Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Why I Now Support Gay Marriage

Here's why we keep at it: if Tom Suozzi can change his mind, so can your neighbor, your convention deputation, your bishop or your president!

Why I Now Support Gay Marriage
By TOM SUOZZI -- Mineola, N.Y. [source link]

WHEN I ran in the Democratic primary for governor against Eliot Spitzer in 2006, I vocally supported civil unions for same-sex couples but did not endorse equal marriage. I understood the need to provide equal rights for gays and lesbians, but as a practicing Catholic, I also felt that the state should not infringe on religious institutions’ right to view marriage in accordance with their own traditions. I thought civil unions for same-sex couples would address my concerns regarding both equality and religious liberty.

I was wrong.

I have listened to many well-reasoned and well-intentioned arguments both for and against same-sex marriage. And as I talked to gays and lesbians and heard their stories of pain, discrimination and love, my platitudes about civil unions began to ring hollow. I have struggled to find the solution that best serves the common good.

I now support same-sex marriage. This is a subject of great debate before the New York State Legislature (although the legislators there are a little distracted right now), and I hope that same-sex civil marriage will be approved within the month.

Under current New York State law, same-sex couples are deprived of access to the employment benefits, life and health insurance and inheritance laws that heterosexual couples have. If the state were to institute civil unions for same-sex couples, that discrimination would end, but we’d still be creating a separate and unequal system.

Civil unions for both heterosexual and same-sex couples would be an equal system, but this compromise appears unlikely at the current time. Few heterosexual couples would give up their current civil marriage for a civil union. While some states would recognize civil unions for all, others would not, causing legal problems for New York couples. Advocates of same-sex marriage don’t seem in favor of such a compromise either.

According to the last census, there are an estimated 50,000 households headed by same-sex couples in New York, many who were married in other states. Those marriages are recognized by New York courts as valid. As a result, we have same-sex marriage for some in New York (albeit performed out of state) and no marriage at all for other same-sex couples.

Any change in the New York law can, and must, balance equality while making sure that religious institutions remain free to choose whether to marry same-sex couples. By following the example of Connecticut and Vermont, which included protections for religious institutions when they recently legalized same-sex marriage, we can ensure that churches are not forced to consecrate marriages they do not endorse. This will require a strong liberty clause allowing religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriage, which also applies to the provision of services and programs at religiously affiliated institutions.

Many civil marriages are not considered “holy matrimony” by religious institutions because they do not conform to the rules of the religious institution. Those marriages have not challenged religious liberty. We must see that civil marriage, which has always been separate from religious marriage, will remain so.

But most important, gays and lesbians have suffered too long from legal discrimination, social marginalization and even violence. They are entitled to clear recognition of their equal status as citizens of a country that is founded on the principle that we are all inherently worthy. By delivering a clear message that same-sex couples can no longer be treated as separate and unequal in New York, we will also reduce discrimination in everyday life. We will all be better for that.

Equal civil marriage should, and likely will, pass because of the public’s growing unwillingness to sustain inequality. Society will also be strengthened as more people take responsibility for one another in marriage. I now encourage others who oppose gay marriage to re-examine the reasons they do so, and to consider changing their minds too.

Tom Suozzi is the Nassau County executive.


john said...

Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if the last public figure NOT to support gay marriage were Barack Obama?

susankay said...

like to tell you of my rectors newsletter (don't know how to make this a spiffy link) http://stmarksdurango.com/newsletters/StMarksNewsletter0609.pdf

also would like to tell everyone in the Four Corners of Integrity Eucharist at St Paul's in Mancos, Co at 4pm on this next Saturday.

Be well.

wow -- magic word is suffie


Here's a link that should work to the Dugano Newsletter ... which I'm gonig to "blog" momentarily!


BJ said...

I know this is not part of the "battle," but I have been thinking that we need to examine the mixture of church and state in marriage. I think states including the wording to allow churches to be exempt from performing ceremonies is a step, but what about a consideration that the church stop being "an agent of the state." What about considering the civil marriage for everyone (equality under the law) -- it is a legal contact, but no longer will clergy sign marriage licenses as agents -- all that will be done "at the courthouse." The decision then have holy matrimony or relationship blessing then becomes an issue for each religious sect to deal with. Makes sense to me -- two separate things -- the legal civil marriage and the sacrament of the church. Getting support for that may be difficult because it demands a great deal of re-thinking and, more importantly, change (which people seem to hate).

Jim said...

Here is the link click-enabled.

click here