compatriots in New York, both entertainers and businesspeople, were so associated.
While it will cost a lot of money, California has lots of people. LGBT people. Allies. Millions and millions, in fact.  That's a lot of potential smaller donations.  Maybe it will cost more per capita than to wage a campaign in Maine, but this is just not a realistic concern in my opinion.  Build the campaign, and the dollars will come.
There are other battles to be fought in 2012.
This is just plain wrong in conception. Yes, there is at least one other battle (Minnesota), and there may be others (Maryland, Maine, Oregon).  But that is a good thing, not a problem! It's called synergy. It's called a movement. Each campaign will reinforce the others, building momentum while attracting support and supporters -- not detracting or taking resources away from the others.  Remember: the majority of the American public supports marriage equality. This is a fact.  This is not a movement on the margins any more.  The more excitement there is, the more resources there will be.
No one should be voting on other people's rights.
Philosophically, it's a great argument. Practically, it's as useful as discussing angels on pins, or Republicans for tax increases.  They've already voted on your rights!. Thirty one f***ing times, and they're going to do it again in 2012 -- 2012!! -- in Minnesota and maybe in North Carolina. On battlefields of their choosing, using wording of their choice.  
To make this argument against voting on rights is to deny the reality of the recent past. And look, we're not talking about some life-or-death moral principle here. It's not like we're discussing whether or not it's okay to use landmines in a war zone where children will long afterwards endanger themselves, or whether we should stand idle versus intervening while a dictator massacres tens of thousands of people. Voting on people's rights is not going to kill people or make children suffer. We're talking about using a political tool that our opponents have used over and over against us to our benefit instead. Sure, it's asking to people to vote on whether you are equal, which just sucks, but if that's the way forward to equality then I say "use their own damned tool against them!"
The votes aren't there.
I can't prove to you that the votes are there. And you can't prove to me that they aren't there.  Only an actual vote will decide that argument.
But what I can tell you is that there is every reason to believe that with a solid campaign the votes can be made to be there.
Please read Math, Science and Emotion: Defeating Proposition 8 in 2012 if you do not believe me.  It may not be a perfect analysis, but it can't be far off the mark.
The simple explanation is that
  a) Demographic change through November of 2012, along with  b) Social change, combined with   c) Enthusiasm and momentum from the NY victory (not included in the analysis)
taken together add up to a really good shot at victory.  One has to be a confirmed pessimist to believe that there isn't a least a good shot at victory given the state of national polling, statewide polling, and the incredible change in social attitudes (think 'Glee') that has occurred in the last three years (leaving a year to go!). 
And it's not like we're starting from a 2008 base of 40%. We all know that Proposition 8 opponents (aka us) got almost 48% of the vote three years ago. That just cannot be an insurmountable obstacle.

(note: this graph is not reflective of the most recent polls; the result would be even more stunning if it were)
Why deal with it? Why not wait for the Prop 8 Trial to resolve?
  -- Because it might not succeed!  
There is a real possibility of losing at the Supreme Court which some people seem to ignore.  And if the Supreme Court issues an adverse ruling that would be a huge blow, potentially setting back the fight for equality for decades. Of course, the case might succeed. Spectacularly.  But neither you, nor I, nor anyone except perhaps Justice Anthony Kennedy, knows or can even estimate reasonably what the chances of success or failure or something in between are.
Really, ask yourself -- are all the eggs to be placed in the same basket that decided corporations are people in Citizen's United? That's quite the gamble.
  -- Because it will take years and years to get to a decision.
People are being denied equality now. What justification can there be to deny people a good shot at being frst-class citizens?
  -- Because winning in California will be huge.
It will further catalyze the nationwide movement towards marriage equality.  It will speed up the pace of change of public opinion in our favor.It will make politicians stand up and take notice in terms of repealing DOMA.It will make it more and more likely that when a marriage or DOMA case does come before the Supreme Court, the issue will be decided favorably.It will reverberate around the world, just as the NY vote is doing right now.
It's just too much effort.
Ugh. Think back to November, 2008. All the protests. All the energy. All the speeches vowing to overturn Proposition 8. Camp Courage. Now, finally, there is a real chance to really do something, and the powers-that-be seem to think that such enthusiasm cannot be harnessed? I have more faith than that. People are waiting for someone to lead, but I believe they are more than willing to follow. 
We don't know how to counteract NOM.
Of all the criticisms I've heard this has the most weight.  If we don't have a strong counterattack to the inevitable spate of hate ads claiming we must protect "the children" from "teh gay" there is a good chance that we could still lose, even with public opinion seemingly strongly on our side.
Still, the fact that NY was able to do it is an indication that it can be done. I'm no marketer or Mad Man, but I find it hard to believe that with all the talent out there, and all the politicians, celebrities and LGBT couples willing and available to speak out for marriage equality, that it's not possible to come up with an effective campaign. (And in fact at the town meeting I attended Equality California leaders said they have conducted research and have what they think is an effective countermessage.)
It's time for California's LGBT organizations and leaders to come together and resolve that if the Courts have not resolved the issue favorably by the time it is necessary to move, that move on this we shall.
It's time to take the lessons of NY -- a united front, a single message, a relentless, orchestrated campaign -- and win back equality in the Golden State. And then the country.

Carpe Diem, California.

(Lady Gaga celebrating the victory in NY)
Thanks for listening.
  

NYT Editorial asks - Gay Marriage: Where's Mr. Obama?

Man, this is blistering commentary. The NYT tells President Obama to #evolvealready.

On Thursday night, when same-sex marriage in New York State was teetering on a razor's edge, President Obama had a perfect opportunity to show the results of his supposed evolution on gay marriage.

Unfortunately, he did not take it, keeping his own views in the shadows. The next night the Republican-led New York State Senate, of all places, proved itself more forward-thinking than the president on one of the last great civil-rights debates in this nation's history.

Speaking to the Democratic Party's LGBT Leadership Council at a fund-raiser in New York, Mr. Obama ran through the many efforts he has made on behalf of gay rights, including his decision to end the government's legal support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The act should be repealed, he said, since marriage is defined by the states.

What's sad about this defense is that to leave marriage equality to the states is to ignore that states have voted to deny basic civil rights to a group of people. His mother and father, if matters were left to the voters, would not have been able to marry.

What the President has said is that it's fine for NY to adopt marriage equality, and it's equally acceptable in 2012 for Minnesota and North Carolina to bar any legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples. The NYT points out this illogical and unthinkable bigotry he's hiding behind.

Fundamental equality, however, is hardly the equivalent of a liquor law that can vary on opposite sides of a state line. Why is Mr. Obama so reluctant to say the words that could lend strength to a national effort now backed by a majority of Americans?

...After he took office, it became evident that Republicans intended to portray him as a radical, out-of-touch leftist no matter what he did. Supporting same-sex marriage at this point is hardly going to change that drumbeat, and any voter for whom that is a make-or-break issue will probably not be an Obama supporter anyway.

Mr. President, your comments about marriage equality look weak and unprincipled in light of the eloquent statements about equality by a real fierce advocate, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and downright pitiful next to the comments of New York State Senator Mark Grisanti (R, North Buffalo):

I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage.  Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife who I love, or that have the 1300-plus rights that I share with her?

...I struggled with the word marriage as between a man and a woman -- that's how I'm raised.  But I also struggle with the rights that are lacking for same-sex couples, and I've stated this numerous times.  I cannot deny that right or opportunity for someone nor stand in the way of allowing them to obtain the rights that I have.

Evolve already.

Testimony: Take a Stand project - my video on the state of equality for LGBT North Carolinians

In my earlier post I discussed bloggers at Netroots Nation contributing to the It Gets Better video project. That wasn't the only video I took part in.

The Courage Campaign Institute also attended NN11 and collected personal statements on video for its Testimony: Take a Stand project. So all of you out there -- LGB and T -- have a venue to talk about how discrimination has affected you, and how legislation and legal cases that are in play affect you personally, and why it matters. Share your stories. You can view videos of people who have contributed so far here.

I contributed my testimony just before I served on the marriage equality panel at Netroots Nation, and I chose to focus on the state of equality in North Carolina, where,  to be honest, marriage is a back burner issue -- we're in a fight to keep an amendment off the ballot and we have no state-level ENDA.

From "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" to California's Prop 8 trial (Perry V. Schwarzenegger), historic trials on LGBT equality are happening across America right now and only a handful of people get to testify. If you could Take A Stand, what would you say? What would your Testimony be?

Conceived by legendary activist Cleve Jones as the online extension of the NAMES Project Memorial Quilt, Testimony seeks to create a map of stories from LGBT Americans and allies across the country. In collaboration with partner organizations, and using the stories of the American public, Testimony seeks to show the shift in public acceptance of gays and lesbians as many of these equality cases make their way to the Supreme Court.

In 2011, Testimony: Take a Stand will give us all the chance to testify to the destructive power of discrimination and about the joys of full equality. These stories are the foundation for true and lasting equality in the court of public opinion, for the bonds that strengthen families and communities, and are an essential antidote for the animus and isolation that opponents of equality relentlessly cultivate.

Merging innovative online organizing with social media platforms, Testimony provides everyday Americans -- both LGBT and straight allies alike -- with the tools to share their own personal experiences on love, family, marriage, discrimination, bullying, social stigmatization and many other related issues, not unlike the heartfelt testimony given by the plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 trial.

Through Testimony: Take a Stand, thousands of Americans will be able to upload a family photo, a video deposition, or a written description of their experiences to a central online repository organized by subject and geography. These stories will be a constantly-updated resource for activists, opinion leaders, the media and others engaged in equality battles across the country, including legislative fights, ballot initiatives, and battles for the hearts and minds of families, friends, co-workers, neighbors and communities.

As important legislative changes move through Congress, and cases like the Prop 8. trial wind their way toward the U.S. Supreme Court, Testimony will humanize decisions all too often made in the legal abstract, giving voice to the millions of marginalized Americans who will never get their day in court by attaching names, faces, families and experiences to the continuing struggle for equality.

Guest post by Evan Wolfson: The Freedom To Marry - What's Next After New York?

The Freedom To Marry: What's Next After New York?

By Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry

New York is not the first state to have its legislature end the exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from marriage, but this time is different.

With Friday's vote for families and fairness, the number of Americans living in states with the freedom to marry more than doubled, from 16 million to 35 million.

New York's embrace of the freedom to marry marks the first time that a Republican-led chamber of a legislature -- in this case the state senate -- voted to advance a bill to end marriage discrimination, and Republican senators provided the winning margin.

And New York's legislature becomes the first to pass a marriage bill without taking a detour through the temporary way-station of a civil union or domestic partnership. New York heeded the lesson of Vermont and other states that first experimented with civil unions, and embraced the full freedom to marry after concluding that these half-measures don't fully protect families or fulfill the constitutional command of equality.

Fifteen years ago, only 27 percent of Americans approved of ending discrimination in marriage. But as gays and lesbians have talked with family and friends about why marriage matters, hearts have opened and minds have changed.  Today, that number has literally doubled. According to a recent Washington Post poll, and confirmed by five other national polls, more than 52 percent of the public supports the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Hitting a majority for marriage was a big milestone in this American journey of inclusion and fairness, but having New York end marriage discrimination is a turning point for the country. The world watches New York, and, as New Yorkers say, if we can make it here, we'll make it anywhere -- but only if the ever-expanding community of people who support the freedom to marry do the work to bring it home nationwide.

What will that look like?

We will secure the freedom to marry in more states. American history teaches that human rights and social justice movements must make gains at the state level, with some states serving as engines to tug the conversation and country forward. In every state (and every country) that has ended the denial of marriage to same-sex couples, support for the freedom to marry has only increased. People see with their own eyes that gays and lesbians in their state who get married share the hope and joy of other couples, and the heartfelt desire to make and strengthen a lifelong commitment to the person they love.

With each state win, we will inspire other states to follow. Republican support -- from Ken Mehlman, the former chair of the Republican National Committee, to Barbara Bush, the daughter of President George W. Bush -- was critical to passing the law through New York's Republican-controlled state senate. Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo was the indispensable champion of the marriage bill, speaking often of the need for New York to live up to history and once again lead the way for the nation. New York's bipartisan triumph for the freedom to marry signals a major shift in the national political calculus for both parties and points the way to more victories.

We will continue to grow the number of Americans who support the freedom to marry. Not only is there now majority support for ending discrimination in marriage, but the freedom to marry is riding a demographic wave. Roughly 60 percent of millennials -- voters under 30, who represent the largest generation ever -- overwhelmingly support marriage rights for loving, committed same-sex couples. Their support ranges across virtually every demographic, including Republicans and even evangelicals. Elected officials looking to the future, let alone history, see voters -- Democratic, independent, and increasingly, Republican -- who want them to stand for the freedom to marry.

And we will tackle and end federal marriage discrimination. Under the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" stampeded through Congress in 1996 -- before gay couples could marry anywhere in the world --tens of thousands of legally married couples are denied the 1138-plus federal protection and responsibilities triggered by marriage, including Social Security, immigration rights and fair tax treatment.

With court challenges mounting, the Department of Justice concluding that DOMA is indefensible under the Constitution, and the Respect for Marriage Act now pending in Congress to repeal DOMA, history's gaze now falls on our leaders in Washington, D.C. (where couples can legally marry, thanks to a legislative vote last year) to do their part in securing the freedom to marry.

President Obama has stated that his views on marriage are "evolving," and that "gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country." He has much to gain, and very little to lose, by joining the national majority for marriage and standing with the millennials, Democrats and independents who favor the freedom to marry, and the Republicans who have begun to speak with more clarity than he has. It's time now for the president, like all of us in New York celebrating our new statute of liberty, to say, "I do support the freedom to marry." EVAN WOLFSON (@evanwolfson on Twitter) is the President of Freedom to Marry (@freedomtomarry), the campaign to win marriage nationwide, and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry.

Can married couples re-marry one another in New York? Kate and I would like to know the answer

When NY passed marriage equality, I wondered whether it would be legal for Kate and I to marry there when it is enacted next month. Our legal Canadian marriage was recognized in NY long before New Yorkers won the freedom to marry on Friday.

Oddly, when I asked the question on Twitter and Facebook, many people (not claiming to be attorneys), weighed in about half "yes' and half "no." That suggests some additional information needs to get out there.

It appears that the answer is no.

Listed below is the information you will need to fill out the Marriage License Application:

The application is an affidavit where you and your prospective spouse must list your name; current address; city, state, ZIP code and country; country of birth; date of birth; name and country of birth of your father and mother; Social Security number; and marital history.When you sign the affidavit, you are making a sworn statement that there are no legal impediments to the marriage.If you were married before, you must list all prior marriages. You must include your previous spouse's full name; the date the divorce decree was granted; and the city, state, and country where the divorce was issued.All divorces, annulments, and dissolutions must be finalized before you apply for a new Marriage License.You may be asked to produce the final divorce decree.If you are a widow or widower, you must provide your deceased spouse's full name and date of death.

In terms of obtaining a Canadian divorce, it is required that at least one spouse needs to live in Canada for one year before it can be granted.

***

Lambda Legal has a "Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples in New York" document with FAQs. In it, the answer about remarrying your spouse is a bit different:

Can my partner and I get married now in New York if we were married in some other jurisdiction?

In the past, years many New York same-sex couples have gone to other jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to validly marry and have gotten married there. These marriages have been entitled to legal respect in New York, just as many out-of-state marriages of dif erent-sex couples that could not be entered into in New York are nonetheless given legal respect here.

If you and your partner validly married in another jurisdiction, you are already a married couple in New York and your marriage should be fully respected here. You do not need to marry again in New York.

If for some reason you are still interested in re-marrying your spouse in New York, the marriage laws in New York permit this, but you would be well advised to consult a private attorney or contact Lambda Legal's Help Desk before you take this step to determine if it could carry legal complications for your family.

So that leaves the status of our getting married in NY a bit fuzzy. Clearly we could have a re-commitment ceremony, but getting hitched in the Empire State is still an open question.

If we are able, it would be awesome to do it again w/friends and family this time (only my brother Tim attended). Sadly, both marriages would still be meaningless in NC...just the way Obama likes it - "states' rights," right, Mr. President?

***

BTW, Kate and I will celebrate our 7th anniversary on July 1. We legally married at a B&B in Vancouver, BC. In 2004, we couldn't marry anywhere in the U.S.; Massachusetts did not allow non-resident/out-of-state marriages at that time, and the small window to do so in California had passed. It's all quite amazing how the political and social landscape has changed since then.

NY Senator Mark Grisanti: I can't find a legal reason to oppose same-sex marriage

New York state Senator Mark Grisanti (R, North Buffalo) joined three other Republicans voting for the Marriage Equality Act Friday evening.  The bill passed on a bipartisan vote of 33-29 and has already been signed into law by Governor Cuomo.  

Sen. Grisanti, a Roman Catholic, was the very picture of integrity last night as he described how careful consideration of the facts led him to support the bill.  "I would not respect myself if I didn't do the research, have an open mind and make an informed decision based on the information before me.  A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there'll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work," he said during the floor debate.

Kudos to Sen. Grisanti for exercising his duty as a lawmaker with integrity rather than subjugating that duty to his personal beliefs.  Last night, Sen. Grisanti joined the solid majority of Catholic Americans who support marriage equality.

As you may know prior to me coming here -- it's only been about 6 months -- and the issue of same-sex marriage was never really a strong topic of discussion among family and friends.  I simply opposed it in the Caholic sense of my upbringing.  

And I have stated that I have a problem with the term marriage.  But at the same time I also said that I have a problem with the rights that are involved that are being overlooked.

I have never in the past four months researched an issue or met with so many people and groups on a single issue such as this.  I have struggled with this immensely, I can tell you that.  I have read numerous documents, independent studies, talked with a lot of people on both sides of this issue.  

As a Catholic I was raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman.  I'm not here however as a senator who is just Catholic.  I'm also here with a background as an attorney, through which I look at things and I apply reason.

(Transcript continues below...)

I know that with this decision, many people who voted for me will question my integrity a short time ago.  I tell you though that I have studied this issue.  For those that know me, they know that I have struggled with it.  

To those whose support I may lose, please know that in the past what I was telling you, and what I believed at that time was the truth.  But by doing the research and ultimately doing what I believe to be the right thing, to me shows integrity.

I would not respect myself if I didn't do the research, have an open mind and make a decision  -- an informed decision -- based on the information before me.  A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there'll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work.

I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage.  Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife who I love, or that have the 1300-plus rights that I share with her?  

But there's another important point here that this bill brings up, and that's its religious protections.  Because I am Catholic.  Under this bill the religious aspects and belief are protected as well as for not-for-profits.  There's no mandate that the Catholic Church or any other religious organization perform ceremonies or rent halls.  There cannot be a civil claim or an action against the church.  It protects benevolent organizations such as the Knights of Columbus and many others.  And as a lawyer I feel confident that the religious organizations and the others are protected.

We in this state have recognized same-sex couples who are married in other states and are now in New York.  I have read studies about civil unions that show that they do not work, and causes chaos.  I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protection to all of its residents.

I struggled with the word marriage as between a man and a woman -- that's how I'm raised.  But I also struggle with the rights that are lacking for same-sex couples, and I've stated this numerous times.  I cannot deny that right or opportunity for someone nor stand in the way of allowing them to obtain the rights that I have.  

I'm not going to get into the philosophical arguments, because I've heard them all.  But for me the issue boils down to this.  I've done the research, and my belief that a person can be wiser today than yesterday.  I apologize to those who feel offended, to those who I have hurt with the votes I had six months ago, but I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday when you do the work.  

I cannot deny a person, a human being, a tax payer, a worker or people in my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is, the same rights that I have with my wife.  And I also can't ignore that one of the things that was put into this bill, that there are protections in this bill for church and religious organizations.  And I am proud of that because I am fearful that those protections may be lost.  If this bill fails, I believe that next time around these protections won't be there.  

I vote in the affirmative, Mr. President.

NY Senator Mark Grisante: I can't find a legal reason to oppose same-sex marriage

New York state Senator Mark Grisante (R, North Buffalo) joined three other Republicans voting for the Marriage Equality Act Friday evening.  The bill passed on a bipartisan vote of 33-29 and has already been signed into law by Governor Cuomo.  

Sen. Grisante, a Roman Catholic, was the very picture of integrity last night as he described how careful consideration of the facts led him to support the bill.  "I would not respect myself if I didn't do the research, have an open mind and make an informed decision based on the information before me.  A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there'll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work," he said during the floor debate.

Kudos to Sen. Grisante for exercising his duty as a lawmaker with integrity rather than subjugating that duty to his personal beliefs.  Last night, Sen. Grisante joined the solid majority of Catholic Americans who support marriage equality.

As you may know prior to me coming here -- it's only been about 6 months -- and the issue of same-sex marriage was never really a strong topic of discussion among family and friends.  I simply opposed it in the Caholic sense of my upbringing.  

And I have stated that I have a problem with the term marriage.  But at the same time I also said that I have a problem with the rights that are involved that are being overlooked.

I have never in the past four months researched an issue or met with so many people and groups on a single issue such as this.  I have struggled with this immensely, I can tell you that.  I have read numerous documents, independent studies, talked with a lot of people on both sides of this issue.  

As a Catholic I was raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman.  I'm not here however as a senator who is just Catholic.  I'm also here with a background as an attorney, through which I look at things and I apply reason.

(Transcript continues below...)

I know that with this decision, many people who voted for me will question my integrity a short time ago.  I tell you though that I have studied this issue.  For those that know me, they know that I have struggled with it.  

To those whose support I may lose, please know that in the past what I was telling you, and what I believed at that time was the truth.  But by doing the research and ultimately doing what I believe to be the right thing, to me shows integrity.

I would not respect myself if I didn't do the research, have an open mind and make a decision  -- an informed decision -- based on the information before me.  A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there'll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work.

I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage.  Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife who I love, or that have the 1300-plus rights that I share with her?  

But there's another important point here that this bill brings up, and that's its religious protections.  Because I am Catholic.  Under this bill the religious aspects and belief are protected as well as for not-for-profits.  There's no mandate that the Catholic Church or any other religious organization perform ceremonies or rent halls.  There cannot be a civil claim or an action against the church.  It protects benevolent organizations such as the Knights of Columbus and many others.  And as a lawyer I feel confident that the religious organizations and the others are protected.

We in this state have recognized same-sex couples who are married in other states and are now in New York.  I have read studies about civil unions that show that they do not work, and causes chaos.  I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protection to all of its residents.

I struggled with the word marriage as between a man and a woman -- that's how I'm raised.  But I also struggle with the rights that are lacking for same-sex couples, and I've stated this numerous times.  I cannot deny that right or opportunity for someone nor stand in the way of allowing them to obtain the rights that I have.  

I'm not going to get into the philosophical arguments, because I've heard them all.  But for me the issue boils down to this.  I've done the research, and my belief that a person can be wiser today than yesterday.  I apologize to those who feel offended, to those who I have hurt with the votes I had six months ago, but I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday when you do the work.  

I cannot deny a person, a human being, a tax payer, a worker or people in my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is, the same rights that I have with my wife.  And I also can't ignore that one of the things that was put into this bill, that there are protections in this bill for church and religious organizations.  And I am proud of that because I am fearful that those protections may be lost.  If this bill fails, I believe that next time around these protections won't be there.  

I vote in the affirmative, Mr. President.