I want to get married. I want to marry my partner of 27 years. And I want to do it here in New York, where I was born, work and have lived nearly my entire life. Last year I was the prime sponsor of the Marriage Equality Act in the New York State Assembly, which would allow the state to grant civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples and which passed with an historic 85 votes. Marriage equality is important not just to the women and men who wish to marry their life partner, to share the 1,324 legal rights, obligations, benefits and responsibilities that civil marriage confers, but also to all New Yorkers, who would benefit from the stability that marriage would offer these couples, their children and their communities.
There are certain spheres where government belongs and others where government’s involvement constitutes an inappropriate invasion of people’s intimate lives and their personal health choices. Former bans on interracial marriage, a woman’s right to choose and current laws on same-sex marriage fall into the category of invasive legislation. Incredible as it now seems, it was only 41 years ago that the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that seems obvious now: prohibiting a marriage based on race violates the Constitution. But that was far from obvious in 1967, when the United States Supreme Court found Virginia’s statutory ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. Today we are at a similar crossroads for marriage equality; in 40 years, people will look back and wonder why it was not obvious in 2008 that same-sex couples and their families are entitled to equality under the law.
Government does its job best when it protects those who are most vulnerable, when it extends rights to a minority under threat from the whims of the majority. This type of policy-making allows society to move forward, to mature out of a less enlightened past, and I am convinced by generational attitudinal shifts that we are irrevocably moving towards granting equal marriage rights to all. Individual New Yorkers are more progressive than many of their local and national representatives; close to half of New Yorkers across the state believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry. Now our policy-makers need to courageously believe their constituents who come to them with stories about how a son, granddaughter, next-door neighbor, or they themselves need to be protected under the law. In my life, the discrimination inherent in our current law was especially painful when my partner, John, underwent surgery. Not only was I refused basic information about his condition, but I was also forced to wait until he was conscious, and lucid enough to give consent, for the doctor to inform me that my life partner was, indeed, OK. People need to approach their representatives with these compelling stories, and put names and faces to discrimination and inequality.
Our county is evolving. Just last week, lesbian and gay couples began getting married in California after the state’s Supreme Court decision to strike down the prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples. As more same-sex couples are wed, New York will be home to these thousands of men and women and their children and will need to wrestle with accommodating their everyday legal, financial and familial needs.
Late last month, Gov. David Paterson began this process by mandating that state agencies make all necessary regulatory changes in order to recognize same-sex marriages. His administration faces a lawsuit from a small group of conservative state legislators who remain intent on making political hay out of the right wing’s spin on marriage. They and others like them use inaccurate, inflammatory language to garner media attention, ignoring the reality that marriage equality is essential to the stability of New York’s lesbian and gay couples, their children and society. But the governor’s brave mandate came close on the heels of February’s appellate court decision in Martinez v. County of Monroe, which found that New York must recognize same-sex marriages from out of state. Paterson’s move secures New York’s status as a national leader in the fight for equality. These are the markings of progress, slow but certain.
The legal protection brought by civil marriage should be an option for all couples and the responsibility of good government. This belief stems from my personal experience as a gay man with a partner of nearly three decades, as well as from my seven years of professional experience as a criminal defense attorney for society’s most vulnerable. New York law does not deny any other civil license or civil right on the basis of gender. It is time for our state to end this discrimination and give same-sex couples the legal right to protect their loved ones in case of illness, death or the difficult times from which no family is exempt. I am prepared to continue this struggle by focusing on the work that still needs to be done in New York and beyond, but I am also impatient. We have waited long enough. I want to marry my partner of 27 years, to protect him from financial hardship, to be assured the right to visit him if he were hospitalized. I am ready for equal treatment under New York State’s law and I am ready for it now.
Daniel O’Donnell represents the 69th Assembly district.
There are certain spheres where government belongs and others where government’s involvement constitutes an inappropriate invasion of people’s intimate lives and their personal health choices. Former bans on interracial marriage, a woman’s right to choose and current laws on same-sex marriage fall into the category of invasive legislation. Incredible as it now seems, it was only 41 years ago that the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that seems obvious now: prohibiting a marriage based on race violates the Constitution. But that was far from obvious in 1967, when the United States Supreme Court found Virginia’s statutory ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. Today we are at a similar crossroads for marriage equality; in 40 years, people will look back and wonder why it was not obvious in 2008 that same-sex couples and their families are entitled to equality under the law.
Government does its job best when it protects those who are most vulnerable, when it extends rights to a minority under threat from the whims of the majority. This type of policy-making allows society to move forward, to mature out of a less enlightened past, and I am convinced by generational attitudinal shifts that we are irrevocably moving towards granting equal marriage rights to all. Individual New Yorkers are more progressive than many of their local and national representatives; close to half of New Yorkers across the state believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry. Now our policy-makers need to courageously believe their constituents who come to them with stories about how a son, granddaughter, next-door neighbor, or they themselves need to be protected under the law. In my life, the discrimination inherent in our current law was especially painful when my partner, John, underwent surgery. Not only was I refused basic information about his condition, but I was also forced to wait until he was conscious, and lucid enough to give consent, for the doctor to inform me that my life partner was, indeed, OK. People need to approach their representatives with these compelling stories, and put names and faces to discrimination and inequality.
Our county is evolving. Just last week, lesbian and gay couples began getting married in California after the state’s Supreme Court decision to strike down the prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples. As more same-sex couples are wed, New York will be home to these thousands of men and women and their children and will need to wrestle with accommodating their everyday legal, financial and familial needs.
Late last month, Gov. David Paterson began this process by mandating that state agencies make all necessary regulatory changes in order to recognize same-sex marriages. His administration faces a lawsuit from a small group of conservative state legislators who remain intent on making political hay out of the right wing’s spin on marriage. They and others like them use inaccurate, inflammatory language to garner media attention, ignoring the reality that marriage equality is essential to the stability of New York’s lesbian and gay couples, their children and society. But the governor’s brave mandate came close on the heels of February’s appellate court decision in Martinez v. County of Monroe, which found that New York must recognize same-sex marriages from out of state. Paterson’s move secures New York’s status as a national leader in the fight for equality. These are the markings of progress, slow but certain.
The legal protection brought by civil marriage should be an option for all couples and the responsibility of good government. This belief stems from my personal experience as a gay man with a partner of nearly three decades, as well as from my seven years of professional experience as a criminal defense attorney for society’s most vulnerable. New York law does not deny any other civil license or civil right on the basis of gender. It is time for our state to end this discrimination and give same-sex couples the legal right to protect their loved ones in case of illness, death or the difficult times from which no family is exempt. I am prepared to continue this struggle by focusing on the work that still needs to be done in New York and beyond, but I am also impatient. We have waited long enough. I want to marry my partner of 27 years, to protect him from financial hardship, to be assured the right to visit him if he were hospitalized. I am ready for equal treatment under New York State’s law and I am ready for it now.
Daniel O’Donnell represents the 69th Assembly district.
