Skip to Main Navigation

The Buffalo News

Web Search
by YAHOO! SEARCH

Inevitability of marriage for gays stirs exultation

Legislature seen as ready to reject discrimination

News Staff Reporter

Published:June 19, 2011, 2:39 PM

Font Size:
  • E-mail
  • Share
  • Print

Related stories

Key Links

Updated: June 20, 2011, 7:32 AM

Words such as "jubilation" and "relief" just don't cut it for Kitty Lambert.

No, if state lawmakers do what Lambert expects and vote today to legalize same-sex marriage, it would be a moment so monumental, so important, so life-changing, that it may warrant a whole new word.

"Woooyah!" Lambert screamed in response.

Lambert, president of OUTspoken for Equality, a local gay rights group, thinks the State Legislature is finally ready, after years of contentious and often ugly debate, to allow gays to marry.

She also thinks that the legislation will pass more easily than expected and that first-term State Sen. Mark J. Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican, will not have to be the decisive vote.

"Where do our legislators want to lie in history?" Lambert asked Sunday during a forum on same-sex marriage. "There's not a legislator out there who wants to fall into the column favoring discrimination."

Grisanti remained publicly uncommitted Sunday despite indications that he might be willing to cast the deciding vote in favor of gay marriage.

Lobbied by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a staunch supporter of the bill, Grisanti has nevertheless made it clear that there are unresolved issues that might prevent him from voting for the legislation.

"I'm going to wait and see what changes have been made in the bill," he told The Buffalo News on Sunday.

Julie MacPherson and Valerie Cary hope Grisanti sides with them.

The local couple, who are expecting their first baby in October, got married in Toronto last month and hope to repeat their vows here in Buffalo -- soon.

"We went to Toronto and got married," MacPherson said, "but why couldn't we do it here?"

MacPherson and Cary joined Lambert and six others at the downtown offices of the New York Civil Liberties Union to publicly urge state lawmakers to approve a marriage-equality bill.

To a person, they singled out Grisanti for praise, suggesting that his support for gay marriage would be both righteous and courageous.

"Mark Grisanti has the ability to go down in history as a folk hero," said Thomas Gleed of Buffalo. "He has a remarkable opportunity."

Terry Purdue, a lawyer who is African-American, took it a step further, suggesting that Grisanti has the ability to knock down the same legal roadblocks -- discrimination and segregation -- that once stood in the way of blacks. "Unjust laws cannot stand," Purdue said. "And the fact that my senator could be a swing vote [in removing those laws] excites me."

Grisanti knows the risks confronting him, but, if he didn't, national groups opposed to gay marriage stood ready to remind him Sunday.

In anticipation of today's vote, the National Organization of Marriage, or NOM, announced that it would spend $1 million to defeat any Republican legislator in New York who voted for same-sex marriage.

The group pointed to recent victories in Maryland and Rhode Island, where the approval of legislation to allow gay marriage had been viewed as inevitable. "They were wrong," NOM President Brian Brown said in a news release. "Once our message got out and legislators heard from their constituents, same-sex marriage was stopped dead in its tracks. We expect the same to happen in New York."

Mark Flanders of South Wales is hoping that Brown is all bluster. For him, today's vote is the last step in making good on his proposal to longtime partner Peter Bisuito. If the bill passes, Flanders and Bisuito plan to celebrate by getting married as soon as the new law would allow.

"I proposed 6 1/2 years ago," Flanders said. "We've been waiting for this quite awhile."

"If it happens, fantastic," Bisuito said. "But if it doesn't, I'm 100 percent confident it will happen some day. We are the winning team."

Like Purdue, Bisuito is looking to Grisanti for leadership on what he knows is a volatile political issue.

"I just hope our senators do what's right for New York State, not what's best for themselves," he said.

After his meeting with Grisanti on Friday, Cuomo expressed confidence that New York will become the sixth state to allow gays to marry. His prediction came as legislative negotiators worked on changes to the bill to ease concerns of Senate Republicans.

Chief among those concerns is how the bill might affect religious organizations, including church-run adoption agencies. Those changes are not expected to dramatically alter the bill that the Assembly approved last week.

While advocates of gay marriage are increasingly confident, they are still a vote shy of what's needed for passage in the Senate.

"The question is: What side of history will you be on?" Lambert said. "This is a legacy that will protect generations of people. A 'yes' vote is absolutely necessary."

Lambert acknowledged that Senate Republicans could delay a vote but suggested that such a tactic would only postpone the inevitable.

She noted that public support for same-sex marriage has increased as more and more people have discovered that they have loved ones who are gay. "It's their friends, it's their family, it's their co-workers," Lambert said. "Everyone is connected to this issue."

Lambert told the story of her group, OUTspoken for Equality, marching in a St. Patrick's Day Parade several years ago and how most of the group's members fretted over the reaction they might encounter from the crowd.

Wearing T-shirts that said, "Irish and gay: How lucky can you get," they marched through the Old First Ward and were greeted by cheers and applause, not jeers.

Even more telling perhaps was the Irish woman in her late 80s or early 90s who walked up to Lambert as she and the others marched.

"My son is gay," she told Lambert. "Thank you for doing this."

Lambert is hoping the biggest thanks comes today in Albany.

pfairbanks@buffnews.comnull

true

Comments

Sort:NEWEST FIRST | OLDEST FIRST

The separation of church and state is a well-established principle in American law. Article VI of the US Constitution specifies that there shall be "no religious test" for office and the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The "wall of separation" concept, attributed to Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, has been affirmed in numerous Supreme Court decisions.

In Engel and Abington, for example, the Supreme Court struck down Bible readings and prayer in public schools. In Lawrence v. Texas, the court invalidated an anti-sodomy law: "A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review." (O'Connor, J., 2003)

The Constitution is the nation's (second) founding document and the law of the land. Nowhere is it even implied in the Constitution that the US is a "Christian nation." Nor can one find any mention of a god, Jesus, or "Judeo-Christian values." (Interesting that Christian zealots only include the Jews, who are otherwise condemned to hell for denying Christ, when it is politically convenient.) If the US is a "Christian nation," why is it that only four of the Ten Commandments (at best) are laws?

Also consider Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." The English text of this treaty (the Arabic did not include Article 11) was ratified unanimously by the US Senate in 1797.

CHRIS WILLETT, BUFFALO, NY on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 01:20 AM

Mr. Fahey,

I just wanted to respond to thank you for your response to my questions. Of course, we'll never agree on this issue and that's o.k. That's America! However, your response to me really helped me understand where you're coming from. You raised interesting, valid points. Does it change my mind? No, and again, that's o.k. You helped me understand where you're coming from and that's never a bad thing!

Again, thank you for taking the time to write out a thoughtful and meaningful response.

SANDRA SULLIVAN, FORT HOOD, TX on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Gina Massimi wrote: "basic rights, from spousal medical coverage to survivor pension benefits to hospital visitation."

These aren't rights, they're privileges and/or benefits. No one has a right to anything that is provided by anyone else. Rights exist independent of government and society, they are not conferred on people by the government. Besides, anything the government can give it can also take away. This isn't about "legalizing" gay marriage - there is no law stopping two adults of the same sex from entering into that most intimate of human relationships we call marriage. To "legalize" something means that the government is giving its permission and, in the case of marriage, such permission is not the government's to give.

As I said in an earlier post, there is no compelling state interest in giving special treatment to marriage. The government should be taken out of the marriage business (except to have the courts mediate contract disputes between the parties).

CHANCELLOR CARLYLE ROBERTS II, BUFFALO, NY on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:19 AM

And God's blessing upon you too, brother Mark.

LLOYD MARSHALL, LOCKPORT, NY on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 06:14 AM

Sandra... this "separation of church and state" is fiction. It's not anywhere in our Constitution or other national founding documents. Try again.

The 1st Amendment says the government allows for free speech and worship; it also prohibits the government from creating a "Church of America," like the British with the Anglican Church.

However, people of religious faith(taxpayers like you and me, mind you) have a right to petition and influence the government, like the rest of us.

LLOYD MARSHALL, LOCKPORT, NY on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 06:12 AM

Lloyd.... if they just follow public opinion, then they are just that, followers, not leaders, and we don't need them at all. Its the pioneers that take the arrows, thats why so many are cowardly at going against the grain. Much has been made of, and accused of, myself and yourself with the "I bet you wouldn't say that to (my, their) face!!!. I know that I've already done this even when my personal safety and wellbeing was at stake. I would imagine that you're likewise. This is called standing up for whats right, or as the movie said "Walking Tall". GOD BLESS!!!

MARK FAHEY, LANCASTER, NY on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Sandra.... Seek and you shall find. The old testament was specifically written with only the chosen people in mind. They disobeyed and GOD is so loving, that even though none of us deserve it, HE made a "NEW" covenant that included all people, not just Jews. Thats why we don't follow those rules anymore. How could it be detrimental? Legitimizing a perverse sexual act by equating it with a natural one is a good start. We've been conditioned(not me, others) into thinking that homosexuality is perfectly normal. Its not, and as I stated a few days ago, until 1973 was considered a mental problem. The APA(American Psychiatric Assn.) didn't change this classification vbecause of any new science or other findings, but because of arm twisting by rich, powerful political entities. Need proof? Just look at how much political capital and ammunition its given to the liberal ideology, not to mention money. As for the separation of church and state, our schools have failed us miserably. This was simply put in the constitution to keep any particular faith as the official church of the new nation, as the Anglican church still is in England. It doesn't mean that religion has to be kept out of politics. if that were true JFK would never have been pres. and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wouldn't even have their names known outside their neighborhoods. While I'd personallly like that, they have as much right as I do to participate. How can you separate yourself from your faith? Its who I am. Its how I conduct my life, guide my family, and fashion my thoughts. I can no sooner separate it from myself than I can leave my bodily organs outside the voting booth. No one can, except atheists, and even they are very dogmatic. Good luck and GOD BLESS

MARK FAHEY, LANCASTER, NY on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Mr. Marshall,

The fiber thing is passe? Who decided that? When? It's in Leviticus, which as Mr. Fahey pointed out is God's perfect word. Corinthians isn't one of the first five books of The Bible. (Besides the fact that the passage you quoted doesn't really answer the question I raised.)

The Bible preaches celibacy and in the absence of that, marriage. So, if the fiber thing is passe, then the homosexual thing must be as well.

This is all irrevalent, really. Separation of church and state. We do not live in a theocracy.

SANDRA SULLIVAN, FORT HOOD, TX on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Mr. Fahey,

There is absolutely no question at all that you know The Bible far better than I do. It's something I'm working on and it is a process.

My intention isn't to demean your faith, but to point out that religion has no place in this vote. Our country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. There's no debate about that. It's a fact we were all taught by fourth grade.

The reason I challenge you is because there are a multitude of other passages in The Bible that simply aren't observed anymore. I gave the examples of the beard and not wearing clothing of mixed fibers. Admittedly, it was tongue in cheek when I wrote it, but since you responded with,

"actually, the first 5 books(Torah) were written by GOD. Moses went up to the mountain at GODS order and came back with them, perfectly written a short time later. While some changes in language occur during translation, its NOT ambiguous about homosexuality. Its foolish to even consider, let alone bring up out loud. Have your fun arguing, but it says what it says and means what it means....in ANY language,"

I'm obliged to remind you that the guidance I referred to comes from the third book of The Bible.... God's perfect word, as you taught me. So, my question is why are those directives irrevalent and/or ignored and that's considered acceptable?

I'm just having a terribly difficult time understanding how marriage equality in our state will harm you, your family, or anyone? There's so much anger over this and I don't understand why. I haven't read or heard one reason stating how marriage equality would be detrimental to anyone.

SANDRA SULLIVAN, FORT HOOD, TX on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

One more shout at Gina... we elect representatives to uphold the Constitution, no doubt.

However, we also expect them to represent our BEST, BRIGHTEST, HIGHEST, and NOBLEST interests! We don't put them there to be yes-(wo)men, or mere rubber stamps, for every hedonistic tendency that presents itself!

What this means is... there are times when they must take a stand for the true and noble, even if such a stand may clash(again, CLASH!) with the popular opinion of the hour. That's called statesmanship; it's called character.

Any representative who lets the crowd dictate to him/her what way to go, rather than do right because it is right, is NO REPRESENTATIVE at all!

LLOYD MARSHALL, LOCKPORT, NY on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 10:29 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Add your comment

Politics Now Blog

Politics Updates

The Feed / What’s Happening Now

Latest Updates
Most Commented
Most Viewed
City of Buffalo

Ex-Bill Losman selling his Oakland Place home

Sabres & NHL

Sabres, Roy making their points

Courts

Corasanti's attorneys argue for dismissal

Lancaster

Lancaster union chief blasts head of NYSUT

Erie County

Sheriff's takeover of transit police eyed

Bucky Gleason

Boyes tries old routine to end slump

West Seneca

Couple lauded for a lifetime of love

Cheektowaga

Arrest made in Watkins' shooting death

Sabres & NHL

Miller remains sharp between the pipes

Niagara Falls

New company to run Maid of the Mist in Canada

Newsroom Tips

Have a news tip you think The Buffalo News should investigate?

Call The News tip line at 849-4475 or email us at investigations@buffnews.com.

All calls and emails will be kept confidential.

Buffalo Marketplace

Marketplace videos

Watch the latest offers, products and services from our advertisers.

Browse our print ads

It's the ultimate advantage for Buffalo consumers. Never miss another ad again!

Buffalo Savers: coupons

Buffalo coupons at your fingertips.
Just click and print. It's Easy!

close

Browse our print adsclose

Special Sections

Buffalo Saversclose

Local coupons

Featured coupon