Who does the Law again?

Gay City News, The Villager and Downtown Express (all the same publisher) recently interviewed Mayor Mike Bloomberg and discussed the issue of Gay Marriage. The piece, written by Paul Schindler, was published for the Dec 14-20 issues.

The cover page article tells of the trivial position the mayor has taken on the Gay Marriage issue. I couldn't help but think there was a hint of bias making the issue a republican-democrat battle, though for the most part, Mr. Schindler stayed on point.

The issue is the mayor has expressed support for Gay Marriage, yet a current court case has the mayor's lawyers defending the State Constitution which says marriage is between a man and a woman. From what I understand about how law is written, what the mayor is doing is the correct action. It is not the mayor's job to draft state law and he is bound to represent the city under current constitutional law.

Bloomberg this week explained his decision to appeal as one largely influenced by an analysis of the state Constitution carried out by the city Law Department.

“We believe… my corporation counsel believes that Judge Ling-Cohan’s decision is inconsistent with the state Constitution,” he said, when asked whether the city’s aim in the appeal was to overturn the decision or merely clarify the issue at the state’s highest court. “We had two judges Upstate who ruled the other ways. And I think that we should let the courts decide with clarity what the law is.”

Where Mr. Schindler drifts into partisanship was about two-thirds into the piece.

Monday’s meeting was the first occasion on which Bloomberg sat down with gay press representatives since a meeting in the summer of 2001 when he was still only a mayoral candidate. At that time, he was emerging as a Republican willing to show unusually strong support for gay rights compared to others in his party. Since that time, however, he has clashed with gay community leaders on several key issues.

Is Gay City News saying there are no gay Republicans? Are they saying the legislation of gay rights was never passed back in 1986 under the Koch administration? Are they saying Democrats usually show strong support for gay rights?

I think my third question is the big one. Where are the Democrats on the issue of Gay Marriage? Some Democrats are barking about the matter and want Gay Marriage legal, but the ones that are really have no say in the matter. Marriage Law is, as already noted, a state matter defined under the State Constitution. This sort of ties the arms of city officials who champion Gay Marriage, such as Democratic Councilors: Christine Quinn, Margarita Lopez, Gale Brewer, A. Gifford Miller, as well as Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Alas, two weeks after the article was published, we get a voiced opinion from a state legislator who submits a letter to The Villager and Gay City News.

Mayor Bloomberg’s claim that he hopes he loses his appeal against civil marriage for same-sex couples in the New York Court of Appeals is both patronizing and insulting to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. It is also an argument that defies logic.

...Mayor Bloomberg’s absurd position that he is in favor of same-sex civil marriage, while his corporation counsel argues against it, is nothing but the worst kind of political double talk and slight of hand that fools no one. Mayor Bloomberg’s actions speak far louder than his words.

Thomas K. Duane
Duane is state senator for the 29th District

I've gota an idea for Sen. Duane. YOU are a State Legislator. YOU are responsible for State Law. Propose a Constitutional Amendment Referendum in the State Senate to be put on the 2006 November ballot. Also, since you are Democrat, get your fellow Democrat, who is the Speaker and Majority Leader of the State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, to introduce the Constitutional Amendment in the lower House.

If all goes well, the referendum will appear on the ballot, democracy will once and for all decide the matter in New York State, and we will see where the people of this great state stand on the issue of Gay Marriage. Then the Democrats can get what they want. A decision made by the people. Why drag the matter through the courts? Laws are better applied when they are put to the people and not decided by a few activist judges.

It's almost as if Democrats and gay New Yorkers are afraid to do things by the book. If they did, I'm sure we'd find just as many Democrats opposes Gay Marriage as Republicans. And I could say there are a number of Republicans who support Gay Marriage, or very willing to put the decision to the people of the state via referendum, if the state legislature chose to do so.

I've seen Republicans try to dance around this issue in 2005 and it's not a difficult issue to dance around. I think it's clear that most New Yorkers, regardless of political affiliation, believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. If you are a Republican who holds this position, there's no reason not to express it, because the numbers are simply in your favor. If you tend to be more libertarian and believe government already regulates social issues too much, say you support a referendum on the ballot for November, if the Democratic leaders in the Senate and Assembly that dominate New York City decide to act on the issue rather than deflect it to Republicans who aren't even in power.

P.S.
I think Speaker Sheldon Silver's position on Gay Marriage is quite clear. If you click on the above links to the three papers, Gay City News, The Villager and Downtown Express, you'll see the Downtown Express' interview with the mayor doesn't deal with the Gay Marriage debate. The Downtown Express covers the 64th Assembly District, which is Sheldon Silver's territory.