No Apologies Necessary

Too funny:

A gay man in Minnesota is sarcastically apologizing on behalf of the state’s gay community to a recently resigned, married, GOP state senator who, having vehemently opposed equal marriage rights, was caught philandering with a male member of her staff.

John Medeiros, who heads an LGBT reading series in Minneapolis, issued the public apology to Amy Koch on Thursday.

“On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community’s successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage,” Medeiros sassily wrote.

“We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry.”

Koch stepped down from her post as the state’s majority leader last week after fellow GOP-ers confronted her about the affair. She issued her own apology on Wednesday for “engaging in a relationship with a senate staffer.”

I wish I could be that funny.

Prop 8 in the News

So, no hiding behind hate.

A federal judge says donors to the $40 million campaign that banned same-sex marriage in California aren't entitled to the anonymity that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted to minor parties operating in a hostile climate.

Only organizations like the Socialist Workers Party during the Cold War and the NAACP in the segregated South - "small, persecuted groups whose very existence depended on some manner of anonymity" - have been exempted from laws requiring that members and contributors be disclosed, U.S. District Judge Morrison England said Friday.

England said there is no evidence that the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 in 2008 could be considered a "fringe organization" with unpopular or unorthodox views, or that leaving donors in the public record would frighten away contributors to future campaigns.

To be expected, a lawyer for Protect Marriage and the National Organization for Marriage, said Monday that he will appeal England's ruling.

Love it when the right things happen.  This really made my day!

Same-Sex Marriage, Massachusetts Style

I guess I am a little but surprised by the latest survey results from Public Policy Polling.

While 56% of those polled in Massachusetts believe gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, 67% feel the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts has had no impact on their lives.

All the way in California, I feel the legalization of gay marriage somewhere 3,000 miles has had a positive impact on my life.

Good and right things, always do!

In The News: Today’s Gay Rights Edition

The Democratic Party in Utah has elected it’s first openly gay chair:

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's newly elected Democratic Party chairman says the party's "big tent" welcomes members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I want to speak directly to the LDS people in our state," Jim Dabakis said Saturday after being nominated for state party chairman. "I want you LDS people to participate in our party. We want your spirit, we want your contributions and we want to earn your votes. I will do whatever I can as chair to see that our big tent is comfortable to LDS people because it's the right thing to do."

Dabakis was elected as the new party chairman by delegates during the Utah Democratic Party's 2011 Organizing Convention attended by more than 1,000 party faithful. He replaces retiring three-term party chairman Wayne Holland.

Dabakis, one of the co-founders of Equality Utah and The Utah Pride Center, is the first openly gay leader of a political party in Utah.

How great. For all my “upsets” with the Democratic Party, very happy Jim Dabakis could rise to the highest rank of leadership in Utah. And yes, the party is a big enough tent to welcome members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

More history, this time on the Floor of the Senate. The emphasis is mine:

The remarkable thing about what happened on the Senate floor Monday night was that it was utterly unremarkable.

The matter under consideration – the nomination of the first openly gay man to serve on the federal bench – would at one time have been a flashpoint in the culture wars. But Paul Oetken was confirmed without a word of objection on the Senate floor and with hardly a mention in the commentariat.

Even some of the chamber’s most ardent social conservatives – Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Jon Kyl – cast votes for Oetken. When the lopsided vote tally of 80-13 was read out, there was no cheer or reaction of any kind. Senators continued their conversations as if nothing unusual had happened.

Not sure it was utterly unremarkable.  Perhaps simply, unremarkable.

President Obama, evolving?

President Obama is calling for the repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex married couples from receiving the same federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that Mr. Obama was “proud to support the [repeal effort], which would take the DOMA off the books once and for all.”

The announcement came a day before the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to conduct hearings examining the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative vehicle designed to overturn DOMA.

I sure hope so. So much at stake here for. Federal benefits. Military benefits. Immigration rights.

And as John Aravosis at AMERICAblog gay reminds us, President Obama has 8 days left in his "weeks, not months" promise on DADT certification. Three weeks ago, the President said certification will come in “weeks, not months."  Eight days left.

Anyone taking any bets?

Evolve, Already!

Earlier in the week, it was the New York Times:

Mr. Obama’s legal formula suggests he is fine with the six states that now permit same-sex marriage, and fine with the more than three dozen other states that ban it. By refusing to say whether he supports it (as he did in 1996) or opposes it (as he did in 2008), he remained in a straddle that will soon strain public patience. For now, all Mr. Obama promised was a gauzy new “chapter” in the story if he is re-elected, and his views remain officially “evolving.”

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?

Today, it’s the Washington Post:

At some point, though, doing the right thing must trump politics. If Mr. Obama does come out in favor of gay marriage, his base would surely rally around him. And all supporters of gay rights should be girding themselves for battle with those who would use the president’s position to deny him a second term.

 And they end the editorial with,

So just do it already.

I reiterate. Just. Do. It. Already.

Civil Unions, Rhode Island Style

Interesting today, from Rhode Island. A bill allowing civil unions passed the Rhode Island State Senate, with opposition from some gay rights advocates. The bill has already made its way through the assembly, and Governor Lincoln Chafee, an independent, will consider signing it -- despite his reservations about the religious exemptions.

Gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it allows religious organizations not to recognize the unions. For example, they say, a Catholic hospital could choose not to allow a lesbian to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and a Catholic university could deny family medical leave to gay employees.

Hopefully, this is just a start, with full marriage equality around the corner.

The State of Marriage Equality, in the State of NJ

So, Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is "not a fan of same-sex marriage."

NEW JERSEY (WPIX)— On the heels of New York's passage of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's same-sex marriage bill, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie weighed in, saying, "I am not a fan of same-sex marriage. It's not something I support. I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's my view and that will be the view of our state, because I wouldn't sign a bill that -- like the one that was in New York.

Can just hear the disdain in his voice at the end there, no? News for Gov. Christie -- one does not need to be a "fan" of marriage equality to come to the conclusion that there is no legal reason to be against it. Two brave Republican lawmakers in New York did just that last Friday. Here and here. And both these men are lawyers. Just like the good Governor.

Buyers remorse yet, New Jersey?

Get Thee To New York City!

From the Office of the New York City Mayor:

New York City to Welcome All to Marry Here

The Marriage Equality Act, which will make same-sex couples eligible to marry legally in New York, was passed and signed into law on June 24, 2011. The Act will go into effect 30 days after its signing.

New York City has always prided itself on its openness and diversity. We look forward to welcoming all couples who want to marry and celebrate their weddings amid our bright lights and legendary sights, including many landmarks of gay history. Whether you're a native New Yorker or someone who yearns to be married in New York City, that opportunity is now yours-no matter whom you love.

Key information for all those interested in marrying here:

Who can get married in New York, now that the Marriage Equality Act has passed?

The Marriage Equality Act allows same-sex couples to get married in New York just like opposite-sex couples, with the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges under State and City law.

Can I get married in New York City even if I don’t live there?

Yes. Couples who reside in New York or in another state or country are all welcome to marry here.

When can same-sex couples begin marrying in New York?

The Marriage Equality Act allows same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses starting 30 days after the Act was signed into law. State law generally requires couples to wait 24 hours after receiving a license before they can be married. Learn more at the City Clerk’s website. Learn more at the City Clerk's website.

How do I get a marriage license in New York City?

To get a marriage license, apply for one from the New York City Clerk’s office. Once you obtain a license, it is valid for sixty days. Learn more at the City Clerk's website.

Can my spouse and I get married in New York City if we were already married in another state or country?

Yes. You and your spouse can get married again in New York, whether you reside here or not. (Note: New York already recognizes lawful marriages, including same-sex marriages, that were performed elsewhere.)

New York City efficiency, at its best!

How We Got From There to Here: The Marriage Equality Edition

A must-read from today’s New York Times. In reality, it’s as much about how to get things done in Albany as it is about how to take the show on-the-road. But three lessons, at least:

• Leadership matters

• Make the most out of the fact that sentiments and power structures have changed

• Find the individual and collective ways those who are undecided might be swayed, and go for it with gusto

By now we all know newly-elected Gov. Andrew Cuomo was determined to make this happen. And he knows that leadership means brings people bringing together in ways, they might not want to be brought together.

Mr. Cuomo was diplomatic but candid with gay-rights advocates in early March when he summoned them to the Capitol’s Red Room, a ceremonial chamber with stained-glass windows and wood-paneled walls.

The advocates had contributed to the defeat of same-sex marriage in 2009, he told them, with their rampant infighting and disorganization. He had seen it firsthand, as attorney general, when organizers had given him wildly divergent advice about which senators to lobby and when, sometimes in bewildering back-to-back telephone calls.

“You can either focus on the goal, or we can spend a lot of time competing and destroying ourselves,” the governor said.

This time around, the lobbying had to be done the Cuomo way: with meticulous, top-down coordination. “I will be personally involved,” he said.

The gay-rights advocates agreed, or at least acquiesced. Five groups pushing for same-sex marriage merged into a single coalition, hired a prominent lobbying firm with ties to Mr. Cuomo’s office and gave themselves a new name: New Yorkers United for Marriage.

No doubt that sentiments around marriage have changed. Earlier this year a Quinnipiac University poll showed 56% of New Yorkers wanted to see gay marriage legalized. But it wasn’t only sentiments that changed – so had power structures.

But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.

And clearly, everyone who was on the fence got lobbied based on their own, personal reasons for ambivalence. In some cases, of course it was pure politics. But in some cases it was more personal than political, if possible. Surely there were the politicians torn apart by the fact that gay members of their own families had stopped speaking to them. But in the end, this was all about leadership appealing to individual politician’s better selves. This was obvious, if you listened to Republican State Senator Stephen Saland on the floor of the Senate last night. He was the vote number 32.  The emphasis is mine:

Saland, known for his scholarly demeanor, voted against gay marriage in 2009. He didn't tip his hand until he spoke on the floor Friday in support of an amendment he helped craft to protect religious groups that refuse to cater to gay couples.

He said he received scores of emails and letters on the issue. He spoke of coming from a traditional background, but having parents who always taught him to "do the right thing."

"My intellectual and emotional journey has ended here today, and I have to define doing the right thing as treating all people with equality," Saland said.

As a first generation Cuban-American, I would be seriously negligent if I did not mention how impressed I was with the leadership of the Latino community on this issue in New York.  The community was empowered to be an active part of the coalition, and in return, they did the right thing.  Brilliantly.  Sure, there were high-profile moments.  Like when the editorial pages of El Diaro La Prensa, New York’s largest Spanish-language daily came out in support of marriage equality. 

La homosexualidad es una realidad humana. La mayoría de los neoyorquinos tienen un amigo, colega o pariente gay. Es hora de darles a estas personas la oportunidad de desarrollar familia y construir comunidades. Nuestro gobierno no debe estar en el negocio de decirle a la gente de quien enamorarse o con quien casarse.

And when Erica Diaz, 22, the lesbian granddaughter of Albany's most outspoken gay-marriage foe -- state Senate Puerto Rican/ Latino caucus chair Ruben Diaz Sr. wrote her story down for the New York Post. She is also a former Navy seaman, who suffered from the military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

When I was younger, marriage equality was not an issue for me. But now, as my grandfather ceaselessly and callously comments on the issue, each and every word stings, since I live with my girlfriend of 2½ years, Naomi Torres, and our two sons, Jared and Jeremiah Munoz.

This fight is personal.

My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.

But mostly, the wonderfully diverse Latino community of New York State simply looked deeply within itself, and marvelously appealed to the better self.  And for us that means remembering that first and foremost, we love our friends and members of our families – no matter who they love.  It also means taking into account that in the Latino community no matter what we may personally feel about marriage equality, culturally we are not so much into the government getting involved in what we consider to be something "in the family."  In a nutshell, it's about love and civil rights.  And that transcends culture and ethnicity. It needs to be the way we get to the "undecideds" in our communities.

When California gets a second chance at this, I hope we learn some lessons from how the Latino community did it in New York.  We were woefully bad at it the first time around.

What state is next up?

Victory Lap in New York

So, so, so many groups of people working together to make marriage equality a reality in New York State.  Working together -- the key words.  And good leadership, brought them together.  Real leadership.

A remarkable speech by Gov. Andrew Cuomo last night, after the State Senate's historic vote.  A historic speech, that highlighted the progressive history of New York State.  One more, for a state that has been on the cutting edge of progressive movements.



Let's hope this type of leadership is contagious. On ALL fronts.

Today, From New York

This is getting ridiculous. From this morning's story of the marriage equality vote, which hopefully will come today, in the New York State senate. The emphasis is mine:

The Senate's Republican majority is returning to closed-door meetings Friday morning, but has several other bills to consider first. The majority is expected to take on gay marriage later in the day.

Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos ended the latest marathon session just before 11 p.m. Thursday out of concerns for his members' health.

The Senate has also directed all senators to use back hallways to avoid the constant presence of loud demonstrations from both sides. Several Republicans are well into their 70s.

Laugh out loud funny, if it weren't so disturbing.  Time for all obstructionists to get out of the hot kitchen -- or whatever that expression is. 

What Leadership Looks Like

About 6:30 EST, and we are still one vote away in the State Senate from legalizing gay marriage in New York State.  Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, only elected last November, ran (in part) on the issue of legalizing same sex marriage in New York State. And he has made marriage equality a top priority of his administration.

One gay-rights advocate said Cuomo's leadership on the issue was unprecedented and could spark a nationwide dialogue.

"This is really the first time ever that we've seen a mainstream national political figure so far out in front on this issue. So when people see this, it will empower others to follow his example," said Richard Socarides, head of national group Equality Matters.

Get it, folks? Leadership matters. And this is what it looks like.  The emphasis is mine:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gov. Andrew Cuomo has become a prominent champion of legalized gay marriage, pushing his state into the center of the national debate over an emotional and divisive issue.

In the past week, the Democrat has personally lobbied wavering Republican lawmakers and has said the extension of marriage rights to gays and lesbians is "a matter of principle, not politics."

"This state has a proud tradition and a proud legacy as the progressive capital of the nation," he said Friday. "We led the way, and it's time for New York to lead the way once again."

Championing a cause.  Personally lobbying.  Leading the way.  Proudly deciding to do your own dirty work in the name of what is right and just -- and just doing it.

Now back to biting my nails...

Gay Marriage in New York: The Religious Protections Edition

The State Senate is one vote away from making same-sex marriage legal in New York. Our side needs to sway one (undecided) Republican vote, to make it happen. The legislative session ends on Monday. Making me lose sleep.

It now seems that the undecided Republicans are "concerned about the scope and the depth of protections for religious organizations in the marriage bill.”

Hmm. Surely, they can’t be concerned that clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages. They aren’t now forced to solemnize marriages they are not comfortable performing. So exactly what is this all about? The emphasis is mine:

Conservative religious leaders and representatives of the New York State Catholic Conference made the rounds of the Capitol on Thursday seeking to press their case against the measure.

“We are relaying our very serious concerns to members of the Legislature regarding the religious liberty implications of Governor Cuomo’s bill,” said Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the conference. “It should be noted that we will continue to strongly oppose any redefinition of the historic understanding of marriage, regardless of the strength of the religious liberty protections. However, should the bill pass without adequate protection, it will have potentially far-reaching consequences for our ministries, both in terms of contracts to provide services and potentially to challenges to not-for-profit status.”

So, what is it that they want?  Do they want a deal that says when Catholic Charities provides adoption services they can refuse to place children with same-sex couples? Exceptions for organizations like the St. Vincent de Paul Society or Knights of Columbus –  Catholic groups that may or may not be incorporated as a church or other religious organization – to refuse to rent their facilities for gay weddings?

While I believe a lot of this is all smoke and mirrors, I imagine some of the questions (though certainly not the Catholic Charities one in New York State) that might come up are indeed tricky, in the legal sense. Whether or not gay marriage is a reality next week in New York, I would be happy to see some of these peripheral issues litigated anyway. Now is as good a time as any.  It would be really, really, really good for our democracy. It can only help maintain the line separating church and state. Which is always in the spirit of upholding religious liberty.

Gay Marriage: More From New York State

With only a few days left until the end of this year's New York State legislative session, this from Qunnipiac University's latest poll:

Support for legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry is 58 - 36 percent, higher than ever while statistically unchanged from 56 - 38 percent April 14. Support is 72 - 23 percent among Democrats and 58 - 34 percent among independent voters, while Republicans are opposed 64 - 34 percent. There is little gender gap: men support same-sex marriage 58 - 37 percent, while women back it 59 - 34 percent. 

 Wouldn't it be nice.  After today's bad economic numbers, we could use some news this summer.

Gay Marriage and My Pet Peeve

Things are really heating up in the debate over gay marriage in New York State. Eight State Senators are undecided, and it looks like the legislation needs six more votes to pass.

The words of State Senator Greg Ball, R-Carmel, Putnam County:

Ball opposed same-sex marriage as an assemblyman, but now says he's reconsidering his position as a first-year senator. Ball wants any legislation to include protections for religious organizations if they refuse to recognize same-sex marriage.

"I really want to see real religious carve-outs that protect the church and other religious institutions, as well as a clear division defined in the bill between civil marriage and religious marriage," Ball said.

The current bill, which has been introduced in the Assembly but not the Senate, would not compel the clergy to solemnize a same-sex marriage. But Ball said the language should be stronger.

I am of course, thrilled that Sen. Ball is reconsidering his position. But it is beyond me to understand how any public servant, educated in the civic process could actually believe a church could be forced to solemnize a same-sex marriage. Or any marriage, for that matter.

Just because I love St. Patrick’s cathedral and might think it’s cool to get married there, I highly doubt the Archbishop of New York would agree to solemnize the marriage of this non-Catholic. Rabbis traditionally refuse to perform interfaith weddings. Clergy all over this country refuse to perform any number weddings, all the time. They are already protected in their ability to do so. It would be no different for the Catholic priest to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, as it would have been for a rabbi to refuse to solemnize my marriage.

Same goes for the division between civil marriage and religious marriage. Sorry folks, but marriage in this country is a civil institution, and religious folks should be happy about that. It is precisely what keeps them from having to perform religious rites when they don't see fit. I am married NOT because my wonderful minister said some beautiful words 11 years ago in front of my family and friends, but because the state gave me a license to wed. He could have said all he wanted, over and over and over again – if I had not been granted a license by a civic authority, none of it would have mattered.

I like to think the politicians we elect are smart enough to know all this stuff.

But, I guess if we have to reiterate the obvious in written law sometimes, even in a society where separation of church in state in paramount – so be it. If it gets us marriage equality, it’s worth it in the long run.

But it’s still my intellectual pet peeve.

The Personal and the Political: The Gay Marriage Edition

Sometimes, I really hate that the personal is indeed, political. I wish our leaders would do the right thing just for the sake of doing the right thing, not because they are suddenly touched personally by an issue.

But, as I get older I have decided to look at so many issues I have believed are essentially political, through a more human set of eyes. Here is NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on gay marriage in New York state. The emphasis is mine:

In a speech on an issue that is roiling the State Legislature, Mayor Bloomberg declared that he could “see the pain that the status quo is causing — and I cannot defend it.” And he said that New York, as the birthplace of the gay rights movement, should live up to its reputation as a beacon of freedom and tolerance.

“We are the freest city in the freest country in the world — but freedom is not frozen in time,” he said to a audience in downtown Manhattan.

It was an unusually personal address from a mayor known for dispassionate number crunching and policy analysis. Mr. Bloomberg was introduced by a niece, Rachel Tiven, who is gay. In his speech, he said that he had grown tired of trying to explain to gay friends, relatives, and staff members why the government is denying them the right to wed.

“I cannot tell them that marriage is not for them,” he said at Cooper Union, which was founded by an abolitionist, Peter Cooper.

I remember many years ago -- 1998, to be exact -- when then-New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato got the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign in his reelection campaign against now sitting Democratic Senator Charles Shumer.  It was all about what the large, gay rights organization considered to be his good record on gay issues.  My immigrant mother was absolutely convinced there was NO WAY someone like D'Amato could have come to be pro-gay rights all by himself.  Simply because it was the right way to be.  She was insistent it had to be because someone he loved and cared about had come out of the closet.  And that this was a not-a-very-good-thing.  Not good public policy, so to say.  Basing political decisions, on personal happenstance.

I suspect that is not the case with Mayor Bloomberg.  But it has got me thinking about it all today, nonetheless.

Majority of Americans Favor Gay Marriage

Today, released by Gallup. The results are based on a poll done earlier in the month. They have been tracking attitudes towards legalizing gay marriage for 7 years.

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change.

 From the analysis:

This year's nine-percentage-point increase in support for same-sex marriage is the largest year-to-year shift yet measured over this time period. Two-thirds of Americans were opposed to legalized same-sex marriage in 1996, with 27% in favor. By 2004, support had risen to 42% and, despite some fluctuations from year to year, stayed at roughly that level through last year.

Republicans remain unmoved on this one. While democrats' and independents' support for same-sex marriage increased this year by 13 and 10 points, respectively, republicans' views on the issue did not change at all from last year.

And not surprisingly, the younger you are the more likely you are to be in support. 70% of those aged 18 to 34 support legalized same-sex marriage, while there is only 39% support in the 55 and older demographic.

Clearly, this remains a divisive issue with lines drawn along various lines including: political party affiliation, age, religious affiliation and marital status. However, the train has indeed left the station.

False Equivalencies in Wisconsin

Anyone who thinks signing up for a domestic partnership registry is "substantially similar" to marriage, does not know much about the rights associated with marriage. This from Wisconsin. The emphasis is mine.

Madison - Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.

Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some - but not all - of the rights afforded married couples.

Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.

In reality, this is just another example of the Republicans trying to position conservative stances on social issues within an economic framework.  Something I maintain we will be seeing more of as the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination race heats up.

"We don't believe it is in the best interest of the state and its taxpayers to spend additional time and resources defending the legislation," he said in an email.

So, they get to stop defending a law they don't agree with, based on the best economic interest of the state. But, the law will still be defended in court because the gay rights group Fair Wisconsin intervened in the case last year.  And what's at stake?  No, not rights such as adopting children together or filing joint income tax returns.  We are talking about taking medical leave to care for an ill partner, making end-of-life decision and conferring hospital visitation rights.

Following the Rules on Gay Marriage

Big news on marriage equity, from the military no less. In states where same-sex marriage is legal, base facilities can indeed be used for marriage ceremonies. From the advisory memo:

Regarding the use of base facilities for same-sex marriages, legal counsel has concluded that generally speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral. If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage.

This is what happens when rule-driven institutions like the military, follow the rules – and make it very public. They can become viewed as some of the most outwardly progressive institutions in the country.

Gay Marriage: The NY-State-of-Mind Edition

Wow. Heartened by all the positive gay marriage news out of New York today, where Gov. Cuomo thinks he may finally have the votes for a bill that has been long-stalled in the State Senate.

From former President Bill Clinton the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law as president.

“Our nation’s permanent mission is to form a ‘more perfect union’ — deepening the meaning of freedom, broadening the reach of opportunity, strengthening the bonds of community,” Clinton said. “That mission has inspired and empowered us to extend rights to people previously denied them. Every time we have done that, it has strengthened our nation. Now we should do it again, in New York, with marriage equality. For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free. In the 21st century, I believe New York’s welcome must include marriage equality.”

From the editorial pages of El Diaro La Prensa, New York’s largest Spanish-language daily. Not surprised that an emphasis of the piece is on supporting friends and family. A nod to our culture.

La homosexualidad es una realidad humana. La mayoría de los neoyorquinos tienen un amigo, colega o pariente gay. Es hora de darles a estas personas la oportunidad de desarrollar familia y construir comunidades. Nuestro gobierno no debe estar en el negocio de decirle a la gente de quien enamorarse o con quien casarse.

And finally, kudos to Unitarian-Universalist Minister Sam Trumbore, for reminding us what this is really all about. The emphasis is mine:

ALBANY -- More than 700 religious leaders throughout New York have pledged to support the passage of a same-sex marriage bill.

Whether the petition signatures of 727 clergymen and lay leaders will help sway the state Senate -- which has historically rejected the legislation -- remains to be seen as advocates work to pass the bill by the end of the legislative session.

Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said Tuesday the petition reinforces the message that the public embraces same-sex marriage.

The Rev. Samuel Trumbore, a minister at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany and a Times Union blogger, said same-sex marriage should be viewed as a civil rights issue, not a religious issue.


"If fundamentalists don't want to do same-sex marriages, they don't have to," he said.

As proud as I am to be Unitarian-Universalist, I completely agree that this is fundamentally a civil rights issues, not a religious one. For liberal religious clergy to argue otherwise, is a mistake. So, amen, to that one, Rev. Trumbore!