Gay Marriage: A Milestone
New York State has made a powerful and principled choice by giving all couples the right to wed and enjoy the legal rights of marriage. It is a proud moment for New Yorkers, thousands of whom took to the streets on Sunday to celebrate this step forward. But this moment does not erase the bigotry against gays and lesbians enshrined in the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows any state to refuse to recognize another state’s unions.
Though there was unnecessary secrecy in the negotiations, Gov. Andrew Cuomo made a determined effort to achieve marriage equality in New York. He shares credit with the four Republican state senators who bucked their party and threats from conservatives to do what they knew was right. State Senators James Alesi, Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti and Stephen Saland, all from upstate districts, deserve the support of their communities. They showed the kind of strength that is extremely hard to find in today’s politics.
In drafting a compromise, however, Senator Saland and other Republicans insisted on language that carves out exceptions for religious institutions and not-for-profit corporations affiliated with those religious entities. That provision allows those tax-exempt entities to refuse to marry a same-sex couple or to allow the use of their buildings or services for weddings or wedding parties. There was simply no need for these exemptions, since churches are protected under both the federal Constitution and New York law from being required to marry anyone against their beliefs. Equally troubling, an “inseverability clause” in the act appears to make it impossible for any court to invalidate part of the law without invalidating the whole law — raising questions about what happens to couples during an appeal.
While some civil rights advocates are optimistic that these provisions are relatively minor, we are deeply troubled by their discriminatory intent. The whole purpose of this law should be to expand civil rights without shedding other protections in the process.
The marriage equality law was such a powerful finale to this year’s legislative session that a few other important measures may be relegated to the footnotes. Lawmakers passed a limited ethics bill for legislators and statewide elected officials, a modest expansion of rent regulations for millions of New York City residents, an important five-year tuition plan for the state’s universities — all moves in the right direction.
The one big misstep is a property-tax cap of about 2 percent a year that will severely hurt schools and services in poorer communities.
This legislative session will be remembered for New York’s acceptance of same-sex marriage, a milestone in the national fight for this fundamental freedom. Five other states, along with the District of Columbia, allow same-sex couples to marry. But more than three dozen states define marriage as between a man and a woman. For gays and lesbians, the battle for freedom from discrimination continues.
Gay Marriage: Where’s Mr. Obama?
On Thursday night, when same-sex marriage in New York State was teetering on a razor’s edge, President Obama had a perfect opportunity to show the results of his supposed evolution on gay marriage.
Unfortunately, he did not take it, keeping his own views in the shadows. The next night the Republican-led New York State Senate, of all places, proved itself more forward-thinking than the president on one of the last great civil-rights debates in this nation’s history.
Speaking to the Democratic Party’s LGBT Leadership Council at a fund-raiser in New York, Mr. Obama ran through the many efforts he has made on behalf of gay rights, including his decision to end the government’s legal support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The act should be repealed, he said, since marriage is defined by the states.
Mr. Obama’s legal formula suggests he is fine with the six states that now permit same-sex marriage, and fine with the more than three dozen other states that ban it. By refusing to say whether he supports it (as he did in 1996) or opposes it (as he did in 2008), he remained in a straddle that will soon strain public patience. For now, all Mr. Obama promised was a gauzy new “chapter” in the story if he is re-elected, and his views remain officially “evolving.”
Fundamental equality, however, is hardly the equivalent of a liquor law that can vary on opposite sides of a state line. Why is Mr. Obama so reluctant to say the words that could lend strength to a national effort now backed by a majority of Americans?
In the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama said he supported civil unions and believed marriage should be between men and women, he may have wanted to appeal to slightly more conservative voters who were wary of him.
After he took office, it became evident that Republicans intended to portray him as a radical, out-of-touch leftist no matter what he did. Supporting same-sex marriage at this point is hardly going to change that drumbeat, and any voter for whom that is a make-or-break issue will probably not be an Obama supporter anyway.
Firm support for gay marriage is, on the other hand, likely to help him among his cheerless base. Mr. Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and is presiding over the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He signed the United Nations declaration on gay rights, and allowed the Census to count same-sex relationships. But he has been absent from the biggest and most difficult drive of all.
Public opinion has swung toward acceptance of gay marriage since 2008; five more states and the District of Columbia have lifted marriage bans. Thousands of gay men and lesbians now possess marriage certificates and many former skeptics have come to realize that the moral foundation of the country has been strengthened. It is long past time for the president to catch up. He often criticizes discrimination with the memorable phrase, “that’s not who we are.” Favoring this discrimination should not be who he is.
Where’s the Reconciliation?
King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain has promised to launch a national dialogue aimed at reconciling his country after a brutal crackdown on antigovernment protesters. It is hard to take this seriously — or see any real chance of success — when many of the people who should be at the negotiating table are still in jail.
At a time when the Sunni-led minority government should be showing good faith, it did the opposite: a military show trial last week convicted 21 activists, almost all Shiites, on charges of conspiring to overthrow the government during the Arab Spring demonstrations. Most defendants received terms of up to 15 years, but eight were sentenced to life in prison. Why would anyone trust the government after that?
Bahrain’s claims that Iran is the hidden hand behind the unrest are exaggerated. The protests have been led by Bahraini Shiites demanding fair treatment in housing, education and employment. Few are allowed to serve in the military or the police. We have little doubt Tehran is eager to meddle wherever it can. For Bahrain, the real domestic threat comes from ignoring the legitimate demands and needs of its people.
Bahrain is home port to the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet and the Obama administration has been too cautious in its criticism of the government. It must speak out more forcefully. If Bahrain continues to abuse its citizens, it will face more instability. And resentment of the United States will only grow.
Legal Help for Indigent Parents
A court in South Carolina jailed Michael Turner for 12 months for civil contempt because he owed $5,728.76 in accumulated child support. He could have avoided jail by proving he was indigent and could not pay. But Mr. Turner could not afford to hire a lawyer to make that argument, and the state did not provide him one.
While an indigent defendant may have a right to counsel in some civil cases where he could lose his liberty, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling, found that there is no such automatic right in a child support case like Mr. Turner’s where the parent may face jail time. The court, however, said there is a right to safeguards that reduce the risk of improper incarceration — like an opportunity to present financial information to the court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not go far enough in ensuring fairness. In civil contempt proceedings, a court may not impose punishment if it is clear that the individual is unable to comply with the order. But, without a lawyer, it is very hard for defendants like Mr. Turner to show that they cannot comply.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said that the due process clause does not automatically require a court-appointed lawyer in child support collection cases and that procedural safeguards could suffice. He was especially concerned about the potential unfairness of providing a lawyer to an indigent parent if the opposing parent does not have one. He left room, however, for a right to counsel to be found in other situations, like a hearing where a state lawyer presses a defendant for support payments owed to the state.
The chance to respond to questions about financial status is not a substitute for having a lawyer. To ensure that no parent in a civil contempt proceeding is jailed for being poor, the court should extend the right to counsel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment