Gay City News > Albany Delivers Staggering, Bitter Defeat

Gay City News > Albany Delivers Staggering, Bitter Defeat

BY PAUL SCHINDLER

Since May, Senator Thomas K. Duane, a Chelsea Democrat and the chamber’s only out gay member, has said he had the votes to pass the marriage equality bill he sponsors. The Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA), the state’s LGBT lobby, has similarly voiced confidence that a bipartisan majority in the 62-member house would vote yes. In October, Governor David A. Paterson, who introduced the legislation that has now passed the heavily Democratic Assembly three times, referring to the Senate’s Democratic conference leader, said, “Senator [John] Sampson I’ve heard on occasion say that he thinks the bill can pass.”

But on December 2, when the vote finally came up, it wasn’t even close. By a 38-24 margin, with no Republicans voting yes, the New York State Senate rejected marriage equality for same-sex couples.

There will be debate, likely even rancor, in the weeks and months ahead over what went wrong, whether the bill should have come up for a vote if it were destined to fail so decisively, and what to do next.

The immediate reaction, however, was stunned bitterness.

“I really can’t believe that they don't think my family is as important as theirs,” said Cathy-Marino-Thomas, communications director for Marriage Equality New York, as she stood up to leave the Senate gallery after the vote. “I really can’t believe that so many senators could sit there and here all that positive feedback, look at it, and still vote against us.” With her wife Sheila, Marino-Thomas is raising their ten-year-old daughter in Brooklyn.

Jeffrey Friedman, who is raising a six-year-old son with Andy Zwerin in Rockville Center, asked for his reaction, said, “Just true disappointment. I guess I’m speechless at the moment. They had a chance to do something great today and they chose not to.”

*
“We should be incredibly angry,” Duane told Gay City News. “I’m incredibly angry. I think the community should be very, very, very, very, very angry.”

Stating emphatically, “I’m not the one who ever lied throughout this entire process,” Duane charged that at least eight of his colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, had broken promises made to him, and said that he felt “betrayed.”

After initially declining to respond about what the consequences of such a betrayal are, Duane stated, “I believe in redemption and rehabilitation. No matter what people did today, we need to quickly provide them an opportunity to redeem themselves. That will get us the votes we had, that we have, and that we rightly deserve.”

Duane is not the only one who is alleging duplicitous behavior on the part of state senators. Paterson, who made the extraordinary gesture of going to the Senate floor after the vote, told Gay City News, “It’s very disappointing. It’s very disheartening. Certainly the promises that were made would have made it a much closer vote, if not a successful vote.”

The governor, too, signaled a strong commitment to soldier on.

“I am going to have to find a way to persuade these people to not be intimidated,” he said. “They will not suffer political damage, and it is the right thing to do. And that they will be on the right side of history rather than the wrong side, which is where they are now.”

Senator Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, was less charitable toward those he believed had walked on their commitments.

“I’m profoundly disappointed and sad about the outcome, partly because many of us were given assurances that we had support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle who said they would vote for this today and did not,” he said. “I think this is the worst case of political cowardice that I’ve ever seen.”

Other Democrats supporting marriage equality focused on the lack of a single GOP vote in favor of the bill.

“Nobody on the Republican side believed this was the right thing to do –– or did they not vote their conscience?,” asked Manhattan Senator Liz Krueger, alluding to a commitment made months ago by Minority Leader Dean Skelos of Long Island to allow his members freedom in coming to their position on the legislation.

Jeff Cook, legislator advisor to the Log Cabin Republicans, challenged that analysis, arguing essentially the reverse.

“Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership promised to get us to a level where Republican support could put us over the top, and we just didn't get there today,” he told this reporter.

Both Duane and Alan Van Capelle, ESPA’s executive director, had consistently stressed the need for bipartisan support, and expressed confidence that it was building. With Bronx Democrat Ruben Diaz adamantly opposed –– the Pentecostal minister was the only senator who spoke against the bill during the floor debate (leaving the question of what motivated the other 37 no votes wide open) –– Democrats could not pass the bill by relying solely on their 32 members.

There was widespread speculation that at best 28 or 29 Democratic votes could be secured, which meant at least three Republicans had to be brought along.

If in fact some Republicans were taking a serious look at the legislation, it may have been the Democrats’ inability to muster more than 24 votes that led the GOP, after a bruising year in which control of the Senate changed party hands several times, to retreat from Skelos’ earlier commitment.

Certainly Van Capelle saved his strongest fire for a Democrat –– freshman Senator Joseph Addabbo of Queens.

“I think if there is disappointment in a real big way, I think I’m very disappointed in Joe Addabbo,” he said. “I think Joe Addabbo is better than his vote.”

Addabbo, who supported gay rights on the City Council and claimed an open mind on marriage equality in last fall’s campaign, was one of the prime recipients of support last fall from the Democratic State Senate Campaign Committee, to which the LGBT community made significant contributions. Addabbo also secured the maximum donation allowed –– $9,500 –– from software entrepreneur Tim Gill, founder of influential gay philanthropic and political action organizations.

Brian Foley, a freshman Democrat from Long Island, who was also uncommitted during last year’s campaign, supported the bill.

One defection was Queens freshman Democrat Hiram Monserrate, who is facing sentencing December 4 on a domestic violence conviction and also a primary challenge from the Queens Democratic organization. Monserrate, in his years on the City Council since 2001, was a vocal supporter of the LGBT community, and prior to his election to the Senate was on the record supporting equal marriage rights.

At 24 votes, gay advocates picked up precious little ground from where they were prior to last fall’s election that gave the Democrats a Senate majority, opening up for the first time the opportunity for a vote on the issue.

One significant gain, however, was Ruth Hassell-Thompson, an African-American Democrat whose district straddles the Bronx and Westchester, and was known to have religious reservations about the legislation. After a moving speech about her gay brother who was estranged from her family for decades, living in France, she said, “This vote is about giving people a choice. If there is condemnation in that choice, which there is in my church, that is between them and their God.”

Among the 18 Democrats who spoke about their support for the bill on the Senate floor, there was a consistent effort to emphasize that religious freedom was not at stake in passing the measure, and that marriage equality fit into the broader sweep of civil rights advances.

“I have religious beliefs, but when I walk through those doors, my Bible stays out,” African-American Senator Eric Adams of Brooklyn said. “You don't have to be gay to respect that two people who meet and fall in love deserve to be married. You don't have to be black to understand the pain of slavery.”

Craig Johnson, a second-term senator from Long Island, said the marriage bill “is not about an attack on religious freedom.” He added, “If it were, I know we would all stand shoulder to shoulder to fight that attack. This is a time for this body to shine.”

Manhattan’s Eric Schneiderman said, “You can’t legislate morality, but you can legislate justice… This is not a question of religion, it’s a matter of equality.

Jeffrey Klein of the Bronx talked about how his grandmother, who lost her entire family in the Holocaust, welcomed a young man into Klein’s family in New York after he was disowned by his own for being gay. “I saw hatred,” Klein recalled her saying. “He deserves to have somebody. He’s a good catch.”

Daniel Squadron, elected last year to represent Lower Manhattan and portions of Brooklyn, said his own recent marriage “has only added to my personal sense of responsibility” for delivering equal rights to gay and lesbian couples. The separation of civil law and religious belief, he said, enhances the quality of religious life in the US. Krueger said her family came to America “to escape pogroms… because this is the country that guarantees religious freedom.”

Bill Perkins, a Harlem Democrat, reiterated the civil rights thread of the debate, saying, “I can see Dr. Martin Luther King smiling down on us today.” José Serrano, who represents portions of Upper Manhattan and the Bronx, said, “History will once again prove this civil rights struggle right.”

In closing remarks in which he seemed to struggle to contain and convey the personal significance of the marriage equality question in his own life, Duane lamented what he said was the all too common view among legislators dealing with the state’s fiscal morass that “the time is never right for civil rights.” He added, “The paradox is that it’s always the right time to be on the right side of history.”

Diaz, for his part, closed by contradicting the argument that Adams of Brooklyn made, saying, “The Bible should never be left out.”

But that wasn’t the point of the day, according to Marty Rouse, the national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, the Washington-based LGBT lobby.

“This vote was not about religion, it was not about morality,” he said. “For a lot of people, especially those who were silent during the debate, it was all about politics. We need to play that political game smarter and more strategically, and we’re getting there, but there is still a long way to go.”

Pressed to say how the effort could have been “smarter,” Rouse said he would not Monday morning quarterback the lobbying, but did say that campaign contributions to an Addabbo, for example, are not the end of the matter.

“You can’t count on buying a vote,” he said. “We should have tried to get engaged in some of these Senate districts earlier. We need to be much more visible and strategic… find allies in these districts.”

None of the advocates or elected officials would say that pushing for the vote was a mistake or that they necessarily had to wait until after the 2010 elections to look for another bite of the apple.

“We asked for the chance to have our lives debated on the floor of the Senate and we decided that we wanted to get a roadmap for 2010, and we got what we wanted,” Van Capelle said, in a surprisingly upbeat spin on the day’s events. He added that it was too early to speculate on specific next steps.

Parker from Brooklyn echoed the value even in a losing vote.

“You at least know who the enemy is,” he said.

Cook, speaking for the Log Cabins, declined to rule out another Senate vote before next November. “We’ll see,” he said.

Asked when he would restart his colleague outreach, Duane said, “Immediately. Pressure should not decrease at all.”

In keeping with the moxie he demonstrated by coming down to the Senate after his bill was defeated, the governor said, “I’m the one who put the bill on the floor. You can blame me. I accept full responsibility. I thought this bill needed to be voted on. I thought up or down, this is a civil rights issue whose time has come. And I would put this bill out again next week if I thought there would be a different result.”

Asked if there were any point in trying to get another Senate vote next year, Paterson, not missing a beat, responded, “Yes. Winning.”

Christine Quinn, the out lesbian City Council speaker who was in Albany December 1 and 2 to help out in the final lobbying drive, was succinct in speaking to both the sadness and determination that labored to coexist late Wednesday afternoon.

"This is extraordinarily disappointing, no two ways about it,” she told Gay City News. “And people need to be disappointed. My father is 83 years old. Hopefully he’ll live to dance at my wedding. But I don't know, if they don't get to it in the next couple of years. But the only people who can ever declare us defeated is ourselves. So, we have to be disappointed, but we need to shake it off. We need to stay focused and keep people accountable."

Episcopal bishop approves priests’ role in same-sex marriages in Eastern Mass. - The Boston Globe

Episcopal bishop approves priests’ role in same-sex marriages in Eastern Mass. - The Boston Globe

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | November 30, 2009

Five years after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the local Episcopal bishop yesterday gave permission for priests in Eastern Massachusetts to officiate at same-sex weddings.

The decision by Bishop M. Thomas Shaw III was immediately welcomed by advocates of gay rights in the Episcopal Church, who have chafed at local rules that allowed priests to bless same-sex couples, but not sign the documents that would solemnize their marriages.

The decision is likely to exacerbate tensions in the Episcopal Church and the global denomination to which it belongs, the Anglican Communion, which has faced significant division in the wake of the election of an openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.

“The time has come,’’ Shaw said in a telephone interview. “It’s time for us to offer to gay and lesbian people the same sacrament of fidelity that we offer to the heterosexual world.’’

Shaw, a longtime supporter of gay rights and same-sex marriage, had previously cited the Episcopal Church’s canons and prayer book in barring local priests from officiating at same-sex marriages, even after such unions became legal in Massachusetts in 2004.

But this month, clergy and laypeople at a diocesan convention endorsed a resolution expressing hope that Shaw would allow clergy to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. They cited legislation approved at the Episcopal Church’s general convention last summer declaring that “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same- gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church.’’

Shaw said his diocese includes “a significant number of gay and lesbian clergy who are in partnerships,’’ and that “many of our parishes have significant numbers of gay and lesbian people.’’

The decision affects only Episcopalians in Eastern Massachusetts. A separate Episcopal diocese in Western Massachusetts has been more conservative on sexuality issues.

In a letter released yesterday to all Episcopal parishes, Shaw said that any Episcopal priest is free to decline to officiate at same-sex weddings.

“We know that not all are of one mind and that some in good faith will disagree with this decision,’’ Shaw wrote. “Our Anglican tradition makes space for this disagreement and calls us to respect and engage one another in our differences. It is through that tension that we find God’s ultimate will.’’

The Rev. Anne C. Fowler, an Episcopal priest who headed the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, praised the decision yesterday.

In 2004, Fowler was one of a handful of local priests who broke church rules by officiating at a same-sex marriage. Her act of what she calls “ecclesiastical disobedience’’ earned her a warning in her file and since then, she said, she has followed the rules.

“I’m absolutely thrilled,’’ said Fowler, who is the rector of St. John’s Church in Jamaica Plain. “Now when we say we’re an inclusive church, we truly, fully, sacramentally are.’’

The Rev. Jeffrey Mello, an openly gay priest who serves as the rector of St. Paul’s Church in Brookline, said that when he announced Shaw’s decision in church yesterday, some parishioners cried, and many applauded.

The church’s rules had prevented any other Episcopal priest from presiding at his wedding. Fowler blessed Mello and his husband after a justice of the peace signed the paperwork in 2004.

“Do I wish this could have happened earlier? Sure,’’ Mello said. “But when I came out, I was 23, and I thought coming out meant I would never get married, I would never have a kid, and I would never be a priest. Now I’m married, I have a kid, and I’m a priest. It took as long as it needed to take.’’

Shaw said Episcopal priests should not use the wedding liturgy in the Episcopal Church’s prayer book to bless same-sex marriages because the language refers to the “joining together of this man and this woman.’’ Instead, he said, clergy should look to new Episcopal liturgies for same-sex marriages that are widely available on the Internet.

Episcopal dioceses in other states where same-sex marriage is legal are moving in a similar direction. The Episcopal dioceses of Iowa and Vermont, where same-sex marriage is also legal, have allowed clergy to officiate at same-sex weddings.

The Massachusetts Episcopal Diocese now joins a handful of other local religious denominations in which clergy may officiate at same-sex weddings, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the Reform and Reconstructionist movements of Judaism.

Many local religious denominations, including the Catholic Church, strongly oppose same-sex marriage and bar clergy from participating in such ceremonies.

There are relatively few vocal critics of same-sex marriage left in the local Episcopal Church because many conservatives have left the denomination to form or join alternative Anglican congregations. Significant portions of parishes in Attleboro, Franklin, Hamilton/Wenham, Marlborough, and West Newbury have now left the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, a development that Shaw calls “a tragedy.’’

Spokesmen for national conservative Anglican groups did not immediately respond to requests for comment yesterday.

Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.

NJ Catholic bishops campaign against gay marriage | AP | 11/28/2009

here we go the Catholic Church at it again.

NJ Catholic bishops campaign against gay marriage | AP | 11/28/2009



TRENTON, N.J. - Roman Catholics throughout New Jersey are being asked to pray that state lawmakers don't allow same-sex marriage.

It's part of a continuing campaign by church leaders, who anticipate a possible legislative vote before Republican Gov.-elect Chris Christie takes office Jan. 19.

The prayer suggestion is contained in a letter that bishops told priests to read or distribute this weekend. It restates Catholic teaching that marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman and says prayer is timely "because marriage faces challenges from a society more focused on individual satisfaction than on the Gospel."

New Jersey recognizes civil unions for same-sex couples, and outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine, a socially liberal Democrat, has said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill. But Christie, a practicing Catholic, has said he would veto it.

Effort to Legalize Gay Marriages in New Jersey May be Faltering - NYTimes.com

Effort to Legalize Gay Marriages in New Jersey May be Faltering - NYTimes.com

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

It was not on the ballot, nor was it a top-tier issue in the New Jersey governor’s race this fall, but the push to legalize same-sex marriage in the state could become a casualty of the election results.

Just weeks ago, Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, spoke confidently about their intention to pass a marriage-equality bill after the election and send it to Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a fellow Democrat who had promised to sign it even if he was not re-elected.

But when lawmakers returned to Trenton on Monday for the first time since Mr. Corzine was defeated by Christopher J. Christie, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, a few Democratic legislators appeared to be wavering in their support, setting off an emotional blitz of lobbying and backroom bargaining.

Some Democratic legislative leaders — including the majority leader, Stephen M. Sweeney, who will become Senate president in January — have said that they view Governor Corzine’s loss as a gauge of the public’s unease with the troubled economy, and fear that voters might resent elected officials who appear distracted by social issues. He said he did not think this was the right time to enact the bill.

Other Democrats worried that if they passed a same-sex-marriage bill while Mr. Corzine was on his way out of office, they might anger voters, energize Mr. Christie’s conservative base and alienate socially traditional Democrats.

With Mr. Christie scheduled to take office on Jan. 19, supporters of the proposal are under pressure to move quickly. Lawmakers and gay-rights advocates say they are confident they can get the measure through the General Assembly.

But Senate Democrats met to discuss the measure on Monday and — despite intense lobbying from a coalition of gay-rights advocates and other groups — did not schedule it for a vote, because they appeared unable to muster the 21 votes needed to pass it. A few Republicans have said they may support the bill, but several of the 23 Democrats have expressed reservations about it. Senator Loretta Weinberg, a sponsor of the bill, who spent the fall campaigning as Mr. Corzine’s running mate, said that despite her colleagues’ post-election apprehensions, she believed that lawmakers would make New Jersey the latest state to legalize gay marriage.

“This is an issue of fairness,” she said. “It’s not like we’re going to miss out on a chance to fix the economy during the lame-duck session because we’re spending a couple of hours debating this. It is a matter of civil rights.”

Although New Jersey is regarded as one of the nation’s most liberal and socially tolerant states, the push to move from its current law legalizing civil unions to same-sex marriage has been heated. Polls show that a slight majority of voters favor gay marriage, but opponents of the measure have been aggressive in taking aim at lawmakers from both parties who have voiced support for same-sex marriage, especially those whose districts include conservative communities.

At least 75 opponents of the bill descended on the Capitol on Monday for a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, though no marriage bill was on the agenda.

“It would weaken marriage for everyone” said Moshe Bressler, 38, of Lakewood, an Orthodox Jew who said his religious beliefs made him oppose it.

Supporters of the bill responded by mobilizing about 250 people at the State House, where they handed out leaflets, buttonholed legislators and met on the steps for a rally.

Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, said he was upset by Democrats who had grown “weak-kneed” since Mr. Corzine’s defeat. Mr. Goldstein warned that gay New Jerseyans, who have become a significant source of fund-raising and support for many Democrats, would exact a price if party leaders did not deliver on their promise to pass the marriage bill.

“If the Democrats don’t enact marriage equality now, after years of telling us to wait, wait, wait, it will cause a huge schism between the state Democratic Party and not just the gay community, but the entire progressive base,” he said. “And it could change the political landscape of New Jersey permanently.”

Gay-rights groups have been campaigning extensively for years to win legalization of same-sex marriage and announced Monday that they would release two new radio ads highlighting the stories of gay couples who have been denied health care coverage and other legal and social benefits granted to married couples.

Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Princeton who sponsored a same-sex marriage bill in the Assembly, said he still held out hope that lawmakers would view it as a matter of civil rights and approve it.

“Certain members are putting political expediency before public policy,” he said. “But this issue is a lot like the Corzine-Christie race: it could go either way.”

Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.

Levenson married his longtime partner, Tony Sears, on July 12, 2008, during the five-month period when same-sex marriage was legal in California. A ballot measure, Proposition 8, was passed a year ago defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Reinhardt, who is the federal judge responsible for resolving employee disputes in the Federal Public Defenders office within the 9th Circuit, had earlier ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to process Levenson's application for spousal benefits for Sears. The federal government's Office of Personnel Management stepped in to derail the enrollment, however, citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage for the purpose of federal benefits or programs.

Levenson appealed, seeking either an independently contracted benefits package for his spouse or payment of the equivalent value of the coverage denied. Reinhardt ordered the latter, based on a "back pay" provision in the law covering federal defense lawyers' employment.

"Considering that the federal government won't give Tony the equal benefits package of other spouses, we are very pleased with this decision," said Levenson. "Is it equal treatment? No. Is it a good remedy? Yes. And we are appreciative of the judge's order."

Levenson said he and Sears have been keeping track of the costs of insuring Sears independently and estimate the back pay and future compensation will amount to thousands of dollars each year.

The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act. Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

The Obama administration has spoken out against what it sees as a discriminatory policy toward gay spouses of federal employees but Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has also said his office is obliged to defend the practice as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains law.

-- Carol J. Williams

New York News - Who Do We Have to Blow to Get Gay Marriage in New York? - page 2

New York News - Who Do We Have to Blow to Get Gay Marriage in New York? - page 2

In Europe, Gay Pride parades are held each year on the occasion known as "Christopher Street Day"—a nod to the New York street that gave birth to the worldwide gay rights movement with the Stonewall riots.

But if this city once signified the leading edge of that movement, what does it say that in those European countries celebrating our fair city, there's gay marriage equality, but here, where the struggle for rights began, New York still can't get it right?

That seemed about to change at the beginning of the year. Governor Paterson was fully supportive of gay marriage rights, his popularity hadn't fully tanked yet, and gay voters had helped tip the State Senate in the Democrats' favor for the first time in 40 years. By June, Republican minority leader Dean Skelos said he'd let his members vote as they saw fit, and wouldn't block a gay marriage vote on the Senate floor. Once a marriage bill passed in the Assembly, the future looked as gay as a revival of Meet Me in St. Louis.

Voters, it's true, rejected gay marriage in California and Maine, and gay marriage's Cassandra, Maggie Gallagher, resides right here in our state. But even Gallagher couldn't do anything about it if our legislature approved a marriage equality bill and Governor Paterson signed it into law.

"It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an opponent to repeal a new law," says Justin Phillips, assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. "The reason it was so easy in California and Maine is that those states have citizen initiatives, which allow voters to draft a new law or amend their constitution. New York does not." Once New York approves an equal marriage law, says Phillips, "it's pretty much here to stay."

So what, then, is the hang-up?

In a word, it's the Democrats.

To be more specific, it's the chickenshit Democrats in the Senate. Some are afraid of being exposed as bigots, some are afraid of being exposed as homo-lovers, and some are pro marriage equality but would rather block a vote than possibly see it defeated. In each case, it's that fear-of-fear thing that our most famous governor—who was perhaps married to a lesbian, it turns out—tried to warn us about.

Last week, Governor Paterson called lawmakers to a special session to deal with the state's hemorrhaging budget, but also to vote on gay marriage. Democratic senators punted.

"I'm still stinging from the disrespect we received," says Cathy Marino-Thomas, president of Marriage Equality New York. She had spent all of last Tuesday in the Senate Gallery and outside Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson's office, only to be ignored: "Our folks were out there all day, pouring their hearts out, begging for a vote, pleading for a vote—or, at least, an answer on whether or not there was even going to be a vote, and no one even addressed them!"

But Sampson and other senators don't want a gay marriage vote to happen until they can be assured of success. The Democrats hold only a 32-30 majority in the Senate, and that majority vanishes with members like the Bronx's Rubén Díaz, a Pentecostal minister who is a definite "No" vote.

NY1 captured Marino-Thomas screaming at him, "If he wants to be a reverend, then let him go back to the church. If you want to be a senator, then you stand up for the rights and laws of this country!"

But she admits to the Voice that Díaz frustrates her less than the senators who won't say how they plan to vote or who actively work to keep a vote from happening. "I hate to say it, and it may be the only thing I respect him for, but I respect Senator Díaz for at least taking a stand. You know where he stands on this issue. He doesn't try to hide it," she says.

Take Senator Shirley Huntley (D-Jamaica), for example. Her office says the senator is undecided—she is not opposed to bringing the bill to the floor and, although she's had years to think about it, she won't decide until a bill actually comes to the floor.

So, because of the indecision of senators like Huntley, Sampson is reluctant to bring the bill to the floor. But because Sampson hasn't brought it to the floor, Huntley can remain undecided. It's a frustrating legislative circle-jerk.

Sampson has promised a vote by the end of the year, to which Marino-Thomas snorts, "Why should I believe that? They've made and broken this promise too many times to count."

If it doesn't happen, gays are getting ready to cut Democrats off financially—in New York, and nationally. Gay support has long been a pillar of Democratic fundraising, and some movement leaders are promising hell if Sampson reneges. Blogs from DailyKos to Ameriblog are calling for a national boycott of the DNC and Organizing for America (both failed to help defend marriage equality in Maine) until they generate some action on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The national arena, of course, is where this will eventually and inevitably be resolved. As Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA puts it, "islands of equality" cannot continue to exist from state to state. Just as the Supreme Court eventually forced backward states to accept interracial marriages in 1968, so, ultimately, the Supreme Court will find that denying gay marriage rights violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. When that happens, California's Proposition 8 and Maine's recent vote will be swept away and gay couples will be able to marry in every state. But how long before the Supreme Court is ready to make that obvious step is a question of aging justices and their replacements.

Ironically, it is George W. Bush's solicitor general who is most progressive about charging down this legal path: Ted Olson—yes, Bush's lawyer in Bush v. Gore, who has been joined by Gore's lawyer, David Boies—is representing California couples in a federal lawsuit charging that Proposition 8 is a violation of their right to equal protection. But with the same fear that has paralyzed Albany, the thought of possibly losing in the Supreme Court terrifies some marriage advocates so much that they don't think the risk is worth the gamble.

McKay doesn't see it that way, and is fully supportive of the California case. "Courage," she says, "is the act of facing action despite your fears." (Too bad the New York State Senate has never been much for profiles in courage.) Regardless, while the federal case incubates, she says, "You have to have a vote in the New York Senate. If you lose, then you know who you have to lobby, and you have a vote again next year." Plus, "you might win." To pass a marriage equality bill in the California State Assembly, McKay needed each of four undecided Democrats. She got all four, but not until they were forced to actually vote on the floor.

Governor Paterson also promises a vote by the end of the year. He may lack the political clout to make it happen, but he's taking the long view on this one, even if there are setbacks along the way. He mentioned that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed just five years after the Dred Scott decision, then added, "In my opinion, historically, I think we have lost touch with how movements for equality are reached. There are a lot of ups and downs."

sthrasher@villagevoice.com

Changing Your Name After Marriage When You’re Gay - Bucks Blog - NYTimes.com

Changing Your Name After Marriage When You’re Gay - Bucks Blog - NYTimes.com

By JENNIFER SARANOW SCHULTZ
Changing legal documents like Social Security cards and passports can be difficult for gay couples who get married.

While changing a name after marriage can often be a struggle for heterosexual women and men, it’s a lot harder if you’re gay.

Couples who live in states that don’t allow or recognize same-sex marriage or its equivalents (civil unions, for instance) generally can’t just rely on a marriage certificate as proof of a name change and instead have to go through the in-court name change process. This means they will have to pay a $100 to $400 fee to file a petition at court, publish a notice in a local newspaper and get a court order officially changing their name and that they can use to change everything else (just one more area where being gay can cost you more).

Even more, couples who live in states that do allow or recognize same-sex marriage and civil unions often in practice don’t have it that much easier. While changing a name on a driver’s license can be done without a problem in such states, changing federal documentation can be trickier.

Since the federal government doesn’t recognize the right to same-sex marriage, even if you get married in a state that allows it, whether you can get the name change processed by Social Security or the passport office merely with the marriage certificate and required forms currently tends “to be hit and miss,” said Emily Doskow, an attorney in California who specializes in same-sex and transgender family issues and writes about marriage and divorce issues for the legal information publisher Nolo. “It depends on what local office you are going to, what the opinion is at the moment and whether you get a staff person who cares or doesn’t care,” she said.

This is despite the fact that a spokeswoman for the Social Security office said such same-sex couples should have no problems changing their Social Security cards because the marriage certificate is a legal name change document in those states and the office follows state rules in regard to name changes. In addition, while the Passport Agency used to not recognize the marriage certificates of same-sex couples as name change documents, the State Department earlier this year changed its policy to permit the document to be used as proof for a same-sex last name change if it’s a legal way to change one’s last name under a state’s law.

Problems now are because of “misunderstanding and misinformation at the passport and Social Security offices,” said Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a legal rights organization focusing on New England. “The marriage license should be enough for any name change” in a state that allows or recognizes same-sex marriage or its equivalents, she said.

She said she expected the hurdles to eventually go away. But for now, she recommends that couples who face problems trying to change their Social Security cards or passports keep trying, go in person to talk with someone else in the office and bring or send in additional supporting changed identification like driver’s licenses and this document from the Glad Web site about the changed law. “There is no reason folks should have to go to court,” Ms. Loewy said.