Artvoice: Buffalo's #1 Newsweekly
Home Blogs Web Features Calendar Listings Artvoice TV Real Estate Classifieds Contact
Previous story: Sitting, Waiting, Wishing
Next story: Not So Fast

O Albany!

Click to watch
In early July, the New York State Court of Appeals dealt a blow to gay marriage by punting the issue to the State Legislature. Will our state representatives accept responsibility for this hot topic, or will they hide in the closet?

On July 6, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s constitution does not guarantee gay couples the right to get married. Because the plaintiffs—44 couples in four lawsuits—raised no federal issues, there can be no appeal to the US Supreme Court. So the issue, as noted by Judge Robert Smith in the 17-page majority opinion, becomes legislative.

“The New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex,” Smith wrote on behalf of the 4-2 majority. “Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.”

The crux of the lawsuits was how one defines a “fundamental right,” and Smith’s opinion cited the US Supreme Court’s definition as one that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

“The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not ‘deeply rooted’; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times,” Smith wrote. “The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”

“To say that discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time,” wrote Judith S. Kaye in a sharp-toned, 27-page dissent. “A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake.’”

The ruling was met with mostly timid approval from the defendants and with statewide demonstrations by supporters of same-sex marriage. In Buffalo more than 100 people gathered that same evening, July 6, at the corner of Bidwell and Elmwood to protest the court’s decision and urge Western New York lawmakers to take up the issue themselves.

At the demonstration, State Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage, promised that he would do exactly that.

“I was disappointed because I’d waited two years since this court action was initiated and I really thought the court was going to do the right thing,” Hoyt said. “To me, it just seems like the sensible thing. That said, if we have to act legislatively to change the law the law so that we can allow gay marriage, I’m going to lead the charge to make that happen.”

Though supporters of same-sex marriage despair of pushing a bill past the Republican majority in the State Senate, Hoyt suggested that it was possible; he argued that both the Assembly and the Senate have come a long way in recognizing gay rights. “I think that popular opinion is moving more and more toward acceptance and openness about gay marriage and full equality for gay and lesbian people. I think we will prevail. Do I predict it will be in the next six months? Absolutely not. But this will draw attention to the fact that the ball is in our court.”

Hoyt has been far and away the most outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage among Western New York’s state delegation, though State Senator Marc Coppola said that if a well-tailored bill came before him, he would be inclined to support the right of same-sex partners to be married and have their marriages recognized in New York State.

“I understand that this is a hot-button issue with the people in my district, and I wouldn’t want to disenfranchise them,” Coppola added. “But sometimes there are decisions you just have to make.”

Antoine Thompson also expressed his support for—well, something. Asked if he supported same-sex marriage in New York State, he replied, “I support legal rights for all adults in New York State.” Asked if he would vote for a bill that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, he said, “I would support any bill that provides legal rights for all adults regardless of race, class, gender or sexual orientation.” Asked to clarify, he added, “I would support expanding legal rights for all couples.”

He managed to utter the word “gay” just once in a 15-minute interview. Then, perhaps trying to explain his reluctance to be specific, he said, “Once you allow open discrimination in one area, there is no limit to where discrimination will begin or end. [Thursday’s] rally said to me that we can’t allow discrimination in America.”

“What seems like a century ago, I was out in demonstrations and marches for the rights of people of color,” said Marilyn Bell-Schwede on Thursday evening. “I was out in demonstrations and marches for the rights of women, primarily over issues that affected straight women much more than they affected me. Now I’ve got to do it again—and, you know, it’s time we put an end to all of this stuff. All I can think of is that great quote from the Civil Rights Movement: ‘I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.’ And we’ve got to do it one more time—at least. At least.”

“There are too many reasons we’ve given people to flee this state,” Hoyt said. “Let’s look for easy ways to bring people into the state. If New York State became the first state in the union to officially accept and put into statute gay marriage laws, you would see people flocking to this state, as opposed to the young people who are leaving. To me it’s a no-brainer. I’d like the City of Buffalo to be known as the city of openness, the city of fairness, the city of tolerance. I we did that, I think thousands of people would come here.”