In 1974, I married a man of a different race. [...]]]> The mother of local writer and artist Alan Ilagan, a homosexual in a committed relationship with another man he considers for all intents and purposes (except legal in NY) his husband, sent a letter to the Times Union that was published in yesterday’s paper:

In 1974, I married a man of a different race. At that in time, there were places right here in the United States where my marriage would have been viewed as a crime. The Alabama state Senate did not repeal the ban on interracial marriage until 1999. Yes, 1999.

The full letter is here. You should read it before you cast your vote.

You’re thinking of hockey.

Last night, after the Boston Bruins won game seven of the NHL [...]]]>

Fans in Vancouver riot after the Bruins defeat their Canucks 4-0 to win the Stanley Cup on Wednesday evening. (Photo: Associated Press)

The most important lesson to take from the events of the last twenty-four hours is that passage of legislation legalizing same-sex marriage will not lead to moral decay and the destabilization of all we hold dear in our society.

You’re thinking of hockey.

Last night, after the Boston Bruins won game seven of the NHL Stanley Cup Series to take home their first championship in nearly forty years, the fans of Vancouver reacted…poorly. Rioters, some of whom took the street after the game and many others who were already there to attend the watch party outside Rogers Arena, flipped over cars and set multiple fires while the Vancouver police tried desperately to contain the carnage.

My friend Joe was covering the events in Vancouver for NBC’s Pro Hockey Talk and thankfully made it out alive. He told me that CTV (the largest privately owned broadcast network in Canada) was insinuating the riots were encouraged by the Black Bloc, the same anarchist group that created problems for police and security forces during the Olympic Games, though as of this writing it still appears that the perpetrators were primarily angry hockey fans.

Regardless, it got me to thinking about gay marriage. No, really, it did.

Admittedly, a parallel could not be drawn without the timing of the two events, but bear with me.

Assemblyman Dov Hikind holds up a photo of Lady Gaga with a telephone on her head to support an argument against gay marriage. Seriously. (photo: Lori Van Buren, Times Union)

Detractors of same-sex marriage often cite a degradation of society if same-sex marriage is legalized. It saddens me that people can’t get over environmentally taught prejudices to see past such a ludicrous notion, especially when society needs nothing less than a game played by grown men on ice skates – one whose result will be rendered moot in the Fall when a new season begins and all records, numbers, and accomplishments are reset to zero – to completely fall apart.

I kid, of course, but only to show a point: of all the things that could go wrong in this world and all the things we should be afraid of, the last of them should be love, no matter what form it takes.

The existence of hockey itself didn’t create the violence that occurred  in Vancouver, and no politician would deign to blame the game itself and call for its banishment. Partially because hockey is a popular and accepted sport, but also because it’s a ridiculous suggestion. Yet some people like State Senator Ruben Diaz (who the last several days has been stomping his feet like a child around Albany and generally acting like a complete imbecile) put forth an even flimsier argument that suggests that somehow the marriage of the most devoted couples I know – Alan and Andy, Jenn and Nikki, and others – will make otherwise straight kids turn gay and create a moral decay that will send us into a tailspin.

It’s ludicrous, embarrassing, and would be amusing if loving couples weren’t being denied their civil rights.

“I’m not out to alienate anybody. [...]]]> What made me proud to be a constituent of State Senator Roy McDonald wasn’t his public proclamation that he would be the 31st confirmed vote for gay marriage on the floor of the Senate. Rather, it was the fallout and what he told Times Union reporter Jimmy Vielkind:

“I’m not out to alienate anybody. This is driven by compassion,” the Saratoga Republican said. “I’m not out to hurt some gay guy, gay woman. Live your lifestyle. That’s not my lifestyle, but God bless ‘em — it’s America. Be nice to people, and let’s all just live our lives.”

….

“I’m not one of these guys that lives and dies, at this age of my life, for politics,” he said. “I’ve accomplished more than the average guy around here. I’m going to go and see my family when I leave here. I’m going to go, turn around, and if I get out of politics I’ll be a professional like I’ve been in the past. I’ll make money. My grandchildren will have money to help them through the problems they have. I’ll go play golf, see my wife and spend time with my three kids and grandkids.”

Even better, though, is what he told New York Times Albany bureau chief Danny Hakim:

“F*** it, I don’t care what you think, I’m trying to do the right thing.”

Right. On.

Admittedly, my first reaction to the news that McDonald had changed his vote was a bit cynical. I was reminded of the words of Congressman Steven Derounian, who dissented from his fellow committee members on the Subcommittee for Legislative Oversight that was investigating the quiz show scandals of the 1950s, telling the lauded academic Charles Van Doren that he didn’t think “an adult of [his] intelligence ought to be commended for telling the truth.”

Yet here was McDonald going even further: not only was he declaring his vote, but disavowing his previous votes and damning the consequences.

It matters to me that those remaining Senators who are “undecided” join suit, but it matters more that they do so because like McDonald they could not reconcile any other choice with their conscience.

The bill is expected to come up for vote on Friday. My hope is that history will finally be made and, at long last, New York can lead the way in steering us away from intolerance and injustice. If it doesn’t, though, I’ll still be proud of Roy McDonald, and he’s still proven himself to be the kind of person who not only deserves but demands my vote and recognition.

In the interest of keeping things “fair and balanced,” there is evidence that the institution of marriage is, as opponents insist, dissolving in the face of this issue:

My God. What have we done?

Naturally the parade drew its protestors. They came last year and they will be there next year, [...]]]>

Protestors chant at homosexuals during Capital Pride 2011. (Photo: Philip Kamrass, Albany Times Union)

Yesterday was Capital Pride 2011, Albany’s annual showcase for its gay community to show its unity and strength in the face of what is, despite what many insist to the contrary, the last acceptable form of discrimination.

Naturally the parade drew its protestors. They came last year and they will be there next year, espousing their rhetoric and quoting passages that they believe justifies their insecurities and hate. They’re small in number and marchers are encouraged to ignore their voices and instead embrace the many, many more who are there to cheer them on and encourage them to be who they are: gay, bisexual, transgender, or as I was in last year’s march, a heterosexual ally.

Yet our efforts to dismiss them underscore a very salient point that their presence makes: in the United States, and even in liberal New York, it’s okay to hate gays.

Many will point to increased scrutiny and say otherwise. The last few years have seen an uptick in sensitivity in sports, entertainment, and media towards the homosexual community, with major stars like the NBA’s Kobe Bryant having to apologize for shouting a homosexual slur during a game. Still, it’s not enough evidence to state conclusively that we’re anywhere near where we need to be when it comes to embracing and accepting homosexuals. For every person that accepted Kobe Bryant’s apology, there were many more crying foul and accusing people of being overly sensitive. Many of these detractors cite common use of the word as their defense and state that the meaning isn’t to disparage homosexuals per se, as if that makes calling someone “f*****” any more acceptable than using the word “n*****” as a perjorative.

Words, however, don’t speak nearly as much to our shortcomings as actions, and the protestors at Capital Pride 2011 displayed that. Call them a small handful of kooks if you must, but their presence and the degree to which they are tolerated speaks volumes. Imagine, if you will, a white supremacist group demonstrating at a visible portion of the Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City yesterday.

Now tell me they don’t matter.

As New York finds itself in the waning days of the legislative session, it has a chance to make history but, more importantly, can help steer us away from discrimination that’s been perpetuated by thousands of years of abuse, torture, and oppression of homosexuals. They can pass, if they have the courage to stand up to bigots like Ruben Diaz who dresses his hatred in scripture and calls it concern, a bill that will legalize gay marriage.

Sadly, part of me thinks that it won’t happen. I have met too many Assembly and Senate members who are afraid to upset one of their own on minor issues to say with certainty that this will happen. There aren’t enough selfless individuals, and not enough courage, for them to do the right thing. On the other hand, I do believe that it’s possible, but only withincreased external pressure.

Which is why in these last few days we need to contact our represenetatives in the Assembly and the Senate – particularly those that are “undecided” – and urge them to get this on the floor and pass it. Tell them that when it comes to civil rights, “not yet” is not only inexcusable, but indistinguishable from “never will.”

Gov. Coumo’s historical perspective is flawed. The historical perspective is the societal one, which represented the best interests of the majority of the population. [...]]]> In a recent post (Why is Senator Roy McDonald still “undecided” about gay marriage? Friday 6/3/11) , a commenter made the assertion that marriage is a privilege, not a right:

Gov. Coumo’s historical perspective is flawed. The historical perspective is the societal one, which represented the best interests of the majority of the population. He has no mandate to change or replace the existing marriage definition. If I need to get a license to get married then it is not a right but a requirement by the state of NY. In fact driving on the highway is not a right but a privilege, which is only allowed by obtaining a permit to do so via a license.

Firstly, it’s a false comparison. The confusion comes from the term “license” which is used in reference to the legal documentation required for both. There is a difference, though, in that while you do need a license to get married restrictions  aren’t placed on them like they are a drivers license. Ergo, there aren’t laws prohibiting a person from getting married or revoking a marriage because s/he is convicted of a felony.

More than a conceptual problem, there’s also legal precedent that explicitly states that marriage is a right. In 1967, the Supreme Court established marriage as a civil right in their ruling of Loving v Virginia, which struck down state laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages.

It’s one thing to say you disagree with gay marriage because you think it should be between a man and a woman. I and now the majority of the population believe otherwise; that the genders of the two parties involved are moot so long as the love and desire for companionship is present. But to deny it on the basis that it’s not a right of the general population but rather a privilege that the government can claim ownership to and arbitrarily revoke is wrong, both in the moral and literal sense.

The billboard is sponsored by Bombers’ Burritos and is the handiwork [...]]]> If you’re driving on the stretch of Interstate 787 that runs parallel to the border of New York State Senator Roy McDonald‘s district, you might notice a billboard urging him to support gay marriage:

The billboard is sponsored by Bombers’ Burritos and is the handiwork of its owner, local entrepreneurial socialite and blogging gadfly Matt Baumgartner. Gay Marriage is in a tight race in New York, and McDonald is one of the holdouts.

He claims he’s “undecided” on the issue. The legislative session ends June 20th, and Governor Andrew Cuomo has gone on the record stating he’d like to see gay marriage passed in the Empire State before then.

Anybody who’s ever read this blog before knows my position on gay marriage, but just in case: I’m for it. The concept of marriage is not owned by any specific church or religion, and any claims to the contrary are historical and contextual fallacies. Parishioners can have their objections noted, but it should not be used to refute any efforts to legalize it. Other arguments, even if we are to take the concerns as earnest on the part of those objecting, fail to hold water:  marriage won’t make any person more gay or encourage more people to become gay, nor will any heterosexual marriage be threatened by the existence of a gay couple being granted a license to marry.

I do see it as a right, and don’t think one should be comfortable clouding it with concessions like granting gay couples the right to a “civil union.” As a right, it should not be held up to compromise or muddled with semantics. It should be clear what we are and aren’t willing to accept in this society, and no homosexual person in this country should be given a mixed message as to whether or not they are tolerated or, better yet, embraced by an American society in the throes of the 21st Century.

So I ask Senator Roy McDonald, who represents me in the State Senate: what, exactly, are you undecided on? How many of your constituents are also undecided? If you ask them, I think you’ll find a clear answer on either side.

Part of me thinks maybe you being undecided is a good thing. Perhaps you’ve grown up your entire life viewing homosexuals as one thing, but the last few decades and all the friendships and alliances you’ve cultivated with homosexuals in and around the Capital Region forced a change of heart. Maybe you’re undecided because for your entire life you were fundamentally opposed to the concept, but in your heart you now know that voting “yes” is the right thing to do.

Then there’s the cynic in me that just wonders if you’re a coward and/or are waiting for someone in the Legislature to approach you with a deal or compromise that benefits you in some way or another, wholly unrelated issue you want to address.

If you’re reading this, Roy, please don’t be offended. That’s just a part of my thought process that harbors ill will, and is granted space due to the past behaviors and attitudes of your fellow Senators. There’s a bigger part of me, though, that believes you can change and do the right thing.

I believe, just like so many others, that you can say “yes.” So please do so. Show them that you’re a better man than they think you are.