Disappointment in New York

[Vanessa White]

I heard a little bit about it yesterday, but am saddened by the New York court decision that came down. I think I am less disappointed in the decision itself, than in the language of stating it as "sexual preference". I fear that we are looking at a dangerous trend now at court levels, to consider us as making a choice rather than having an orientation. Any other thoughts on this? I read the article in nytimes.com. I am feeling quite discouraged at this point....

[Emproph]

Ya know Vanessa, I was just thinking that earlier today how.. well it was for another post but I think it be more germane right here.

Every once in a while as I'm reading or just thinking about a sympathetic post like yours here, it sinks in that most everyone who feels like me seems JUST as frustrated as me, and it honestly makes me feel better. We’re not alone, we’re just independent.

But because of that we have to make the conscious decision to remember that we’re all dealing with the isolation issue as well. But we’re doing it together, and eventually we will meet up, and celebrate.

There’s no other outcome but success and we know it. We know it better than them. Because we know what they don't know. We have certainty that they do not.

What happened yesterday was exercises. and we’re going to keep ‘exercising’ them.

That’s really what it comes down to. We need to generate a “generation” of intellectually “fit” individuals. (As opposed to the intellectual laziness of Biblical ‘inerrancy’ -at least when it comes to harming others.)

...ok somebody else is going to have to take it from there.

Anyway, I support you in your frustration and I diagnose you as feeling exactly the way you should be feeling. Except for the part where it's guaranteed that we're going to save the day, that part I didn't include, you should be feeling that too -when you're ready of course..

[Liberal Crozier]

The theological, psychological and legal perspectives speak to an absolute advocacy of our opponents' most vocal orgiastic delight. In comparison, the Meg Ryan character merely whimpered.

As previously stated, this decision is also a godsend to Hillary Clinton and her presidential aspirations. It is also a win-win for George Pataki who at least shares a need for consideration as the token moderate on the ticket.

In the Jim Crow South, the Dixiecrats were "Democrats" who fought for office in their primaries, since the Republican Party - or the shell of it were African-Americans who were often denied voting - or organising their caucuses to mount an opposition for the general election. The northern GOP knew that they could discount their struggle against oppression and if they voted - beyond poll taxes and literacy and property ownership hurdles, that they would nevertheless vote GOP on the national level.

The northern Democrats also benefitted from this scenario, since their majorities in Congress would be assured since the incumbents served until retirement or death and as long as their liberal leaders left them alone to continue the Old South, everything was negotiable.

Hillary and Bill want a constitutional third and fourth term - and if they must obtain it while betraying the most reviled minority in the nation - then of course they will do so. No Kerry with a MA marriage reality replicated in NY for 2008. I also do NOT believe that Eliot Spitzer would ever sign the document....methinks he would protest too much.....

[Jennifer5]

sorry to hear that Vanessa... I don't have any explanation like they do but I know how you feel

[Vanessa White]

Thanks all, for the encouraging and affirming words. Emproph, what you said really rings true with me, probably with many of us, about the isolation. I would hazard a guess that many of us, if not all of us here, feel the discouragement and isolation of it all at times, but I like the thought of us being independent of one another, but feeling similar things about it. I have a deep sense of my emotions about many things, except the political at times. I mean, I know the political decisions being made right now about ourselves, LGTBQ persons, are something I take personally, but I don't allow myself to really feel the emotional impact of those decisions very often, I think because of all the other personal emotional bs I am going through right now. But, it goes deep, cuts deep, and that is what it felt like for a judge to refer to it as a preference. I just feel so demeaned when words like that are used. Although, when the biology of orientation is used as a way to say we "can't help" the way we are, so others should take pity on us, that is sometimes just as bad. I also end up feeling so powerless when decisions like this occur, and for a moment, think about giving up. BUt, no way, not today. I will continue to speak out and be out and have pride and educate and let others know that oppose us that WE WILL NOT BE MOVED, except TOWARD EQUALITY. Okay, enough ranting, thanks to all of you, my friends. PEace within, always, Vanessa

[tdogg]

Vanessa,

sometimes it seems like a never-ending journey towards equality, sometimes it even seems like we don't have a chance to win. But I truly believe we do, and we will - only, we have to continue to break through the forests of hate and bigotry to get to the clearing of victory. It will make us tired, frustrated, at times hopeless, but there is hope and we have to cling to that.

It was a long, hard, frustrating, exhausting fight to end slavery, but those who were determined, brave and relentless kept fighting and look at the progress. I'm sure early on, it seemed as thought they would never win. Our country isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better - perfection is something we may never obtain, but those who strive for it will continue progressing.

We can fight this together, hand in hand, with the same goal in mind. I'm there with you!! So, that said, I've been thinking that one strategy is to refocus attention on other issues. Poverty (another thread) is one, human trafficking, child abuse, educational issues - one thought I had was to write letters to religious leaders and request information on what resources they are putting into those fights. Alone it won't get anywhere, but perhaps it's one small way to get to the next forest? Do you think that's useless?

T

[Vanessa White]

Tdogg: Thanks for your words. No, I don't think focusing on other issues is hopeless, for a couple of reasons. First of all, it shows us as human beings that care about what other human beings care about. After all, we are not just about the rights of LGBTQ persons, although that is extremely important, there are many other critical issues, especially facing children in our own country right now. It could create a more neutral exchange with those that usually position themselves as our opponents. The other reason that I think focusing on other issues could be useful is that it refocuses our energy in another, purposeful direction when we do feel tired and hopeless about issues related to our community, yet still feel like we are working toward resolution of something.

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

Vanessa-

I agree that we should make common cause with other oppressed minority rights and champion family values items neglected by the so-called Christian Right.

Interesting historical note why often this does not occur is that - for example, the early women's movement were reticent to endorse lesbian rights - and since then there is a defensive strategy that suggests that some do common causes with those who do not marginalize our community.

[tdogg]

My thoughts were more on refocusing the thoughts and energy of our opponents in an effort to show that their fight against GLBT equality is definitely not a significant issue to spend resources on. But I also agree, that while we continue being involved in 'our' particular battle, we also focus on the other issues not only because of how it may affect us, but because it definitely affects humanity at large. It can be taxing to not only have our own lives to live, but have so many 'battles' to fight in huh??!!

[Daniel]

More disappointment for New Yorker's:

Originally Posted by NYTimes:July 13, 2006

No Shared Benefits for 2 Men Wed in Canada, Judge Rules

By ALAN FEUER
Less than a week after New York’s highest court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry did not violate the State Constitution, a lower court on Long Island denied health benefits yesterday to the partner of a Uniondale man.

In his ruling, a State Supreme Court justice in Mineola said that even though they had wed two years ago in Canada, the men’s marriage was not recognized by the state. The decision was the first by a New York Court to refer directly to last week’s watershed decision by the New York Court of Appeals. The appellate court, by a 4-to-2 majority, found that in laws dating back nearly 100 years, the State Legislature had intended to limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman, and that lawmakers had a rational basis for doing so.

In a three-page order in the Long Island case, Justice Edward W. McCarthy denied a motion by the plaintiff, Duke L. Funderburke, who was trying to obtain spousal health benefits from the Uniondale Union Free School District for Bradley Davis, his partner of 43 years. Mr. Funderburke, now 73, and Mr. Davis, 68, were married in Ontario in 2004, but in his ruling Justice McCarthy wrote that he was “constrained to follow the recent holding of the Court of Appeals,” under which, he added, he could not consider Mr. Funderburke and Mr. Davis to be spouses or their union to be a marriage.

The case began last year when the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit on Mr. Funderburke’s behalf against the school district and the State Department of Civil Service. Mr. Funderburke worked as a teacher in Uniondale for more than 20 years before retiring in 1986. After he and Mr. Davis were married, he asked that his retirement benefits be extended to Mr. Davis — a request that the district rejected.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, Mr. Funderburke’s lawyer, Alphonso David, argued that if gay couples were validly married outside New York, the marriages would be legally recognized by the state. Yesterday, however, he was confronted by a ruling that seemed to contradict that contention.

“This decision misapprehended the Court of Appeals decision,” Mr. David said yesterday of Justice McCarthy’s ruling. “Our position has always been that same-sex couples cannot get married in New York, and that’s why out of state marriages should be respected.”

Mr. David said that he would soon discuss the justice’s decision with Mr. Funderbuke and Mr. Davis to consider their options, one of which, he added, was to appeal.

Last year, Eliot Spitzer, the state attorney general, decided not to defend the Department of Civil Service in the case. Typically, the attorney general’s office defends state agencies that are challenged by lawsuits, but Mr. Spitzer declined to do so in this case, under an advisory order that he issued in March 2004, which said that valid gay marriages from out of state should be recognized by New York State.

After the Court of Appeals decision last week, Mr. Spitzer, a candidate for governor, said that he would draft legislation to legalize gay marriage in the state if elected in November.

This recent decision must be especially painful for the litigants, ages 68 and 73. I was able to obtain health benefits for my Canadian married spouse a year ago and wonder now if companies here in NY will use the Appelate Courts decision as a bulwark against any advancement in gay rights. For the moment at least, matters seem to be devolving in New York State.

[Vanessa White]

I agree with you Daniel, that it must be painful for this couple, in their retirement years, and having their hopes advanced initially by what was hoped to be a favorable outcome. Is the feeling there that Elliot Spitzer will indeed proceed with legalizing marriage for gay persons there? It is so hard for me to feel trusting that persons in political positions have our interests sincerely in mind anymore, it seems to happen so rarely..... I am glad for you and your spouse to have benefits, and hope that the tide turns for the better for all of us soon.....

[Liberal Crozier]

This is the definition of "judicial activism" that the Theocons accept as Scriptural despite their Sola Scriptura theological views.

The anecdotal reference to a 43 year partnership that was legalised by marriage in Canada two years ago, and initially accepted for RDP benefits, highlights the true Theocon agenda. Of course, the benefits and resources that should go to the couple will ironically devolve to the very individuals who hate them for their orientation.

Daniel, I appreciate the fact that you realise the Domino effect from the NY and the CT decisions. The former was personally devastating for you as a New Yorker, and the latter proves that there is no political will to upgrade any benefits, or more importantly, nomenclature. In the USA, if you accept the civil union statute, with some or "all" of the spousal benefits due married heterosexual couples, you have accepted a compromise sine die. The irony is that those who accepted civil unions, CT and VT, could have won marriage had they accepted that the Theocons would have blown steam as they did in MA, but the reality would have occurred.

The tragedy is that the illusion of an independent judiciary has been shattered. Most states elect their state judiciaries, including their highest courts, while others appoint them for life tenures from active political affiliations. Nevertheless, it appears that conservatives are zealots and the liberal, progressives or moderates are spineless and lack any ability to become a chapter in the JFK Pulitzer prize book PROFILES IN COURAGE. If you remember, then Senator Kennedy highlighted the men who stood up on moral principle and often at great personal peril, acted or voted to stop a greater wrong.

[Zerbie]

These events are discouraging indeed. I got angry reading about the decision re: partner benefits. Of COURSE court decisions like last week's have repercussions!

Well, we'll keep on doing what we do. And yes, Croz, most moderate/liberal politicians are being spineless and stand for something a lot like nothing these days. We will have to keep making ourselves heard and keep trying until we see results. What will it take to swing the pendulum back?

[BruceChris]

I am saddened/angered by the argument that same sex attraction is a matter of "preferance". There are millions of people out there who will tell you that their attraction is not a matter of "choice", it is simply a matter of how they were born (read, created this way by God). Are these people seriously trying to tell us that these millions of people are lying? Of course, there are billions of people out there who will tell you that they were born hetrosexual. But somehow this "choice" seems somehow to not become part of the question. This is not a lie, this is a huge lie.

Peace, and I hope, Love, BruceChris

[Vanessa White]

And yet, it does not get interpreted as a huge lie being perpetrated, but rather, the LGBTQ community and its allies trying to justify our sinful behavior. I expect that type of view of who I am as a person from certain religious circles, but not from the judicial part of my country. That seems like a complete merging of church and state if I ever did see (saw?). The lie has to be replaced with truth, our truth, my truth, the truth of those whom I love and care about, that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons is one part of who we are as people, it is part of our born identity, and makes us the beautiful, unique persons that we are! Oh, the glory of diversity in this world- I just love the patchwork, and we have to help others see the beauty of the patchwork as well..... my hope is back that we will endure!!!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Liberal Crozier

Daniel, I appreciate the fact that you realise the Domino effect from the NY and the CT decisions. The former was personally devastating for you as a New Yorker, and the latter proves that there is no political will to upgrade any benefits, or more importantly, nomenclature. In the USA, if you accept the civil union statute, with some or "all" of the spousal benefits due married heterosexual couples, you have accepted a compromise sine die.

Yes- The decision here in NYC was taken personally, I can tell you that, even though I'm a big boy and can role with the punches. The 'compromise' that is being promoted in CT, if one can call it that, by the neocons, is no compromise at all as far as I am concerned. There may be those who are happy to think they will get the same rights under another name, but I am not one of them. Anything less than marriage will formalize a separate and decidedly not equal status. I recognize and understand how those that have so little are tempted to settle for the same, but like the boy in Oliver, asking for "more please" will only get one's cup taken away. Instead, we must claim what is rightfully ours: NOW. No begging on the part of this 48 year old 'boy'. The ol' boys will simply have to grow up.

Originally Posted by Liberal

Nevertheless, it appears that conservatives are zealots and the liberal, progressives or moderates are spineless and lack any ability to become a chapter in the JFK Pulitzer prize book PROFILES IN COURAGE. If you remember, then Senator Kennedy highlighted the men who stood up on moral principle and often at great personal peril, acted or voted to stop a greater wrong.

Spineless and full of spin. They will do anything, it seems, to get reelected however. And that doesn't take anything but greed for power and shows neither the understanding of real power or compassion.