From the New York Times:
Supporters of the same-sex marriage bill danced in the streets of the West Village after the State Senate approved it on Friday night.Great news! As a friend said last night, "No turning back. No turning back."
Crowds gathered, screamed and embraced in Sheridan Square near the Stonewall Inn, where the gay-rights movement began more than 40 years ago. Many stood on park benches to get a better view. Gay and lesbian bars in the neighborhood were packed with patrons, and the neighborhood had the feel of jubilant celebration.
“Equality is what this means; this is our right as people,” said John Huls, 52, standing in the Stonewall with his partner, Jay Hoff, 50. “It’ll be our same relationship. We’re the same people as when we met, except now it’s proper in the eyes of the state, and I’ll be able to look at people and say, ‘This is my husband.’ ”
Jen Morera and her partner, Rio Morera, who were married in Boston last year and live in Queens, spent hours glued to the television screen in the Stonewall on Friday night. On their fingers were matching diamond wedding rings.
Congratulations, New Yorkers! Thanks to the people in New York who pushed and pushed and did not give up the fight until marriage equality became law. Thanks to the legislators and the governor. Thanks especially to the law-makers for whom the vote in favor of the bill was a difficult choice and who may pay a price at the next election.
Enjoy your celebration, New Yorkers!
It's so great!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mimi!
ReplyDeleteNew York is not California. In this instance, TBTG.
ReplyDeleteIt's not Louisiana, either, eh?
ReplyDeletesusan s., what I meant is that the law in New York cannot be reversed by a vote of the people.
ReplyDeleteMarriage equality will be a long time coming to Louisiana, and it will be through federal legislation or a court ruling, not through state legislation.
Yes, I know, Mimi, but it can be challenged in court, so only the voting step is cut out of the process. I think that the amendments giving religious bigots exemptions from performing or recognizing the validity of marriage for all will make it harder for the bill to be overturned. But someone will try.
ReplyDeleteIf federal legislation is passed, there will be a hue and cry about "states rights" in many states. If it can be included in "civil rights" bills, it would be less overturnable. . . Let us pray.
Art IV, Sec. 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
ReplyDeleteDoes this not mean that we in Louisiana (and other states) must honor the legal marriages recorded in New York?
In the interests of accuracy, the people in CA did not overturn a law. The court found that marriage was a right at the same time an initiative amending the state constitution was making its way to the ballot.
ReplyDeleteOTOH in Maine there was a referendum (question1) that overturned a legislative action.
Oh, thanks IT. I can never keep these things straight(no pun intended)! I remember now. This "ruling by amendment" just makes me sick sometimes!
ReplyDeletesusan s. and IT, proud Californians both of you, the subtleties of legislation and and adjudication sometimes escape me, but the fact is that same-sex marriages in California ceased, by some means or other, which I may not fully understand.
ReplyDeleteAnd I forgot about Maine.
Ormonde, I assume the courts will settle the matter of recognition by other states, because there will surely be challenges.
I hope someone in Texas is singing "I Can Dream Can't I?"
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, I'm sure more than someone sings the song. I wish no one had to sing the song.
ReplyDeleteDOMA says that no state is required to recognize a same sex marriage from any other state. It also forbids the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages. There are a number of cases in federal court challenging this second provision. In Massachusetts a federal judge found it unconstitutional on equal protection grounds among others.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Obama Admin is no longer defending DOMA in court, the Congress is. And regardless the Admin are still enforcing it, insisting that I describe myself as "single" on tax forms for example.
More than you want to know at Gay Married Californian.
IT, thanks. You have the skinny.
ReplyDeleteSuch good news :)
ReplyDeleteSuch hope, and good news, too.
ReplyDeleteThe vote came at just at the right time, too.
ReplyDeleteI
ReplyDelete<3
NY!